We’ve all seen them: the colourful red-amber-green grids and the 3 x 3, or 5 x 5 matrices that spit out a “Risk Rating.” For some, these numbers are essential for prioritising resources. For others, they are a subjective exercise in “making the numbers fit” to justify a task.
I’d love to hear your honest thoughts on these risk ratings:
- Essential: we couldn’t prioritise without them.
- Useful: but they’re often complicated.
- Pointless: they just hide the real risks in the numbers.
- I have a better alternative! (Tell us in the comments)
Also - are they actually useful - or are they just there to satisfy an auditor. And what do you do when two people do the same risk assessment and give completely different scores?
Can we not subjectively describe the likelihood and severity in our risk assessments (e.g. ‘staff are likely to receive serious injuries such as fractures’, ‘could lead to fatalities’, etc.)?
Personally - I don’t believe I’ve ever seen them used effectively. I’ve seen managers coerce safety professionals because task X ‘can’t possibly be a 6’. So the likelihood gets changed to make it a more palatable 4.
But I can imagine that in complex industries (e.g. petro-chemical, aerospace, etc.) they could be useful.
Where do you stand? Drop a comment below—I’m curious to see if we have any “Matrix Loyalists” or if everyone is ready to bin them.