PUAEMR025 Manage risk treatment implementation

Release: 1

PUAEMR025 Manage risk treatment implementation

Modification History

PUAEMR025 Release 1:	Primary release.

Unit Descriptor

This unit describes the outcomes required to communicate, facilitate and review implementation of selected risk treatments.

Application of the Unit

This unit applies to managers or members of project teams responsible for implementing all or part of a risk treatment plan. It recognises that the manager or project team will commonly not have direct responsibility for implementing parts of the risk treatment plan. Such managers or teams may be working at local, regional or state level within local governments, emergency management committees, public safety agencies, major event managers or other organisations that need to understand emergency risk to a community.

No licencing, legislative, regulatory or certification requirements apply to this unit at the time of publication.

Licensing/Regulatory Information

Not applicable.

Pre-Requisites

Not applicable.

Employability Skills Information

This unit contains employability skills.

Elements and Performance Criteria Pre-Content

Elements describe the essential outcomes of a Unit of Competency.	Performance Criteria describe the required performance needed to demonstrate achievement of the element. Where bold italicised text is used, further information is detailed in the Range Statement. Assessment of performance is to be consistent with the Evidence Guide.

Elements and Performance Criteria

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.

Required Skills and Knowledge

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

Evidence Guide

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.

Range Statement

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

Unit Sector(s)

Not applicable.