DfS Review, Risk Assessment and Safe Work Procedure: What's the Difference?
A DfS review addresses risk arising from design decisions, before construction methods are finalised. A risk assessment and safe work procedure address how a specific task will actually be carried out on site. They are related, sequential, and not interchangeable.
Direct answer
Confusing these three is one of the more common gaps we see. A DfS review does not replace a Contractor's obligation to prepare risk assessments and safe work procedures for site activities, and a risk assessment does not retroactively fix a design that created an avoidable hazard in the first place.
Side by side
| DfS review | Risk assessment | Safe work procedure | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Owned by | Facilitated by DfSP; input from Developer, Designers, Contractor | Contractor | Contractor |
| Focus | Risk arising from design decisions | Risk arising from a specific work activity | How that activity is to be carried out safely |
| Timing | Concept through pre-construction, plus follow-ups | Before the activity is carried out | Before the activity is carried out |
| Output | Design Risk Record, DfS Register entry | Risk assessment document | Written procedure / method statement |
How they connect
A residual design risk recorded through DfS review often becomes an input to the Contractor's risk assessment — for example, a design decision that leaves work-at-height exposure should be flagged so the Contractor's risk assessment and safe work procedure address it directly on site. The DfS Register is the bridge that should carry that information from design into site planning.
Official references
- GuidanceWSH Council, Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines — Design for Safety — official source →
- RegulatorMinistry of Manpower, Workplace Safety and Health circulars — official source →