Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Woodpecker  
#1 Posted : 14 October 2019 14:23:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Woodpecker

Does anybody have experience using the Kinney scoring method?

Edited by user 14 October 2019 14:23:58(UTC)  | Reason: spelling

RayRapp  
#2 Posted : 14 October 2019 14:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Never heard of it until now. Just Googled it, I have used a similar system - seems quite logical to me. 

A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 14 October 2019 15:07:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Lifted from a paper delivered at the International Conference on Manufacturing Science and Education- 2011- Sibiu România

Instead of just looking at just at severity and likelihood they also look at  duration exposure. The numbers are also weighted.

THE KINNEY METHOD: HOW IT WORKS

The risk (R) assessment, after Kinney, is done considering three parameters: the probability (P) of an accident or damage occurrence, the exposure at risk frequency (F) and the gravity (G) of the induced consequence.

The probability of the damage occurrence during the exposure to a risk factor describes the accidental, stochastic and uncertain character. Kinney have defined 7 probability classes, to whom he allocated certain numerical values (see table 1).

The exposure frequency expresses the time lapse in which the worker is exposed to the risk factor action; this component is estimated by one of the 6 classes described in table 2.

Table 1 -The Kinney method: Numerical values for the probability

Probability (P)

Description (qualitative)

0,1

Virtually impossible

0,2

Practically impossible

0,5

Plausible, but unlikely

1

Improbable, but possible at boundary conditions

3

Unusual, but possible

6

Possible

10

Predictable

Table 2 The Kinney method: Numerical values for the exposure frequency

Exposure frequency (F)

Description (qualitative)

0,5

Very rare (less than once per year)

1

Rare (yearly)

2

Monthly

3

Occasional (weekly)

6

Regular (daily)

10

Permanent

The size of damages is expressed by 5 gravity classes, highlighted in table 3.

Table 3 The Kinney method: Numerical values for the gravity

Gravity (G)

Description (qualitative)

Consequence type

Damage (financially expressed)

1

Low

Injury without work capacity loss

< 250€

3

Significant

Injury with loss of work capacity

250€ - 2500€

7

High

Invalidity

25000€ - 100000€

15

Very high

One fatality

125000€ - 250000€

40

Catastrophic

Several fatalities

> 250000€

 

A value must be allotted to each of the three factors. This designation is not the result of an inspirational moment. Normally, the process should start upwards, by defining for each working task, of the hazards and for each hazards of the risks related. Only after this hazard and risk identification phase (e.g. based on a check – list) the quantification can be initiated.

However, if the process is done by a single individual, the process will be a fake, while it offers the unique perspective of a person. Therefore we can state that the need for a multidisciplinary team is obvious.

Afterwards, but only after the completion of this first identification phase, will be imagined and developed the risk propagation scenarios. Based on the context setting, the numerical values will be assigned to probability, frequency and gravity; the risk level will be obtained by multiplying these three factors. The value obtained allows then to frame the risks into 5 levels, according to table 4.

The Kinney method: the risk ranking scale

Risk level (R)

Risk class

Required action

< 20

Very low

Acceptable risk: no measure required

20 - 70

Possible

Monitoring

70 - 200

Significant

Measures to be taken

200 - 400

High

Immediate improvement

> 400

Very high

Activity cessation

If the method is applied by a working team, it is strongly recommended that all the R values are retained, an average value to be computed, discussed and interpreted within the group session.

I can't tell you if its any good-looks bit laborious to me!

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
DavidGault on 15/10/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 14 October 2019 18:34:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

1) Its a scoring method

2) It relies upon a value being assigned to a parameter by a human being (ERROR alert!)

3) It does not appear on the HSE template

It is up to you if you have the time to apply it - having read the paper AK located it is just as bad as every other numeric system beauty and/or functionallity being in the eye of the beholder/user

thanks 10 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
DavidGault on 15/10/2019(UTC), jwk on 15/10/2019(UTC), aud on 16/10/2019(UTC), A Kurdziel on 21/10/2019(UTC), ttxela on 23/10/2019(UTC), DavidGault on 15/10/2019(UTC), jwk on 15/10/2019(UTC), aud on 16/10/2019(UTC), A Kurdziel on 21/10/2019(UTC), ttxela on 23/10/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 14 October 2019 18:34:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

1) Its a scoring method

2) It relies upon a value being assigned to a parameter by a human being (ERROR alert!)

3) It does not appear on the HSE template

It is up to you if you have the time to apply it - having read the paper AK located it is just as bad as every other numeric system beauty and/or functionallity being in the eye of the beholder/user

thanks 10 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
DavidGault on 15/10/2019(UTC), jwk on 15/10/2019(UTC), aud on 16/10/2019(UTC), A Kurdziel on 21/10/2019(UTC), ttxela on 23/10/2019(UTC), DavidGault on 15/10/2019(UTC), jwk on 15/10/2019(UTC), aud on 16/10/2019(UTC), A Kurdziel on 21/10/2019(UTC), ttxela on 23/10/2019(UTC)
Woodpecker  
#6 Posted : 15 October 2019 06:32:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Woodpecker

Thanks for your feedback

stevedm  
#7 Posted : 15 October 2019 07:12:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

...worked in Romania for 2 years and this is used extensively, mainly in construction (well those that are reasonably interested in safety)...They use it as a team assessment rather like a HAZOP....I have also come across it in some of the newer entrants to the EU (the former Eastern Bloc states) on machinery risks...CEFIC also lists it as a method that can be used to comply with the risk assessment in transportation...it is just as the others say another method of semi-quantitative risk assessment...so if you put s**t in you get s**t out...why the enquiry?  intereted in the background to the question... :)

thanks 2 users thanked stevedm for this useful post.
DavidGault on 15/10/2019(UTC), nic168 on 15/10/2019(UTC)
Woodpecker  
#8 Posted : 15 October 2019 10:59:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Woodpecker

The reason I ask it is used across the company I'm in.  

