Risk scoring supports consistent site decisions
Construction teams often rate hazards differently across shifts and subcontractors. A structured score converts judgement into a shared language. By combining severity, likelihood, and exposure, supervisors can compare tasks objectively, document assumptions, and justify control priorities during briefings, audits, and permit reviews. Consistency also helps align client expectations with daily site realities and reduces debate when conditions change. Use the same scales across sites to benchmark performance and guide corrective actions reliably.
Severity, likelihood, and exposure define the baseline
Severity reflects the credible worst outcome, from minor injury to fatality or major damage. Likelihood estimates how often the event could occur with current conditions. Exposure represents how frequently people are in the danger zone. Using one-to-five scales keeps inputs simple while preserving meaningful differentiation. Teams should define each score with examples, such as “edge protection missing” or “lifting over live walkways,” to standardize interpretation.
Residual scoring quantifies the effect of controls
Risk reduction is strongest when controls are engineered, verified, and maintained. The calculator applies an effectiveness percentage to reduce likelihood, then recalculates the residual score. This mirrors real workflows: identify controls, estimate performance, and confirm that the remaining risk is tolerable before work proceeds. Pair the estimate with evidence, such as inspection records, permits, competence cards, and supervision frequency.
Bands and actions improve prioritization and escalation
Scores are grouped into bands that trigger practical actions. Low scores focus on monitoring and routine checks. Moderate scores suggest improving supervision or housekeeping. High scores demand immediate mitigation and formal authorization. Extreme scores indicate stopping the task until controls reduce exposure or likelihood to safe levels. When residual scores remain high, redesign the method, sequence the work differently, or remove workers from the hazard area.
Reporting strengthens compliance and learning cycles
Exported CSV and PDF outputs make results easy to attach to method statements, toolbox talks, and client documentation. Over time, repeated assessments create a dataset showing which activities generate high scores and which controls deliver the best reduction. This supports targeted training, procurement decisions, and continuous improvement. Reviewing trends monthly can reveal recurring weak points, such as poor access control, inadequate housekeeping, or rushed schedule pressure.