7.5 Do Not Jump to Risks: Hazards Come First!
91
given precedence over risk management, design parameters, sustainability commitments and permit obligations. For the geotechnical community, client capture could
be used to describe situations where an engineer may be influenced by client pressure
in the performance in their work.
7.5.2 Inadequate Standards
It must be recognized that effective documented governance, design and operating
practices have been developed by highly committed companies that have achieved
a high degree of risk awareness, which sometimes goes beyond what is generally
called “best practices”. It must also be recognised that some companies may not
have a high degree of commitment; these require strong industry leadership, strong
regulatory oversight and a high standard of professional ethics from the geotechnical
profession.
As stated earlier, the quality designation for an industry or professional practice
rests solely in the eye of the beholder, which is most likely to be the person or organization that has developed it. Common terms are “good practice”, “best practice”
and, less often, “leading practice”. Even the term “emerging practice” has been used
recently to describe a practice that has been employed by some committed companies
for over 20 years.
The concern with most designations of this kind stems from how they were
developed. As indicated earlier, at the lowest level, the designation is a self-identified
by an individual, company or an organization, followed, going higher, by a committee of experts, usually under the umbrella of a mining association, government or
professional body. Because of varying degrees of commitment at both the committee and approval level, this inevitably leads to a less than aggressive pushing of the
boundaries. The next level of practice development occurs when other stakeholders
are involved, as it has been shown that the resulting practices lead to the inclusion
of more demanding and detailed expectations, such as more specific guidances and
performance thresholds. The term “best practice” may be applicable to such situations.
Statements regarding leading practice often refer to instances where a practice
exhibits a higher degree of commitment as compared to other companies, other associations or other political jurisdictions. Such definitions are essentially backwardlooking. While undoubtedly some aspects may represent a high degree of commitment for specific practices, many still fall short of what constitutes real leadership.
Leading practice should be forward looking and defined as a practice that goes well
beyond the norm, providing the highest degree of commitment and/or a significant
improvement in risk reduction.
While an understanding as to how industry practices are developed and agreed
upon is important, the real test is how they are defined. Prescriptions can range from
a list of things to think about (checklists, for example) to detailed descriptions as
to what is required. Without a detailed description of what each practice element
91
given precedence over risk management, design parameters, sustainability commitments and permit obligations. For the geotechnical community, client capture could
be used to describe situations where an engineer may be influenced by client pressure
in the performance in their work.
7.5.2 Inadequate Standards
It must be recognized that effective documented governance, design and operating
practices have been developed by highly committed companies that have achieved
a high degree of risk awareness, which sometimes goes beyond what is generally
called “best practices”. It must also be recognised that some companies may not
have a high degree of commitment; these require strong industry leadership, strong
regulatory oversight and a high standard of professional ethics from the geotechnical
profession.
As stated earlier, the quality designation for an industry or professional practice
rests solely in the eye of the beholder, which is most likely to be the person or organization that has developed it. Common terms are “good practice”, “best practice”
and, less often, “leading practice”. Even the term “emerging practice” has been used
recently to describe a practice that has been employed by some committed companies
for over 20 years.
The concern with most designations of this kind stems from how they were
developed. As indicated earlier, at the lowest level, the designation is a self-identified
by an individual, company or an organization, followed, going higher, by a committee of experts, usually under the umbrella of a mining association, government or
professional body. Because of varying degrees of commitment at both the committee and approval level, this inevitably leads to a less than aggressive pushing of the
boundaries. The next level of practice development occurs when other stakeholders
are involved, as it has been shown that the resulting practices lead to the inclusion
of more demanding and detailed expectations, such as more specific guidances and
performance thresholds. The term “best practice” may be applicable to such situations.
Statements regarding leading practice often refer to instances where a practice
exhibits a higher degree of commitment as compared to other companies, other associations or other political jurisdictions. Such definitions are essentially backwardlooking. While undoubtedly some aspects may represent a high degree of commitment for specific practices, many still fall short of what constitutes real leadership.
Leading practice should be forward looking and defined as a practice that goes well
beyond the norm, providing the highest degree of commitment and/or a significant
improvement in risk reduction.
While an understanding as to how industry practices are developed and agreed
upon is important, the real test is how they are defined. Prescriptions can range from
a list of things to think about (checklists, for example) to detailed descriptions as
to what is required. Without a detailed description of what each practice element