In brief
In the Fine-Kinney method, the risk score is found by Probability × Frequency × Severity. Frequency is how often exposure occurs, not how often the event occurs; severity is chosen according to the reasonable worst outcome, and measures such as PPE usually reduce probability rather than severity. The score is not a result in itself: each line must be tied to an action priority, an owner and a deadline, and rescored after the measure.
What is the Fine-Kinney method, and where does it fit in the legislation?
The Fine-Kinney method was developed in the 1970s and is one of the most widely used numerical methods for risk assessment in Turkey. The risk score is found by multiplying three components:
R = P × F × S (Probability × Frequency × Severity)
The Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment does not make any particular method compulsory. Under Article 9, risks are analysed using one or more methods chosen on the basis of the business’s activity, the nature of the hazards, the constraints of the workplace or national and international standards. The same article sets two further conditions: for each hazard, how often the risk may occur and how severely it may cause harm are determined, taking into account the effect of existing control measures. Fine-Kinney meets both conditions directly. The method used must also be stated in the document.
We described the general flow of a risk assessment in our article on how to carry out a risk assessment. In this article, we open up the three scales of the method one by one and apply them to a press line.
Fine-Kinney probability table: “How likely is this harm?”
Probability is the likelihood that harm will occur when the hazard is encountered. This is the most debated scale because it involves judgement. When deciding, ask: “is there a guard, does it work, can it be easily defeated, has a similar incident or near miss occurred?”
| Value | Meaning | How is it decided? |
|---|---|---|
| 0.2 | Not expected | Access to the danger zone is physically prevented |
| 0.5 | Not expected but possible | More than one safety measure would have to fail at the same time |
| 1 | Possible but unlikely | There is a guard, but it could be defeated by an unusual chain of errors |
| 3 | Quite possible | The guard is incomplete or easily defeated; a similar near miss has occurred |
| 6 | Very likely | There is no guard; the employee regularly approaches the hazard |
| 10 | Almost certain | The event is expected; similar events have happened before |
Frequency: how often exposure occurs, not the event
Frequency is how often the employee is exposed to the hazard. Not how often the accident happens. This distinction is the source of a common Fine-Kinney mistake: saying “there has been no accident on this machine for years, so frequency is 0.5” is wrong; if the operator puts their hand into the die on every cycle, the frequency is 10.
| Value | Exposure frequency | Example from the press line |
|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | Once a year or less | Annual major overhaul |
| 1 | A few times a year | Hydraulic unit repair |
| 2 | Once a month | Monthly die maintenance |
| 3 | Once a week | Weekly die change |
| 6 | Once or several times a day | Scrap chute cleaning at the start of each shift |
| 10 | Continuous; once an hour or more often | Manual part feeding on every cycle |
Fine-Kinney severity values: the reasonable worst outcome
Severity is the worst outcome that can reasonably be expected if the harm occurs. The approach that “theoretically anything can end in death” pushes every line up to 40 and makes prioritisation meaningless. Conversely, saying “last time it was only a scratch” makes severity look lower than it is. Attach the scale used to the document so the team speaks the same language.
| Value | Outcome | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | First aid level | Minor scratch |
| 3 | Injury without lost work days | Superficial cut on a sheet edge |
| 7 | Injury causing lost work days | Cut needing stitches, crushed hand |
| 15 | Loss of a limb, permanent damage or occupational disease | Loss of a finger, noise-induced hearing loss |
| 40 | Death | Being caught under the ram during a die change |
| 100 | Multiple deaths | Explosion or collapse affecting more than one person |
How is the Fine-Kinney risk score turned into action priority?
The score says nothing on its own; it must turn into a decision. Under the regulation, analysed risks are ranked starting from the highest and put in writing (Art. 9/5). Plans prepared for control measures include the action steps, the responsible person or department and start and completion dates (Art. 10/1-c). The classification commonly used in practice is:
| Risk score | Risk class | Action |
|---|---|---|
| R ≥ 400 | Intolerable | Work is stopped; it does not start until the risk is reduced |
| 200 ≤ R < 400 | High | Measures in a short time; temporary measures until then |
| 70 ≤ R < 200 | Significant | Added to the action plan, with an owner and deadline assigned |
| 20 ≤ R < 70 | Possible | Existing measures are maintained and regularly monitored |
| R < 20 | Acceptable | Kept on record |
Define in the document which class the boundary values belong to; in this article, the lower bound belongs to that class. Put the deadlines in writing in the business’s own OHS policy. After the measures have been implemented, the risk is rescored; if the new level is above the acceptable level, the steps are repeated (Art. 10/3).
