Anchored in safety | Navigating BS 7883 for height protection

We trace the shift from improvised rooftop systems to rigorous, evidence-led height safety with BS 7883:2019 and BS 8681. In this episode, Omega Red's Tim Lee chats to host Nick Marshall and explains how to spot real competence, what good documentation looks like and why restraint and collective protection should lead design choices.

This includes:

• Evolution from 1997 anchors to system-based design
• Why restraint beats fall arrest for routine tasks
• Addressing fragile skylights and pendulum risks
• Technology shifts: load-limiting posts and membranes
• 2019 changes: named designer and documentation
• Retrospective compliance and uncovering hidden fixings
• Competence under BS 8681 and manufacturer approvals
• What good looks like in reports and technical files
• Rooftop strategy with PV arrays and edge protection
• Client due diligence and accountability across the supply chain

Thank you for watching or listening, we’ll see you in next month’s podcast!

Thank you for listening to Omega Red's podcast. All information was accurate at the time of recording.

Omega Red is a UK market leader in lightning protection, height safety, earthing and surge protection.

Visit our website

Follow us on LinkedIn

Transcript

Welcome And Mission

Nick Marshall 0:09

Hi everyone, I'm Nick Marshall, the Managing Director of Omega Red Group. I'd like to welcome you to another episode of Grounded in Safety. Anchored, Connected, Protected. A platform built to inform, educate and inspire those working in power earthing, lightning protection and high safety services from design, installation, asset management through to repairs and everything else in between.

Speaker 2 0:33

At Omega Red Group, we firmly believe knowledge shared is safety multiplied.

Tim Lee’s Path Into Height Safety

Speaker 2 0:38

This podcast opens real conversation with industry experts, sharing insights, experiences and practical guidance to help raise the standards across our sector. Whether you're on site, in the office or simply curious, there's something here for you. Our mission is simple, it's about raising the bar by connecting people, elevating expertise and championing safety in everything that we do.

Nick Marshall 1:01

Today we're diving into the world of height safety, thinking about how the industry has developed and changing standards and why it matters. I'm happy to say today that we're joined by Tim Lee, Omega Red Group's technical and compliance manager. Hi Tim. How are you? Are you okay?

Tim Lee 1:16

Very well, thank you.

Nick Marshall 1:17

Thank you for coming on to episode two of our podcast.

Tim Lee 1:19

Thank you for inviting me.

Nick Marshall 1:21

No problem at all. Um, just so our viewers get to know who you are, it's really good we start these podcasts off just to give a bit of pedigree of your background, how you got into the height safety market and kind of what drives you in the role. So can you just give our viewers a little bit of a background to Tim Lee?

Tim Lee 1:38

Uh yeah. Um, so I've been in the height safety industry for about 25 years.

Nick Marshall 1:42

You don't look old enough, Tim.

Tim Lee 1:45

Well, thank you very much. Um yeah, uh I think there's probably not a defined career path coming into height safety and I certainly didn't have one. By education I'm a scientist. I did a master's degree in oceanography and an honours degree in zoology. So that was my initial interest, and I worked for a couple of years as an oceanographer around the world and worked in the Galapagos and places like that.

Nick Marshall 2:15

You've you've seen some seen some places.

Tim Lee 2:18

But at a point I had to make the decision whether I continued on the world of academia and sort of PhD or perhaps a bit more of a structured career path, you know mortgage and family and that kind of stuff. Responsibilities, responsibilities. So I chose the latter and started actually with a height safety company. Well it wasn't even in the height safety division, it was in the inspection, structural inspection division as an abseil operative. Wow, so it was using abseil techniques to examine buildings, network rail structure, high-level buildings, condition surveys. Yes, I think maybe not a junkie, but I certainly enjoy the physical aspects of that and played rugby and always enjoyed that that sort of physical role and being out there in the real world, so to speak, I guess. But the rigours of scientific background and report writing and attention to detail transitioned well to that and once I was in that field a position came up in in the actual height safety department, which was designing and installing and testing height safety systems. I followed that path and worked my way up to head of the department, and that's how I got the start in the industry, really.

