Posted By Frank Neville Johnson
Can anyone help me? I feel I am becoming very sceptical and a bit cynical about 'numbers' being used to illustrate the outcome of a risk assessment i.e risk x severity = number. Is this a very clever ploy to represent an inferior subjective 'qualitative' auditing system as a scientifically based objective 'quantitative' one?

As a seasoned local authority fire safety inspector, presenting a manager of a factory with a series of numbers following my inspection will tell him/her what? If I include them in my report along with an explanation of what must be done, what purpose do they serve? Has anyone developed an enigma machine to make sense of this mess or should the use of numbers be banned altogether?

Can anyone explain the purpose of numbers in this context other than to confuse the unwary? I have to say I feel the same about the use of the terms 'High', 'Medium', and 'Low' in the same context so perhaps I am a bit out of touch. I do a lot of work for the MoD and they use a similar system, usually to confuse the enemy. Maybe I am missing something, is there a hidden regulation between MHSAW reg 3 and 4 which says 'thou shalt convert the risk assessment outcome into controls by means of numbers'. Am I on my own with this?

Posted By Zyggy Turek
Over the past years I have seen many different styles of risk assessment, some so complicated that I believe the assessor was attempting to make it into a science which could only be understood by the chosen few.
This of course is contrary to all the advice given out by the HSE which in essence is...keep it simple.
Yes, I believe that numerical systems do have a role to play & I remember in a previous life that colleagues had to calculate the likelihood of a plane crashing onto a high pressure gas holder on what was then a CIMAH site.
In my own sphere of life, i.e. Local Authority, I do not believe that you need to make it complicated & as the assessments are carried out by staff who are actually involved in the work (not by a H&S specialist), then a simple system is a great inducement for them to actually carry out the assessment after training.

The problem of any numerical formula is that if you get any one part of the equation wrong, then the end result is in doubt.

We do use the H/M/Low system, which can be subjective, but prior to any RA's being carried out, training is given which includes practical exercises.
The system, although not perfect (is there such a thing)has been critically appraised by the local HSE Inspectors, but as always, if there is something better out there, I am always looking for ways in which to improve!

Posted By Mark Preston
Jane Blunt (a forum contributor) touched on this in an article called "The 7 Deadly Sins of Risk Assessment" pp 23-25 in November's SHP (the numbers game is sin no. four) - I recommend it

Posted By peter gotch
We train our staff to record their risk assessments on a horses for courses basis, ie from the back of a fag packet through to a full blown nuclear safety case. We use all sorts of methods including qualitative, numeric, and QRA etc.

Numeric solutions can help in prioritising areas for attention (though not always the timescales - a smaller risk may be dealt with with much less effort and hence should sometimes be resolved more quickly).

However, I agree with previous respondents that numeric systems liable to Rubbish In Rubbish Out problems. Hence our advice to staff, clients etc is that any numeric assessment MUST be supported by qualitative assessment. If your gut feeling is that the numbers are wrong, they probably are!

p

Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Frank,

What interests me about the numbers issue is simply that nobody seems to think about the assumptions that go along with it. For example, the question of interval equality, as in 'is the size of the '4' box the same as the sizes of the '5' and '3' boxes'? And does a score of 12 mean something is twice as risky as a situation scoring 6 and half as risky as one scoring 24?

I think the numbers appeared when an engineer demanded 'Let there be numbers'. The trouble with engineers is that as soon as the you give them a number they want to manipulate it just as if it were a real number - square roots, standard deviations, variance and all that good stuff. And yes, I have seen them all applied to risk assessment values! .

Generally speaking, this issue is a prime example of the 'emperor's new clothes' problem, where everyone feels uncomfortable but nobody wants to be the first to mention it! Well done Jane for an excellent article. Hopefully some will have read it.

Allan

Posted By Stuart Nagle
Frank.

Frankly speaking (if you will forgive the pun), As an Engineer (please note Alan) I have an aversion to risk assessments that may be presented to me with numbers on purporting to show any form of quantative assessment.

