Safety Documentation 2

[drawoh]

I am working for a manufacturer and I am quoting on a new job, where we will provide some, and possibly quite a bit of design support. I can see a significant safety hazard on the new product. The customers are engineers, and there is no reason to question their competence, professionalism and ethics. We need to manage the safety hazard. The hazard is outside my area of expertise.

I want to request a safety study that identifies the hazard, and explains why it actually is not a hazard. This can be design rules for me to follow, or it can be something the customer does to eliminate the hazard. There likely would be deliverables from all sorts of people working on the project.

Does this sound like a reasonable strategy to everyone? Is there a generic QA standard I can reference? Any thoughts?

--
JHG

 

[BrianPetersen]

Is there a risk assessment for the process/job/product? If not, perhaps there should be.

 

[CWB1]

The various DFMEAs should be driving all decision-making relating to risk and mitigation including specifying any safety studies. Whether or not you need to explicitly require DFMEAs be completed as a term in the quote/contract is a matter of debate. I've known execs and PMs who worry that minutia will cause customers to go elsewhere, personally I've always seen it as a hedge against frugal customers trying to demand we skip a critical step in the CYA process.

 

[LittleInch]

Sounds like you need to ask for a HAZID workshop to me, run by an independent chair.

The HAZID process is well documented.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.