Comparing safety risks across different projects involves assessing each project using the same criteria: the likelihood that a risk will occur and the severity of the potential consequences. By consistently applying these two dimensions to each project, you can place risks side by side and set priorities. This article answers the most frequently asked questions about risk comparison in practice.
What criteria do you use to assess safety risks?
The two fundamental principles for assessing safety risks are likelihood and severity. Likelihood describes how probable it is that a hazard leads to an incident. Severity describes how serious the consequences are if that incident occurs. Together, these two criteria form the core of virtually every method for safety risk analysis.
In addition to likelihood and severity, there are supplementary criteria that refine the assessment:
- Exposure: how often and for how long are employees exposed to the hazard?
- Controllability: to what extent can you manage the risk with existing measures?
- Detectability: how quickly do you notice when something goes wrong?
- Number of people involved: does the risk affect one employee or an entire team?
In risk management projects, it is important to establish these criteria in advance and apply them in the same way for each project. Once the criteria differ between projects, you lose the ability to compare projects fairly. So first set up an assessment framework before you begin scoring.
What is the difference between a qualitative and quantitative risk assessment?
A qualitative risk assessment works with descriptions and categories, such as “low”, “medium” and “high”. A quantitative risk assessment works with numbers and calculations, expressing risks in measurable quantities such as probabilities as percentages or expected damage in monetary terms. Both methods have their own area of application.
Qualitative assessment: quick and accessible
With a qualitative approach, experts or employees assess a risk based on experience and insight. You use descriptive scales and place risks into categories. This is suitable for situations where little historical data is available, or where speed is more important than mathematical precision. Most workplace inspections and digital safety inspections make use of qualitative assessments.
Quantitative assessment: depth for complex situations
A quantitative assessment requires more data and time, but also yields more detailed insights. You calculate risks based on historical incident figures, technical failure probability data or statistical models. This is particularly useful for large infrastructure projects, chemical installations or situations where decisions have significant financial or safety consequences.
For most operational projects in sectors such as construction, logistics and technical services, a qualitative assessment provides sufficient guidance. You add a quantitative approach when the complexity or risk profile justifies it.
How do you use a risk matrix to compare projects?
A risk matrix helps you compare safety risks by bringing likelihood and severity together visually in a single overview. You place each risk on a grid where the horizontal axis represents likelihood and the vertical axis represents severity. Risks that fall in the upper right of the matrix deserve the highest priority.
To compare projects with each other using a risk matrix, proceed as follows:
- Use the same matrix with the same scale for all projects.
- Draw up a list of the relevant safety risks for each project.
- Assess each risk on likelihood and severity and place it in the matrix.
- Count the number of risks per colour zone (red, orange, green) per project.
- Compare the distribution: which project has the most high-risk items?
A risk matrix also makes it easier to communicate with project managers and clients. Instead of abstract descriptions, you provide a visual picture of where the risks lie. Do ensure that the colour zones and threshold values of the matrix are the same for all projects. Once teams adjust the scales themselves, comparisons become unreliable.
What factors make risk comparison between projects difficult?
Risk comparison between projects is difficult because projects are rarely identical. Differences in project size, location, type of work, employees involved and environmental factors mean that a risk on one project can turn out very differently from another. This makes a direct comparison without a common framework unreliable.
The most common factors that complicate comparison:
- Different assessors: two project managers assessing the same risk often arrive at different scores based on personal experience and risk appetite.
- Missing or incomplete data: if more information is available for one project than another, the assessments are not equivalent.
- Changing circumstances: season, weather conditions, staffing levels and workload influence risks but are not always taken into account.
- Different definitions: what team A considers “serious” may be assessed as “moderate” by team B if there is no shared definition.
- Multilingual teams: on projects with international staff, language barriers can lead to misunderstandings about risk instructions and assessments.
These factors cannot be eliminated, but you can manage them by working with standardised assessment forms, joint calibration sessions and clear definitions per risk category.
How do you ensure consistent risk information across all projects?
Consistent risk information across projects is achieved by working with a standardised assessment system that everyone uses in the same way. That means: one common format, shared definitions, central storage and regular alignment between the people carrying out the assessments.
Concrete steps to ensure consistency:
- Establish an organisation-wide risk assessment format that applies to all projects.
- Train project managers and safety coordinators in the use of that format.
- Organise periodic calibration sessions where teams jointly assess example risks to identify deviations.
- Record assessments digitally in a central location so that they are comparable and accessible.
- Ensure that multilingual employees also have access to instructions in their own language, so that risk information is not lost through communication problems.
Digital recording plays a major role here. Paper forms and separate Excel files per project make it difficult to maintain an overview. When all projects record their risk information in the same system, you can recognise patterns, track trends and intervene quickly where necessary.
When should you revise the risk ranking between projects?
You revise the risk ranking between projects as soon as the circumstances of a project change substantially, or when new information becomes available that supersedes the earlier assessment. A risk ranking is not a static document but a living overview that must reflect reality.
Situations that justify a revision:
- An incident or near-miss on one of the projects
- Changes to the project scope, work activities or location
- New employees or subcontractors who alter the risk profile
- Changed legislation or regulations applicable to the work activities
- Seasonal changes that affect exposure to hazards
- Feedback from employees on the work floor about risks that have not yet been identified
At the start of each project, establish a moment at which the risk assessment will in any case be evaluated, regardless of whether anything has changed. This prevents assessments from becoming outdated without anyone noticing. The more frequently and quickly you update risk information, the more reliable your comparison between projects becomes.
How E-lia helps with comparing and recording safety risks
Comparing safety risks between projects requires structured, consistent and accessible recording. That is precisely where we can help. Via WhatsApp, we send workplace inspection forms directly to the phones of project managers and employees on the work floor, without them needing to download an additional app or log in.
What this enables you to achieve:
- All projects record risks via the same digital format, making comparison reliable.
- Completed inspections are immediately stored centrally with a timestamp and photos, so you always have an up-to-date overview.
- Multilingual employees receive instructions and forms in their own language thanks to AI translations in more than 50 languages.
- Existing paper checklists are digitalised on a one-to-one basis, so you can continue using familiar processes.
- A live dashboard shows progress per project, so you can quickly see where risks are accumulating.
Would you like to see how this works for your projects? Get in touch and discover what we can do for your organisation.
