GB2517277A - Risk assessment system - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a risk assessment system (100), the system comprising: an assessor device (18), itself comprising: means for receiving input from a user regarding issues identified during the course of a risk assessment; means for storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding an identified issue; and means for enabling a user to associate each user identified issue with a particular risk identifier; and means for outputting a report based on those risk identifiers associated with user identified issues. The assessment device may be an electronic device such as laptop, smartphone or tablet that is connected to an assessment manager (10) which comprises a database (22) for storing template assessments, risk identifiers or codes. Also claimed are an assessor device, corresponding method and server related to the risk assessment system.

Description

Risk Assessment System The present invention relates to a risk assessment system. In particular, this invention relates to a system, apparatus and method of producing a risk assessment action plan.

Risk assessments may be carried out for a variety of reasons and the consequences of not carrying out assessments (or carrying out one poorly) can be catastrophic in terms of risk to life, property and business continuity.

There is often strict legislation surrounding areas such as fire safety, asbestos, legionella and general health and safety, and associated codes of practice and guidance for identifying the measures that should be in place to reduce or mitigate such risks to an acceptable level. If an organisation is found not to comply with the relevant legislation to protect life they may be subject to fines, imprisonment and potentially corporate manslaughter charges. Non-compliant organisations are of course also exposed to increased risk to property and business continuity.

Risk assessments are often carried out to assist organisations in complying with the legislation; however, these vary widely in quality and scope, often missing parts of legislation and potential risks. Typically, risk assessments involve an assessor walking around a premises noting down issues they notice. The assessor then produces a report based on their observations and, if required, recommendations for reducing risks in the form of an action plan.

Current systems and methods for producing such action plans' rely on the assessor being very diligent and highly trained so as to identify all the relevant issues which might give rise to risks, the impact of that deficiency in terms life safety, the necessary remedial action that would mitigate that risk, identify all the relevant points of legislation that need to be met, and to produce a comprehensive action plan that covers any short fall between the legislation and reality.

The present invention aims to alleviate at least some of these problems.

According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a risk assessment system, the system comprising: an assessor device, the assessor device comprising: means for receiving input from a user regarding issues identified during the course of a risk assessment; means for storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding an identified issue; and means for enabling a user to associate each user identified issue vvith a particular risk identifier; and means for outputting a report based on those risk identifiers associated with user identified issues.

The term risk assessment' as used herein is intended to refer to any kind of risk assessment, usually of a physical structure, such as a building; examples are fire, asbestos, legionella, health and safety, disability accessibility, and so on. Certain embodiments will be described primarily in lelation to fire safety, but a person skilled in the art would be able to make any minor modifications required to suit a different type of assessment.

Preferably, the system further comprises means for linking each risk identifier with relevant regulations, and determining the extent to which the assessment conforms to the said relevant regulations.

Preferably, at least one questionnaire is generated to determine the extent to which the assessment conforms to the said relevant regulations, and preferably wherein the questionnaire is based on parameters of those risk identifiers associated with user identified issues.

Preferably, the questionnaire is pre-populated with answers on the basis of the received user input.

Preferably, the relevant regulations include relevant legislation.

Preferably the system further comprises a (remotely accessible managing) server, said server comprising means for selecting and transferring a set of risk identifiers to the assessor device depending on the nature or type of assessment being undertaken.

Preferably, the system is further adapted to select particular risk identifiers for transfer in dependence on details relating to a particular assessment, thereby to customise the selection of risk identifiers for transfer based on the particular assessment.

Preferably, the user input comprises the selection of at least one of the risk identifiers available to the assessor device.

Preferably, the assessor device further comprises means for enabling the user to create a risk identifier not included in the set transferred to the assessor device, and preferably wherein the assessor device is adapted to upload said created risk identifier to a remotely accessible managing server.

Preferably, the user input comprises the identification of assessment issues and/or faults.

Preferably, the risk identifiers include parameters associated with specific assessment issues and/or faults.

Preferably, the parameters are linked to and/or specify at least one or more of the following: a likelihood level; a severity level; a risk level: a section of legislation: a remedial action; a representative or indicative cost; and a priority level.

Preferably, the assessment is in respect of a physical stiucture, and wherein the assessor device is adapted to receive location information, and preferably wherein the assessor device is adapted to link the location information to a user identified issue associated with a particular risk identifier.

Preferably, the assessor device comprises means for augmenting a graphical representation of the structure, and preferably a plan of the structure, thereby to link particular associated risk identifiers with particular locations.

Preferably, the assessor device is adapted to augment different layers of a plan.

Preferably the system further comprises a server adapted to receive a completed report and augment different layers of a plan.

Preferably, each layer is adapted to receive different types of input.

Preferably, the assessor device comprises means for receiving said plan from a separate database.

Preferably, the user input comprises a photograph.

Preferably, the assessor device is adapted to link the photograph to a particular risk identifier.

Preferably, the photograph is further linked to a particular location.

Preferably, the risk identifiers comprise (predefined) information or parameters relating to at least one of: a risk to life; a risk to property; and a risk to business continuity, and preferably wherein the risk identifiers comprise (predefined) information or parameters relating to at least one or more of the following (remedial actions): repairs; upgrades; and management issues, and more preferably wherein the assessor device is adapted to enable a user to modify said (predefined) parameters.

Preferably, the outputting means is adapted to output an action plan in the light of the report, and preferably where the action plan is based at least in part on said risk identifier parameters.

Preferably, the action plan includes a priority matrix based on at least one or more of the following: the nature of the risk; the indicative cost associated with any requisite remedial action; the nature of the issue/fault; the location of the issue/fault; and the responsible party.

Preferably the system further comprises a remotely accessible managing server (issue tracker).

Preferably, the managing server is adapted to store an action plan and provide a list of actions relating to the report.

Preferably, the actions are categorised into at least one of: repairs, upgrades and management issues.

Preferably, wherein the managing server is adapted to receive user updates regarding the implementation of the action plan and update the action plan in dependence upon such user updates.

Preferably, the server is adapted to store the updated action plan for use in subsequent assessments.

Preferably, the system is for at least one of: a fire risk assessment, an asbestos assessment, and a legionella assessment.

According to a further aspect of the invention there is provided an assessor device for use in carrying out a risk assessment, the device comprising: means for receiving input from a user regarding issues identified during the course of a risk assessment; means for storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding an identified issue; means for enabling a user to associate each user identified issue with a particular risk identifier; and means for providing feedback to a user based on the risk identifiers associated with each user identified issue.

Preferably, the user feedback is a pre-populated questionnaire, the pre-populated answers being derived from the user input relating to the assessment.

Preferably the device further comprises means for receiving a template assessment, wherein the template assessment includes a collection of risk identifiers appropriate for a given assessment.

Preferably, the device further comprises means for transmitting a completed assessment.

Preferably the device is for use in the system described herein.

According to a yet further aspect of the invention there is provided a method of performing a risk assessment comprising: receiving input from a user regarding issues identified during the course of a risk assessment; storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding identified issues; enabling a user to associate each user identified issue with a particular risk identifier; and outputting a report based on those risk identifiers associated with user identified issues.

According to a yet further aspect of the invention there is provided a computer program product comprising software code adapted, when executed on a data processing apparatus, to perform all the steps of the method described herein.

According to a yet further aspect of the invention there is provided a server comprising means for storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding identifiable risk assessment issues; and means for (optionally) selecting, and compiling a template assessment, preferably an appropriate client specific template assessment, wherein the template assessment includes a collection of risk identifiers appropriate for a given assessment.

