12.1 Project Requirements & Marking

12.1 Project Requirements & Marking

Quick Answer: The workplace risk assessment project is Part 2 of Managing Safely assessment. Using your provider’s IOSH-style template, assess a real (or realistically described) workplace, identify about four hazards from different syllabus categories, complete every required field (including 5×5 before and after further controls and a review date), and submit within the provider deadline (often about 14 days). Providers commonly mark it out of 38 with a pass near 23. You need a pass on both the project and the written paper for the certificate.

The written paper proves you can recall frameworks under time pressure. The project proves you can apply them where people actually work. Markers are not looking for consultant-level reports; they are looking for a competent line manager who can walk a workplace, name significant risks, score them honestly, improve controls with hierarchy thinking, and leave a usable record.

Why the project exists

Managing Safely is built for managers who own day-to-day decisions. The project forces you to:

• Connect hazard → who is harmed → how harm happens
• Distinguish existing controls from further controls
• Use the 5×5 matrix as a prioritisation tool, not decoration
• Choose specific controls (ERICPD-aware) rather than vague slogans
• Set ownership, timescales, and review so the assessment is live

If you treat the form as a box-ticking essay written at home with no link to real work, residual scores will not fall in a believable way and marks will suffer. If you treat it as a short, honest assessment of one area you know, the same form becomes straightforward.

What you typically produce

Exact layout and mark schemes are provider-administered within the IOSH-approved framework. Use your course pack as the final authority on field names and submission method (portal upload, email, paper). This guide describes the consensus pattern learners meet across well-known providers.

Dual pass — both parts required

A strong project does not rescue a failed paper, and a high paper score does not waive a incomplete or weak project. If you fail one part, contact the provider promptly for resit or resubmission rules and any fees. Do not assume a partial pass is banked indefinitely without checking their policy.

The four-hazard expectation

Most templates ask you to identify about four hazards. Quality beats quantity of trivial items. Choose hazards that are:

1. Significant and reasonably foreseeable for the workplace you describe
2. From different hazard categories where possible (for example physical, chemical, mechanical/transport, organisational)
3. Specific enough that who is at risk and how can be stated clearly
4. Controllable with realistic manager-level actions you can name

Why diversity of categories helps

Markers see hundreds of projects that list “wet floor,” “trailing cable,” “box on floor,” and “uneven paving” — four variants of the same slip/trip family. That may be honest for a pure office, but it shows weak use of the hazard category map taught on the course (physical, chemical, biological, mechanical, environmental, organisational — or the exact list in your materials).

A warehouse/office hybrid might instead show:

That spread proves you looked systematically, not only at the last near miss.

Fields to complete for each hazard (marking heart)

Think of each hazard as a row (or mini-section) that must stand alone. Typical fields:

1. Hazard / activity description

Name the source of potential harm and the work context. Prefer: “Operatives manually slide 20 kg cartons from floor-level pallets onto a packing bench during peak dispatch” over “manual handling.”

2. Who might be harmed and how

List groups (employees, agency staff, contractors, visitors, cleaners, maintenance, public if relevant) and a concrete harm pathway (slip → fracture; inhalation → respiratory irritation; struck by forklift → major injury). Include vulnerable groups when relevant (new starters, young workers, new or expectant mothers, people with health conditions).

3. Existing controls

What is already in place now? Be honest. Written procedures nobody follows are weak existing controls. Examples: mechanical aids available, induction training records, designated walkways, LEV, spill kits, speed limits, PPE issued and used.

4. Likelihood and consequence before further controls

Score current risk with existing controls only:

• L 1 (very unlikely) → 5 (very likely)
• C 1 (insignificant) → 5 (catastrophic)
• R = L × C (1–25)

Add one short justification if the form allows (“L3: task done many times daily with occasional awkward postures; C4: credible serious back injury”).

5. Additional / further controls

Propose improvements that would realistically lower L or C. Align with ERICPD: Eliminate → Reduce → Isolate → Control → PPE → Discipline. Prefer specific actions:

6. Residual likelihood × consequence

Re-score after the proposed controls. Residual should fall if controls are meaningful. A drop from 16 to 15 after “put up a poster” looks unconvincing. A drop from 12 to 6 after engineering or redesign looks coherent.

7. Review date (and often reviewer)

State when the assessment will be reviewed (for example 12 months for a stable activity, sooner for higher residual risk or changeable work). Review earlier if incidents, process change, or new people trigger it. An empty review box is an easy mark lost.

8. Introduction / workplace context (whole form)

Many templates open with a short introduction: site type, main activities, who completed the assessment, date, and scope (area or process covered). Fill it. Markers use it to judge whether hazards match the workplace.

Marking logic — how to clear ~23/38

Think of the mark scheme as rewarding completeness, correctness, realism, and improvement quality:

You do not need literary polish. You do need a form a marker can follow without guessing.

Easy marks many candidates leave on the table

1. Blank fields — empty residual scores, missing “who at risk,” no review date
2. No introduction — workplace never described
3. Identical residual and current scores with ambitious control lists
4. Copy-paste hazards that do not match the photo or description of the site
5. Vague controls that cannot be audited
6. Only one category repeated four times without justification
7. Missing timescales / owners when the template asks for them

Deadline discipline (~14 days)

Approved providers commonly require submission within about 14 days of the course ending. Rules vary — some online programmes use different portals or slightly different windows. Treat “about two weeks” as a planning default, then read your joining instructions and diary the exact date. Late projects create avoidable fails or admin delays even when the content is good.

After the course ends — first 48 hours

1. Photograph or note the real workplace areas you will assess (if allowed by site rules).
2. Draft the four hazard titles while the syllabus categories are fresh.
3. Check the template for mandatory signatures, word limits, and upload format.
4. Book a short walk-round with a colleague who knows the area.
5. Write residual scores only after you have named concrete further controls.

Manager checklist before upload

• Introduction/context complete
• Four (or required number) hazards described as activities, not one-word labels
• Categories reasonably diverse for the site
• Who at risk includes relevant groups and a harm pathway
• Existing controls are true of today
• Current L, C, and product completed
• Further controls specific and ERICPD-aware
• Residual L, C, and product lower (or honestly explained if consequence stays high)
• Review date set
• Owners/timescales filled if the form requires them
• Spelling clear enough for the marker
• Submitted by the provider deadline

Link to earlier chapters

• Assessing risks: five steps, 5×5 bands, residual risk language
• Controlling risks: ERICPD order and reasonably practicable choices
• Hazards modules: category map and specific control ideas (handling, chemicals, transport)
• Responsibilities: why recording significant findings matters for organisations (including the five-or-more employees recording principle taught on the course)

Complete the form as a manager who will still own these risks next month — that mindset scores well and matches real legal and moral duty.