• Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    INCREASING CDM COORDINATOR INFLUENCE

    CDM Coordinator role is not to second guess design judgements

    In recent months Philip Poynter has argued for a return to basics when considering CDM 2007 duties. He has examined roles of Coordinator, Designer and Client.

    This month he looks at how the impact and influence of the Coordinator (CDM-C) function might be increased.

     

    The best friend of the construction client?

    When the CDM 2007 Regulations were first rolled out the Coordinator (CDM-C) was heralded as new ‘best friend’ to the construction client. A suggestion that was always likely to struggle in the face of traditional project relationships where, if the client has a best friend, it is usually the architect or other lead designer.

    So why was it thought the CDM-C role should and could fill such a key position in relation to the project client?

    Client comfort blanket and insurance policy?

    Under CDM 2007 the client faced the prospect of more onerous responsibilities for construction project safety and would need a CDM-C to navigate a path through the practical and legal minefield. The CDM-C was to be the ‘comfort blanket’ and ‘insurance policy’ for a worried client.

    The reality is that government played down changes to the client duty and continued to focus primarily on contractors and sites rather than clients and boardrooms. Why therefore should construction clients lose too much sleep over CDM duties when so few clients were engaged or ‘inspected’ by HSE let alone prosecuted?

    Rather than becoming the client’s best friend the CDM-C is seen by many as a marginalised role lacking influence and failing to add real value.

    Way forward for increasing CDM-C influence

    A review of CDM 2007 is currently in progress. Assuming the role remains what can be done to shift the CDM-C function into a more positive position within construction project risk management? 

    The answer – a modest goal – is to start by become a better friend to project designers rather than competing with designers for client affection! A competition the CDM-C will always lose.

    Designers are increasingly likely to face investigation and litigation when things go wrong on construction projects. Perhaps more so than the client.

    A proactive, involved and helpful CDM-C can provide greater protection for designers without usurping their role. By securing greater status in the eyes of the design community the CDM-C importance to the client will increase.

    Start with a clear understanding of how the CDM-C can assist designers

    The starting point is a clear understanding of the CDM-C role in relation to designers and thereafter engaging designers in a positive and cooperative way.

    The CDM-C has thee main responsibilities in respect of designers:

    Pre-construction information: the CDM-C should aim for excellence in assembling the PCI in a form and with content that designers find useful. The ACOP provides a good starting point to be infomed by talking with designers and finding out what they find useful;

    Coordination and cooperation: making and implementing sensible arrangements for coordination of H&S issues during planning and preparation will be welcomed if they enable designers to get with the job of design; and

    Designer compliance: the CDM-C must take all reasonable steps to ensure that designers comply with the duty to avoid risk during design preparation. Such involvement in relation to designer risk avoidance duties is more problematic.

    The CDM-C has tended to adopt two opposite positions, either second guessing design decisions or doing nothing. 

    Second guessing design judgements adds no value

    What is NOT required is second guessing of design decisions. The CDM-C role is about coordination not design.

    What IS required of the CDM-C is a systematic consideration of how designers on the project go about complying with their duties to avoid foreseeable risk etc.

    Designers must have a credible process for avoiding risk and passing on information on significant risks that remain. This CDM-C ‘check’ needs to be carried out in a spirit of cooperation and helpfulness.

    There is no one best way for designers to comply with their risk avoidance duties. The CDM-C should look for sound evidence of a compliant process and not a compliant design.

    When the CDM-C has ticked the ‘Designer Compliance’ box it provides protection for both designers and clients. If carried out in a spirit of openness and learning it should identify improvements to designer risk avoidance processes and outcomes.

    Remember, the CDM 2007 ACOP states that the CDM-C :” is not required to approve or check designs, although they have to be satisfied that the design process addresses the need to eliminate hazards and control risks

    Conclusion

    The CDM-C is a function not a person. At present this function is not highly regarded by other members of the project team.

    Understanding what the function involves vis-à-vis designers and delivering a quality service will increase CDM-C added value and influence in the eyes of designer and client alike.

    The next step is to repeat the process with contractors. The subject for a future article!

    ………….END………….

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    HSE TO OVERSEE NEW BUILDING SAFETY REGIME

    Government to deliver biggest change in building safety for a generation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st January 2020

    CONTRACTS MANAGER HANDED TWO YEAR PRISON TERM

    Safety fall arrest netting would have saved life of deceased workman

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th January 2020

    WORKER FATALLY INJURED BY CONCRETE BEAM

    Lifting operation not properly planned, managed and supervised

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th January 2020

    TREE FELLING OPERATIONS LACKED DEFINED COMMS

    Workman struck by falling tree inside “normal” exclusion zone

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    CONTRACTOR ARRESTED OVER WELFARE FAILINGS

    Recalcitrant sole trader failed to attend court hearing

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    MAJOR DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR FINED £500,000

    Collapse of concrete slab caused death of worker and excavator fall

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    FALL FROM LADDER WHILST CARRYING BUCKET

    Contractor failed to provide basic safe lifting aids

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH HSE NOTICE PROVES COSTLY

    Director given suspended jail term and company fined £60,000

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    DEVELOPER FAILED TO PLAN AND CHECK COMPETENCE

    Fall caused by ad-hoc working methods and lack of monitoring

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    CYLINDER LEAK TEST CAUSED FATAL INJURIES

    Corrosion inhibitor triggered failure and shrapnel ejection

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    FESTIVE GREETINGS TO ALL OUR READERS

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 20th December 2019

    JAIL TERM FOLLOWS ROUTINE HSE SPOT CHECK

    Director of a roofing firm handed a suspended prison sentence

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th December 2019

    TEENAGER FELL 3M DURING BLOCK AND BEAM WORK

    Workers uninstructed and left to devise own safe system of work

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th December 2019

    PARCEL CARRIER FINED HEAVILY OVER FLT INCIDENT

    Reversing fork lift lacked segregation from pedestrians

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2019

    CONTRACTOR FINED OVER FLOOR OPENING FALL

    Thorough risk assessment and edge protection were both inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2019

    THREE WORKERS “CARRIED ALONG” IN SEWER INCIDENT

    Mentally affected and one man treated for long-term traumatic stress

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2019

    SOLAR FIRM AND DIRECTOR SENTENCED OVER DEATH

    Brother of business owner died in fall during panel installation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th December 2019

    DIRECTOR AND COMPANY FINED FOR ASBESTOS RISK

    HSE refurbishment campaign inspection revealed asbestos offences

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th December 2019

    BULK BAG COLLAPSE CAUSED BY UNSAFE STACKING

    Bulk bag collapsed onto workman when struck by fork lift

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th December 2019

    INTERLOCKED GUARD NOT WORKING TO ISOLATE POWER

    Two workmen seriously injured when plant started unexpectedly

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th December 2019

    STREET FURNITURE RISK TO PUBLIC FINED £1.4M

    Council prosecuted following injury to child playing on hinged bollard

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th December 2019

    WORKMEN SUFFER SERIOUS BURNS FROM CABLE STRIKE

    Assessment and system of work failed to appreciate electrical risk

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th November 2019

    LADDERS WERE INAPPROPRIATE FOR WORK ON ROOF

    Workman paralysed after falling whilst installing roof ladder

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2019

    FIRM FAILED TO MANAGE EXHAUST VENTILATION

    HSE enforcement notices on wood dust and welding fume ignored

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th November 2019

    RECALCITRANT DIRECTOR BARRED FROM OFFICE

    Dangerous telehandler used despite earlier fatality and enforcement

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 25th November 2019
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data