ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

1. Confirm implementation context

1.1 Project drivers/triggers, risks, risk management context, treatment options, priorities and practical constraints are clarified.

1.2 Applicable policies and procedures are identified.

1.3 Key stakeholders are identified along with their potential interests, sensitivities, roles and responsibilities.

2. Develop implementation plan

2.1 Risk(s) to be treated and current relevance of treatment option(s) confirmed.

2.2 Performance criteria for assessing the effectiveness of treatment implementation are established in consultation with stakeholders.

2.3 Treatment actions, resources required, milestones, budget, reporting procedures and roles and responsibilities of project team members are identified.

2.4 Implementation issues are identified and contingencies developed where necessary.

2.5 An agreed treatment plan is documented and submitted for approval in accordance with organisational policies and procedures.

3. Communicate the treatment plan

3.1 Processes to effectively consult and communicate about implementation are selected.

3.2 A consultation plan is developed and implemented.

4. Facilitate treatment plan implementation

4.1 Treatment tasks/activities are allocated in accordance with the implementation plan.

4.2 Effective communication between working group members is maintained.

4.3 Stakeholders are kept fully informed of progress, performance and any proposed variations in strategy or implementation.

4.4 Agreed variations to the treatment plan are introduced to accommodate changed circumstances or to achieve more effective outcomes.

5. Monitor and review treatment plan implementation

5.1 A review process is established in consultation with stakeholders.

5.2 Effectiveness of treatment activities, adequacy of resources, project progress and expenditure is monitored against plans, recorded and reported.

5.3 Implementation plans are adjusted as required following the review process.

5.4 Adjustments to implementation plans are communicated to stakeholders.

5.5 Residual risk is re-evaluated and a decision made whether to accept this risk or to re-visit the risk assessment.

This describes the essential skills and knowledge and their level, required for this unit.

Required Skills

networking and relationship building

ability to work effectively with stakeholder groups

ability to apply a range of communication media and methods to communicate with stakeholders

project planning and oversight

budgeting and phasing to measure progress against targets

Required Knowledge

emergency risk management concepts and principles included in the current National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines

jurisdictional, organisational and operational responsibilities for implementing risk treatment options

legislative and regulatory requirements relevant to implementing risk treatments

jurisdiction and organisational documentation and reporting procedures

project management techniques

options for communicating with stakeholders

analytical, problem solving and decision making techniques to facilitate monitoring progress against targets

Critical aspects for assessment and evidence required to demonstrate competency in this unit

Candidates must demonstrate that they have developed criteria to monitor implementation progress, actually monitored and reported on progress, and communicated and consulted with stakeholders.

Consistency in performance

Candidates should be expected to present evidence from at least two different contexts, one of which may be simulated.

Context of and specific resources for assessment

Context of assessment

Evidence of competence in this unit may be collected in a simulated environment and real environment, often as part of a larger project with concurrent assessment of other emergency risk management competencies.

Specific resources for assessment

For the demonstration of competence in this unit it will be necessary to participate in a real-world project.

Underpinning knowledge may be assessed through written assignments, project reports, debriefings and action learning projects in real or simulated environments.

Guidance information for assessment

This unit contains many transferable skills, such as communication, consultation, research and analysis skills that can be applied in the emergency risk management context. Assessors should use formative assessment strategies in a simulated environment to contextualise underpinning knowledge. Summative assessment requires application of the unit in a real-world project, often in an action-learning context.

This unit may be assessed with other units that address the whole emergency risk management process.

The Range Statement relates to the Unit of Competency as a whole. It allows for different work environments and situations that may affect performance. Bold italicised wording in the Performance Criteria is detailed below.

Drivers/triggers may include:

changes in community characteristics

changes in legislation, policies and disaster/emergency management plans

changes in insurance policies and premiums

new sources of risk or changed perception of risk

planning deficiencies

recent emergency incident reports/debriefs, safety issues

recent judicial decisions

strategic and corporate plans

Practical constraints may include:

arrangements, roles and responsibilities set down in existing emergency management plans

availability of technical expertise, technology, equipment

budgets, time, availability and capability of people

land use planning

legislation covering emergency management, environmental management, safety standards, local government regulations

limited community knowledge of emergency risk management processes and benefits

political, social and cultural considerations

Policies and procedures may include:

arrangements specified in legislation

organisational or jurisdictional emergency risk management policies or procedures

existing disaster plans, agreements or memoranda of understanding

local planning regulations, development controls and environmental plans

Stakeholders may include:

staff

client groups

decision makers

members of the public

community groups

industry groups

public and private sector organisations

non-government organisations

elected officials

Performance criteria for assessing the effectiveness of treatment implementation may include:

continuous monitoring of the maintenance of equity

continued involvement of stakeholders

cost effectiveness of treatment

evaluation of effectiveness in terms of actual risk reduction

the evaluation of the need for the redefinition of policy

a feedback mechanism

consideration of change that takes place over time