Risk identification and contingency
Event risk scoring assumptions to write down
Two committee members have scored the same risk a 2 and a 4, and nobody can say which of them is wrong.
Opens WhatsApp with a draft you can edit before sending. Nothing is sent automatically.
The short answer
A risk score is only as useful as the assumptions behind it. Write down what each likelihood and impact number means, the period it covers, what evidence was used and who set the scale, before anyone scores a single risk.
Treat the scores as a way to start a conversation and order the list, not as a measurement. An unknown stays marked unknown; it is never quietly scored low.
Why scores drift between people
Most event teams use a simple scale of 1 to 5 for likelihood and impact. The scale is rarely defined, so one person scores against the last event, another against the worst story they have heard, and a third against what the budget can absorb.
The result looks precise but compares three different private scales. A short assumptions sheet removes the argument before it starts.
The assumptions to agree first
Settle these in one short meeting with the decision owners, then attach the sheet to the risk register.
| Assumption | Question to settle | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Time window | Does the score cover the planning period, the event days only, or both? | Event owner |
| Likelihood scale | What does a 1, 3 and 5 mean in words, and is it based on past events, supplier advice or judgement? | Committee chair with project lead |
| Impact scale | Is impact measured by cost, delegate experience, reputation, programme or a mix? What cost in ringgit is a 5 for this event? | Finance and event owner |
| Evidence | What was the score based on: documents, a supplier statement, a past event, or opinion? Mark opinion as opinion. | Each scorer |
| Unknowns | How is a risk shown when nobody can estimate it? Suggested: a separate Unknown mark that is reviewed first. | Event owner |
| Combining scores | If likelihood and impact are multiplied, does the team accept that a 5 by 1 and a 1 by 5 give the same number? | Committee chair |
| Review date | When are scores revisited and what triggers an earlier review, such as a venue change or a new speaker? | Project lead or secretariat |
Scoring rules that keep the sheet honest
- Score the risk as it stands today, with the controls that already exist, and note which controls those are.
- Let the person closest to the work score first, then invite challenge, so seniority does not set the number.
- Keep a written reason for every 4 or 5 and for every score that changed between rounds.
- Do not score a risk that belongs to a specialist, such as structural, fire or medical matters. Record it and ask the venue or competent party for their view, as covered in residual risk sign-off.
What to do when scorers disagree
- Ask each person to state the evidence behind their number, not the number.
- Check whether they used different time windows or different impact meanings.
- Record both scores if the gap remains, and treat the higher one as the working score until evidence changes it.
- Assign an owner to find the missing fact and a date to report back.
Worked example · Fictional example
Two scores for one supplier risk
Fictional organisation and figures, for illustration only.
Persatuan Fiktif Pengurus Fasiliti is planning a one-day forum for about 300 delegates. The registration lead scores 'registration platform unavailable on the morning' as likelihood 2, impact 3. The treasurer scores it likelihood 4, impact 3.
Asked for evidence, the registration lead has used last year's platform, which worked. The treasurer has heard that this year's vendor is new and has no references. They agree the real gap is the vendor, not the number. The team records likelihood 4 until the vendor supplies a reference, and an owner is given a date to ask for it.
Use this yourself
Risk scoring assumptions sheet
Copy this page, fill every line and attach it to the register. Write Not decided, with an owner and date, for anything still open.
- Scoring period covered (planning, event days, both):
- Likelihood scale in words (1, 3 and 5), and its evidence basis:
- Impact scale in words, with the ringgit amount treated as a 5 for this event:
- Impact dimensions in scope (cost, delegate experience, reputation, programme):
- How unknown risks are marked, and who reviews them first:
- How scores are combined, and the known limits of that method:
- Who scores first and who challenges:
- Risks excluded from team scoring because a specialist owns them, with the person asked:
- Evidence required for any score of 4 or 5:
- Review date and events that trigger an earlier review:
- Authorised person who approved these assumptions, and date:
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- The team scores a short list of risks and the same two or three people do the scoring.
- You already have a house scale that the committee understands and uses.
- Nothing on the list depends on an outside specialist's judgement.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- Several committees or departments score and the scales do not match.
- Scores will be used to justify spend or a go or no-go decision, and finance needs the basis written down.
- The register has grown past what one person can keep consistent and nobody owns the review.
Need the scoring basis reviewed?
A planning diagnostic can review your register and scoring assumptions against the decisions your committee still has to make. It returns a prioritised action plan with open items, owners and dates, and it leaves safety and compliance conclusions with the venue and competent parties. Bring the register as it is, even if the scales are inconsistent.
Questions organisers ask
Should we use a 1 to 5 scale or high, medium and low?
Either works if each level is defined in words and in ringgit for impact. A 1 to 5 scale gives more room to order the list, while high, medium and low is easier to explain to a committee. Pick one and define it in writing.
Can the planning diagnostic tell us whether our risks are scored correctly?
The planning readiness diagnostic lists unresolved decisions by workstream. It does not certify scores, and an unknown answer never produces an all-clear.
What if nobody has the evidence to score a risk?
Mark it Unknown, name an owner to find the fact, and review unknowns before known risks at the next meeting. Scoring it low to keep the sheet tidy hides the exact risks that need attention.
How often should scores be reviewed?
Set a fixed date, for example monthly in the last quarter before the event, and add triggers such as a change of venue, a new headline speaker or a supplier change. Record the reason whenever a score moves.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.