Squidlord, you wrote
Safeware wrote:
I haven't yet gone through the report but one of the points you make is not quite correct.
Quote:
If QQ are saying that the risks are (currently) "acceptable", then they are saying they are ALARP.
Doesn't actually hold.
If some thing is "acceptable", it doesn't mean that the risks are ALARP, it means that the risks can be accepted, ie only that they are not "unacceptable"
I don't really know what point Safeware is making here. Perhaps you could clarify, Safeware? E.g., when you use the term "unacceptable", are you using it in the generic English language sense, or in the defined risk management sense (POSMS, Def Stan 00-56, etc.). And are you defining the term "acceptable" accordingly?
What I was trying to get at, without getting into the arguments of "official safety" or "dictionary" meanings, was what an IPT will look for. This report doesn't provide definitions, which does occur in Release To Service Recommendations, but I don't think that is important at this stage.
In essence, and I'll use a range of words to cover differing angles and people's experiences, the question for the IPT is "is the problem UNACCEPTABLE/ is the risk INTOLERABLE" ie "is there something that it is ESSENTIAL to do to mitigate the risk?" If it isn't, then it is by inference, acceptable (whether this be Tolerable, Acceptable, Broadly Acceptable, Unsatisfactory or Satisfactory), ie it can be accepted. However, just because it can be accepted, doesn't make it ALARP (even unacceptable/intolerable risks can be accepted in exceptional circumstances (and I know that this may seem to contradict my earlier "ie only that they are not "unacceptable", but I was trying to be 'general' and describe the norm there)).
IPTs really don't like things that are Unacceptable or Intolerable (or the phrase Release To Service is not recommended) because it means that they have to do something about it (even if it is just justifying what they want to do to someone up the chain) and life isn't going to be as simple as they wanted. They *will* exert pressure on QQ not to use such words.
Of course, in the strictest sense, even an Intolerable Risk could be ALARP, since there may be nothing more that can be done. In "exceptional circumstances" you would want to demonstrate that even at that level of risk, you had done everything you could to reduce the risk as far as you could, it may just not be practicable to reduce it further. This shows that ALARP is about the practicality of risk reduction and tolerability about the willingness to bear that risk. The link between the 2 being the "sacrifice" ("sacrifice" wrt App 3, para 4 of R2P2) required to be made.
Some people want to discuss the meanings in great detail, I wasn't, only trying to point out that whatever words were being used, in anyone's books "acceptable" doesn't equal ALARP, as you inferred.
sw