Risk decision-making matrix

Information from socio-economic analyses can serve not only to select between alternative risk management measures in the decision-making matrix but can identify the relevant timelines for implementation (e.g., resulting from process change, product reformulation or instillation of pollution abatement technology). In the case of authorisation, REACH specifies that socio-economic data will form a key variable in the identification of suitable alternatives and the period for granting an authorisation before it needs to be reviewed. 

Automatic bans for carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances following the restrictions procedure under Directive 76/769 have been excluded (step 2) because these will continue to apply under REACH. The result of the risk criteria evaluation for each substance according to the decision-making matrix is shown in Table 6.1 (step 3). Based on the selection procedure detailed in Section 5.3.2, the most suitable regulatory outcome... 

EU risk assessment and the application of the systems framework decision-making matrix both indicate otherwise. The prioritisation method could also isolate several substances that should be given particularly low priorities at the EU level (e.g., BA, butadiene, TCE) which demonstrates some of the inefficiencies of the current regulatory system that could continue under REACH. 

It would be highly unusual for a text or standard on system safety not to include risk assessment matrices and provide examples. Tliere are many, many variations of matrices and the definitions of the terms used in them vary greatly. The matrix used should be the one to which management and users in an organization decide is best for them. It is strongly recommended that a suitable matrix be chosen because of its value in risk decision making. 

Each process owner requires a defined level of decision authority. This authority level delineates the bounds of decision making granted by the organization to the process owner. Business needs and risk assessment must be incorporated into the design of the decision authority granted to a process owner. Table 6 is an example of a decision authority matrix design for a process owner. It requires cross-functional management support to be effective. 

Initially, when the number of compounds and samples is high, method quality can be balanced by the need for speed. The risk of a potentially incorrect decision based on low-quality bioanalysis is much more manageable in early discovery, particularly because this phase is not regulated but is for decision making and candidate selection purposes only. Expectations for method quality are generally lower for in vitro samples than those from in vivo studies. This is due in part to the amount of effort required to synthesize the relatively modest amount of compound for an in vitro experiment compared to the amount necessary to dose animals and also due to the complexity of the sample matrix, which is much simpler for in vitro samples than in vivo samples such as plasma or tissue. 

As a second step, prior to entering the risk descriptors into the decisionmaking matrix, a potential risk that requires particular regulatory attention needs to be excluded from further decision-making (Figure 5.10). Reasons for excluding potential risks include ... 

In this Paper, based on the traditional RCM, the concept of risk and risk matrix is introduced into the decision-making flow of RCM, and the risk matrix diagram is generated based on comprehensive consideration of device security, mission fulfillment and economy. Furthermore, the traditional RCM decision making logics is improved in order to enhance the effectiveness and precision of analysis process, to work out reasonable and scientific preventive maintenance period for gas lines and to achieve unification of economic profit and security (Das et al. 2011). 

Earlier in this chapter, reference was made to a speaker who reviewed the hazard analysis and risk assessment methods used in his company, which relied on typical risk assessment and decision-making matrices, to achieve acceptable risk levels. Use of such matrices is a method some organizations apply to arrive at acceptable risk levels. Table 15.1 is an example of such a risk assessment matrix. Using the results from Table 15.1, levels of remedial action or risk acceptance for individual risk categories can be established, as in Table 15.2. 

Five examples of risk assessment matrices follow. First, an adaptation is shown in Table 7 of the Mishap risk categories and mishap acceptance levels as in the working draft of MIL-STD-882E, the Department of Defense Standard Practice For System Safety. A comment in Appendix A of 882E is pertinent here A mishap assessment matrix allows classification by mishap severity and mishap probability and assists in managing the decision-making to achieve the necessary risk elimination or reduction to an acceptable level. ... 

Since resources are always limited, spending an inordinate amount of money to reduce the risk only a little through costly engineering and redesign is inappropriate, particularly if that money could be better spent otherwise. That premise can be demonstrated through an example that uses a risk assessment matrix as a part of the decision making. 

A general purpose of the flood risk management framework is providing a basis for rational decision making. Recording different variants with associated risks, costs, and benefits, in a matrix or decision tree serves as an aid for making decisions. 

The information taken from the risk profiles is then put into a risk management matrix. A risk management matrix is a decision-making tool that indicates which risks the company is willing to accept. It is very important that the risk management matrix is developed before any analysis is started. 

---