Not only is it boring, but to the uninitiated, it is meaningless and therefore worthless in a real world sense...... At this point, in my experience, most persons having done the assessment now bug out and are usually hard to get hoild of again !!

If I were employing a Health & Safety Officer to do risk assessment of tasks, I would hope the following would be achieved, as I always try and do:

1. The person is suitably experienced and has a good grasp, if not some expertise in the work being risk assessed.

2. The person doing the risk assessment utilises the knowledge and experience of operatives doing the work and talks to them, exchanges ideas and ask questions on the manner in which the work is performed and the potential risks/hazards recognised by the operative(s), including their views on what they consider the 'High, Moderate or low risks are, and why.

3. That an opinion expressed in the risk assessment takes account of having examined the way the work/task is currently done, legislation - Codes of Practice and best practice, and comparisson made between these areas

4. The risk assessment, rather than a sheet of paper or several sheets of paper, is presented in such a manner that it interprets the information gained and recommendations/advice into a meaningful report of what is wrong, why it is wrong, what is required and how this will reduce the level of risk(s)

5. That the person carrying out the risk assessment will spend the time with me to explain the criteria of the assesment, the conclusions and reasons for action to be taken, the hierarchy in which matters should be addressed (most problamatic/dangerous/expedient, first) etc, and how, if possible, these improvements may be made.

6. Provide me with some form of a cost benefit analysis showing where additional costs or savings will, or are likely to be.

7. Finally, be able to do all this in a language that I understand, in terms that show his/her understanding of the area of work, and further, that I have a point of contact or references to refer to in undertaking what is required.

I don't think (with my 'customer' head on here) I am asking too much, only that The job is done professionally and at the end of the day it gives me what I need to ensure that I am doing everything, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure health and safety in my workplace.

am I asking too much?

Stuart Nagle

Posted By Frank Neville Johnson
Richard

If you were to interpret HSAWA s2(1) 'employer' to provide a safe place of work, with MHSAW r3 'employer' to carry out risk assessments, against MHSAW r6, competent persons to assist the employer. Then ask the question 'who is a competent person'? In most cases of any complexity I think you would end up with a safety professional either carrying out the risk assessment or training others to do so to a competent standard on behalf of the employer.

In theory and hopefully not by the use of numbers!

In practice, well that might be another debate.

Frank

Posted By Stuart Nagle
Richard.

Thank you for your well thought out response to my comments. I respond in similar manner below, which I feel, through my extensive management training, will reach the dizzy heights of your intelectual talent!!

I thought I read somewhere, yes, I am sure I did, that employers must have in their employement a person to undertake the role and duties, suitably competent of course, in respect of health and safety.

I'm sure that whats MHSAW (as revised) says, except of course if I can't get one, I can then get a consultant not in my employment to do it. yeah thats right....

Yes, I am sure of this.... So tell me... Who would you have do the risk assessments for me?, a competent person or the milkman...Richard... Go on make my day !!

Have a think about it, give it your best shot, I'm pretty sure i'm paying the H&S professional for something on the site, what do you think it could be....Richard... Richard....

Stuart Nagle

Posted By Ken Taylor
The fact is that the cat is either alive or dead irrespective of whether one opens the box - except that the moggy may die of asphyxia if no-one bothers to do so.

Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Ken,

'The fact is', to quote you, that the point is that death or life is unverifiable until it is observed. So we don't know/can't know which it is until we look, and the act of looking itself may be part of the process. Saying something is 'alive or dead' isn't a very helpful statement, is it? Just making the point, is all, not trying to provoke you!!

Allan

Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Sorry you didn't think the contribution helpful this time! With respect, I think it's you who is missing the point. Philosophically speaking, the issue is that 'reality' depends on observation for its existence! And does not, as you say, have an independence.

OK it's all theoretical, but as somebody trod on Schrodinger's cat's tail I thought I would have my say.

Enough said!

Allan