Risk Analysis Through Feeling

Risk Matrix Melodrama

It's ironic that I've spent probably almost as much time agonizing over the title of this article, as what it typically takes for a group to perform (what should be) the simple task of categorizing the level of risk of any particular event. The reason for that irony will become apparent as one digests the content ahead.

This article discusses an alternate way of analyzing risk; but before we get there, I'd like to set the scene (especially for those interested, but with scant knowledge of this subject) by referencing the currently accepted 'standard' way of doing this.

So What is this Thing called 'Risk'

What did I mean by "categorizing the level of risk" ?

The first part of answering is that I'm simply asking:

What is the chance of something unwanted or undesired happening?

Just for the sake of academic correctness, the ISO 31000: 2018 Risk Management — Guidelines publication defines risk as being:

"The effect of uncertainty on objectives"

The second part deals specifically with the uncertainty of an unwanted outcome - that chance of an unwanted something happening possibility : expressed in either a qualitative way (e.g. 'unlikely') or a quantitative way (e.g. an 80% chance).

Science, or Sentiment

The thing to understand is that, despite the appearance of risk assessment being 'scientific' it is largely driven by sentiment.

I actually don't think there is anything wrong with that - an output being based on sentiment - and wish more 'heart' was put into decision-making in general.

My own sentiment is that adoption of heart-led methodologies for dealing with emotive areas, generally get to the heart of the matter more rapidly - and effectively - than what solely head-brained attempts do.

This is especially relevant as, at its core, risk assessment (but especially risk analysis) is very much a subjective and an emotive pursuit.

In our daily lives it would not be unusual to hear someone say "That feels (or seems) risky." We certainly don't express that sentiment as "That computes as being risky." yet we, as a matter of course in business, attempt to make risk categorization a scientific pursuit.

In this article, I'd like to challenge the computational data-driven approach by bringing a sensory perspective and human element in to play. Business would benefit with a lot more heart put into it !

So How Do We (Currently) Determine the Level of Risk ?

The level of risk is determined during that part of the risk management process known as Risk Analysis.

In practice, this task is most often undertaken using a tool or aid that is generically known as a 'risk matrix'.

Anatomy of a 'Standard' Type Risk Matrix

Risk matrices come in many shapes and forms; however there is a generic type in popular use that, for purposes of this article, I'll refer to as the 'standard ' type.

Folk in the risk management business refer to a 3 x (by) 3 , a 4 x 4 , a 5 x 5, or some other arrangement of 'blocks' that forms a grid with Consequence (aka Severity) on one axis and Likelihood (aka Probability) on the other.

Here is a typical example: in this case a 4 x 5 sourced from the New Zealand WorkSafe website:

There are, of course, risk matrices that are even more complex: with Severity / Probability grids up to 10 x 10 - giving up to 100 (!) pin-point possibilities - and some that have more than 2 axes or dimensions to include factors such as:

• Human factors (complacency, fatigue etc)
• Resilience
• Time
• Control Effectiveness
• Confidence Levels

But, Is Complexity our Friend ?

Is having such complexity with so many options helpful, or a hindrance in assessing and more specifically, analyzing risk ?

It's difficult enough achieving consensus working with only two dimensions: so anything that makes risk analysis more complicated should be avoided like the plague !

Striving for Simplicity

Leonardo da Vinci said

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

We have a tendency to complicate what should remain simple. I'm personally not immune to that - having years ago, developed astonishingly complex systems that were marvels (to myself), but practically, hard work for those I'd designed them to be useful for.

Over the course of my life I've come to deeply appreciate the intrinsic beauty and power of simplicity. On the same theme, what you'll begin to understand as you read this article, is that (unlike the younger version of myself) rather than making it more complicated determining the level of risk, I'll be advocating simplifying - as much as possible - this process.

For now, let's start with the basics of the 'standard' risk management process (that most 'risk folk' have been schooled in) that risk matrices are a key element of ....

Risk Management 101

For those who don't know the basics of risk management, I'll provide as simple an explanation as I can.

At the risk (pun definitely intended) of over-simplifying:

• An event of concern is identified: let's use the example of a finger cut by sharp knife.
• We seek to understand the severity (consequence) of that event. In this example the worst case scenario may be the loss of multiple fingers as a consequence of the event of concern.
• A determination is then made on how likely it is that said event may come to pass. The likelihood may be influenced by the frequency of exposure. For example: A chef uses a sharp knife multiple times daily - which (theoretically) raise the likelihood of the unwanted event occurring.

Consulting the Oracle

• By consulting the matrix - specifically the intersection of consequence and likelihood - a level of risk is determined ('blocked'). These levels are generally expressed as Low, Moderate (Medium), High, Extreme (Critical or Catastrophic) or similar wording.
• This descriptor (Low etc.) then becomes the output of the process of risk analysis; but it is not the end of the risk management process.

