Any matrix can only provide guidance on relative risk levels when used by a competent person and they are useful as a guidance to the particular risk areas of a task that are creating the higher risks ie on prioritising the specific hazards that need more attention for control. Never use them to give an absolute risk measure as they cannot do this because the real information on failure rates is simply not available Bob

I understand that the HSE hosted a meeting for H&S Consultants at Duxford late last year.... Nov? I have heard someone who attended this event state in a public lecture, at an IOSH Branch meeting, that an HSE speaker said that 5x5 and similar matrices should not be used, that they were never recommended and were not promoted in the HSE guidance on risk assessment. All hearsay but thought it might be worth passing on. Phil

To take the question back a bit, for what purpose do you use the matrix? If used honestly as part of the management process,a scoring matrix can be very useful for the employer to enable him to identify where his priorities for risk reduction resources should be applied. This approach is exactly the same as that applied in a wider "risk management" context. In other words, a numeric scoring matrix can be a useful management tool. If you use it, and it works for you, I wouldn't be bothered about what other people or guidance documents say? I've yet to find any other valid purpose for a scoring matrix. By the time the R/A goes "live" as a reference part of the Safe System of Work, all scores should be down towards the bottom end anyway. The numbers are therefore quite irrelevant to the man with the tools. As for those who do "before" and "after" scores on working R/A pro-formas.........I despair. Unfortunately this before/after approach is included in IOSH Managing Safely training and there is I think a real danger that people are going back to their workplace and mistakenly apply it outwith the training room!!!

I'm with Ron Hunter on this. One has to bear in mind the end user of the RA. A matrix will be serve no useful purpose for him or her, all they want to know is "What are the risks and how do I mitigate them so that they are as low as is reasonably practicable". The matrix will only be of benefit to managers who are trained in health and safety and who might want to know the process behind the RA's findings. As an aside I don't think you should bow to pressure from anybody when it comes to the format of the RA. There is no legal requirement to adopt a particular format and as a trained practitioner it is up to you to decide what the best format is.

IOSH Technical Affairs department should provide a definitive answer to this excellent question. Such divergent opinions of individuals are most important, but at the cutting end who is going to appear in the dock if the assessor get it wrong?. The guy/or lass who undertook the assessment! On my last count I recorded 9 different "approaches" to the risk assessment process. Clearly, all professionals need guidance on this essential point. Is it not time we had that support from both the Regulators and IOSH? Discuss. Jon

Etchell3907 Hence why the HSE 5 steps is actually 7 or 8 - they are not the experts on working risk assessments they are the enforcers Bob

Don't remember seeing any matrices or ixs in the ACOP to the Management Regs when they first came out...... I blame NEBOSH and to answer the question there never was/ is / has been any legal requirement to use them - hope that is clear enough as an answer to the question Kind regards Bruce

To answer Geoff; Risk Assessment is a management tool and managers are busy people. Spending time repeatedly stating the blindingly obvious with "before" scoring ('If I don't apply controls, the risk score will be high' - well.... duh!) is a waste of everyone's valuable time and essentially patronising (same goes for its inclusion in IOSH Managing Safely IMHO). Wasting everyone's time is not useful. I'm generally 'for' matrices, but in the limited context I stated previously. A third multiplier considering population affected can sometimes be useful too. All that said, those coming to Risk Assessment for the first time can all too often get hung-up on the numbers. This is particularly true in my experience for technical people (engineers, architects etc.) who work with numbers every day. The will agonise over a number choice and all too often if left to their own devices can tend to loose sight of the proper objective of the exercise, i.e. 'am I doing enough or should I be doing more'. This is when I often despair - forget the numbers, manage the risk! For those reasons I never mention numeric scoring in CDM Design risk discussions. Wherever I coach, mentor or train on the topic, I will usually leave numeric scoring until the end and place it in a proper perspective within the management process. Stick to using numbers only to help you prioritise. If you have too many scores and risk considerations all scored too close together, you may need to consider a wider matrix to enable you to properly establish those priorities.

I agree with PJG, As with many forums the subject matter quickly veers off at a tangent or certain people attempt to take the high ground and sticking the knife in, this only results in people becoming down heartened at the forums and reluctant to use them. All forum users have their own level, life experience etc, so we should welcome all whether they be newbies or not, everyone has a chance to learn or refresh. There is nosuch thing as a stupid question - if people are geuinely attempting to learn.

Interesting thread but I do have that deja vu feeling. There is no legal requirement that I am aware of for a risk matrix, 5 by 5 or other, it is simply a practice which has evolved over time. I am not an advocate of the risk matrix as it serves no real purpose other than an 'idiot guide' for those not conversed in risk methodology - that is the theory anyway. As for the risk controls 'before and after' is another overly bureaucratic process which serves little purpose in what is already a timely process. At the end of the day it is up to the individual or organisation to choose what best suits their purpose. Personally, I prefer the keep it simple (kis) and would choose qualitative RAs over quantitative every time.

Its horses for courses isn’t it? As long as the chosen process works for an organisation, and delivers effective risk management, whether it uses a matrix or not, then does it really matter? There is no right or wrong method or process. Stranks even suggests a 10x10x10 model – arghhhhh! Some people take some ‘comfort’ from using a risk matrix scoring system, and it can help prioritise risks and actions. Different risks sometimes need different approaches; many simple risks lend themselves to one method and other risks, to other methods. I have risk assessment here that bear little or no relationship to others. That doesn’t make them wrong; just different. For those of you that despair or ‘poo poo’ before and after scoring, I do not believe that it is inherently wrong to do so, and I suggest that it can serve a number of valuable purpose such as: 1. Serves as a useful reminder to both supervisors and workers alike of the potential risks involved 2. And in doing so, helps workers to understand how important it is that controls and precautions are used to keep the risk to an acceptable level 3. Helps to emphasise to managers how important it is to maintain the controls and ensure that they are effective (Swiss cheese), including 4. Determining the level of supervision required. In summary, as long as it is effective, then use a process that works for you!

Quite often it is the side issue (or veering) that provides the spark of inspiration - I've certainly benefited from that myself here in the past. I do think it important to note the approach taken by IOSH in the accredited Courses they have designed. I concede this can be a picky subject but the important thing (in the context of the original post) is that the method is not and never was presribed to this degree. Horses for courses, you take your pick. We all have opinions on the matter and what better place than this Forum to express them! And hey, Geoff was just doing his usual Devil's Advocate thing! Are we going through one of our "touchy" phases again?

Horses for Courses If the matrix suites your company/industry needs why change it? I'm not aware of anyone in authority saying this practice is outdated and not to be used?

I removed the matrix to follow the HSE's continual improvement risk assessment approach- The problem I then found was that residual risks were not categorised H,M,L etc. For me to achieve this you need to judge the residual risk against a "standard" this possibly being a matrix!!!!

We had our friendly local HSE inspector in the other week and this issue cropped up. He said that while he didn’t particularly like matrices like this, he could see that they were useful, if used by competent people. The problem is too many people fiddle them to get the answers they want. In fact he was a bit iffy about risk assessments altogether. What he looked at was what was happening on the shop floor, what people were doing. Only if he saw something wrong would he consider looking at the documentation to try to get to the bottom of what was happening. He made it clear that nobody would ever be prosecuted solely for not having a risk assessment.