Preferably the server further comprises means for transmitting said template to an assessor device.

Preferably the server further comprises means for receiving a completed assessment from an assessor device.

Preferably the server is for use in the system described herein.

According to another aspect of the invention, there is provided an assessor device for use as part of the system as herein described and/or in combination with the server as herein described.

In example embodiments of the present system the following features I advantages are provided: The ability to generate a template within the system for any type of assessment (e.g. fires risk, asbestos, legionella) * Each assessment template can access standard fault codes (called issues or "risk identifiers") and associated remedial actions (more than 1 remedial action to a fault in many cases), each issue is categorised into a specific area and costed.

Each remedial action is identified as either a Repair, Upgrade or Management Action. In the case of a Fire Risk Assessment (FRA), the set of "risk identifiers" includes 757 Faults & 1231 Remedial Actions. This set is continually expanding as new issues are identified in new environments.

* Providing an (automatic) link between the assessment fault / issue and risk level (for Life, Property or Business Continuity), location reference number, and any associated photographs and specific Computer Aided Design (CAD) images to show the location.

* The link between faults and relevant legislation / management guidance (FRA -Articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order and recommendations of BS 9999 Management Standards).

* Creation of action plan based on the issue category with costs, risks and priorities directly from an assessment * Augmentation of CAD drawings on the fly' in this context as opposed to using a draughtsman -interface to Aut0CADTM with completed assessment plan to generate new layers of information based on the symbols and information added.

A feature to provide role based information -where users would only see the layers of information relevant to their role (preventing information overload).

* Creating the full circle' by way of the issue tracker * Issue tracker allows issues to be collated and scheduled for action to internal or external personnel. Issues can be gathered from one or numerous buildings to generate scales of economy when tendering.

* Cloud based system where remote operators can receive assessments generated by an assessment manager and upload completed assessments.

Assessments may be generated on the fly using the assessor device, and results passed back to the assessment manager.

* The follow-up' assessment building on an earlier assessment. Retaining knowledge from previous inspections and reducing future inspection times * Increased accountability for both the responsible person and assessor * Increased auditability for the report itself * Ability to use less experienced/trained operatives, following a risk assessment template which cannot be closed until all audit areas are completed * Time saving for both performing the assessment and producing a report * Improved action plan and ability to enact this (using issue tracker) * Ability to demonstrate conformity (or lack of conformity) to the relevant legislation * A single point of truth' for knowledge within an organisation The invention extends to any novel aspects or features described and/or illustrated herein.

Further features of the invention are characterised by the other independent and dependent claims Any feature in one aspect of the invention may be applied to other aspects of the invention, in any appropriate combination. In particular, method aspects may be applied to apparatus aspects, and vice versa. Furthermore, aspects of the invention may generally be implemented interchangeably on either the server and/or the (client) assessor device of the system.

Furthermore, features implemented in hardware may be implemented in software, and vice versa. Any reference to software and hardware features herein should be construed accordingly.

Any apparatus feature as described herein may also be provided as a method feature, and vice versa. As used herein, means plus function features may be expressed alternatively in terms of their corresponding structure, such as a suitably programmed processor and associated memory.

It should also be appreciated that particular combinations of the various features described and defined in any aspects of the invention can be implemented and/or supplied and/or used independently.

The invention also provides a computer program and a computer program product comprising software code adapted, when executed on a data processing apparatus, such as the assessor device and/or server as herein described, to perform any of the methods described herein, including any or all of their component steps.

The invention also provides a computer program and a computer program product comprising software code which, when executed on a data processing apparatus, such as the assessor device and/or server as herein described, comprises any of the apparatus features described herein.

The invention also provides a computer program and a computer program product having an operating system which supports a computer program for carrying out any of the methods described herein and/or for embodying any of the apparatus features described herein.

The invention also provides a computer readable medium having stored thereon the computer program as aforesaid.

The invention also provides a signal carrying the computer program as aforesaid, and a method of transmitting such a signal.

In this specification the word or' can be interpreted in the exclusive or inclusive sense unless stated othervvise.

The invention extends to methods and/or apparatus substantially as herein described and/or with reference to the accompanying drawings.

The invention is now described, purely by way of example, with reference to the accompanying diagrammatic drawings, in which: Figure 1 shows an overview of an example assessment system; Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of an assessor device; Figure 3 shows a high-level process flow diagram of the operation of the example assessment system; Figure 4 shows a flow diagram of an assessment being performed; Figures 5(a)-(c) show screen shots of the software used to add an issue; Figures 6(a)-(c) show screen shots of the software used to of augment a CAD plan including adding a location mark during an assessment; Figures 7(a)-(c) show an example assessment questionnaire as viewed during an assessment; Figures 8(a)-(c) show an example report generation process within the assessment manager; Figure 9 shows an example hierarchy of roles when acting upon an action plan; Figures 1 O(a)-(d) show the issue tracker process; Figures 11 (a)-(u) show a examples of the issue tracker process; and Figures 1 2(a)-(c) show example issue review user interfaces.

An introductory overview of the system is provided below. This is followed by a more detailed description of the various aspects of the system with reference to the figures.

An assessor wishing to perform an assessment for particular premises would load a specific template onto an assessor device 18. Such a template includes an appropriate questionnaire with predefined answers, risk identifiers' / codes relating to potential issues/faults, and remedial actions and legislation relevant to the assessment being undertaken. The codes are selected by use of keyword lookups (effectively shortcuts) which have a defined link to specific questions within the questionnaire which on selection will amend the predefined answers accordingly and indicate the level of non-compliance with the relevant legislation or guidance. An example code would be: Provision of a smoke detector recommended'. A number of different collections of risk identifiers / codes are provided for each different type of assessment that might be carried out, and for any given assessment a particular subset of risk identifiers / codes in a collection are selected and assembled into a template for carrying out that assessment, based on the particular circumstances relating to that assessment.

The assessor also loads plans of the buildings/premises being assessed; preferably these are Computer Aided Design (CAD) drawings, specifically.dwg' format drawings, although dwf, pdf jpg may also be used.. When walking around the premises the assessor notes issues of importance to the assessment being undertaken. For example, they may record a free text' description of the details of the building in respect of its construction, occupancy, means of escape fire provisions. The assessor may notice a -10-defective heat detector in a kitchen. They would then input the appropriate symbol for a heat detector on the plan and by placing a unique identification number on the plan record the location of a fault, by using the risk identifier I code to identify the nature of the issue Presence of a defective heat detector the selected risk identifier would also automatically identify the impact on life, property and business continuity caused by the omission. The assessor is also able to manually modify or revise the automatically identified properties and potential impacts, and take photographic evidence, which is linked to that issue.

Each issue is associated, via its risk identifier, with an indicative cost for rectifying the issue. The default answer to the template questionnaire is also modified based on the selection of that risk indemnifier, as is the level of conformity to legislation. These elements will be discussed in more detail below.

During the latter part of the assessment process the assessor examines the template questionnaire which will be populated with pre-determined and modified answers regarding failings identified by the assessment, and whether compliance with legislation has been achieved. If there are no major issues, or the accumulation of minor issues is not great, the answers would be pre-set to Compliant' (or similar). Otherwise, the answers will be pre-set to a range of other options depending on the nature of the issues identified. The assessor is then required to sign off each aspect by tapping the questions to acknowledge and confirm the answer to each question. At the end of the assessment inspection, the assessment is closed on the assessor device I tablet and the completed assessment transferred back to the assessment manager where the issues are collated and a total risk matrix is provided based on the accumulation of issues identified during the assessment.

