High or low risk that is the question…

How does our perception affect our ability to assess risk?

Occupational Health and Safety or Work Health and Safety legislation requires that risks to health and safety are eliminated or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable. The likelihood and outcome of the risk occurring must be considered when determining what reasonably practicable is. Both of these require humans to assess and make decisions based on their knowledge and may be influenced by their risk perception, which is an individual's subjective judgment of the risk.

Dynamic style risk assessments include questions such as "What could go wrong? and "How can it be done safely?". These require the person completing the risk assessment to have the requisite knowledge in the task they are about to complete to identify the risks and review the controls. This type of risk assessment uses quick, instinctive, automatic System 1 type thinking.

Quantitative risk assessments, where the risk is typically assessed by multiplying a number assigned to the severity or the outcome of an event (or resultant harm) and the likelihood of the event occurring, often rely on a risk matrix where the result is translated as anything from acceptable to extreme risk. This is designed to prioritise the risks and influence the action to be taken to achieve an acceptable risk. The outcome is heavily influenced by the risk perception of the participants completing the risk assessment and their inclination to either play down or catastrophise a possible outcome, and how often they perceive the activity is performed or risk is present.

While the quality of quantitative assessments can be improved by having clear definitions of each category, there is still a chance that everyone sees fatality as a possibility, leading to high-risk scores and inappropriate prioritisation.  Also risk perception is likely to be high for risks that frequently eventuate regardless of the outcome. At the other extreme, the thinking that 'it's never happened here leads to low scores and the true potentially catastrophic event is then ignored as high-frequency, low consequence events become the focus. An individual’s experience of the possible severity of an outcome will influence their perception of the level of risk where prior information or exposures may bias the perceived risk over what may be considered rational.

Other quantitative risk assessment methods, such as Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), use published failure rate and event data. This takes away human factors and decision making from at least part of the assessment. There can, however, be difficulties obtaining relevant data as outcomes do not always fit into pre-defined mathematical modelling and factors vary between scenarios. The same could be said for all types of risk assessment techniques, from the basic models to the more advanced techniques such as Fault Tree Analysis and all types of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). These types of risk assessments typically use slower, more logical and deliberative System 2 type thinking. Models such as QRA, however, do not consider culture or behaviours or human error as it applies to nonstandard scenarios such as emergencies.  Risk assessment must consider and address more than just numbers, they must acknowledge and address the subjective judgements (risk perceptions) that those involved bring.

Risk assessment methods may seem simple; however, the reproducibility of outcomes cannot be expected when risk perception is subjective and people tend to perceive risk based on emotions.  The most likely outcome needs to be considered but also calibrated amongst those performing the risk assessments. This can be particularly important depending on the workplace's risk profile; risk awareness is heightened at workplaces perceived as high risk, such as a major hazard facility, versus a seemingly lower risk workplace such as a retail store. Risk perception and acceptable risk will also be seen differently based on any perceived benefit. This may be indirect, for example, where potential identified risk controls may lengthen the task and subsequently impact workload or even income. Those engaged in precarious work may also not be inclined to raise risks or propose controls that may be seen to add difficulty, complexity or cost to a task.

Having broader teams completing risk assessment is not in itself a solution to improved, consistent outcomes as research shows teams often rely on the same practices as individuals to process information, leading to similar errors in judgement. Also, team members tend to focus on specific information or try and get the 'gist' of the available information, which may lead to incorrect focus or outcomes. There is, however, the benefit of using a group with diverse coverage of experience (both direct and indirect) and thinking types as both System 1 and System 2 types of thinking are needed to react to and manage risk appropriately.

Age, sex, experience, personality, education, income, culture, morals, background and team environment all influence risk perception. A recognition that all perspectives are valuable can lead to better outcomes in risk assessment. Organisations should create an environment where everyone has an equal voice, and the risk assessment will benefit from the emotionally driven intuitive responses as well as the well-considered deliberate responses.  Any biases should be acknowledged and discussed. Risk assessment teams should include people with a breadth of experience (both direct and indirect), including those performing the specific task. Experiences should be shared and where there is no direct experience within the group or organisation then industry information should be referred to. Finally, appropriate tools should be adopted, and the assessment team must be trained in them in order for them to be effective.

The team at MicroRisk Group have significant experience in risk assessment across a breadth of industries. MicroRisk Group can assist you by facilitating your next Risk Assessment; ensuring the assessment team and tools are appropriate for your situation. See our Services for more information.