Risk Mitigation - How Low Can We Go

• Is there a way of shifting the risk into a more palatable or tolerable block ? In the world of risk management, Lows put way more smiles on dials than what Highs do. The way to 'reblock' is to diminish the likelihood of the unwanted event coming to pass by proposing a control (aka defence, or barrier) that, once implemented, should (provided it is truly effective and reliable) either prevent or at least diminish the level of harm, should it none-the-less come to pass.
• It is generally understood that introduction of the risk reducing mechanism (control) affects the likelihood but does not impact or diminish the severity. In this example: use of a chainmail (metal mesh) glove to be worn by the chef.
• A caveat: This is not a hard rule as in some instances the severity can be reduced: think of insisting that the chef wear a chainmail glove whilst using the knife. That could be the difference between a cut requiring a band aid and loosing a digit: in effect reducing the severity of harm.

Blocking: It's All About That Darn Block !

Ok, now that the 101 lesson in risk management has concluded, let's get back on track and work towards that alternate solution I'm wanting to propound.

It never ceases to amaze me how much time is spent quibbling and agonizing over which exact block in a risk matrix a particular risk should be 'placed'.

Remember that 10 x 10 matrix (with 100 possibilities) and think of the potential pontification that may ensue when two or more stubborn personalities are engaged in a risk assessment session.

The level of hairsplitting can be, and paradoxically is, even more intense amongst seasoned safety practitioners - as ego and hubris come into play in having their block of choice selected as the definitive; in effect, bringing to live what I've termed 'risk matrix melodrama'.

Ego SO gets in the Way

There is undoubtedly a matter of ego at play during these exercises.

Irrespective of whether I'm being an observer or a participant in an assessment of risk that specifically requires categorization of the level of a risk using a standard type risk matrix, the powerplays involved simultaneously amuse and frustrate me; and have ultimately led to my having sought a simpler way of doing this - and to producing the tool that I propose to you for consideration in this article.

The Inherent Flaw in Standard Risk Matrices

Putting aside the general angst created as a consequence of the 'blocking' debate; the issue with the standard type of risk matrices above is that, to a greater or lesser extent, all use a form of pseudo-scientific enquiry based on quantitative data to determine the frequency or probability of an event occurring e.g. a 1 in 50 chance of occurring, or, has happened once in two years - and so on.

Even actuaries working for insurance companies - who have volumes worth of specialized data at their fingertips - cannot guarantee the certainty of any specific event occurring: so what makes you think you can ? At best what most are able to proffer is an educated guess.

When it comes to historical frequency of an event in your industry (never mind in your own organisation) can you put your hand on your heart and honestly say you have you have reliable pin point accurate data at your fingertips that can inform your choice of which probability row to choose ?

So, What REALLY Matters When it Comes to Risk ?

To prevent mayhem, melodrama, nit-picking and quibbling from happening during risk classification / categorization, we need to understand what really matters in order to deal appropriately and effectively with the management of risk.

It actually doesn't matter where the risk sits in a risk matrix.

All we need to understand are two things;

1. Is there a risk ? (a simple Yes or No will do nicely, thank you) and
2. What do we need to do having become aware of the risk: essentially deciding where and what action is needed and supporting that with the required resources and leadership commitment.

It's all about keeping things simple.

We can take the lead of Peace Pilgrim when she said:

“The simplification of life is one of the steps to inner peace.”

A Simple Thought Experiment

Imagine being asked assess the level of risk (chance of something unwanted happening) BUT having to do so without the use of a 'standard' risk matrix.

My suggestion: turn inward and go with one's gut.

Given the above and being mindful that too large a leap is not as effectively received or adopted as well as what incremental change is, I'd like to introduce an alternate to the traditional (or standard) risk matrix; what I call:

The 'FeltSense' or 'As-Is' matrix

Felt sense is what happens when we move from 'what am I seeing' to 'how am I feeling about this' through the referencing of sensations of the body or "contours of feelings" (Dr Peter Levine). we literally feel 'a something' based on sensations from within.

The concept of 'felt sense' was first developed by Dr Eugene Gendlin. According to GoodTherapy? "While a felt sense is partially emotional, Gendlin characterized the concept as a combination of emotion, awareness, intuitiveness, and embodiment. The felt sense is often unclear; people cannot specifically verbalize what they are feeling, but often describe it as a vague awareness of things [including] burgeoning ideas."

Felt sense - is an innate and powerful tool we all have but, ironically, one of the problems is that it can be hard to articulate what the inner knowing is telling us - and, can also take time to process (which can be detrimental when decisions need to be made quickly); therefore I'm attempting to provide some words to both locate and expedite the meaning of the felt sense in helping us to both determine risk level, and simultaneously, to manage that appropriately.