I have mixed feedback especially from the teams in the UK, as it is not commonly used. When employees are completing IOSH Managing Safely courses they use a 5by5 or 6by6 risk matrix.

I wanted to get any feedback and any experiences.

If i'm honest I had never heard of the Kinney until a couple of year ago.

peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 20 October 2019 12:08:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

JW

Illustrative that there are multiple variables that need to be taken into account in risk assessment. Another would be the number of people at risk, so that if two are at risk the effective economic value would approximately double.

Incidentally, the Values for Preventing an Injury or Fatality (VPIs and VPF) are substantially lower than those adopted by the UK Government and published by the Department for Transport (and uprated from time to time).

Some models also assign a greater value to those not employed to take account of the distinction between those who "volunteer" (up to a point - very limited amount of volunteering if you work on e.g. some zero hours contracts) to take a risk, as against those "who have a risk imposed on them".

This is shown in e.g. the model within HSE's Reducing Risks, Protecting People ['R2P2'] where the proposed threshold between the Tolerable and the Broadly Acceptable regions distinguishes by a factor of 10 fold - 1 in a million per year probability of death per year against 1 in 10m per year.

Ian Bell2  
#10 Posted : 21 October 2019 10:02:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

The problem with such scoring methods, especially when you have quite a range of categories/scores it is very semantic/subjective as to what score to select.

Take the given P values - 0.1 Virtually impossible, 0.2 Practically impossible. In the real world what is the difference?

thanks 1 user thanked Ian Bell2 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 21/10/2019(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#11 Posted : 21 October 2019 10:15:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

And further to what Ian said-what is the practical difference in the sort of controls you will apply? In the UK, HSE always emphasis that risk assessment is simply a way to establish the level of controls that you need, not an end in itself.  

Edited by user 21 October 2019 10:17:00(UTC)  | Reason: words order incorrect

CptBeaky  
#12 Posted : 21 October 2019 10:24:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

I am just worried that Amungar will come back if we introduce a new formula, with more word salad,

thanks 3 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 21/10/2019(UTC), mihai_qa on 21/10/2019(UTC), jwk on 23/10/2019(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#13 Posted : 21 October 2019 10:29:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

I am just worried that Amungar will come back if we introduce a new formula, with more word salad,

...with Monica doing the  corporate design work!

thanks 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 21/10/2019(UTC), CptBeaky on 21/10/2019(UTC)
Barrie(Badger)Etter  
#14 Posted : 21 October 2019 14:37:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Barrie(Badger)Etter

Originally Posted by: Ian Bell2 Go to Quoted Post

The problem with such scoring methods, especially when you have quite a range of categories/scores it is very semantic/subjective as to what score to select.

Take the given P values - 0.1 Virtually impossible, 0.2 Practically impossible. In the real world what is the difference?

Ian I wonder what you'd make of our assessment 

P1 Positive improvement - no harm

N1 Very rare event

N2 Unlikely event

N3 Possible

N4 Most likely

N5 Almost certain - STOP WORK.

I was going to up load an example of it but the system didn't want to know it :O{

Hsquared14  
#15 Posted : 23 October 2019 13:37:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

Whenever I see a post on here talking about scoring techniques I just want to run away and scream.  What on earth is a complex scoring system like this needed for?  Surely all you need to know or need to identify is what could happen?  how bad is is going to be?  do we need to do anything about it?  I don't need a 10 x 10 matrix to tell me that something is likely to kill to someone and that we need to do something about it so why do people get so hung up on numbers all the time?  Folks we don't need to hide behind numbers and risk rating to tell if something is dangerous.  Until someone convinces me that they are a useless waste of time for anything other than technical risks I will continue to descibe risk as low, medium (moderate), high and possibly unacceptable!!!

thanks 2 users thanked Hsquared14 for this useful post.
ttxela on 23/10/2019(UTC), A Kurdziel on 23/10/2019(UTC)
Barrie(Badger)Etter  
#16 Posted : 23 October 2019 13:49:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Barrie(Badger)Etter

H, our scoring (see previous post) is not multiplied, its a straight single line of numbers with a descriptor, devised for anyone in the company to use from the cleaner upto the MD.  I'd prefer possibly less that would equate to your lo, med & hi but was persuaded there were grey areas that need catering to and covers not nly safety but also environmental issues as well.

ttxela  
#17 Posted : 23 October 2019 14:32:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ttxela

Our paperwork (issued by head office) has a 3 x 3 matrix, I'm finding it impossible to use sensibly. If we have a hazard that I rate as High (and I can't eliminate or substitute) but we have everything in place to control the likelihood to Low the matrix still colours the box orange tell me I have to reduce the risk further within 6 months which is impossible if the hazard stays the same.....

I'm not a fan of rating matrix's but 3 x 3 seems way too simplistic!

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.