Once the information has been transferred back to the assessment manager, an action plan is generated providing the organisation with a detailed overview of the total risk, which can be drilled down' to see exactly which issues (and where they are, including photographs) have contributed to the risk and/or lack of conformity to legislation. All the relevant MicrosoftTM WordTM reports are automatically produced by the system and the.dwg plans are forwarded to the assessment manager which interfaces with Aut0CADTM so that the appropriate layers can be automatically created based on the information noted and imputed to the plan during the assessment. The Aut0CADTM process is utilised to create the new CAD layers for all CAD annotation marks, borders titles, and so on, on each of the plans, before the annotated CAD drawings are sent back to the assessment manager system.

These actions are also provided to the user via an issue tracker' interface which presents the issues to be rectified. Depending on who is logged into the system, different issues and views are presented. For example, if a manager is logged in, they may be able to delegate the removal of waste material to a caretaker who would confirm that the action has been completed.

The act of marking an action complete alters the risk assessment, associated risk matrix and legislation conformity. Thus the organisation is provided with instant feedback of the effect of the work without the need for a further assessment.

Figure 1 shows an overview of the risk assessment system. The system 100 comprises an assessment manager 10, a plurality of clients 12 and a remotely accessible database 14, which are in data communication with one-another as indicated by the connections shown in the figure. This data connection may be over a communications network (wireless of fixed), or via a physical connection, for example, by being incorporated into a single device such as a single laptop/hand held computer. In one embodiment, the assessment manager 10 is controlled by an organisation tasked to carry out a risk assessment and the each client 12 is controlled by the respective organisation requesting the risk assessment and/or subcontractors. The remotely accessible database may be controlled by the assessment manager 10, but is accessible to both the manager 10 and clients 12 in differing ways as will be described in more detail below.

Each client 12 is provided with at least one assessor device 18 which has access to the assessment manager 10. This device may be a tablet computer, personal desktop assistant (FDA), smartphone or similar device. This device also has access to a client database 20 which contains information relating to the premises being assessed, for example plans of the buildings. Further detail relating to the assessor device is provided belowwith reference to Figure 2.

The assessment manager 10 comprises a managing server 16 and a managing database 22. The managing database stores template assessments, risk identifiers or codes' which define particular issues and risks, remedial actions and details regarding relevant legislation. The managing server comprises processing means to process the incoming and outgoing data as will be described in detail below, and is also able to update the aforementioned templates, codes and legislation. -12-

In use, the assessor device 18 downloads an assessment template from the managing server 16. This template will be specific to the type of assessment being undertaken, and possibly also to the type of client and or premises being assessed. The device 18 also downloads plans from the managing database 22 which updates the client database 20.

The assessment is then undertaken and the relevant data is passed back to the managing server 16 for processing. The managing server 16 produces a risk assessment report and action plan, details of this process are described in detail below with reference to Figures 8.

The action plan is published to a remotely accessible database 14 which is accessible to the relevant client, preferably via a secure website. This database 14 contains issues which were identified during the assessment and require action. Different personnel from the client are provided with different log-in details so that issues and/or actions tailored to their specific role within the client organisation are presented. This is described in more detail below with reference to Figures 9 and 10.

Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of an example assessor device 18 showing components required for certain functionality.

The assessor device comprises a controller 25 which controls the various elements of the device via a processor 26. The device comprises output modules/circuitry 30, input modules/circuitry 40, memory 50, a data port 60 and network communication means 70.

The data port 60 may be a physical connection such as Universal Serial Bus (USB) or other data transfer means. The network connection 70 is operable to send and receive data wirelessly. This may be via Wi-Fi, BluetoothTM or mobile network protocols such as General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN), Evolved UTRAN (E-UTRAN), Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Long Term Evolution (LTE), or Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access iMax). The network communication section comprises and antenna 72 and transceiver circuit 74 which is in communication with the controller 25.

Both of these modules 60, 70 are adapted to send and receive data, for example, receiving assessment templates from the assessment manager 10, downloading CAD plans, and uploading completed assessments.

The output modules/circuitry 30 comprise a display 32, audio output 34 and other output modules/circuitry 36. The input modules/circuitry 40 comprise display sensors 42 (such -13-as a touch-screen or physical keypad), audio sensors 44, a digital camera 46 and other user input devices 48 such as a mouse, track-pad etc. The controller 25 operates in accordance with software instructions stored within memory 50. As shown, these software instructions include, amongst other things, an operating system 52 which governs the operation of the components of the assessor device 18 and provides a user interface. The memory further includes data storage 54 where incomplete assessments, code libraries etc. are stored, and a CAD management module 56 which enables the user to load, view and modify CAD plans.

The assessor device 18 is preferably a handheld PC or tablet to allow the capture of risk information in a dynamic moving environment. The device preferably has battery life and durability to complete assessments on a daily basis.

Figure 3 shows a high-level process flow diagram of the operation of the system 100. The process shown commences with an assessment template being created 200. An assessment template contains codes (risk identifiers), assessment questionnaires and legislation relevant to the particular client and type of assessment. It may also include CAD.dwg, .dwf.pdf, .jpg drawings or similar of the relevant building(s). The assessment is then undertaken at step 202, following this, a report is created 204. The report includes an action plan 206, accessible by various parties who are able manage issues 208. The act of managing issues (e.g. marking a fault as having been rectified) prompts the report to be updated, shown by a feedback loop. Consequently the action plan is also updated.

Optionally, after any of the stages following the initial assessment, a secondary (follow-up) assessment can be performed 210. This assessment takes the results of the first assessment and augments I updates it depending on any change in status. During the secondary assessment, the assessor is prompted to examine any issues raised in the first assessment, thus reducing any duplication of efforts (i.e. if nothing has changed) or noting any improvements I degradation. The secondary assessment then updates the report 204 and corresponding action plan 206 and issue management system 208. This loop may repeat, for example on a yearly basis, or however frequently a client (or legislation) demands.

Assessment Manager 10 Further details relating to the assessment manager are now provided. -14-

The assessment manager 10 enables the selection of the appropriate client 12 in order to create bespoke risk assessments. The type of client may be one of the following: * A small company consisting of one employee -a single assessor where the management, assessment, production of reports and subsequent action are undertaken by the same person. In this example, only a single type of assessment template is provided to the client.

* A small company that wishes to manage their building stock utilising the software provided and undertake the assessment inspections using their own personnel.

This would enable the client to manage the production of reports and assessment jobs, for example. There may be multiple assessors and hence multiple assessor devices and/or assessment templates may be provided.

* A larger entity (for example a multi-national company) who may wish to manage their building stock utilising the software provided. This would allow the client to manage the production of reports and assessment jobs, for example. There may be multiple assessors and hence multiple assessor devices and/or assessment templates may be provided.

* A larger entity (for example a multi-national company) that wishes for a manager (or a subcontractor of a manager) to manage their building stock utilising the software provided, produce the assessments, documents, for example that would be transferred to the client database. This would enable the client to undertake audits using the handheld software view the data, reports, outputs and remedial actions, for example. There may be multiple assessors and hence multiple assessor devices and/or assessment templates may be provided.

In any of the above scenarios, any new additional information added to the system by the client can be forwarded to the assessment manager so that updates can be made available to all clients, provided that the material is not confidential and/or proprietary. For example, if a particular client obtains cost estimates for performing a particular task, these could be used to improve cost estimates for similar tasks for other clients. Similarly, if a client/assessor discovers an issue for which there is no code for, and hence has to create one, this information may be incorporated into future code updates for all clients.