Nick Marshall 3:53

And what drives you in the role then?

Tim Lee 3:55

Um it probably sounds a little bit corny, but it's a combination of things. Firstly, it's an interesting field.

Nick Marshall 4:03

Yeah, um especially things have evolved now, and then we'll get into where where the highest industry has come from and where it is now.

Tim Lee 4:10

Absolutely. Um you see some very interesting places. You know, I've been to 10 Downing Street, Houses of Parliament, clambered around roller coasters and skyscrapers and um London Eye and all kinds of places. But the bottom line is what we do, if we look at the fundamentals of it, um what we do keeps people safe, saves lives as the end result. So it's a worthwhile pursuit. You can see what you've done to help a client has made a difference. So that's the kind of thing that you know on a day-to-day basis, um gets me out of bed.

Early Standards And The Wild West Era

Nick Marshall 4:46

Lovely. Well, it gives people real insight that says you're hanging off ropes, you're a junkie in regards to that general thing that you're looking for. You've got the the pragmatic approach based on what you've done previously as well, and getting to see some of the places that you've seen is uh a real eye-opener, but also you're working with people, aren't you in your different cultures, and we'll probably get into what culture looks like in customers' culture when we're adopting to these new standards. So, this podcast is all around BS 7883-2019. But obviously, that origin had a starting point didn't it? Um you've talked about being in the industry for 25 years, yeah. That started back in 1997, did that that British standard?

Tim Lee 5:27

Yes.

Nick Marshall 5:27

So you must have seen some significant changes in how that first started out. So if you could just give us some insight into how people used to adopt that and what were some of the misconceptions and how it was being applied.

Tim Lee 5:39

Yeah, I think 1997, um, and that's the first iteration of the standard that we were working to when I first came into the industry, it was very, very centric on individual anchor points, fixed anchor points. Quite vague about who, you know, responsibilities and design um criteria. It was very focused on the application of a set six kilonewton test pull on an anchor point. Yeah, the latest reiteration 2005 started to acknowledge the development, you know, technological developments. Manufacturers were producing wire-based systems, it wasn't just an individual anchor anymore, it was part of a much bigger component of an overall system. Development, a bit more of responsibilities and roles, levels of competence that were required to do this. Yeah, back at the start in '97, it was almost like a time-served grandfather's right kind of criteria. Through the iterations, and we'll talk about the latest ones, it's become a lot more defined. How do you evidence your competence? How do you how do you show that you're you're suitable, the right person, the right business to be to be designing these safety critical systems? Um so yeah, that that's the that's the that's the sort of the the big transitions. It's the technologies developed you know leaps and bounds, load limiting posts now that mean that the posts can be installed not down to steel structure or concrete deck, they can be fixed to the outer skin of a building membrane, a roof sheet. It means that there's a lot more adaptation, there's a lot more flexible approach. Systems can be installed places that that they couldn't use, yeah, they wouldn't used to be able to be to be used on.

Nick Marshall 7:32

Okay. And just going back then into that '97 view, what did you see as some of the real world failures and successes in how people are applying it? Because it's like anything you mentioned there, isn't it? That technology's changed, but back in '97 and people's mindset, we've all had to adapt to new technology and it gives you a different viewpoint. What were you seeing through that lens at that point in time?

Tim Lee 7:54

It was quite surprising on occasion. It was almost like the Wild West, you would suggest. It was unregulated, really. Um so you would see systems put in at a price point on occasion, the tick box exercise, you know, QS needed to see part of their work package for protection system. There wasn't really any due diligence done by that duty holder to say, how have you proven that that system going in is the right system, the right solution. So typically you would see on a price point a wire-based system along a ridge with anti-pendulum posts. It does a job, yeah, but there are better ways of doing that job. Um, and it didn't, that was promoting a fall arrest scenario rather than a work restraint.

Nick Marshall 8:41

What are the ramifications or the potential risks of doing so? It just gives a bit of detail.

