Location and location type

[Ali_ben]

hello expert

What is the difference between location and location type and location classification in incident management and risk assessment?

I need to examples.

Kind Regards

[michaelf_]

Hi Ali,

indeed, the difference between the Location, Location Type, and Location Classification can be a bit misleading. However, let me give you a few examples to clarify.

The Location is a physical site/plant/workarea. Often, its data is integrated from the Plant Maintenance Functional Locations (and Equipments). Location is Master Data.

As an example for the Location and Location Structure, we can have a look at SAP's locations (from top-down):

• Global
• Europe
• Germany
• Walldorf
• Building 01
• ...

Based on your requirements, it's often sufficient to restrict the level of detail. With the Location Structure you have the possibility to drill-down and aggregate the data.

The Location Type is used to type the physical locations. Often, the values are used to create a taxonomy of locations. Location Type is customizing.

Following the example above, we can set up some Location Types:

• Global, Location Type: Company
• Europe, Location Type: Region
• Germany, Location Type: Country
• Walldorf, Location Type: Subsidiary
• Building 01, Location Type: Building
• ...

With the example above, we created a clear structure of the Locations. Sometimes, it might be required to have more generic location types at the bottom levels of the location structures, as the locations put there differ (e. g. Office vs. Machine vs. Storage vs. ...).

The Location Classifier is used to further classify the location where an incident happened. However, in some scenarios (when using a very detailed location structure), the Location Classifier might become obsolete. The location classifier is customizing.

Again, with the example above, reporting an Incident at Building 01 might not give us enough information in terms of analytical reporting. We wouldn't know if the incident happened in a staircase, ramp, loading dock, etc. Therefore, we can further classify in here.

Coming from an EHS Incident Management point of view, we want to encourage people to report as many incidents and observations as possible. Therefore, the location structure should be kept to a minimum. With some enhancements, we can make the users report on the lowest level possible tough (as an observation on Europe might not add too much value and requires manual intervention). The location classifier will add value here to find the kind of locations with the most observations, most incidents, etc.

Judging from an EHS Risk Assessment point of view, we want to create the Risk Assessments (especially the ones related to Jobs, JHA), at the place where the work is really done. Hence, a more detailed structure will be required. With an integration to the Plant Maintenance module, these could be the Functional Locations, Equipments, or Work Centers. However, more general Risk Assessments can also be created on a higher level.

With EHS Environment Management, especially the emissions part, any place which may cause emissions can be modelled as a location. In here, you can also use the Location Classifiers at a location to further define the values sampled, and therefore the aggregation of the emissions up to the top level.

From my experience, the most important things to consider when it comes to Locations is the taxonomy of the Location Structure with a properly defined structure (based on the Location Types). You should either integrate with Plant Maintenance or use a generic structure which is not part of frequent changes.

With kind regards,

Michael