Criticism of the consequence

The – consequence-probability matrix technique is now considered a methodology for identifying, analyzing and assessing risks. To achieve a result, this technique follows a process. The first result obtained is a ranking of each risk, or an ordered list of risks at defined levels of importance. The ultimate aim of the process is to solve the complex problem of how to decide on the acceptability of risks.

Given that an acceptable risk is an accepted risk, in industry, from a tool initially reserved for reliability specialists, it is now part of the toolbox of experts in operational safety, risk management and QHSE. The tool is also widely used in project management, given the number of standards that promote it. As such, the method is integrated as the "risk analysis" sub-process of the overall project management process.

Whether in the reliability of complex systems or in project management, this method has seen spectacular development, since a form of consequence matrix – probability is used for the critical analysis of a FMEA analysis, to define priorities following a HAZOP analysis, or to identify maintenance requirements with the MBF. To the best of our knowledge, these three methods are the most widely taught and used in industry.

Finally, since the 1990s and the transformation of ad hoc audits into genuine internal control processes, this method has been an integral part of the tools designed to provide a board of directors with reasonable assurance that the organization's objectives are being met. In this latter respect, the tool has been widely used by consultants to quantify risks in risk mapping processes, the aim of which is to contribute to the effectiveness of corporate risk management.

To date, it is probably the most widely used risk identification, analysis and assessment technique for both military and civilian activities.

The first part of the article deals with the method and its extension. The second criticizes it on the basis of the few publications identified that have attempted the exercise, and of an experiment on a real case. The third part summarizes the inconsistencies of this method, which is ultimately unsuitable for dealing with risk identification, analysis and assessment, and consequently with risk acceptability.

This communication is part of the RiD Project Management (Risk intelligence & Decisions for Complex Project Management) project, part of the Fond Unique Interministériel number 19, which aims to reconcile the economic and financial (uncertain) visions of complex projects with accounting expectations. This R&D project is supported by the Ile-de-France Regional Council and the Banque Publique d'investissement, as well...