The assessment manager 10 enables a system administrator to: a. Manage assessment definitions: The ability to create a risk assessment pro-forma for any given subject -e.g. Fire, Asbestos, Room Condition Survey, etc. b. Manage assessment packages: Manage premises, buildings or assets that are subject to the risk assessment process, by: -15- * Reviewing existing template information to update based on improved knowledge.

* Creating and managing a register of premises or assets related to the client.

* Capturing dynamic and static information in relation to each of the premises * Associating list of assets holding: a Photographic references o DWG Aut0CADTM plans o DWF Aut0CADTM plans o PDF plans or images c. Import / Export assessment information: Import or export information into the assessment manager 10 or assessor device 18, via cloud technologies.

d. Assessment results: Provide reports to view information -graphically within the system, written exported data into MicrosoftTM WordTM or MicrosoftTM ExcelTM, for example. Add additional information to DWG CAD Plans. Users will also be allowed to update action plans, produce management reports, and carry out other administrative tasks.

The risk assessment definitions are a key element of the system 100 and provide the facility and functionality for the capture of risk information, allowing multiple risk assessment types to be developed and modified over time with a full audit trail of amendments and changes. The system 100 thus follows a logical process as would be utilised by a professional body for example.

Temp/ate creation 200 A category or collection of risk identifiers / codes (issue types) that would be of specific interest for a particular type of assessment can be selected and assembled to create an appropriate template-for example in the case of a fire risk assessment these may include: * Building issues (those physical issues that are likely to be identified within the premises, for example, something that is missing, broken or defective) * Ignition Sources (something that could provide a heat source to start a fire) * Fuel Source (something that could be identified as a fuel source or contribute to rapid fire spread or development); and * Management issues (the management requirements to have appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with legislation).

However, these are only examples and may be replicated or changed in order to handle other types of assessment, as appropriate. Furthermore, for each particular assessment -16-undertaken, the template can be tailored to the particular circumstances associated with that assessment, for example, the template created for a fire risk assessment for one company will be different to the template cleated for a fire risk assessment for another company.

The assessor may import elements from different pre-existing assessments in order to reduce the time taken to build an assessment. This is achieved by selecting Import Elements'.

Risk assessment questionnaires During an assessment, the assessor is prompted to answer questions relating to any issue/fault that they might identify to the system, and the extent of conformity to the relevant legislation. The assessment manager 10 has the ability to create, edit or update these questionnaires so as to tailor them to the type of client and/or assessment. A set of questions which are categorised into specific areas: Section, Sub-Section & Individual Questions can be generated. Against individual questions the anticipated answers are associated as follows: * Fixed Choice -as defined within the result options. Where a fixed choice is selected, the potential answers can be ordered to indicate which should be the default answer. This allows the assessment questions to be approached from a positive or negative view.

* Numeric Value -A value can be set or left blank as appropriate -where the user can then choose a numerical value.

* Text Value -A text value can be set or left blank (free text data entry) as appropriate -where the user can then choose the text they wish to enter.

These are used to produce outcome reports and numerical values for reports.

Links -This functionality of the system allows various assessment codes (risk identifiers) to be linked to the relevant assessment questions. As indicated against each of the assessment questions -a number of potential answers may be possible. Therefore on selecting the question and any appropriate assessment code or codes that should be associated with it, a particular answer (or answers) may be selected which should be pre-set depending on the risk identifier codes identified during the assessment. -17-

Legal Document Articles -The relevant legislation may be identified in relation to the type of risk assessment being undertaken and cross referenced to the questions / answers referred within Assessment Questions' depending on the answers identified within the various questions -the system will indicate the level of compliance with the legislation identified.

Example questionnaires are described below with reference to Figures 7(a)-(c).

Codes (risk identifiers) Against each of the above issue types -risk identifiers / codes (problems / issues) are entered to provide a list of the types of problems that may be encountered. Each of these problems or issues can be assessed in terms of its impact in respect of life safety, property safety and/or business continuity, each having a score (e.g. 1-5 with 5 being the highest risk score) attached to indicate the potential impact in terms of: * Likelihood * Life * Property * Business continuity The likelihood is a constant value for each risk identifier I code which when multiplied against each of the life, property and business continuity values (utilising a 5 x S scoring system) identifies the likely impact if that problem or issue as identified during an assessment were to occur. This process establishes the default values that should be checked and modified during each assessment as necessary. The modification of the default values is described in more detail below with reference to the assessment method.

For each problem or issue there may be many different ways in which the issue may be resolved. Each different remedial action can be identified and a description provided which would include association to: * Work by: Who should be the appropriate person to undertake the remedial action -Occupier, Contractor, Estates Department, for example.

* Unit Cost: The indicative cost to implement the remedial action * Unit Type: Whether the cost relates to a single item or a price per square metre, for

example.

* Whether the problem/issue is a Repair (fix something that exists), Upgrade (provide something new) or a Management Issue. -18-

For each problem! issue identified (and associated remedial actions) there are a number of key-words or phrases (short cuts) that can be attached to the risk identifier I code to assist in searching for the problem / issue identified. This enables users to locate the vailous issues when using the assessor device.

Assessment Figure 4 shows a flow diagram of an assessment process. In step 300 the assessor device 18 downloads an assessment template including any CAD plans from the managing database 22. The CAD plans may be sourced from the client database 20 where updated plans are available onsite or from the managing database 22.

The next step is performing the assessment 202, which is split into a number of different stages. During the inspection (303) a free text description of the building may be created! amended / edited to indicate the occupancy, means of escape, fire provisions, etc (305) and the facility to amend! update or create symbols and fire provisions on the CAD plans (307) may be provided. If the issue is a physical one (for example, a fault or defect in equipment or the building as opposed to one to do with management or training) the assessor may record the specific location of the issue 316. This may be by building name/address, floor number, room number, grid reference, and/or more directly by augmenting CAD plans 318 with a unique location number. This part of the assessment is described in more detail below with reference to Figures 6(a)-(c) and 7(a).

The assessor records an issue 304. In order to do so, an issue code (risk identifier) is selected 306. If there is no relevant code, they may create a new one or edit an existing one. Following this, an action resulting from the issue is selected 308. Similarly, if no relevant action is present, they may create a new one or edit an existing one. Finally the assessor may edit the pre-set risk level 310 and/or cost 312 associated with that issue.

This aspect of the assessment is described in more detail below with reference to Figures 5(a)-(c).

The two preceding steps may alternatively (and in some examples, preferably) be performed in the opposite order, i.e. first recording an issue 304 and then recording the location of that issue 316 When recording an issue 304, the assessor may also take/upload a photo of the issue 314. This photo is then associated with the issue so that it can be presented to a user when creating a report and/or during the issue management' stage. -19-

The steps 304 and 316 are repeated for all the issues the assessor identifies during the assessment and at the end a questionnaire is presented to them. This is formed of pre-set questions depending on the type of assessment performed and issues identified, and is designed to accurately determine the extent to which specific legislation has been conformed to.

Once the questionnaire has been completed, the assessor may (depending on assessor device functionality and permissions) 320 either upload the completed assessment 322 to the assessment manager 10 for report creation or may create the report itself. The report collates all the issues recorded; their corresponding locations, associated remedial actions and indicative cost for doing so. The report further includes the risks of each issue. An action plan is attached to the report which prioritises the actions required. This may be by risk (for example, the issues with most risk to endangering life should be fixed first), conformity to legislation, indicative cost, ease of remedy etc. More detail regarding report generation is provided below with reference to Figure 8(a)-(c).

Issues Figures 5(a)-(c) show various stages of adding/identifying an issue.

