Risk closeout , mitigation was not effective, next?

John Broomfield

Super Moderator
Maybe we're saying the same thing...but maybe not...so I figured I push on it again here...

"But the “suck and see” approach to risk management is risky in itself. "

Not 100% sure what you mean by this. Life is trial and error. If you're advocating thinking about pros and cons before trying, I'm 100% in agreement...but no matter how long you consider, you still have to try it to be sure.
...and since you're not 100% sure until after the try, it does (of course) involve its own risk...that's what every number below 100% includes...risk.

"So, we need to consider the consequences of inadequate understanding of the hazards and how to remove or mitigate the most damaging of these hazards."

Yup...that's why it's called "Trying"...
If we had complete understanding of the hazard and how to mitigate it, we'd be done already.

"advocating corrective action after the inherently risky RM processes have failed once"

Really not sure if I understand this. The real world steps are the same...I'm only seeing differences in documentation system...so perhaps I just don't understand what you're saying...it doesn't matter to me how its documented.
To me, it's pretty similar to Design Control...we don't know how to do what we want, and we're working to figure it out...
Putting this into CA on first failure seems to me like putting every R&D project into the CA system when the first try doesn't work.

Risk management totally IS NOT Design control...and I'm not saying it is...I'm just drawing the parallel in documentation approach.



An organization may determine that the RM process is as worthy of design as any special process.

And experiments or trials to see what works are part of process design.

In assessing the inherent risks of RM the organization may choose to limit the impact of these trials until the RM process is validated.

Or it may choose trial and error for low risk decisions.

A stark example:

“Now, lets see if this nuclear reactor will work with less cooling water”.



Looking for Reality
Trusted Information Resource
A stark example:

“Now, lets see if this nuclear reactor will work with less cooling water”.


Yup...a risky thing to consider.

All the same, it doesn't really matter if you document that decision as part of the RM approach, or as a corrective action, or as a Preventative action, or as regulatory logs, or whatever.

Physically doing it...that's the same no matter how you choose to document it.
...and the OP was about how to manage it, not what to physically do.

Per normal, it seems like we're saying the same thing, but looking at different facets. :agree1:


Super Moderator
If we had waited until 100% of risk had been mitigated (eliminated) we would have never gotten out of the caves!

Risk is a constant, there is no guarantee you won't choke to death on your next bite of food, so do what you can, learn from failure, try a different solution and move on...Or starve!
Top Bottom