Posted By GJB Davis Hi all, I took my daughter to a Chess competition on the weekend which was held in a Comprehensive School Sports Hall. In the reception area there was a white board with a sample risk assessment written on it and on tables there were copies of a written explanation of the concept of risk assessment. I thought it strange that they were using a standard 3 x 3 risk matrix, although in reverse order. 1 x 1 = 1 meant high risk and 3 x 3 = 9 meant low risk. Has anyone else come across this method and do you think it will cause confusion? Regards Giles

Posted By MP ... and the significant risks of a chess competetion are..?

Posted By GJB Davis Sorry, didn't make myself clear. The risk assessment was not for the Chess Competition it was just an example lesson that the school's students had been doing but it was left on the whiteboard.

Posted By dave burrage I may be going gaga but i dont understand what you mean by 'more numbers at the high end', in your worked example you seem to have two numbers at both the high AND LOW ends? I am just trying to understand your logic.

Posted By Tabs Whilst I agree that the abstract concept of numbers representing risk can be applied both ways equally well, I must ask why buck the trend? Representing +ve, -ve and earth wires in electrics by colors is equally abstract, so should I teach children that wiring the +ve as green and yellow is fine too? Of course not. We work hard in life to explain the concept of risk and risk evaluation. I think a school should take the national standard seriously if they are going to teach this subject (and all praise to them for teaching risk assessment, what a great thought ... almost).

Posted By anon1234 I think Mark has hit on a good reason for the low numbers equating to higher levels of risk. As he states in a 3x3 matrix you can have a score between 1 and 9. However there are actually only 6 possible scores within that range, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9. We generally are not interested in low probability/ low consequence events so it makes more sense to have some differentitors at the high risk end of the scale whilst still making the numbers look similar. i.e. 1,2,3 and 4 would all be the higher risk issues to manage, whilst 6 would be medium and 9 low risk. Using the scale in the more traditional manner gives low risk as 1, medium risk as 2 and higher risks as 3,4, 6 and 9. Probably a mute point, but as long as everyone is aware of how the matrix is working its not a problem. I don't see this as the same as electrical wiring were there are recognised intenational standards on the subject. In risk assessment there is NO agreed single matrix.