Mastering Risk Assessments: Thinking on Your Feet for Better Outcomes

Facilitating a risk assessment can sometimes require more than just following a set process—especially when unexpected changes occur. I recently found myself in this exact situation when I walked into a risk assessment meeting expecting a manageable group of 10 people, only to find 20 people gathered in the room. While this situation could lead to more robust discussions, it also has the potential to double the time spent in the session.

Faced with the challenge of managing a larger-than-expected group, I needed to quickly adjust my approach to ensure the risk assessment stayed on track without compromising the quality of our findings. Here’s how I adapted:

Adapting to the Situation

Typically, risk assessments rely on calculating risk scores based on likelihood, consequences, and impact. However, with 20 people in the room and a large list of hazards to review, this process could have quickly turned into a marathon session, leaving participants feeling fatigued and disengaged.

I decided to modify the typical approach and batch the risk rankings at the end of the session. Instead of focusing on risk scores for each line item in real-time, we spent the majority of our time discussing the true risks, hazards, and appropriate controls. Once that conversation was complete, we revisited the risk rankings, now armed with a clear understanding of the hazards and additional controls that would reduce risk.

The Benefits of This Approach

This strategy proved effective in several ways:

1. Group Synergy: By saving the rankings for the end, everyone in the room was already familiar with the key risks and controls we had identified. This made the final rankings process more efficient and meaningful.

2. Better Control Identification: Since we had already identified and discussed additional controls, we were able to assign more realistic risk scores. For example, a risk that initially seemed high could be adjusted down once we confirmed the additional controls.

3. Increased Engagement: The participants appreciated the new structure. In fact, they were surprised when the session ended, thinking we hadn’t covered enough. But in reality, we had spent the majority of our time focusing on what truly mattered—the hazards and the actions required to control them.

Key Takeaway

This experience reinforced the importance of being able to think on your feet and adapt processes when necessary. While it’s important to have a structured approach, flexibility can lead to better outcomes, particularly in scenarios where the unexpected happens. Can you think on your feet during a risk assessment, and modify your approach to achieve the same outcomes? I’m curious to hear how others have handled similar situations.