Rank: Super forum user 
|
At 1 of my clients sites, (a new client to me) we've had an audit from the insurance company. Auditor was a very understanding bloke and listened to what I had to say and offered some practicle advice. He'd visited previously about 3yrs ago so knew the site. Anyway, I've now received his report and 1 item he picked up on is the RA has no risk matrix on it. In my mind not a big deal, the RA states control measures, residal risk. The auditor has stated it must have a risk table on it to be able to clasify it as low, med or high. After a bit of research and talking to the managers it appears the format for the RA is lifted directly from the HSE website. Surely this should be the definitive answer? Otherwise we go down the route of everyone ignoring the HSE and demanding that companys use their format. What does everyone else do? I can rewrite the RA for the client but they are many and it will take me days to go through every RA and risk rate it after speaking to the staff. Edited by user 20 May 2019 11:00:37(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Risk matrices are not a legal requirement. The format of the risk assessment form is not set out in any legislation or guidance. The HSE do not like these matrices; too much time is spent of deciding the numbers and not enough effort assigned to finding and applying suitable controls, which is the priority. This has been discussed on the forum before.
|
 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for info. I did a quick search but didn't see what I was after. Will email the insurance company and let them know of the reason why there are no risk matrixes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
There is no specific requirement for any sort of matrix, scoring system or even a simple low, med, high rating. The only purpose for rating is to enable you to prioritise actions. Your insurance company is probably looking for proof that actions are prioritised and completed but you do not need a matrix to prove that.
|
1 user thanked Hsquared14 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not a fan, at least not for general RA's in many environments. I actually took the trouble to remove matrices at each review, to simplify and increase understanding. Priorities are easily identified by the same process as identifying a correct matrix rating, you're just applying a number instead of listing in the correct order of priority anyway. I don't work in a nuclear power plant where I might expose 200 or 2000 people to a dose. IMHO, keep it simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Dave5705  Not a fan, at least not for general RA's in many environments. I actually took the trouble to remove matrices at each review, to simplify and increase understanding. Priorities are easily identified by the same process as identifying a correct matrix rating, you're just applying a number instead of listing in the correct order of priority anyway. I don't work in a nuclear power plant where I might expose 200 or 2000 people to a dose. IMHO, keep it simple.
Absolutely agree, matrix led risk assessment is a cloak for the lazy and weapon for the disgruntled, I wouldn't have them in my assessments but for the fact that my corporate masters higher up in the Civil Service think that tacking a risk matrix onto it makes it a "quantitative" rather than a "Qualitative" assessment and insist that I keep it in. This annoys the hell out of me because a quantitative risk assessment is a different beast altogether!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.