Risk savvy is not the same as risk aversion. Without calculated risks, innovation in construction methods would stall, site efficiency would suffer, and genuine courage in problem-solving would fade. The key is embracing risk intelligently — using practical judgment and evidence-based assessment to proceed with informed caution.
The Difference Between Absolute and Relative Risk
In academic risk management (aligned with ISO 31000 principles), absolute risk evaluates the genuine probability and consequence of harm in the specific context. It does this by factoring in existing controls and worker experience. Additionally, it considers historical incident data and site realities.
This contrasts with relative risk approaches, which often rely on subjective matrices that compare hazards in isolation. These matrices frequently inflate ratings. As a result, they trigger disproportionate controls, excessive documentation, and reduced productivity — exactly the kind of red tape that turns SWMS into a burden rather than a tool.
Real-Life Case Study: Melbourne Office Tower Edge Protection
In 2024 on a major Melbourne CBD office tower project, a safety review using a relative risk matrix found that a common temporary edge protection system showed “twice the reported minor incidents” (such as slips or near-misses) compared to a more expensive alternative. The relative risk approach immediately rated the system “High.” Consequently, this led to a blanket requirement to replace it across multiple levels. This triggered a complete SWMS overhaul and additional engineering controls. It also resulted in mandatory retraining and temporary work stoppages. The changes caused several weeks of delays and substantial extra costs for the subcontractor.
When the team applied an absolute risk approach, the real-world picture was very different. The actual increase was from approximately 1 minor incident per 8,000 worker-hours to 2 per 8,000 — still extremely low when standard controls such as full-body harnesses, competent supervision, and existing training were taken into account. By focusing on proportionate measures (enhanced daily inspections and targeted refresher training), the team safely continued using the system with only minor adjustments. As a result, the project recovered its schedule, with no further incidents.
This case demonstrates how relative risk can drive unnecessary panic and bureaucracy, while absolute risk supports informed, practical decisions. These decisions protect workers without crippling productivity.
Practical Guide to Applying Absolute Risk in SWMS Documents
For SWMS in Australian construction — mandatory for high-risk work such as falls from over 2 metres, powered mobile plant, or demolition — a risk-savvy absolute approach ensures detailed yet effective risk assessments. These assessments are holistic and realistic.
- Establish context and realism Document the precise task, location, crew competencies, equipment condition, and current environmental factors. This grounds the SWMS in the real operational environment instead of generic templates that encourage relative comparisons.
- Identify only foreseeable hazards Draw hazards from site observations, worker consultations, and reliable industry data (e.g., Safe Work Australia statistics on falls or struck-by incidents). Avoid speculative “what if” scenarios that relative matrices often amplify.
- Assess absolute likelihood and consequence Consider the probability of harm with current controls already in place. Use clear, evidence-based language — such as “low likelihood based on three years of incident-free performance with similar crews and harness systems” — rather than inflating scores through matrix comparisons.
- Select proportionate controls Follow the hierarchy of controls (elimination first, then substitution, engineering, administrative, PPE), applying only what the absolute risk level genuinely requires. This prevents knee-jerk over-engineering that generates unnecessary paperwork.
- Evaluate residual risk and keep documentation living Re-assess the risk after controls. If acceptable, document it and shift focus to monitoring. Keep the SWMS lean and actionable so workers can reference it quickly on site. Include simple mechanisms for daily checks, toolbox input, and post-task reviews based on actual outcomes.
The result is SWMS documents that genuinely protect workers, meet WHS obligations, and support productive, innovative construction work — rather than overwhelming teams and rendering sites inefficient. Absolute risk restores common sense to safety management.
Ready to Implement Risk-Savvy SWMS?
MiSAFE SWMS makes it simple to create detailed, realistic, and compliant SWMS documents that keep your sites moving. Start your free 7-day trial today: https://swms.misafesolutions.com.au/register
Recent Comments