When carrying out risk assessments, we typically evaluate both the severity and likelihood of harm. This has been the standard approach for years, but is it still the most effective way? Take common hazards like working at height or operating heavy machinery. Do we really need to keep asking about the severity of harm in these cases? We know that a fall from height or a machinery malfunction can lead to serious injuries or even fatalities. Is there any added value in repeatedly assessing the severity when it’s already well-documented?
Perhaps the better question is: should we shift our focus towards how well the safety measures are implemented? Shouldn’t we be looking at whether the correct controls are in place, if workers are properly trained, and if the equipment being used meets the necessary safety standards?
The Issue with Likelihood
Then there’s the question of likelihood. How do we truly assess the chances of an incident occurring? For more complex risk assessments—like those involving failure rates of technical components—likelihood may have a place. But for everyday risks, is it possible to accurately gauge how likely something is to happen?
Let’s be honest: humans aren’t the best at evaluating risk. We often overestimate the likelihood of rare events, such as a terrorist attack or a plane crash, while underestimating more common risks, like heart disease from an unhealthy lifestyle. Just because something hasn’t happened before, does that mean it’s unlikely to happen now?
In practical terms, how is someone expected to determine the likelihood of an accident when conducting a risk assessment? It’s often a guessing game. Would it be more productive to focus on whether the work is being carried out in line with established standards and regulations, rather than trying to predict an uncertain event?
Is a New Approach Needed?
Instead of going through the motions of assessing severity and likelihood, could a risk assessment be more effective by directly comparing the work being done to industry standards? If we already know the severity of harm from common hazards, should our energy be spent on evaluating the actual safety measures in place and their effectiveness?
By focusing on real-world implementation, we can get a clearer picture of how well the safety controls are being enforced. Are workers using the correct equipment? Is it in good condition? Are the procedures being followed to the letter, or is there room for improvement?
A Focus on Practical Measures
In your experience, how useful is the current approach to risk assessments? Do you feel that repeatedly evaluating severity and guessing at likelihood really adds value, or is there a better way to approach it? Perhaps it’s time to shift our focus towards practical, real-world measures that can prevent incidents, rather than endlessly assessing abstract probabilities.
