Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jean
I have been asked to use a 6 x 6 matrix in developing our risk management strategy. I have only used a 5 x 5 before. Has anyone else used a 6 x 6 and can provide me with further details?
Many thanks
Jean
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter I guess you have to ask the person who asked you, or else devise your own. I haven't used or come across a 6x6, but here's a link to a 6 x 4. Really just expanding the margins from 5 x 5 I think. Suppose it gives increased scope for prioritising a number of scored risks. Still subjective though! http://www5.tmbc.gov.uk/...ridge/images/att6058.doc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jean
The individual has the idea that it will give greater scope. I have found a six by six on a Primary Care Trust Site, dated 12 January 2007. This surprised me, generally the NHS use a 5 x 5.
Jean
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
All in all though Jean, I doubt it will really add much value to the process, just a bit more time deliberating on the entirely subjective choice of the number to be applied?
I like to focus more on deliberating the suitability and sufficiency of the assessment and how the further actions required will be managed. Usually I don't really give a fig for the numbers.
I don't get excited if people leave these columns blank. HSE don't seem to be excited by the numbers game either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MP
I'm with Ron
Unless you are in a really high hazard environment, I don't think numbers add anything.
I've sat in too many meetings listening to "is it a 5?" and "no, no, it's a 4" instead of focusing on real issues and controls
Regards
MP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven bentham
Yep it must be April 1st.
There are many good books on managing risk and implementing safety. I think the size of your matrix is not what counts but the managing the risk does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Ah! The old size over quality argument, Steven!
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D H
One benefit of a 4 x4 or a 6x6 over the 5 x 5 is that people cannot sit on the fence and go down the middle route.
They have to decide if higher or lower than down the middle (IMHO)
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D. Hilton
Really gets worse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Hicks Croner do a 6x6 matrix. Example here at the University of the Arts, London: http://www.arts.ac.uk/docs/HandS_GN26.doc Note that they use WORDS not NUMBERS to remind you you're making a qualitative/subjective judgement, not a quantitative/measured one. Not that I'm a fanatic on this topic or anything, oh no... If you use it, credit Croner and check any copyright issues, because if you're dealing with risks that warrant this level of detail, you should have the budget to buy the relevant reference materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
why don't you go one better and use a 7 x 7, that should really impress your boss.
at the end of the day it's a completely arbritrary means of assinging low, medium and high to risks, it's what you then do about them that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Brown
The interestimg thing about numerical matrices is that you never get the full range of resultants you think you should get. A 3 x 3 matrix has only 6 possible resultants, only two of which appear after the number 4. If you categorise 1 - 3 as 'low' risk you're only left with 4, 6 & 9 to cover medium to high. With a 6 x 6 matrix there are only 18 possible resultants, 10 of which come to 12 or below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Jean,
we tend to use a number matrix, whether it be 3x3, 5x5 or 25x25, because we are more comfortable putting a value to something. The amount of number you use just makes the decision procees more subjective, or complicated, depending on your opinion. I like to use 3x3 and give the resultant figures 1-2 a low, 3-4 a medium and 6-9 a high risk rating, or for the arty types a (green , amber or red). All I've done is to produce a priority sheet, ie do the highs now, then do the mediums, then try and get round to the lows eventually.
For those of you that can remember, Spinal Tap had an amplifier that went to 11, for when they required a bit more than 10 could give!
Don't get hung up on the numbers, deal with the risks.
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Just to add to the music references Holmezy, and picking up on Andy's post above, "7 by 7" was the B-side to "Silver Machine" by Hawkwind.
Wow! Space Rock and Risk Assessment at the same time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
I use a 5x5 largely dictated by the severity categories I use, see below
1 - trivial injury (i.e. cut bruise etc)
2 - Minor injury (i.e. reportable)
3 - Major Injury
4 - Fatality
5 - Multiple Fatalities
although most people may not need the 5, just where you work in a high hazard industry.
I then give 5 timescale bands depending on what I am assessing (based on experience of incidents in that area).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
The advantage of using an even numbered matrix is that it forces the assessor to make a choice that tends towards high or low - no possibility of sitting on the fence and choosing the middle one.
As previously said, the important bit is to reach a decision on adequacy of control and implement improvements if needed, thereby improving workplace H&S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.