Misuse, Fall Arrest vs Restraint

Tim Lee 8:46

Yeah, um, the first criteria, if you just had a single system and then anti-pendulum posts, that predisposes that you're going to use a very long lanyard reaching out from that central wire to get to the edges of the roof, the corners of the roof. Yeah. Potential misuse, if you don't if you don't clip to the anti-pendulum post, you could take a pendulum for and could hit the floor before it stopped you.

Nick Marshall 9:11

So defeats it. Kind of defeats the purpose, yeah.

Tim Lee 9:15

Um but that was the cheapest solution.

Nick Marshall 9:17

Yeah, got that.

Tim Lee 9:19

Alternatively, if a system was rooted in restraint, 2.3 metres back from a roof edge on a two-metre lanyard fixed to a to a harness, the operator physically cannot get over the roof edge. You're removing the potential for fall. You're removing if somebody's fallen, they would need to be rescued. So you need to have that as part of your work scope. People need to have a rescue kit with them. You can't depend on the third party to rescue you.

Nick Marshall 9:43

Absolutely.

Tim Lee 9:45

You've got the potential for suspension trauma. You should not be promoting a fall arrest scenario for work restraint or by preference, collectively protected workspace, guardrail, operatives have got no potential to fall. So that that's the yeah, we we would see quite frequently systems rooted that were actively promoting a fall protection route, or even systems that were rooted over fragile skylights. Perception of safety, I'm attached to a system, happy days. Actually, if I just follow the route of that system, I am going to step on a fragile skylight. These are the kind of things that perhaps you know a system designer had a concept, it was compromised by price, or worst case scenario, an installation team were given a bundle of components and said put a system on there with no overarching design criteria, no design drawing for them to work from, no agreed principle.

Nick Marshall 10:53

So you've got ambiguity, I guess. It's how I interpret how I'm going to lay that out on the field.

Tim Lee 10:58

Yeah, and who was held responsible? Yeah, whose name is on the bit of paper at the end of the day? If somebody's not taking overall responsibility, there's too many ways that that can be compromised, really.

Nick Marshall 11:09

And I'm guessing that based on what you were saying there as well, in regards to technology driving the standards, I'm guessing in '97 and onwards, modern kind of building design started to change, people started to re-look at like ways and means of how buildings would be structured, weren't it? Did you start to see some impact in those areas? And that probably drove some of the standard changes?

Tech Advances And Building Impacts

Tim Lee 11:30

Absolutely, yeah. I think the two are hand in hand, really. Yeah. Historically, you were sort of looking at Victorian engineering almost that you were, you know, big heavy posts bolted back to the structural steel work or the concrete slab or whatever it may be. Developments of system design meant a system mounting post could be designed that under load deployed reduced the shock load or the force back to the building envelope. It meant that these systems could be actually fixed to the top skin, the metal roof sheet of the building rather than going and penetrating through. So when you're looking at U-values and the thermodynamics and coal bridging, I think you're removing that kind of compromise to the building performance. Um so yeah, though those kind of developments meant that these systems offered you the chance to fix systems to the top the outer membranes of roofs. But again, they're easily installed. That opened up the field to a lot of players that again you'll see systems mounted on top of roofs that perhaps aren't rooted as well as they could be or should be. System development and progress, unless it's controlled by regulation, again means there are loopholes and ways that systems can be compromised, and end of the day, people's safety is compromised.

Nick Marshall 12:58

Yeah, and I think we mentioned didn't we in some of those examples there that the less that you can reduce ambiguity and then you've got that set structure of how you're applying the standards, the evidence that sits behind it, the design phase and making sure that people have got roles defined in there is very, very clear and easier to manage, measure success in those areas. So you mentioned '97, some changes in 2005, and then obviously we get to the new standard in 2019. So if you look at where we are now, what's changed fundamentally from where its origination started from? Just give our listeners an up-to-date view now of 'these are the significant changes'.

Tim Lee 13:43

So the principle's always the same. If you're designing and installing a system, it should be safe to use and it should be fit for purpose.

