In Temporary Traffic Management (TTM), managing risks effectively is the core outcome. While identifying and analyzing risks are essential steps, they are only part of the equation. The real challenge often lies in risk evaluation—the process of determining whether the level of risk identified is acceptable and what, if anything, needs to be done about it. This step is critical in deciding whether the current risk controls are sufficient or if additional actions are required to further reduce the risk
The Importance of Risk Evaluation in Decision-Making
Risk evaluation is the stage where you take the information from your risk analysis—like the likelihood and severity of an event—and ask the bigger questions: “Is this level of risk acceptable? What more could be done to reduce it? And if further actions are possible, are they reasonably practicable given the resources available?” It’s about making informed decisions that not only consider the technical aspects of risk but also the broader context, including how risks are perceived by stakeholders and the potential consequences of those risks.
One common tool used in the risk analysis process is a risk matrix, which seeks to qualify risks by assigning scores based on their likelihood and severity. However, a number on a matrix doesn’t automatically translate to a clear decision. For instance, if a risk is rated as a ‘4’ (considered low), the next step isn’t simply to accept that score at face value. Instead, you need to evaluate what that score actually means in practice. Is a ‘4’ truly low enough, or are there additional steps that could be taken to mitigate the risk further? This is where many evaluations fall short—they stop at the scoring without delving into whether the risk is truly acceptable or what additional controls might be warranted.
A Practical Example: Roadworks and Pedestrian Safety
To bring this into a more concrete context, consider a scenario where roadworks are blocking a pedestrian footpath. The initial risk analysis might show that there’s a low likelihood of pedestrians being present and then stepping onto the road to bypass the worksite, potentially putting them in harm’s way. The risk matrix might rate this scenario as a ‘4’, suggesting a ‘low’ risk level. But is this acceptable? Should the current control measures be deemed sufficient?
In evaluating this risk, you would consider not just the score but also the broader implications. For example, could the risk be further reduced by adding fencing or rerouting pedestrians safely or using a footpath controller? What would be the cost and effort involved in implementing these measures, and would they be reasonably practicable? Would the control measures introduce risks that are higher in magnitude that the risk being treated? Is the potential reduction in risk worth the investment? And importantly, who within the organisation is responsible for making the final decision on whether the current risk level is acceptable?
Aligning Risk Evaluation with Legal and Organisational Goals
These are the kinds of questions that risk evaluation is designed to address. It ensures that risks are not just identified and analysed but thoughtfully evaluated in terms of their broader impact and whether additional actions are warranted. The goal is to make sure that risks are managed to a level that is not only technically acceptable but also aligns with the organisation’s overall risk appetite and the legal framework of the Health and Safety at Work ct 2015 (‘as low as reasonably practicable’).
In essence, risk evaluation moves the process from abstract numbers on a matrix to real-world decisions that can make a significant difference in safety and effectiveness. It’s about ensuring that the level of risk you’re willing to accept is not only reasonable but also justified in the context of the work being done. This step is vital in TTM, where the stakes—both for workers and the public—are often high, and where making the right decision can mean the difference between a well-managed project and one that puts people in harms way.
