**7. How to better evaluate risk?**

All three risk factors can be evaluated either qualitatively or quantitatively. Again, a quantitative estimation of risk (e.g. of 45 over 50, say) might appear much more satisfactory than a qualitative one (e.g. middle), but this might be too, and often is, misleading, because it provides a false sensation of precision.

As it was discussed above, the main objection one can do regarding risk is that its determination is too subjective and this makes it unreliable. Although there is some amount of truth in this, we may, however, counterattack by explaining that the objective of assessing risk is not getting a faithful estimate of it, but obtaining a risk baseline to be used as an indicator for future improvement. This is why what really matters is providing a good deal of information on the rationale which led to the estimation of the factors of risk.

Independently from that, it is necessary to determine how many risk levels will be estimated for each hazard. The simplest case and maybe the commonest too is the utilization of three levels, a very intuitive approach, as we are talking about "a lot" (high), "medium" (middle) and "little" (low). More levels allow for a better classification, but they turn more complicate the assessment.

Another point that needs to be discussed, when using quantitative evaluation, is the relation between these levels. Beside the normal series of values (1, 2, 3, etc.), we might use other with wider gaps between the levels, either regular (e. g., 1, 3, 5, 7) or even irregular (e. g., 1, 3, 7, 12). These last cases would give more weight to the higher levels, thus increasing the sensation of higher risk. It is not necessary to insist on the fact that any type of characterization of the levels is acceptable, provided that it is clearly defined and indicated and that it is not used to take false conclusions regarding higher evaluations of risk.