Tim Lee 13:51

2019 has recognised or addressed the fact that there were loopholes, there weren't very clear defined system designer, a named system designer must be overall responsible for that system. The supporting documentation, the levels of detail required, verification that a structural engineer has verified that that structure can sustain the potential loads. You're evidencing any hidden elements, how have they been installed? What drill depth have you used into concrete slab? What resin have you used to fix your stud? What locking element, once that's covered up by a roof membrane, what's stopping that loosening? What locking elements have you used to ensure that it maintains integrity? If it's a hidden element, are you using corrosion-resistant materials?

Tim Lee 14:47

One of the things that 2019 has is really highlighted that it is retrospectively applicable. Systems that used to pass no longer can because they haven't got the level of supporting documentation. We've uncovered posts and found severe corrosion, or in some instances, fixings that have not been installed properly. But historically, for the past 10 years, that system looks okay. Assumptions were made. Safety critical. We can't make assumptions. How are you clearly evidencing that that system is safe to use?

Tim Lee 15:21

And that's the big change, the big additional requirements of the standard as it is now, is it's that level of documentation. It's that proof that what you've done is what you said you were going to do, and that also you've been diligent in how you've arrived at that solution.

Nick Marshall 15:41

Yeah. Essentially it's like having an MOT isn't it, but then you go to the garage where you get an MOT with nothing that says, well, if it's failed it, why has it failed it? And then you get the videos, don't you, from the garage now showing exactly the work that's been undertaken. It's the same principle actually. You're thinking people have been working at height all this time, sure that should have been in play previous to probably 2019, but it's the evolving world of the height safety industry, isn't it?

Tim Lee 16:05

That's right, exactly that.

Nick Marshall 16:07

And I think in some of those examples as well, you were talking about some of the intricacies and the technical components that go in there. So if I think about the technical skills that are required, you've got kind of design there, haven't you? The installation, the test and repair. What are some of the roles that are coming out there that people need to undertake and that the competency is required to do so?

What 2019 Changed: Documentation

Tim Lee 16:27

So that, and this ties into 8681, this is the other thing to be clear that 7883 is not a standard in isolation. It relates to 795 compliant anchor points. It also ties into 8681, which relates to the competency of people that are providing bike safety solutions.

Nick Marshall 16:46

I think we'll get on to competency a little bit later on. But yeah, I think it's tying those together into it.

Tim Lee 16:51

It's not standard by itself, yeah, it's more of a holistic approach, and it's how you're evidencing that you're competent. The 8681 standard, and 7883 has, introduced the concept of the, as I've mentioned numerous times, system designer, person that is responsible for that system. You've also then got installer, engineers on the site, you've got in a potential inspector, somebody that comes back, and it's not necessarily the same company that has installed that will be inspecting. So 7883 is very clear about at point of installation, you're doing a series and raft of inspections, tests. You then also need to be telling subsequent people, maybe not in your own company, what exactly what they need to be doing to test and inspect that system. Periodicity, hidden elements, how frequently should they be uncovered, what portion should be uncovered, how are you documenting it. Yeah, it's a much more robust framework.

Nick Marshall 17:56

Yeah, just listening to that example is making sure that you're passing on to that next person insight, knowledge, so they can do their job competently, whereas previously there's probably been a mishmash of different information or no information whatsoever, and people are then assuming that that is safe to use.

Tim Lee 18:15

Exactly that. Or they're applying a specific test load because they think that's the right load. It might not represent what actually that system would be subjected to. So again, very prescriptive telling you in the O and M test criteria, how you apply it, when you do it.

Nick Marshall 18:40

Okay. On these podcasts we're trying to educate customers and give them the chance to look through a lens that goes, actually, what do I need to look for? What does good look like? Because I'm actually gonna hold you to account to make sure all that information that you've just provided is actually in play and people are delivering to the right standard. So, what does good look like then? What information should a client, customer, what be given at the end of that process, the start of that process is where you'd be going, if I'm getting it, great, but if not, alarm bells. It goes back to the competence, then does it potentially of the provider? What what should I be looking for for what good looks like?

Tim Lee 19:21

If I was looking to employ a height safety company, I'd be asking, can you evidence the competence of your system designer? What are their credentials?

