All of my risk assessments carry the Harm x Liklihood matrix (I use 1-3 for harm and 1 - for liklihood). I start with the hazards and score them, then list control meaures then a Residual Risk matrix.

A senior manager has questioned the validity of the first matrix where the scores will be high for significant hazards. I have stated these scores are subjective and my interpretation if no control measures exist.

My question is this: Can a risk assessment be written down without using a scoring matrix or the terms Low, Medium and High if the hazard is stated and the control measure is adequate?

Thanks

Rich

Rich,

I have in the past used a 10x10 matrix grid which actually gives a % risk rate which your Management would probably understand better, it also give a more balanced approach, providing you can justify why you have chosen each of the 10 levels in the likelihood and impact.
But your question on figures I was always told produce the uncontrolled figure of the risk then put the controls and re-assess with controls in place, a quantitative assessment. Completely ignore the figures giving a qualitative assessment.
I had a discussion with a HSE inspector on the subject, their take was "Do not get hung up on the figures but only on how you are protecting the person reasonably practicable".

Tigers I can see your logic but in the scheme of things whats the difference between scores of 72 and 76 in relation to what you would put in place!!
I know we have to respond to the level of risk but do you respond differently because of the scores being different and if so what is the different response for the numbers Ive quoted (sorry seems like Ive asked the same question twice!)

YOUR risk assessments?
What approach do the actually responsible managers use for their assessment findings?

quote=rich777]All of my risk assessments carry the Harm x Likelihood matrix (I use 1-3 for harm and 1 - for likelihood). I start with the hazards and score them, then list control measures then a Residual Risk matrix.

A senior manager has questioned the validity of the first matrix where the scores will be high for significant hazards. I have stated these scores are subjective and my interpretation if no control measures exist.

My question is this: Can a risk assessment be written down without using a scoring matrix or the terms Low, Medium and High if the hazard is stated and the control measure is adequate?

Thanks

Rich[Hi Rich, as others have pointed out there is no legal requirement to use a scoring matrix in risk assessment methodology, however it can be useful as a learning tool and/or when determining risk in complex situations. I have witnessed many an occasion when the assessor has changed the original outcome because it doesn't fit into scoring system (me included). I recall when undertaking my PgC a few years ago, my Tutor, would not accept an RA with a numerical scoring matrix, commenting "if you need to multiply 5X3 to determine the risk of a task then you shouldn't be on this course and have no concept of what an RA is!" I felt at the time that everything I had been taught was worthless, however in some ways I do see his point. My own view is use what works for you and make sure that all affected agree with the outcome and crucially have been involved in the process. Good luck]

.

Unless you are conducting a fully qualitative risk assessment, scoring really is only useful for prioritisation of actions and enabling the easy identification of those tasks that require on-going monitoring.

I personally think, for the above reasons, they are a useful tool. But it's important to remain aware that that is all they are achieving, and that as already stated the most important part of the risk assessment is the methods of risk reduction required to be implemented.

I still do not understand however how one multiplies Low by Medium etc etc. For this reason alone I would avoid such terms - the HSE have in my view only adopted this stance in an attempt to try and make RA simple. It fits with their 5 Step, in reality 7 step, RA process. The mathematics are perhaps arbritary BUT they are often better than nothing as a first order estimate to guide further control selection and prioritisation.

Unless you have statistical failure rates NO mathematical model will give a proper quantitative measure of failure likelihood/potential.

Bob

I rarely use numerical risk calculation when carrying out RAs, all due to my 'teacher', who was at the time, an HSE Principle Officer. RA methodology can be over-engineered at times...

high , medium, low every time!

Thanks for all the replies - most illuminating.

Do you experts out there favour risk assessments taking account of control measures in place, or

do you risk assessment the "worse case scenario"

There is a huge difference to the scores on the doors between the two methods.

Rich

We only document the findings of the assessment with controls in place, to keep the assessments simple. You can document the risk before and then after controls are put in place, but I see little advantage in doing so.

The methods of risk reduction are the important things! By keeping the assessment simple, focus is placed on reading these.

In practice, this means all risk assessments are conducted in advance of tasks occurring, if a task doesn't have an acceptable risk assessment, then it doesn't occur and if it is found to be, stopped immediately etc. The result of this is that none of our risk assessments are what we would class as "High" risk (if a task were to be assessed as such, it would not occur / would be prohibited in any case, therefore no point having an assessment for a task that is not completed!).