The details of the issue (or multiple issues) can be added. These are identified by selecting the Issue Type' -Building, Ignition, Fuel or Management and using the keyword search terms to assist the assessor in selecting the appropriate fault description, remedial action, indicative cost, cost centre (Repair, Upgrade or Management Action), person/organisation charged to complete the work, life score, property score and business continuity score.

In the example shown in Figure 5, the key search term 502 is se/f Once a phrase has been selected a number of risk identifiers / codes 504 are displayed in order that the user can select the appropriate risk identifier code 506 as shown in Figure 5(b). The remedial action(s) associated with the code is also displayed 508.

Where the appropriate issue description is not in the system the user can create a new entry and add it as a temporary code. This may be accepted, modified or replaced by an existing code at a later stage by the system administrator within the assessment manager 10.

-20 -A default remedial action' 508 is then generated based on the selected fault. This is a suggested solution to the fault which will appear in the report and action plan. The assessor can add a comment to this text so as to be more specific to the fault identified.

Once the issue has been input, the view shown in Figure 5(c) is presented to the assessor. Default risk scores 510 are generated based on the selected risk identifier.

Risk is defined as likelihood of occurrence x severity of outcome'. Different classes of outcome are provided for, in this example these are shown to be: Life, Property and Business. Each of these and the general likelihood of occurrence are scored out of 1-5 and combined to give a risk score between 1 and 25, 25 indicating a very severe risk and 1 virtually no risk. This risk score is then categorised into priorities' as follows: 0-5=P5, 6- 10=P4, 11-15=P3, 16-20=P2 and 21-25=P1. This categorisation adds a metric for issues to be grouped in the action plan so that the organisation can prioritise their efforts in enacting the action plan. The assessor can also manually modify the default risk scores.

An indicative cost of carrying out the remedial action is provided 512. Again, this is initially a default set by the type of issue chosen and the remedial action, but the assessor can edit the value. The assessor can also modify the quantity value specified which will relate to the number, size in square metres, etc. so for example a large breach in a wall could be modified to 2 sq metres. This information will appear on the report and action plan.

Where photographs are added during the risk assessment using the webcam or external camera these are recorded and linked against a given fault, shown by area 514.

The user can create bespoke (uniquely named) groups and shortcut links to specific issues shown using the graphic selectors 516. As the assessor adds new issues to an assessment they can utilise this facility to quickly access specific fault types I remedial action or multiple issues.

The assessor is able to mark the location of the issue, and link all the above information, to CAD plans of the premises as is described in more detail below. The process of marking the location of the issue is may equally occur before adding the detail of the issue itself.

CAD augmentation Figures 6(a)-(c) show various stages of augmenting a CAD plan during an assessment. -21 -

When an assessment is completed and processed in the Managing Server 16 the CAD plans are transmitted to the assessment manager 10 which interfaces with Aut0CADTM and a number of additional layers' are created. Figure 6(a) shows a view of an uploaded CAD plan with annotations in a number of additional layers. In the example of a fire risk assessment, an example of the additional layers may be: * Locators * Means of Escape (MoE) * Means of Escape Fire Resistance * Property Fire Resistance * Fire Alarm * Emergency Lighting * Notices * Fire Safety Information These information layers can be switched on or off dependant on the individual user's need for the information. This is particularly advantageous as an organisation then has the ability to generate a single point of truth' for their premises with all the information relating to any number of future risk assessments without the problem of information overload'.

The CAD provides the following augmentation functionality 601: * Annotation -add text, highlighted areas, etc. * Plan Update -Add symbols (e.g. lines of fire resistance, etc.) * Issue Locations -Place a location to identify the location of an issue (e.g. building defects, ignition sources, fuel sources or management issues) * Plan List -Add a new plan to the plan selection -where a new plan of the floor area is available * Review Issues -to revisit previous inspections and check status of issues and record new issues * Utilise any plan format to undertake the assessment -DWG, DWF, JPG, etc. The system enables the user to: a Add locations to the plans where problems are located by entering a location details box and placing a location marker on the plan. More than one issue can be associated with a single location indicator.

-22 -o Amend the plans by adding details of new structures, extensions, fire resisting construction, etc. o Add fire safety features such as notices and signage, emergency lighting, fire alarm call points, detectors! etc. o Priorto undertaking the assessment inspection the user can create a number of views of the DWG CAD plan in order to provide the plan at a suitable working size. There is no limit to the number of views that the user may create.

o Add a comment to the plan to highlight a feature or issue on the plan.

Figure 6(b) shows the Plan Update' function. This allows the user to: o Add symbols -The user selects the Category' 602 which indicates the various relevant symbols. By highlighting the individual symbol 604 and choosing Place Symbol' 606 this can be placed at the appropriate location on the plan.

o Add lines -To select Line' and to choose the radio button adjacent to one of the four colours 608. This displays the thickness of the line and the style (which may be modified) of line placed on the plan. Lines may be straight or Free Hand' working from point to point.

The Issue Location' function (shown in Figure 6(c)) allows the user to: o Add New Location' 610 -Where an issue is found during an inspection -a location mark can be placed on the plan. In addition to placing a location mark on the plan the floor level and a general description and specific location description of the issue are recorded.

o Edit Details 612 -Wiere necessary the written location details can be amended.

o Adjust Position 614-The Location Mark can be repositioned on the plan as necessary by selecting Adjust Position' 614.

Questionnaire Figures 7(a)-(c) show an example assessment questionnaire as displayed during an assessment.

Figure 7(a) is an initial / overview screen showing the progress of the various aspects of the questionnaire. This overview indicates the progress of the various aspects through the questionnaire and allows the assessor to select which questionnaire to complete.

-23 -Figure 7(b) shows an example pre-set questionnaire, in this case the Sources of Ignition' questionnaire. The questions in this questionnaire correspond to the points in the legislation relevant to sources of ignition'. The answers are pre-set based on the issues identified during the assessment. For example, if no relevant sources of ignition were found, or those that were found were suitably mitigated against, the questionnaire would be pre-set to answers in the positive. There is a link between certain issues and answers in the questionnaire, the accumulation of issues (and/or their associated risks) affecting the pre-set answers.

The assessor visits this screen at the end of the assessment process to ensure they are content with the answers displayed. Where they do not wish to add any additional issues they tap the question to indicate that they agree with the answer and sign off that element of the questionnaire.

Depending on the manner in which the questionnaire was set-up, the pre-set answers may be YesINo, a graded response, text or a numerical value.

Where an issue is added to the assessment it automatically changes the answer to one of questions in the Risk Assessment template -preparing the basis of the report on the issues identified within the inspection. The user can add comments to each sub-section to support their findings if required.

The questions are displayed with the default answer showing -by double clicking on an answer, it may be modified, going through the options provided in the questionnaire generation process described above. Figure 7(c) shows the questionnaire with one answer having been modified by the assessor. This change may mean that the legislation has not been conformed to, which will be noted in the report with a link to the question (and issue(s)) which led to this finding. This creates an audit trail which the client can use to determine more easily what needs to be done to conform to legislation.

Second assessment The assessments would be a cycle of activities undertaken within a specific timeframe driven by the overall perceived risk of the premise /site or in a building where the risk was known due to significant material changes being undertaken which would necessitate a review of the assessment. The issues identified in earlier assessments may be reviewed at a later date, and by selecting the location mark displayed the fault and associated remedial action would be presented to the reviewer who could then decide / record -24 -whether the old issue was resolved or still outstanding. In addition, where a new issue is identified this may be either linked to an existing location number or to a new location number added to the plan. Fig 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c) show example user interfaces for such an issue review process. The assessments are designed to ensure that the client is able to meet the requirements established by law, codes of practice or good practice for specific risks, and manage them with a structured framework. For example, a fire risk assessment is in compliance with such matters as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to provide an audit trail to ensure appropriate interventions are undertaken.