Nick Marshall 19:32

What would you be looking for then in those areas though?

Roles, Competence And Linked Standards

Tim Lee 19:34

Again, 8681 is quite prescriptive. You're looking at specific NVQ levels, level five for a designer, level three for an inspector or an installer. So that's quite prescriptive. You're also then looking at level of experience qualifications. Have they got a background in engineering? Have they got a degree for a designer, for example? Are you manufacturer approved for the system you're proposing to install? There's very specific training provided by manufacturers. Each system has different idiosyncratic testing requirements, very specific number of swages, swage test. If you apply the wrong test load, you can quite easily damage or render unusable or unsafe proprietary products. So you're looking at evidence and competency.

Nick Marshall 20:25

So I'm guessing then when you talk about that from a prior to like looking at people being on the relevant manufacturer's training and so they know exactly the nuances that how that operates, because actually I could be doing a different pull test based on its requirements.

Tim Lee 20:38

Yes, exactly that. I'd also then be asking, can you give me some examples of your test certification? Your technical file, O and M when you've installed a system. Give me some examples. Show me how you've mapped it against the standard, how you're meeting the requirements of the standard in your delivered documentation. Photographic evidence of hidden elements, evidence of tests, test loads, proof tests are applied, why you've applied that load, structural engineers' calculations saying that concrete slab, that steel beam can take that potential load. Manufacturers' declarations of conformity, delivery notes saying these are the materials that we've ordered and that have been installed on site. Yeah, there's a whole raft of documentation evidence to say this system's safe to use.

Nick Marshall 21:34

And it's that granularity, isn't it? It's no matter at what point you can lift it up, have a look underneath, you think you're looking for the substance that sits there, and ultimately it's all anchored back though to level of competence as well. Because I could have all the right kit and caboodle in place, but actually the composite then to apply and install in the right way, do the right calculations from a load bearing perspective. There's a hell of a lot there than an onus on the provider of that service then to make sure that they are competent, but we'll talk about that a little bit more detail.

Nick Marshall 22:07

When you get called into a site, what sort of things are you seeing now then? Because I'm guessing from that starting point to where we are now, and just for people to know what they should be measuring a provider against as well, when you get called in, what are customers saying to you and why they're calling you and what's that look like?

Client Awareness And Accountability

Tim Lee 22:27

I think when we were looking at, when 7883 through 2019, and we have to acknowledge that COVID hit so there was a little bit of a delay in its adoption, and because of the industry recognised some of its impacts, there was a little bit of a delay in its uptake. Initially, a lot of client conversations were 'This has always passed, why has it now failed?'. It was an education piece, and it was this discussion we're having because there isn't the supporting documentation. We, as the certifying party, cannot say we are 100% sure that that system's safe to use. So there was that education piece that as I say, systems passed, now it's failing. So almost there's you know, there seems to be a lot more awareness across client bases now where they're almost saying, 'Why is the system passing?'. There's almost an expectation.

Nick Marshall 23:25

Which is great.

Tim Lee 23:25

Which is great, because that's how it should be.

Nick Marshall 23:27

We're educating people and we're making them hold us to account as the providers in our industry, and I think that's really important.

Nick Marshall 23:33

Going back to what we managed to write at the start of the podcast, this is about keeping people safe. So we should be able to be challenged around those areas and saying, 'Show me everything that evidences in those areas'. So I think it's been great for the industry.

Tim Lee 23:45

It has, it has, it really has. That just because you've got a bit of paper, system's passed. Well, how has it passed? What has enabled you to say that system is safe to use? That's what it always comes back to. How are you evidencing that system is safe to use?

Tim Lee 24:02

And that awareness is, from a client interaction now, it's actually that there is that level of awareness, and particularly that coming on to it, I think 8681. People appointing height safety specialists have a duty of care. Have you done your due diligence to evidence that you are the right person to be giving this solution to us? So, yeah.

