Colleagues I am currently undertaken a revamp of my risk assessments with fellow employees as we have decided that the present lay out could be better presented and easier to follow. One of the employees has just returned from training where he was told that when now carrying out risk assessments there is no need to put in calculations i.e Likelihood x Severity ..What he was told is, that the New thinking is once you have identified the hazard then you put in your controls and there is no need to calculate as it is the hazard your interested in and what controls are in place to reduce the hazard. I have asked a few fellow HSE colleagues and they tend to agree with what they are hearing but others say that they would still add in the calculation. Any comments would be welcome Regards TD

Hi TD - there was never a requirement to use quantified RA. The HSE model '5 Steps' has never used it and to my mind it was and still is, the best and easiest to use for standard RA's - if done properly with the correct definition of hazards etc. Risk assessments can come in all shapes and sizes. There is nothing wrong with using numbers - but it is not a legal matter so 'suitable and sufficient' are the key words. In many cases it is an unnecessary complication in my view. Pictorial ones are useful in some cases - easy to show hazards and controls on a location drawing or an image of a vehicle or machine for example. Much quicker and easier for people to understand as well! In saying that I would expect the next Nuclear Power station to have a little more consideration so the abacus or calculator might be warranted! Steve

As I think I have pointed out before, OSHA does not have Risk Assessment they use Job Hazard Analysis. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3071.html So RA can not be intrinsically essential for a good system of safety control.

Risk assessment can be in a variety of formats - whatever suits one person may not suit another. I usually have the quantitative table handy as I am comfortable with that but occasionally use a simple tick sheet instead. That has a box at the bottom for recording main findings like action items and names of responsible persons - dates etc. Bear in mind it is only the Main Findings" that have to be recorded so it doesn't matter what the format is is it is not recorded anyway.

TD, A question: 'What he was told is, that the New thinking is once you have identified the hazard then you put in your controls and there is no need to calculate as it is the hazard your interested in and what controls are in place to reduce the hazard.' How do you reduce a hazard?

pl53, How can it be pointless, this is a discussion! Needless - I'm responding to a post that I don't understand! Semantics - It is rather important and relevant to understand the difference between a risk and a hazard, would you not agree?

Like most of you, I have reviewed many a Risk Assessment through the years. To me, the biggest issue isn't its format, it's the competency of the person who carried it out, coupled with the communication aspect of its content. For example, quantification is widely used, however, how many have you seen with ambiguous risk ratings (catastophising) or severity ratings (pre / post control measures) that differ? In addition, control measures that aren't suitable & sufficient or not specific to any given situation / task, as is necessary! IMO, the process of a competent assessment and communication (to those who need it) are the key. Something somewhat lacking in my experience!

I use this video to train on the difference; it is delightfully Canadian and cheesey but illustrates the point in less than two minutes

It's 'horses for courses' isn't it? There is no one size fits all. Different sorts of activities and associated risks require different approaches; some benefit from the use of scoring systems and arguably with others it doesn't add a great deal of value or clarity. Some are simple, some are complex. Some people find some 'comfort' in using a scoring system and they can help to assist in the prioritising of additional controls, determining the length of review periods etc. In fairness I have done some assessments where there is no numerical scoring but there is narrative reference to the level of risk. I thought the video was interesting. I know we all have different ways of looking at things but I have always considered a hazard to be quantifiable. Some hazards of a similar nature may present different outcomes of severity, i.e. that hazards can be ranked by the severity of injury or ill health that they present. In the video I would suggest that the hazard of being hit by the car in the first example i.e. on the 'open road' where driving speeds are likely to be quite a bit faster, would be considerably more than the hazard presented by being hit by the cars in the second example which were driving at lower speeds. Just my humble opinion!

What's the issue? Do what works for you! Don't forget the aim is to to identify the risks to health and safety and the measures required to comply with the law. You have to record the significant findings; i.e. The risk of injury, any persons especially at risk, and the preventative and protective measures, and the measures needed to comply with the law. The next stage, oft forgotten, is to implement the findings, then check and check again that the measures work. The last stage is to keep sufficient records to prove that you're implementing the measures. Regards