Report generation On the return of an assessment to the manager and opening the Assessment Results screen a display is shown of any assessments that have been created. When a specific assessment is highlighted access to the various reporting facilities is provided.

The reporting facilities provided within the assessment manager are: * Print Job Sheet List -Ability to produce group or individual job sheets for the issues found.

* Issue Status -Ability to examine all the issues found during an assessment and export as necessary into MicrosoftTM ExcelTM.

* Questionnaire -Ability to produce risk assessment documentation by the use of specific client based templates.

* Action Plan Matrix -Ability to access 5 x 5 risk matrix information based on the issues noted during the inspection.

* Document Register-Access to link all relevant documentation Mth an inspection * Send to Issue Tracker -Ability to issue any assessment to the Issue Tracker Issue Status -The detailed analysis of rows of information held for every issue identified during an assessment: * Category * Code * Location * Likelihood * Life Score * Property Score -25 - * Business Score * Status * Cost (indicative cost only) Figure 5(a) shows one view of the report generator displaying a table of issues.

The user can create all CAD location images by selecting Create ALL CAD Images'.

Then on selecting Run Batch Update' the system creates two images by locating the relevant issue in the central view of the zoomed in view and the zoomed out view of the floor layout plan places a green highlighted square in the location where the zoomed in view is positioned. A report spread sheet is shown in Figure 8(b) incorporating the CAD images and photographs with the issue details.

A full report is then generated by the user; in one example this is MicrosoftTM Word document report created based on a template held within the system for any aspect of the assessment, which includes relevant risk assessment information such as: * Prioritised Action Plans -Risk Matrixes for Building Issues, Fuel, Ignition and Management Issues.

* Plans of the premises * Building Details Figure 5(c) shows a view of the risk matrix' which is automatically generated as the assessment is carried out. The rows of the matrix can be filtered by box 502 so as to see the actions measured against parameters such as: * Severity Issues -Impact on Life, Property or Business Continuity * Issue Types -Building, Ignition, Fuel or Management * Item Status -Outstanding, Out for Tender, Completed, Cancelled, etc. The total number of issues andlor indicative cost of the remedial action(s) in each row is summed at the end of each row.

The columns of the risk matrix are Red', Amber, Green' and White' issues depending on the action timetable, i.e. when the issue should be dealt with. This is linked to the risk value associated nAth the issue, e.g. a risk score of 20-25 requires immediate action and is thus placed in the Red' column. The total number of issues and/or indicative cost of the remedial action(s) in each category (and for each individual risk score) is summed at the end of each column.

-26 -Issue tracker The issue tracker' functionality may be utilised by organisations of all sizes but has particular benefits to larger organisations where it enables such organisations to manage the risks encountered within their premises, and to ensure that they can: * Prioritise specific buildings and issues to ensure workloads can be segmented to focus on higher risk' issues.

* Flexible workflow creation to create workflows to allow managers to create teams and allocate work to them.

* Create Project Teams to examine I comment and add information to issues identified within the risk assessment process that is to be subject to a tender for carrying out further work.

* Attach risk assessment documentation to be available for download or on-line viewing.

* Manage multiple risk assessment' types of work.

* Enable senior executives and managers to view and analyse reports for: o Progress of the management of issues against action plans viewing issues by priority levels.

o Financial spend against budget constraints o Level of compliance against relevant legislation.

* Invite relevant internal and external individuals to access the system.

* Assign tasks to individuals within the organisation.

* Assign tasks to individuals from external organisations (Building Contractors, Electricians, etc.).

* Enable individuals to indicate when issues are resolved.

* Allow managers to sign off' or request audits of tasks to check standards of work.

* Email reminder system -prompting users to resolve outstanding issue -based on issue priority.

* Access information to assess workloads and prepare schedules of work.

* Manage large numbers of similar issues by batching and issuing work on block -suitable for the preparation of tenders for quoting purposes and gaining financial economies of scale.

* Issue contracts electronically via an issue tracking process to internal or external personnel.

-27 -The system has been developed to provide sufficient access levels to allow effective management working to a three or four level structure. The example workflow diagram shown in Figure 9 indicates a three and four level hierarchy structure. This is based on the division of the issues identified as being related to a repair; upgrade; or management problem.

In one example, the issue tracker is a website held within an iframe wrapper and therefore can be imbedded within another website giving the impression of being part of the client organisation.

Access to the website is by invitation only as it is not an accessible site to the general public. Where an individual has been invited, and has completed the relevant registration forms, they will on logging in to the site using a username and password. This function provides enhanced safety and accountability.

Access to the system is based on user access levels which enable the menu items displayed at each level to be adapted to that level to reduce information overload and enable individuals to focus on their own specific job roles within the system. A training system is available to assist new personnel with identical or similar functionality to the live system.

An admin' section is provided where an administrator can send out invitations and manage the access rights of the users or groups of users already signed-up.

Client a dminist ration A client administration facility is provided to assess the risk assessment information issued to the issue tracker' before it is disseminated throughout the organisation. This provides the ability to assign a priority to specific issues and an appropriate individual to manage that particular issue.

Figures 1 O(a)-(c) and 11 (a)-(c) show example steps for processing new issues. The user interface screen provides details of the issue by: * Ability to view locations Mth multiple issues 10(a) and 11(a) * Priority Rating 1 -5 (1 being the most urgent) -The priority level may be changed by someone of suitable seniority (with suitable access rights). An example interface used to provide this functionality is shown in Figurel 1(b) -28 - * Location (location number specified on the plan) * Issue Number (the number allocated to the issue identified) * Comments -added by the assessor if necessary for that particular issue * Scores (for information only -the risk scores provided by the assessor in respect of e.g. impact on Life, Property and Business Continuity)

* Description of the issue

* Description of the remedial action to resolve the issue if undertaken.

* Deadline for completion of the remedial action in respect of the Issue * Indicative cost -can be modified at this stage -this information is not visible at operative or contractor level.

* Recommended to use -appropriate skillset, management process, building contractor, etc. (default value offered by the system based on the type of problem). An example interface used to provide this functionality is shown in Figure 11(c) * Pass to -chosen by the user the person who should handle this issue at the next level down (default value offered by the system based on the type of problem). An example interface used to provide this functionality is shown in Figure 11(a) To assist the user to see the issue in context within the location within the premises -plans and photographs (Figure 10(b), 10(c), andll(c)) can be viewed to enable effective decision making regarding the risk.

By clicking on the plans or photographs the user can zoom in to see the picture in more detail. Once the user has decided what action to take they can accept the current default setting, change the type of fault to one of the alternative groupings or defer' the issue, for example, due to specific known information.

Group manager At group level the issues that have been prioritised will be collated within the three distinct groupings: * Repairs * Upgrades * Management Issues -29 -In addition the managers can also decide if they wish to defer an issue or skip it and return later to decide on the appropriate action to be taken. The issues in each group can then be assigned to management groups dependent upon the organisations structure. This step is shown in Figure 10(d) or 11(d) For personnel that deal with repairs or upgrades that rnay need to be part of a tendering process, or require the creation of project teams to manage large collections of work, they will have enhanced functionality to manage the preparation of packages of work that can be bundled together to give economies of scale for contract or project purposes.

This will include the bulk assignment of issues throughout the defined management structure or to a contractor for the work to be actioned.

