Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy I was asked recently to provide a Risk Assessment for a project and there was a general complaint from the PC because we had not included a "score" of likelihood, probability etc. We purposely do not score our RA's because you would have to be a cross between Carol Vorderman and Stato to provide accurate information. What we do say is that by following the control measures the risk will be reduced to ALARP. It is not a cop out it is a genuine document guideline and follows our Company Policy. The PC is not happy and insists we use a scoring system. I've stuck to my guns. Does anybody else see the nonsense of the scoring system?

Posted By graeme12345 hi Tony, you could also ask the PC to have a look at the HSE's guidlelines, they do not use a scoring system hxxp://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf

Posted By Crim Hi all, I use a 9 x 9 grid system but only to help me with the final decision on risk rating and I can prove that I have used some sort of calculation to arrive at the figure. I have never seen another risk assessment with the same grid I use, there are many different systems out there. For a P C to require such a system is out of the normal requirements for P C's and I agree that they should be pointed toward the HSE guides, which I use as an example when advising people how to carry out risk assessment. My way suits me but may not suit everyone. Keep it simple!

Posted By NJS I was passed some RAs last week, the first contractor had a scoring system that went up to 98!!!! the second went up to 36!! the result being a 36 on the high score was an accebtible rick but on the low one it was a near certain death. where is the logic in that, more importantmy where is the continuity!!

Posted By holmezy Obviously is a touchy subject! Matrix based RA's are fine for some people whereas High, Med ,Low RA's are fine for others. It depends whether you are more comfortable with numbers or words. Providing the major risks are identified, priritised and controlled then both serve a purpose. Both methods are still very subjective to the assessors experience, attitude and appreciation to the task, environment etc so there will enevitably be some variation. What you can do is compare a high risk rating of 36 from a 6x6 matrix with a 36 from a 10x10 matrix. They bear no resemblance to each other at all. The purpose of the numbers is fopr thos ethat are more comfortable with numbers to rate the risk the determine whether its high, med or low, ie on a 3x3 matrix 1,2 = low, 3,4 = med and 6,9 = high. For the 6x6 it may be 1 to 12 = low etc etc. Horses for courses, whatever floats your boat etc but you must compare apples with apples and so long as the risks are controlled who really cares about whether its a 6 or 96 or high or whatever. Stop the accident and look after the people should be the aim, not who has the best RA method! Apologies for slightly being off topic,,,,but hey ho!! Holmezy

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy Holmezy says "and so long as the risks are controlled who really cares about whether its a 6 or 96 or high or whatever." exactly my point.

Posted By Martin CMIOSH ....But what will you do with all that extra time if you don't have to form a sub-committee to work out the size of the risk matrix!!!! RA is a process not a defined methodology so stick to your guns.

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy This is a good week. I must admit it has been stressful, particularly in my dealings with the people running the H & S tests. I called them on Monday to speak to a girl and was told to call back at 12 as she was in a meeting. I called at 12 to be told she was at lunch. I called at 2 and was told she was out of the office. i called at 3 and i was told she was on annual leave??? One pint wont be enough

Posted By Steve Cartwright Tony I use a matrix when carrying out RA's for the simple reason that one persons perseption of risk is different to another persons. You may look at one particular activity and describe it as high risk, where as another person my think it is a low risk. I use near miss and accident data to back up my RA's. Likelyhood No reported incidents in last 5 years = 1 Severity Death = 6 Quite simple really. Also h&s committee members and other employees find it easy to use. Steve

Posted By Robert K Lewis Matrices are always as good as their user. They do help however to tie down variations between individual assessors. You should however avoid every matrix with more than 4x4 in my view. With higher numbers comes more choices and more variability. It really does not matter whether you put numbers or descriptors in the cells as long as you have a consistency in the result to a multiplication ie High x Low is the same as Low x High. I would also normally band results such that priorities for action can be set. What is important however is that the assessment is for the task and not simply a hazard in the context of routine construction works. Bob

Posted By Yiwei Hello! I'm a student doing some research on this topic of using risk matrices in risk assessment. So I'm wondering, can you guys send me the risk matrices you are using at the moment? Especially the ones that annoy you, or seem to be not fit for purpose? And some comments on why it's a bad use of the matrix would be welcome. My E-mail address is: yx219@cam.ac.uk A point that seems to come up in this discussion thread a lot is experience. Which is kind of interesting, because when I raised the point that though my project would be (in effect) giving judgement and advise on risk matrices, I have never done a risk assessment with risk matrices before. :-P I have done a fair bit of work on this though. Seen quite a few risk assessment forms, read some HSE documents, and heard some user comments. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think the whole point of using the risk matrix is to achieve these: 1) When there are multiple probable risks to doing something, the matrix gives you a priority order of which risks to deal with first. 2) When people from different parts of the organisation are assessing different risks, if they use the same matrix, and record it in a register. Then the big managers high up can see where the most risky things are, and allocate money accordingly. 3) Get the person doing the task to take a few moments out, and think about what he is doing, and the risks involved. So really, if you use risk matrices to assess tasks with a single obvious risk; use different matrices across the organisation; and the matrix is so complicated the workers don't understand it. Then it really does defeat the point.

Posted By willhiem 'Get the person doing the task to take a few moments out, and think about what he is doing, and the risks involved' no offense meant to anyone but not everyone is aware of what risk assessments contain, best to keep it simple, so i think if your normal brickie or whoever sees a load of letters and numbers which is meant to denote something they'll just switch off. Sure management might love to see nicely laid out tables with abreviations and matrices, but how many of them understand it either. Matrices etc have there place and i have used them and continue to do so whenever i see fit, but in most cases, i think its best to keep it simple.

Posted By MickN Yup, I'm in the keep it simple catagory. L/M/H. All risk assessments come out the same anyhow. Look, risk is either acceptable or it isn't. The work won't be going ahead until we have a risk assessment where our controls have rendered all the risks as acceptable. It doesn't matter what matrix you use and none is better than any of the others, just more complex. In the H&S business I'm always amazed by how different peoples' qualifications and work experience is. Tow people would have completely seperate reasons for achieving the same score on the same matrix. Forget it, keep it simple. The other possibility is that the PC is stubborn, wants it done just so and you don't have a choice in the matter. In that case give him/her what they want, you have bigger things to deal with. Mick

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy But how do you arrive at the conclusion that something is certain to happen? Have you got that much statistical data? If you used that formula after the Titanic, 1 voyage, 1 catastrophe there would be no more boat trips.