Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,
Once again I stand on my soapbox! The problem is not risk assessments but the way they are used; if there is an obvious danger, control it and manage the risks! Where, the risks are not obvious, identify the hazards, assess the risks and then manage the risks in an appropriate manner. HSE seems to have forgotten or never learnt this simple concept. Risk assessment is a tool to be used in the control of risks; Not every tool is needed for every job!
I feel that many of the problems with risk assessments are due to the definitions of hazard and risk that are widely used.
A hazard is not something with the potential to cause harm, as everything has the potential to cause harm! Therefore, if everything is a hazard - why do risk assessments?
In reality a hazard is not “something”, but an event or condition with the potential to cause a specified harm; whether that harm is a fire, explosion, poisoning, etc. This means that in considering whether the “something” is a hazard, we have to consider the “something” in the context of a specific time and place. We are not therefore looking at an abstract set of conditions, but a defined set of conditions.
As we are looking at specified conditions, we can evaluate the risk, by assessing the likelihood or calculating the probability of the consequences flowing from the event. Note I stated, consequences not consequence, as in reality there is never one consequence but a series of consequences that flows from the event. This means that if we were to be pedants we should really draw a risk curve, so we choose the most likely consequences and the severest consequences. In practice all we need to do is pick these two points and then evaluate whether the risks are either acceptable or tolerable. If they are not we eliminate or control them. Preferably we carry out a gap analysis between what controls should be taken and what controls are being taken. If we can close the risk gap, we should. Where we cannot close the risk gap, we should justify why we cannot!
Many of the problems in risk assessment are in the simple facts that:
Accidents are rare events;
The adverse conditions that cause or contribute to illness are not readily perceptible by a layman.
As accidents are rare events we must use industry and national statistics for our information and as the adverse conditions that cause or contribute to illness are not readily perceptible by a layman we must use appropriate specialists to evaluate these conditions. We must also educate managers, to prevent the gamblers fallacy that because something has not happened, it will not happen. Furthermore, rather than wait for perfect knowledge we should use our best judgement and utilise rough and ready approximations rather than get bogged down in detail. However, enforcers should avoid the post hoc fallacy that because harm has occurred, it was likely to occur! Therefore, the risk assessment must have been inadequate. This presumption inculcates the idea that we must do all inclusive risk assessments to protect ourselves and our employers, thus defeating the ideas of risk assessments.
Furthermore, in assessing risks we should separate out probability and consequences. A high probability of getting a minor injury does not equate to a low risk of death. Risk is not the sum of likelihood multiplied by severity but a function of likelihood and severity.
Regards Adrian Watson
PS. HSE new guidance gets 6/10 – the old guidance was 3/10.