Nick Marshall 24:28

I know from working alongside you and going out and doing some customer visits, because again, the customer always keeps you honestly and you want to make sure that we're giving the right level of service. I know that one of the starting points for you is about making sure you just understand that rooftop strategy, first of all, because how can I give you a design and make sure it's fit for purpose?

Nick Marshall 24:48

So just talk us through kind of some of the methodology that you use in there. And have you got a case study where that's happened, with a client where we've you've gone, we've had to start the conversation, it's not fit for purpose, but let's go back to the start because actually, was that the right strategy for you to start off with?

Rooftop Strategy And PV Arrays

Tim Lee 25:04

Exactly. You're absolutely right. That always the starting criteria. Why do you need to access that point? What area, you know, you can have a large roof, do you need to access all of the roof, a portion of the roof? Can we give you a designated safe workspace within a larger roof area? Has something changed on that roof that means that you now need to do something that you weren't doing before, and you know, we've got some great case studies with developments on building developments and energy production, PVRAs, you know, roof spaces that were not previously being accessed are now being accessed in PVRAs, people having to get up there to service them, maintain them, clean them.

Tim Lee 25:48

That's one of the big developments. And typically PVRAs going onto a roof space, they want to maximise that layout. So by definition, they're right up to the roof edge. Or they're right next to a fragile skylight. You've got to address all these. Uh-huh. Assist a wire system rooted at 2.3 meters back is going to compromise your PVRA layout. So these are the conversations that we're having. And sometimes the PVRA's gone in, it's like, well, actually, we need to make it safe now. So then you are looking at collective protection at the roof edge and skylight covers to remove so that entire roof space becomes a safe area.

Tim Lee 26:30

Yeah, it's understanding exactly what needs to be done, why you're doing it, the level of competence of people that are going up there. That's always a key one. Just because you've got a system, are the people using it competent to be using that system? Those are the kind of criteria.

Tim Lee 26:46

There's some very complex high-profile buildings that we get involved with where historically systems have been in place, they've been used, and they are no longer compliant against the standard. It's almost a reset. You've used a wire-based system there, personal for protection, it's almost a clean slate. You should really be considering going up the hierarchy of control measures. Collective protection is a first priority. That's one of the things that this latest iteration of the standard has driven, is that if you're condemning a system, why would you just put in like for like? Let's have a think about how we would elevate safety across the site.

Nick Marshall 27:26

Throughout this podcast, you've been talking about 8681 and about how that now plays alongside 7883. So just gonna give our viewers a bit of a breakdown about what BS 8681 is looking at when it comes to demonstration of competency of the individual. And again, what does good look like in those areas? Because I'm guessing they'll see an array of different people turn up to their site that's in this market. Um they need to look at what good looks like and the evidence that sits behind it.

Redesigning To Collective Protection

Tim Lee 27:58

Well, uh, yeah, I think we've touched on it that you know, there are the very specific defined roles: system designer, system installer, system inspector, support operative. Each one of those as the standard now is quite prescriptive on the level of qualification they should have. So show me your qualifications. If you're a system designer, what is your what is your education?

Nick Marshall 28:20

Yes.

Tim Lee 28:21

How have you evidenced that you have knowledge of the industry, you have knowledge of different manufacturers, you have knowledge of engineering principles, you understand that a point load on a wire system can be magnified greatly at the endpoints, and then you have to apply a factor of safety to those endpoints as well. So, what is the resultant design load going to be back to the structure?

Tim Lee 28:45

These kind of criteria that, how are you showing me that you're the right person to do this task on this site? Show me some examples of what you've done before. That's the kind of thing. It's not just about the individual as well, it's how as a business, how are you showing that you are controlling that process, that you're making sure that all the operatives, you haven't just got one superstar, you know, everyone's playing at the same level or being brought to that level. Are your systems robust? Or is your documentation mapped against the standard? Does your test criteria evidence that you've done each point that a manufacturer requires you to do to say that that system's installed as they would require it to be?

Nick Marshall 29:31

So it's changed significantly when it comes to the competency levels, the internet. I suppose it's some of the behaviours that people start to demonstrate as well, isn't it?

