IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Taking the Scoring System Out of Risk Assessments
Rank: Super forum user 
|
aud wrote:
And if it's flawed, why won't it go away?
Because people that don't actually understand complicated systems / processes / questions almost invariably regard the solution to that problem as being to simplify the process until they do understand it, rather than to increase their understanding of its true nature. Thus H&S bods and managers act (probably implicitly) in cahoots to pretend you can make a complex question about a complex system (ie, anything depending upon the actions of human beings) reduce to two easy numbers. People that don't actually understand the process really, really like the fact that no matter what it is or how complex it is, it can be reduced to multiplying two very small numbers together. It's a seductively easy way of making problems go away. What's not to love above it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
jay wrote:To use the term "nonsense" even if without intent, is neither being constructive nor respectful of differing opinions. The HSE itself in its FAQs' on "Risk Management" informs:- What are risk matrices? http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/faq.htm#q27Most businesses will not need to use risk matrices. However, they can be used to help you work out the level of risk associated with a particular issue. They do this by categorising the likelihood of harm and the potential severity of the harm. This is then plotted in a matrix (please see below for an example). The risk level determines which risks should be tackled first. Using a matrix can be helpful for prioritising your actions to control a risk. It is suitable for many assessments but in particular to more complex situations. However, it does require expertise and experience to judge the likelihood of harm accurately. Getting this wrong could result in applying unnecessary control measures or failing to take important ones. I'll call it as I see fit thank you very much. I don't complain about your laborious postings which send me to sleep. :)P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
quote=achrn] aud wrote:
And if it's flawed, why won't it go away?
People that don't actually understand the process really, really like the fact that no matter what it is or how complex it is, it can be reduced to multiplying two very small numbers together. Or reduced to the word Medium (which could also be used to describe how you want your steak, as well as the risk not being high or low, but somewhere in between) Same odds I don't disagree necessarily with your comment, but see no difference. I'm not in favor of Numbers over the words, though I seem to have found myself defending that option. I actually see them as no different and yes flawed, but we do the best we can with the knowledge and processes available. RA is simply a way of gathering and recording your thoughts on all the inputs from, users, equipment instructions, general knowledge, specialist guidance etc, on a given task. The real understanding of the task after noting the hazards, is shown in the SWP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
By two systems I meant quantitative and qualitative.
In my many years as a H&S professional, I have found the number matrix system most used; and its a system I have used successfully; but of course, it is not the only system, and is down to choice and what people are comfortable with. There is not extra effort, and provided all significant risks and control measures have been identified and implemented, then jobs a good un
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ultimately, its a document that shows we have identified the hazards and considered the risks; showed that we are mitigating the risks (or removing them) with effective control measures; we've prioritised the higher risks for the greatest controls; and are able to make sure our employees are aware of the residual danger - AFARP
If we use numbers, words or colours it makes no difference as long as it can be understood.
I hate the acronym KISS but use its reason in all the literature I produce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The RA decision system I use for most clients is a matrix that concludes a risk is Negligible, Low, Moderate, High or Intolerable.
Having come to that conclusion we decide
Negligible (N) & Low (L) risks = OK, no immediate actions necessary
Moderate (M) risks = proceed with caution
High (H) risks = review controls urgently
Intolerable (I) = Work to stop immediately or not to commence
I guess it’s just a statement that with M risks we believe the job is safe to continue with the present controls in place, and we can say ‘OK’ in the RH column of our document - if we’ve not thought of any further action that might further control the risk.
and also,
Guideline review period:
Negligible (N) & Low (L) risks = 14 months
Moderate (M) risks = 9 months
High (H) risks = 2 months
Intolerable (I) = Work to stop immediately
I’d be interested in any thoughts as none of my clients think too deeply about these things :o)
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi John, I will PM you as we use the risk ranking criteria with different Management Approval Levels for:-
Continued operation until resolution,
Notification to a specific level of higher management,
The specific level of management that approves the residual risk and
Typical Action to consider (i.e prevent or mitigate) and
Resolution time for the actions arising
Ours is not a dynamic construction or similar activity, but a chemical research facility as a part of a multi-site/multi- national global organisation implementing the "equivalent" of OHSAS 18001 & ISO 14001, with laboratories & pilot scale research operations.
The risk matrix has advantage too, especially when consistency is required in a large multisite/multinational organisation such as ours taking into account the higher risk activities we undertake, despite not being a COMAH site or part of any permissioning /permitting regime by the HSE or the Environment Agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well further to my post at #13 all the managers have voted and would you believe half went for numerical and the other half plain High, Med, Low. I didn't explain too much and just gave them two assessments (same one, done both ways)
Those that picked the numbered way seemed to suggest they would not do them frequently and felt it would help them through the process (which I deliberately didn't explain and they seemed to understand without instruction) and were perfectly happy with the key. One said he was used to it as they were done this way last place worked.
Those that picked without numbers thought it was less cluttered and easier to read. They also noted that this is the way they have always had their assessments written ( but previous people in my position had not been able to get them to do any, even when they should have done)
Guess I'm the deciding vote, but for this company I think without numbers and just give them a guidance document for when they have forgotten their training. That way no excuses of too complicated, so didn't do it.
Very small sample survey, but interesting result, wonder if they will change their mind following training?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Taking the Scoring System Out of Risk Assessments
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.