Repair Issues In the case of issues identified as repairs these will be packaged together into one or more bundles and subsequently added to a contract which can then be issued to an internal member of the organisation or an external contractor. An example of the 1 Select the appropriate premises from the available list of premises with repairs to be undertaken This step is shown in Figure 11(e) 2 Create a bundle for the premises identifying the name, type of work it will contain, the urgency for completing the work. Identify the relevant floor level, priority, type and category of work to be undertaken. This step is shown in Figure 11(0 3 Create a Contract wtiich will contain the bundle or bundles and identify the name and priority. The type of contract should be identified with a contract name and description. Where bundles from their buildings will be added to the contract these can also be identified and added. This step is shown in Figure 11(g) 4 Select the appropriate outstanding issues and pick and drop them into the new bundle. When the issues have been added to the bundle the count of the number of issues and the sum of the cost will reflect the contents of the bundle. This step is shown in Figures 11(h) and 11(i) 5 Select the Bundle (or additional bundles) and pick and drop them into the relevant contract. Again the contract cost will reflect the sum of the bundles added to the contract. This step is shown in Figures 11(j) and 11(k) -30 - 6 At an early stage in the contract a PDF document can be produced to examine the issues before giving the work to an internal member of staff or external contractor. This step is shown in Figures 110) and 11(m) 7 The next stage is to select Issue the Contract'. This allows a number of standard preamble phrases to be added to the document and ordered as necessary. Any specific requirements to be added and included within the preamble phrases. A PDF may be produced to issue to the contract or it may be issued electronically to a named individual. This step is shown in Figures 11(n), 11(o) 11(p), 11(q), 11(r) and 11(s)).

8 The system would issue an email to the named recipient who would be able to access all the issues contained within the contract.

Upgrade Issues The process for managing upgrade work is the same as for contracts except: 1. All bundles are added to projects and on the creation of a project to indicate the timescales for the life of the project with the following milestones, End of Appraisal, Specification to be ready by, Contract to be Issued on and Target Date for Completion. This step is shown in Figure 11(t) 2. The project is issued to a project team to assess the requirements and quantify any additional work that may need to be taken into consideration. Each member of the project team can access the issues and add additional comments, add supporting documents and amend the indicative costs. This step is shown in Figure 11(u).

3. Once the project evaluation is completed the project would be issued as a contract to an external contractor following the completion of a successful tender process.

Table 1 below illustrates an example work flow in one embodiment: -31 -REPAIRS or UPGRADES Specified personnel are to be able to see the building assessments by the most important first with the 3bility to see the priority given to the issues with associated costs.

NB The work flow below specifies a repair route only.

Work Flow Comments Receive an email from The Issue tracker system when the assessment is completed by invitee Building(s) available to be viewed Growing list of buildings that id re-ordered as risk score associated with a building is allocated List of Buildings -Risk Score -Building UID I Name I Details -overall indicative cost All repairs for contracts view All updates for project view User Selection -By selecting a specific building The priority given by the Clients Management assessment to drill down to display by priority -Team P1 to P5 the total number of issues for each priority and the associated indicative Cost of each priority group User Selection -a user is able to drill down on a Categories -Means of Escape, Fire Doors, selected priority level to reveal categories of Emergency Lighting, for example.

issues within each priority level showing the total number of issues and the associated cost User Selection -to drill down on a category (as At this stage the project manager would be above) to reveal the detailed issues within a looking to see if any of the issues could be category shown so that where necessary they assigned immediately to an external contractor might be assigned: or in-house services so that they could be resolved.

to an appropriate external contractor or a team leader or an operative.

This would leave a large number of issues which -32 -could be passed to a design team.

NB There is a potential that some issues may be left un-assigned by the project manager.

The project manager is able to package together Once immediate issues are assigned the a number of the remaining issues that would be project manager is able to package a number of sent to a project leader of a design team' to the remaining issues (based on the priorities assess. and funding) so that a design team can assess the requirements and determine the approach There will probably be more than one package for to satisfy the remedial action identified by the each building assessor manager.

In the reports area of the issue tracker' the priorities, numbers of issues & associated costs of which have been assigned or are left outstanding are able to be viewed.

The project leader views the packages and would liaise with potentially several different individuals to decide on the work to be undertaken: Add a comment to some I all of the issues to identify the method in which the remedial work should be completed by the contractor.

Once a sufficient number of packages have been System Rule' -Only issues that will be created for assignment to an external contractor assigned to the same contractor will be -a bundle of packages can be formed. included in a package and This would then be issued to a contractor -The Only packages that will be assigned to the project leader assigning the bundle(s) to a same contractor will be added to a bundle.

contractor could add documentation such as Terms and Conditions that the contractor would need to follow which would be relevant to the work contained in the packages I bundle.

The project leader views the packages and Download packages I bundles of information liaises with several persons to: into MicrosoftTM ExcelTM and other MicrosoftTM -33 -products.

Add a comment to some I all of the issues to identify the method in which the remedial work Either the project leader collates all the should be completed by the contractor. comments of those he consults and to add to the system or, each individual has access to do their own.

This part of the process may take several months Then the contractor signs off their work items as any other operative and the project leader signs off' any resolved work.

The overall view from a Project Manager is required to ensure that the potential problem of a number of the issues identified staying in the system does not occur.

Management Issues The management issues can be assigned to the personnel responsible for oversight of the day to day' on-going problems that will need to be resolved. The additional functionality common to Group Manager level & Team Leader level are: * My Teams -The ability to add individuals registered within the system to the users own pick lists. This will reduce the numbers of individuals needed to be viewed to select the appropriate person.

* My Tasks -The user can choose by building or a particular status (outstanding task, completed task or all tasks) to display what they would like to view. An example of such a view is shown in Figures 10(d) and 11(d). The information is again displayed in row format to allow the user to select by clicking on the body text of the issue to display the specific details. On revealing the detail the user can indicate that the issue is resolved, unable to complete due to a problem (add additional comment) and add a date.

Wl1ere a number of visits have been undertaken to bring an item to completion, this is displayed adjacent to the issue underActions.

Team Leaders -34 -The team leader level shows a reduced functionality level to the Group Manager but allows the Team Leader to create a team of personnel who they will assign tasks -via Manage Tasks and to undertake the specific jobs that are allocated to them via My Tasks.

Operatives and Contractors In the case of the Operative or Contractor level the menu is limited to My Tasks' from which the user is presented with a list of the issues that have been issued to them.

When the Operative or Contractor has selected the issue they can add a date and a comment indicating that the issue is either resolved or cannot be completed due to a specific problem -no access, asbestos present, etc. Various other modifications will be apparent to those skilled in the art for example rather than adding an issue by typing a code into the assessor device, the assessor may use voice recognition software to input codes and/or issues.

In the examples described above, the location of an issue is manually input by an assessor when recording an issue; however, the location may be automatically added by a means of recognising the physical location of the assessor device 18 such as GPS (Global Positioning System) or differential GPS system. This would reduce the amount of intervention an assessor would have to perform to record an issue and reduce human error in miss-placing issues on a plan. The GPS system would typically be built into the assessor device 18. However, systems such as GPS may not be accurate enough to locate an assessor device 18 in multi-story buildings or in places with little or no signal such as a basement. Other methods of locating an assessor device such as utilising in-built sensors such as accelerometers and using dead reckoning' techniques may be used. Alternatively, other methods such as Wi-Fi signals, optical recognition of surroundings and/or mobile network triangulation could be used to locate the assessor device 18.