Nick Marshall 29:40

And what have you seen in the way of the interaction with customers in what they're looking for in our competency levels and the levels of checking with you before we get into site when we send it with the probably with the RAMs and about coming to site? How vigorous are customers in making sure and are they aware of 8681 and how that's been applied? Because it all takes about momentum, isn't it? And that's fairly new into the market.

Proving Competence And Evidence Packs

Speaker 1 30:03

So 2024 was its first iteration. There is awareness, there's a growing awareness, but I think it's incumbent as you know on us in the industry to to also push it from our end.

Tim Lee 30:15

I think, as I mentioned, I think there is a knowledge across the client base now that of 7883 and why systems are failing. And as I say, the question is almost well, how are you justifying that systems are passed now? Which is a great, great position to be in. The evidencing of competence from clients, you know, most tender enquiries now, or you know, if you're looking at producing RAMs or produced a RAMs last week and the client was asking for evidence of competencies, great stuff, which is as it should be.

Nick Marshall 30:56

Absolutely, and that's it. We've been held to account to say, are you gonna deliver and make sure that I'm compliant in each of these areas? So it's great to see, and we've said it's about part of this podcast is about raising the bar, and these standards are taking us to another level, and it's that level of accountability.

Tim Lee 31:11

It is, it is, and it's becoming, as I said, back in '97, a little bit of the Wild West. Unregulated largely, to where we are now, is a massive development, and it's driving that base level of competence and being able to show that the systems we're installing or putting our names to and testing, end of the day, they're safe to use. And yeah, they will save lives.

Nick Marshall 31:44

Well, that's a great place to be isn't it.

Nick Marshall 31:46

So we've covered off quite a bit there, Tim, and I think it's been great, and how you brought that to life and just trying to clearly articulate all the different components, and we didn't want to go into too much detail, it was a starter for ten in these podcasts, and we'll probably spend more time as we go through some of our extra episodes and really probably going a little bit more technical.

Nick Marshall 32:05

If you think about some of the golden nuggets and takeaway, if I've got supplier coming to site to give a service, what are the things that I should be looking at as a customer, before I'm allowing that person onto the premises.

Tim Lee 32:20

It comes back to, it's not take my word for it, it's ' here is the evidence that I am going to give you best advice based on clear rationale'. I understand exactly why a system should be designed how it is, and what is the best solution to keep the people that you're putting to work safe. It's basically, how are you evidencing your competence.

Nick Marshall 32:57

And what about the reporting then, just in terms of some of the nuggets you'd be looking for? Because I think that's an area, isn't it, where you turn around and go...

What Good Looks Like In Reports

Tim Lee 33:04

That's clearly demonstrable, yeah. So yeah, if you were looking at a sort of certification that somebody had provided for a system, you would want to be saying, how are you evidencing that that's mapped against the standard?

Nick Marshall 33:22

Yeah.

Tim Lee 33:23

How are you showing that you're compliant to what the standard requires? So it would be clearly itemising roles and responsibilities, who's done what, what their qualifications are, what exactly they've done and why they've done it.

Tim Lee 33:40

It's many manufacturer-specific items, swage tests to whatever kilonewtons, proof test of if it's hidden fixings on a toggle fix proprietary post. Have you done an actual pull test to prove that those fixings have engaged? Have you got photographic evidence of that? There should be photos! There must be photos. It's not 'Well, we did that, tick.'. We did that, here's the evidence.

Tim Lee 34:10

Torque tests. Are you evidencing the torque test you've applied? Does your certificate say this system is compliant? It can be compliant to the manufacturer's requirements, doesn't mean it's safe to use. In isolation, a system could be well installed, right on the edge of a roof. What's the bigger picture? Is there a statement saying this system is safe to use with this certain PPE and this will mean that you are working in restraint? Is it very clear and prescriptive? What scenario is it providing?

Nick Marshall 34:45

Yeah.

Tim Lee 34:47

And if an operative uses that right selection of PPE, they will be safe.

Nick Marshall 34:52

I'm right in saying either some of the calibration of the kit, whether actually doing remote tests.

