Common Problems & Solutions for Risk Assessments
Over many years our team has noticed staff and contractors struggle to prepare efficient and effective risk assessments.
What is the problem?
Firstly, most people don’t know what type of risk assessment they are doing. There are two main types of risk assessment.
Quantitative: Needs lots of data, mainly used by specialists eg engineering consultants, aerospace, military and rail industries; and
Qualitative: Scenario based, mainly used by local teams eg manufacturing and related industries.
In workplace safety we use scenario-based risk assessments
In workplace safety we mainly use qualitative risk assessments because we don’t need the precision of quantitative assessments, and indeed don’t have the vast amount of data to do predictive assessments.
The sample risk assessment template below shows how we include our scenario in our assessment.
Moving from left to right on the risk assessment worksheet we first list the hazard number eg No.1.
In the second column the scenario is simply expressed as a short sentence which includes the three main elements (below):
What is the hazard eg hot element.
Where is the hazard eg sealing unit on packaging machine No.1
What level of harm eg worker could sustain first aid or medical treatment burn to their hand.
The next column in our worksheet allows us to list what controls are currently in place (at time of assessment) eg nothing / nil, warning signage, worker care, guarding, procedure and competency-based training.
Now we know details of the hazard and existing controls we can use our risk matrix (sample below) to determine the initial risk level.
Note: The most common mistake we have observed in using the risk matrix is the false statement “for safety we need to be conservative and always take the worst case” eg highest possible severity.
The problem with this approach is you tend to make every hazard a high or extreme risk, which only delays managers identifying which hazards are the real highest risk and in need of urgent attention.
The good news is there is a quick solution. Skip the risk matrix and jump straight to implementation of the agreed controls. The safety regulations do not mandate the use of a risk matrix in any state.
However, if you have hundreds of hazards, using a risk matrix is helpful to identify your priority items.
So, as long as we have general agreement on the hazard and necessary controls to prevent injury, which most work teams will readily support, then you don’t need to use a risk matrix. The 5 x 5 risk matrix below demonstrates how taking the worst case severity exaggerates the risk estimate to extreme or high.
The next image demonstrates how a simple hole in the carpet can falsely become rated as an extreme risk by taking the worst severity, with the logic “it is highly likely someone will trip on the hole in the carpet in a busy walkway if not fixed, and at worst they could strike their head on a sharp corner of a desk and die”.
We might not be able to totally discount the extreme risk of dying, but this is not the most likely outcome of tripping over in a carpeted office.
It is far more likely that they will sustain a minor or temporary injury. In which case the risk matrix will show a moderate (yellow) risk level.
There are many other subtitles associated with risk assessments and our team at Safety Action can demonstrate these along with practical solutions if desired.
We conduct half-day workshops on conducting effective and efficient risk assessments, and also include this topic in our 2-day safety leadership foundations course.
