Risk assessment format

[Brian Catton]

I have seen so many different formats for fire risk assessments that it makes your head spin. I prefer to keep the format simple, ie hazards, control measures and high, medium or low for the risk.
I do not like the numerical matrices as they are very subjective.
What views, if any has anyone else got.
This should re start the forum. :twisted:

[Chris Houston]

But what does high medium and low mean?  Not much I would suggest.  Risk should consider the consequences and the liklihood.  A matrix is a good way of factoring in these two things.

Are you a member of the Institure of Risk Management?  There is a good article on probability in InfoRM this month.  It talks about the need to measure net and gross risk. (think about the hazards without thinking about the control measures first, then with.)

[Brian Catton]

Thank you for that Chris. I am a member of the Institute and have read the article. Likelihood is ok when you are dealing with a rational situation.
However, working with patients/ residents suffering from mental health problems for some years now that is not straightforward. Each individual has to be clinically assed first. I would use a matrix when assessing normal Health and Safety Risk.
I suppose high medium and low means exactly what you want it to mean, same as the numbers that you factor in based on the standard probability and likelihood terms.

[AnthonyB]

The only high & lows we use are the High, Normal & Low risk categories described by the Home Office in their guidance books.

[Brian Catton]

Thank you Anthony, nice to see you back on the forum, but where is Colin Todd??

[Guest]

The highs mediums and lows used by home office confused hazard and risk as so many in fire safety particularly fire officers do.

[Ken Taylor]

Unless dealing with a specifically measurable hazard item, I would go for keeping it simple as far as the recorded evaluation is concerned. The important things are to recognise and record the hazards and their risks of occurrence and come up with the appropriate control measures. Some of these complicated risk evaluation systems can arrive at some very strange conclusions at times and they can take a vast amout of time in complex workplaces. I can remember risk assessments in the old GLC days when they were waiting for estimates of repair/replacement costs before completing them. The Health and Safety Executive have given High, Medium and Low in their published guidance on general risk assessments under health and safety legislation so you can always quote their example if criticised!

[Brian Catton]

Thank you Ken. I think that has answered my original question and laid to rest any doubts I had.

[Guest]

Are statistical probabilities not more pertinent when dealing with fire if the statistics are available?

[Brian Catton]

Lies damn lies and statistics!!!!!

It is an interesting concept that I would be interested to hear more about.
Can you give examples.

This sounds like something from the ODPM office statistics department. It is ok using probabilities when all risk factors are "normal".

 :? Are you suggesting that fire protection is based on the probability alone that a fire could happen??

[Risk Surveyor]

If only life were simple... The reason it makes everyones head spin is that the subject is extremely complicated... If you need to simplify the subject then you must simplify or reduce the variables , discount consequence or probability. You must decide the extent of your probability between what is reasonable,known convention, covered by tested data or pure speculation, worst scenario and exagerated likelyhood. The other major factor of why most people find the subject complicated is that they are unclear what the process should acheive..... The process becomes so simple if you appreciate the purpose and objective of the process... In the case of Fire this must be determined by the Management Strategy... The Management Strategy will determine the acceptability parameters and will probably give you clues as to what is significant... If the Management Strategy deems that any occurence is unacceptable as would be the case in a Major Museum the provision is appropriate... If Management deem that an occurence is acceptable but controllable ....the provision will be appropriate.. unlike schools at the moment... If Management are only interested in CATNAP.(Cheapest Available Technique Needed to Avoid Prosecution) then this system has to be based on significant findings based on information and guidance given by enforcing authoraties... or next to nothing I mean data that is... Last but by no means last is that resources and I mean sufficient resources must be allocated commensurate with the agreed action items required to acheive the objectives... After all you must have your stake money and you have to put more money on sure certainties to win the same amount as you do on an outsider.

[Guest]

This is a ramble, probably not worth reading.

Fire starts, bummer, but what's going to happen to it. It's not going to spotaniosly spread, it needs the fuel right? Well, what fuel would allow spread. Smoke's a good one, but you need the smoke to be produced.

Anyway;

If you find an ignition source - a toaster or a pump. How many have been produced and how many have caught fire. In the case of chip pans (I stand to be corrected) there are 50 left in the country, how many catch fire? statistics say, 49 will catch fire of the 50 left. So 98% will give your probability (0.98). 10% of people have no brain, they will throw water on it and so spread it. (0.1). The house is concrete, so are the chairs and beds and dogs in it. So the fire spread potential is 0.1% (0.001). So fire is likely to happen and spread beyond the original seat. But once the original fuel is burnt, thats it, it'll go out.

Is that a high or low risk?

If the person wasn't there, a low risk - it's going to burn and thats it, won't go anywhere.

The person is stupid so they won't get anywhere, high risk?

But the risk to everyone else in the house, pretty low.

Saying that, they'll have terrible back from sleeping on concrete.

I think risk is too wide a subject to be able to define it further than low, medium and high. You can't. Unless you know 100% that something will occur with certain outcome, then it's not possible to say that it will or won't. This disturbs a lot of people. Uncertainty.

But, it has to be done. Certain things can be said for definate, they are what you must build a risk assessment on. Then you use science and engineering to back up what you have said.

Told you it wasn't worth reading.