Tim Lee 34:57

Absolutely, yeah. Yeah, you're quite right.

Nick Marshall 34:59

But one of the things sometimes that people overlook is you've got I've got the one doing it and they've got the evidence, but actually, is the kit that they've used to start off with giving them the right readings.

Tim Lee 35:07

And that you're quite right, that maps back to the standard. What kit have you used? Hydraulic test meter, is it in calibration? Prove make where's your calibration to it? Is that embedded in that report? It's that kind of granularity. There's nothing to hide. This is what we're doing, this is why we've done it. This is why we're now saying you can use that system.

Nick Marshall 35:27

Yeah. Which just thinking about where it's come from to where it is now, massive, massive shifts isn't it.

Nick Marshall 35:33

What's the kind of the final takeaway for you then? What do people just need to think about?

Final Takeaways And Looking Ahead

Tim Lee 35:40

The bottom line is always, is that system safe to use? Have I done everything I can as either the person that's designing or specifying or installing that system, or the person that's employing somebody to maintain that system, the person that's putting their guys to work to use that system? Can you categorically say that system is safe to use? You can only do that if you can evidence it. Would you use that system yourself? Would you put your family members on that system?

Nick Marshall 36:09

That's the acid testing.

Tim Lee 36:10

That's the acid test.

Nick Marshall 36:12

Listen, really great that you've given us so much insight there. Thank you for your time. Hopefully, people have taken a lot where the purpose behind these podcasts is just to get people to think, and maybe there is that realisation as actually we do some of those elements or we don't do some of these, and getting people to really think about how they're managing their supply chain.

Nick Marshall 36:35

Ultimately, if we can raise a bar in what people observing and assessing, and keeping people like ourselves as the provider of those services held to account, then we keep elevating and making sure that we're taking our industry into the right area. And you've seen massive changes in 25 years, it'd be great to see what it looks like in another five years with technical advancements as well, isn't it?

Tim Lee 36:58

It will, it will, and that that's one of the joys of the industry. There is always something new. And that again that's one of our responsibilities, to keep abreast of new developments and embrace them and put them into the real-world scenario.

Nick Marshall 37:12

Yeah, and I think part of the mechanism as well, and part of your role as our compliance technical manager, sat on the technical committee. We've got some real substance now that sits behind holding ourselves to account as a business, and I suppose that's really important that you'd be looking for in other organisations is how well is that technical committee looking at that forward view.

Tim Lee 37:33

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Nick Marshall 37:35

What do you see in way of the technical committee in some of these deliverables?

Tim Lee 37:39

I think it's ensuring that it's a uniformity of quality, it's best in practice is adopted. It's not an outlier. This is what we do as a collective. It's that if you're dealing with us as a business, you can expect this level of criteria, level of performance across the board. That's one of the things. And as you say, keeping people aware of latest changes, developments, things are always progressing. Are we adopting them or are we making sure that we're ahead of the curve.

Closing And Next Month’s Preview

Nick Marshall 38:17

It's always feeding back into 86 81, isn't it? It's about, talk about that level of competency because if things are changing, is what's coming down the pipe, and how do we make sure then that we're keeping that level of competence and kicking the skill set of the team further forward to make sure then that we are doing best in class.

Nick Marshall 38:34

Well, Tim, really thank you for your time. I've enjoyed the conversation and like I say, 25 years in the industry. Let's see what it looks like in another 10 years' time. So thank you very much.

Tim Lee 38:46

My pleasure.

Nick Marshall 38:46

All it means to do now is to say um thank you for watching and listening to the podcast. #

Nick Marshall 38:52

Next month we'll be talking with our project manager for Power Earthing, which is Dave Willetts. Dave is looking after special projects, and again, he will start to give us some insight in regards to what it looks like in way of implementation of Power Earthing, what the deliverables are, and ultimately what does a good project look like from design through to delivery? And that's just our ways and means of educating people in all our different disciplines from an Omega Red perspective.

Nick Marshall 39:23

So I'd like to say thank you for watching or listening, depending on how you're consuming it, and we'll see you in next month's podcast. Thanks for your time.