Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 08 January 2001 16:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 08 January 2001 20:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor At the risk of being attacked by the mathematicians, I must express some sympathy with your view. The published HSE guidance doesn't tie itself to numerical formulae and neither does the legislation. I can accept that in some workplaces and with trained, competent assessors with sufficient time a numerical system can be advantageous in prioritising risk control action - but I have seen a few very strange results from these processes and with the adherents insisting upon conclusions that defy good logic. I can remember one health and safety unit that had to wait for estimates of each proposed remedial action before they could multiply them with a number of other figures before a risk assessment could be completed. In much of the real world assessments have to be carried out by busy managers aided by busy operatives and the best way to achieve this is to provide them with a simple method of actually considering the risk factors and coming to an informed decision upon the nature of the risk and effective means of control.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 09 January 2001 08:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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!
Admin  
#4 Posted : 09 January 2001 13:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard The numbers should be used just as a guide to start from, not the be-all and end-all of an RA. They are particularly valuable for the inexperienced or non-professional, to help them form a quantitative assessment. However for most professionals in most situations it should be possible to calculate a risk simply by looking at it, without going through complcated matrices. The only reason I even record my numbers is in case I get asked to justify my assessment! Richard
Admin  
#5 Posted : 09 January 2001 13:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#6 Posted : 09 January 2001 15:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Neville Johnson Thanks for your sympathy Ken. I do agree that numbers give an indication of priority but unless the numbers used are linked to a priority system (i.e. for a score of 2 the work must be completed within one month) then they are almost meaningless. I cannot argue with you Ziggy nor would I want to. The only legitimate use of numbers I can think of is to calculate likelihood i.e. a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of one death in a population within a radius of 10 miles from a chemical plant for a given scenario. This is the only true quantitative risk assessment I think, I have looked for my back issue of SHP for November which includes Janes article and unfortunately cannot find it. If anyone has a copy can you email it to; fred.johnson@ntlworld.com I'm sorry Richard, try as I may I could not justify a risk assessment by reference to numbers which I happen to have plucked out of the air at the time. Having done that I couldn’t pass my subjective guesswork off as being in any way quantitative or for that matter qualitative. There appears to be very little of quality about guesswork. Some might say the lack of a fire alarm system is equal to the number '6'. I would say it is a 'significant risk' being greater than that, which might be accepted as 'reasonably practicable', (H&SAW s 2(1) & (MHSAW reg. 3). I might also say this is a contravention of the FPWR reg. 4 which constitutes a 'risk of death or serious injury which is likely to materialise' (FPWR reg. 11) and that this may result in an enforcement notice (FPWP reg. 13) or prosecution in a criminal court (FPWR reg. 16). I may also indicate the installation of a fire warning system to BS5839 is a requirement of the above law as a result of my risk assessment and that it must be installed within 30 days. Now unless this number '6' means something similar the client is only going to get part of the picture, or is going to end up very confused. Now if you introduce a 'key' to say that number '6' means all of this or even some of it, then I think this makes a mockery of risk assessment since each situation must be treated as unique requiring a unique solution and for that matter perhaps a unique priority. Thanks to DEPartington for the email, a judicious compromise I think. Frank
Admin  
#7 Posted : 09 January 2001 17:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#8 Posted : 09 January 2001 19:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Neville Johnson Mark Thanks for the extract from Jane Blunt's article in the November issue of SHP. This has done me the power of good, very theraputuic reading. Thank you for all that effort. It's rather nice to discover a soul mate! Frank
Admin  
#9 Posted : 11 January 2001 09:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#10 Posted : 11 January 2001 11:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Neville Johnson Alan Being a new boy on the block and have that very strange feeling, as you do, after opening Pandora's box and it won't close. I can see circumstances where I might now use 'numbers' but it's rather like using a language, you need to know the people you are communicating with will understand you. All Thanks all for your comments, and the very generous helpings of food for thought. Frank
Admin  
#11 Posted : 12 January 2001 11:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#12 Posted : 18 January 2001 17:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Forster Oh , I see,If you were getting your safety Officer to do risk assessments then you would expect...........................only problem being is that it is not the role of the safety officer to undertake risk assessments,I think I read that in HSG 65-first version at least-or have we opened another debate!
Admin  
#13 Posted : 19 January 2001 13:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#14 Posted : 22 January 2001 13:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I interpret this as the employer required to assess risks - possibly assisted by another if not competent him/herself. In practice the employer may delegate the task (but not the duty) to the manager, etc. It is important for the employer to 'own' the risk assessment and to be seen to do so. There is a danger of risk assessment becoming a paper exercise divorced from the management process if delegated solely to the in-house safety adviser - or the consultant.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 27 January 2001 13:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#16 Posted : 28 January 2001 14:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Neville Johnson Stuart & Richard Schrodinger's cat I know it is difficult, perhaps impossible practically for safety professionals to do everything and I think the points you raise illustrate the gulf between 'certain practices' and theory. So I would also be interested in Richard's view. 'Quantum theory' requires us to accept the existence of many universes. Schrodinger, when explaining his 'uncertainty principle', by reference to a 'hypothetical cat' went so far as to say the cat was both alive and dead until it was subjected to the act of 'observation' by someone opening the box to have a look. The act of observation and scrutiny it would seem has a dynamic effect on reality itself. Perhaps this means the failure to 'look', 'scrutinise' and ask questions condemns us to state of dichotomy and were it not for forum like this perhaps many of us would continue in our own dogma and ignorance. Hats off to the IOSH forum, its brilliant! I have changed some of my views as a result and increased my knowledge. I think we should open more boxes particularly those containing sacred cows. Regards Frank
Admin  
#17 Posted : 29 January 2001 08:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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.
Admin  
#18 Posted : 29 January 2001 09:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Huw Williams Jane, Can you tell me where I can have a look at your article or if possible could I be sent an electronic copy. By the way, thanks to all the people contributing to this discussion thread, maybe HSE's Operations Unit will have to rethink the section on "simple risk estimation" when they next revise HSG 65. huw.williams@newport.gov.uk
Admin  
#19 Posted : 29 January 2001 10:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#20 Posted : 29 January 2001 11:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor The point is, Allan, that reality is absolute irespective of inquiry and intervention - but that inquiry and intervention, both in their commission and omission, can influence reality. This is a vote in favour of our website and, usually, your helpful and informative contributions.
Admin  
#21 Posted : 30 January 2001 10:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.