Gordon

Excellent point, I have argued for a long time that respected institutions like IOSH, IIRSM, HSE and others should get off the fence and proclaim many health and safety issues unnecessary and/or a blight on industry. So far the silence has been deafening. So engrossed the HSE are appeasing their paymasters and the former with corporate initiatives.

Yes it can be written down without any numbers or the use of low, medium, high. If you take a look at business risk processes you will find examples of matrices and they usually have the similar x/y potential loss/likelihood of occurrence matrix. However, they then have instructions such as “continuous improvement required” “control as far as” “tolerability to be agreed by mgmt” etc and not the rather semantic low/ medium/ high ratings. (just search on G images under “risk assessment matrix” and lose an hour of your life as you scan through them all) This drives decisions to ensure that adequate controls are applied to each risk.
I am convinced that the dogmatic use of simplistic risk assessment processes as originally outlined by the HSE nearly 20 years ago is one reason why managers and others often cannot relate to the process of risk management. When placed alongside a belief that the only risk assessment that is required is a task based risk assessment it makes strategic management of H&S risks nigh on impossible for managers.
Using a model that matches more closely to those commonly used in other business risks is, in my experience, very effective at gaining understanding especially at middle and senior levels. Put that together with some strategic or benchmark risk assessments of the types and size of potential hazards which could have a significant impact on the whole organisation and you have something that really works.
I learnt my basic risk management well before 1992/1993 and followed five different steps where the assessment is but one element.
1. Identify all risks to which the company is exposed.
2. Determine the level of each risk.
3. Take measures to reduce the risks identified as unacceptable to acceptable.
4. Ensure constant monitoring of risks and levels of risk using appropriate tools.
5. Ensure that each individual risk is well managed and that a decision has been taken to Tolerate (accept), Treat (minimise), Transfer or Terminate each risk.

p48

I have given up on providing a risk matrix recently on my fire risk assessments. I believe that most of my customers were confused by it and all many of them wanted to know was what they needed to do, and in what order.

Now I used a RAG system (red yellow and green) on a table containing a summary of findings to indicate action priority, and include a column with a suggested time scale in which any changes should be made.

The change I have adopted is due to the fact that my end users/customers are not H&S professions. They are busy butchers, bakers and candlestick makers who want to comply & keep their staff safe, but don't want to spend time interpreting a complex matrix or report.

I appreciate that for those working in civil engineering, or gas & oil where there is more of an understanding of H&S, a matrix system is workable, but for many SMEs, perhaps it's superfluous

On a practical level using a matrix can often lead to conflict and argument-particularly when one's boss doesn't want to spend money! For example I used to work for a large logistics company and would say to my site manager that such and such presented a high risk of injury as I'd done the assessment and the numbers said so ( I was quite inexperienced then!). He would obviously respond that in his experience this was not so and I was wrong and to go and do the assessment again until I came up with the "correct" score. After about a month I stopped this approach and instead began to email him, saying we were in breach of the following regulations and at risk of hurting someone-and he would be responsible-his response would always then be to get it sorted out (but at the lowest cost). To my mind this shows precisely the problems with matrices-they are subjective and can be argued about-illustrations of breaches of legislation or non-conformance with Industry standards are far better methods of both assessing and controlling risk

Well said Bob!

Past experience - guy in welding centre nips finger nail in clamp on a fixture he was tightening himself = 3 days off work = claim. We had looked at the fixture as part of the risk assessment and deemed it insignificant compared to the manual handling, the OH jib and lifting tackle, the robot welder he was operating, weld fumes, etc!

The County Court judge hearing his case wanted to know how we had determined the fixture presented no significant risk, we explained the process which did not include matrices, he awarded the claim on the basis we could produce no evidence of the evaluative assessment of the risk, significant or otherwise?!

You just cant win!

Learned not to take anything personally a long time ago sadlass!

The company at the time has a terrible claims culture, not helped by the insurers who paid most claims like this off as nuisance claims!

For that company, in Northern Ireland, this type of claim was very common (and we did pay sick pay!).

Took 5 years of hard work to turn it around......

Sound words again Bob.

I use a matrix now, as it seems the norm! But as you say it provides a context for the terms, the point the learned judge was making.

Love CBA, recently finished that module for my MSc, definitely an art!

Jonty