Sitting on the Fence is Not Kosher in Risk Management

My first attempt at designing a Sensory or Feeling - FeltSense type Matrix resulted in there being three bands of possibility:

'Unacceptable' Unsure or 'Acceptable

in effect reproducing the equivalent of Low, Medium and High possibilities that a standard type risk matrix might offer.

But Feelings do Not Come in Halves

It then occurred to me that feelings do not come in halves: we don't feel half happy or half sad - and that therefore, there should be no 'middle ground' or ability to sit on the fence using this largely emotive-driven tool.

I often have a similar issue with rating scales where, as a consequence of there being an odd number (generally a 3 or 5) there is a middle ground option that many will choose because it offers a place of 'comfort' - whereas a watershed divide created by an even numbered scale would be more valuable, as it prevents one from sitting on the fence and directs one to the crux of the matter.

I clearly had more work to do to refine it further to what appears in the slide presentation that follows:

The Method to The Madness

To provide context; I have chosen and populated the fields that you see in the slide images above on the basis of:

• Personal experience in the university of life (troubles that have found me).
• Professional experience as an aircraft accident investigator.
• Professional experience as a critical risk advisor.
• The wisdom and practical application of mBraining.

Straight from the Heart

Don't discount the heart as being a trued centre of intelligence - it has the same neural network capacity as lobsters do - and for those who are not in the know, lobsters are intensely social creatures. Messages emanating from the heart will stand you in good stead when it comes to the management of risk .. hence I've incorporated heart into the 'As Is' Matrix.

That Good Ol' Gut Feel

Also, don't ignore what messages the gut is sending. The gut is another centre of intelligence that has the same neural networking capability as that of a cat - and we all know how adept cats are at stayin' alive ! For that reason Gut too has a well-deserved place in the 'As Is' Matrix.

Reflection

I started off this article by mentioning that I'd been racking my brain in deciding what the 'perfect' descriptor would be for this article - when all I really had to do was go with the first sentiment that came to me. That choice was appropriate, accurate, relevant and required no prolonged deliberation or undue angst.

Ironically, that very act of internal quibbling has mirrored the very behaviour: nitpicking, hairsplitting, pedantism niggling, quibbling etc. that leads to the risk matrix melodrama that is the product of 'blocking' - my twist on being fixated on which risk matrix block the risk is perceived to belong in.

From Theory to Application

It doesn't matter how many times we work through the process running through the word pictures in the matrix until we are able to shift from the red Unacceptable state to the green Acceptable state - as long as we get there.

If we genuinely can't make that shift to achieve a state of acceptability , then, quite simply, we shouldn't be doing the task that is causing us angst, anguish or unease.

If in doubt, don't do it (as it is) !

The Lessons Are ...

When we need to determine the level of risk - whether that be without risk mitigating controls in place (aka initial or pre-control risk) or with controls in place (aka residual or post-control risk) - we can avoid the pain that 'blocking' causes by getting right to the heart of the matter.

There is nothing wrong with robust debate and challenging 'the block' ; but that process itself can cause angst, counter productivity and leaves some folk feeling that their perspective is not valued, and quite frankly, can waste a LOT of valuable time...

A fundamental question to ask is:

Do we really need to determine the level of risk, or, to know that there is risk ?

It logically follows that, having acknowledged that risk (irrespective of what 'level') exists, that an appropriate and timely response should be the focus of action and would be the wisest investment of one's energy.

In the world of risk management there is no room for a 'maybe'. We need to act, decisively and timeously on the basis of Go or No-Go determinations.

There really is no better way to do that than 'listening' to the often ignored centres of intelligence of heart and gut, and being mature enough to detach from ego.

I believe that a 'FeltSense' or 'As-Is' matrix can considerably enhance our capacity for doing all of that.

I hope this alternate way of perceiving risk sits well with you. If it does, feel free to use and share. If it doesn't, then well, it doesn't.

And, the Opportunities Are ....

By asking why we have feelings of discomfort or unease when thinking about performing a particular task, we'll also be uncovering opportunities for:

Enhancing outcomes through Organizational Learning; particularly in the four M's that cover the areas of:

• 'Man' (the human resource) ,
• 'Machine' (equipment used),
• 'Management' (Leadership and the provision of Safe Systems of Work) and
• 'Medium' (the environment in which the task is to be performed), and

Personal Development - progressively becoming the best Us that we can become...

Conclusion

I'll conclude with a favourite quotation attributed to Mark Twain that happens to be relevant to this topic

“I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened.”

One should be asking why, despite being exposed to many 'troubles' - the majority never caused him anguish. My take is that he responded early to cues of discomfort and thereby nipped said troubles in the bud.

More on that topic in a forthcoming article; for now I encourage you to strip your risk management analysis methodology right down to 'bare bones' and give the FeltSense or As-Is Matrix a try.