The system may be modified so as to be able to determine risk in context so that there is an interdependence of issues and locations (i.e. shredded paper next to heater is worse than just paper by itself). This kind of risk is typically identified by an assessor, but more complex contextual risks may be missed. An example of this would be where two rooms or areas are linked by air ducts or pipes so that heat may be transferred between areas.

Thus, a source of heat and flammable material which do not immediately seem close to -35 -one-another may in fact pose a higher risk of fire. Such a link could be notified to the assessor by a system which has access to CAD plans for example.

It will be understood that the present invention has been described above purely by way of example, and modifications of detail can be made within the scope of the invention.

Reference numerals appearing in the claims are by way of illustration only and shall have no limiting effect on the scope of the claims.

Claims (45)

1. -36 -CLAIMS: 1. A risk assessment system, the system comprising: an assessor device, the assessor device comprising: means for receiving input from a user regarding issues identified during the course of a risk assessment; means for storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding an identified issue; and means for enabling a user to associate each user identified issue with a particular risk identifier; and means for outputting a report based on those risk identifiers associated with user identified issues.
2. 2. The system of Claim 1 further comprising means for linking each risk identifier with relevant regulations, and determining the extent to which the assessment conforms to the said relevant regulations.
3. 3. The system of Claim 2 wherein at least one questionnaire is generated to determine the extent to which the assessment conforms to the said relevant regulations, and preferably wherein the questionnaire is based on parameters of those risk identifiers associated with user identified issues.
4. 4. The system of Claim 3 wtierein the questionnaire is pre-populated with answers on the basis of the received user input.
5. 5. The system of any of Claims 2 to 4 wherein the relevant regulations include relevant legislation.
6. 6. The system of any of the preceding claims, further comprising a (remotely accessible managing) server, said server comprising means for selecting and transferring a set of risk identifiers to the assessor device depending on the nature or type of assessment being undertaken.
7. 7. The system of Claim 6, wherein the system is further adapted to select particular risk identifiers for transfer in dependence on details relating to a particular assessment, thereby to customise the selection of risk identifiers for transfer based on the particular assessment.

   -37 -
8. 8. The system of any of the preceding claims, wherein the user input comprises the selection of at least one of the risk identifiers available to the assessor device.
9. 9. The system of Claim 8 wherein the assessor device further comprises means for enabling the user to create a risk identifier not included in the set transferred to the assessor device, and preferably wherein the assessor device is adapted to upload said created risk identifier to a remotely accessible managing server.
10. 10. The system of any of the preceding claims, wherein the user input comprises the identification of assessment issues and/or faults.
11. 11. The system of any of the preceding claims, wherein the risk identifiers include parameters associated with specific assessment issues and/or faults.
12. 12. The system of Claim 11, wherein the parameters are linked to and/or specify at least one or more of the following: a likelihood level; a severity level; a risk level: a section of legislation: a remedial action; a representative or indicative cost; and a priority level.
13. 13. The system of any of the preceding claims, wherein the assessment is in respect of a physical structure, and wherein the assessor device is adapted to receive location information, and preferably wherein the assessor device is adapted to link the location information to a user identified issue associated with a particular risk identifier.
14. 14. The system of Claim 13, wherein the assessor device comprises means for augmenting a graphical representation of the structure, and preferably a plan of the structure, thereby to link particular associated risk identifiers with particular locations.
15. 15. The system of Claim 14, wherein the assessor device is adapted to augment different layers of a plan.
16. 16. The system of Claim 14, further comprising a server adapted to receive a completed report and augment different layers of a plan.
17. 17. The system of Claim 15 or 16, wherein each layer is adapted to receive different types of input.
18. 18. The system of any of Claims 14 to 17, wherein the assessor device comprises means for receiving said plan from a separate database.

    -38 -
19. 19. The system of any preceding claim, wherein the user input comprises a photograph.
20. 20. The system of Claim 19, wherein the assessor device is adapted to link the photograph to a particular risk identifier.
21. 21. The system of Claim 19 or2O, wherein the photograph is further linked to a particular location.
22. 22. The system of any preceding claim wherein, the risk identifiers comprise (predefined) information or parameters relating to at least one of: a risk to life; a risk to property; and a risk to business continuity, and preferably wherein the risk identifiers comprise (predefined) information or parameters relating to at least one or more of the following (remedial actions): repairs; upgrades; and management issues, and more preferably wherein the assessor device is adapted to enable a user to modify said (predefined) parameters.
23. 23. The system of any of the preceding claims, wherein the outputting means is adapted to output an action plan in the light of the report, and preferably where the action plan is based at least in part on said risk identifier parameters.
24. 24. The system of Claim 23, wherein the action plan includes a priority matrix based on at least one or more of the following: the nature of the risk; the indicative cost associated with any requisite remedial action; the nature of the issue/fault; the location of the issue/fault; and the responsible party.
25. 25. The system of any preceding claim further comprising a remotely accessible managing server (issue tracker).
26. 26. The system of Claim 25, wherein the managing server is adapted to store an action plan and provide a list of actions relating to the report.
27. 27. The system of Claim 26 wherein the actions are categorised into at least one of: repairs, upgrades and management issues.
28. 28. The system of any of Claims 25 to 27, wherein the managing server is adapted to receive user updates regarding the implementation of the action plan and update the action plan in dependence upon such user updates.

    -39 -
29. 29. The system of Claim 28 wherein the server is adapted to store the updated action plan for use in subsequent assessments.
30. 30. The system of any preceding claim being for at least one of: a fire risk assessment, an asbestos assessment, and a legionella assessment.
31. 31. An assessor device for use in carrying out a risk assessment, the device comprising: means for receiving input from a user regarding issues identified during the course of a risk assessment; means for storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding an identified issue; means for enabling a user to associate each user identified issue with a particular risk identifier; and means for providing feedback to a user based on the risk identifiers associated with each user identified issue.
32. 32. The device of Claim 31, wherein the user feedback is a pre-populated questionnaire, the pre-populated answers being derived from the user input relating to the assessment.
33. 33. The device of Claim 32 or 33, further comprising means for receiving a template assessment, wherein the template assessment includes a collection of risk identifiers appropriate for a given assessment.
34. 34. The device of any of Claims 31 to 33, further comprising means for transmitting a completed assessment.
35. 35. The device according to any of Claims 31 to 34 for use in the system of any of Claims ito 30.
36. 36. A method of performing a risk assessment comprising: receiving input from a user regarding issues identified during the course of a risk assessment; storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding identified issues; enabling a user to associate each user identified issue with a particular risk identifier; and -40 -outputting a report based on those risk identifiers associated with user identified issues.
37. 37. A computer program product comprising software code adapted, when executed on a data processing apparatus, to perform all the steps of the method according to Claim 36.
38. 38. A server comprising means for storing a plurality of predefined risk identifiers, each risk identifier specifying particular parameters regarding identifiable risk assessment issues; and means for compiling a template assessment, wherein the template assessment includes a collection of risk identifiers appropriate for a given assessment.
39. 39. A server according to Claim 38, further comprising means for transmitting said template to an assessor device.
40. 40. A server according to Claim 36 or 39, further comprising means for receiving a completed assessment from an assessor device.
41. 41. A server according to any of Claims 38 to 40 for use in the system of any of Claims 1 to 30.
42. 42. A system substantially as herein described and/or as illustrated with reference to the accompanying drawings.
43. 43. A device substantially as herein described and/or as illustrated with reference to the accompanying drawings.
44. 44. A method substantially as herein described and/or as illustrated with reference to the accompanying drawings.
45. 45. A server substantially as herein described and/or as illustrated with reference to the accompanying diagrammatic drawings.