Fine-Kinney example: four hazards on a press line
Let us look at a set-up often found in automotive supplier and metalworking shops in Bursa: a three-press sheet forming line where parts are transferred between presses by hand. The team works on site with the OHS specialist, the workplace physician, the line supervisor and one of the line’s operators.
| Hazard | Before (P × F × S) | Justification | Measure | After |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hand reaching the die during manual part feeding | 3 × 10 × 15 = 450 | There is a light curtain but the safety distance is insufficient | Stopping time measured and curtain repositioned, feeding tool provided | 0.5 × 10 × 15 = 75 |
| Ram coming down during a die change | 3 × 3 × 40 = 360 | Work under the die without isolating energy and supporting the ram | Lockout and tagout, ram safety block, written die change instruction | 0.5 × 3 × 40 = 60 |
| Cuts from sheet edges when cleaning the scrap chute | 6 × 6 × 3 = 108 | A blocked chute is cleared by hand without gloves | Hook tool, cut-resistant gloves, changing the chute slope | 1 × 6 × 3 = 18 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss around the line | 6 × 10 × 15 = 900 | Measured level above 85 dB(A), hearing protection not used | Mandatory hearing protection, action plan, hearing test, rotation | 1 × 10 × 15 = 150 |
Three lessons from the table:
- The first line is not finished. 75 is still in the “significant” class. The next step is to fit a fixed guard on the die and design a nest that feeds the part with a slide; this lowers probability to 0.2 and the score drops to 30.
- Severity did not change at all. Severity was not reduced on any line, because the measures reduce the likelihood of harm, not its magnitude. A finger can still go into the same die; it has simply become harder.
- PPE reduces the score only to a limited extent. The noise line fell to 150 with hearing protection but stayed in the “significant” class. The permanent solution is technical measures that reduce noise at source. For action values and the hearing test requirement, see our article on the noise regulation.
The presses themselves are also subject to periodic inspection at least once a year; defects in the inspection report must be entered in the risk assessment. Details are in our article on periodic inspection intervals for work equipment.
Common mistakes in Fine-Kinney scoring
- Confusing frequency with accident frequency. Frequency is the frequency of exposure.
- Reducing severity after a measure. Severity falls only with measures that reduce energy: limiting speed, reducing height, lowering pressure. Guards and PPE usually reduce probability.
- Counting a measure that does not work. A bypassed light curtain or a harness that is not worn is not an existing measure. The regulation requires the effect of existing measures to be taken into account.
- Scoring several hazards on one line. “Press line” is not a hazard; feeding, die changes, scrap and noise are separate lines.
- Playing with boundary values. Lowering probability by one step to save a score of 210 from the “high” class makes the method meaningless.
- Scoring by one person. Frequency and probability values given without the operator’s knowledge usually do not reflect reality.
- Not writing a deadline. Finding the score without assigning an owner and a date leaves the control plan required by the regulation incomplete.
In risk assessments prepared with Fine-Kinney, site work, scoring and action plan follow-up are part of our risk assessment service. For other risks of processes such as presses and sheet forming, see our metal and machinery page, and to track renewal dates, the OHS calendar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Fine-Kinney method mandatory?
No. The Regulation on Risk Assessment does not make any particular method compulsory; it requires one or more methods suited to the characteristics of the workplace to be chosen and the method used to be stated in the document. Fine-Kinney is widely preferred because it provides numerical prioritisation.
Which score is acceptable in Fine-Kinney?
In practice, scores below 20 are considered acceptable. Scores between 20 and 70 are monitored, 70 and above are added to the action plan, and at 400 and above work is stopped. State the classification you use clearly in the document.
Does the severity value fall after a measure is taken?
Usually not. Guards, interlocks or PPE reduce the likelihood of harm; if the harm does occur, the outcome is often the same. Severity falls only when the factor that determines the magnitude of the harm, such as speed, height, pressure or energy, is reduced.
Fine-Kinney or an L-type matrix?
An L-type matrix assesses probability and severity on two axes; it is simple and quick. Fine-Kinney adds exposure frequency as a separate multiplier, so it separates priorities better on production lines with continuously repeated work. Different methods can also be used for different departments in the same document.
A risk assessment that identifies and scores hazards on site, links each measure to an owner and a date, and has a clear renewal schedule.
Bursa SİSTEMER OSGB Technical Team — written from the field experience of our OHS specialists and workplace physicians. Legal information is valid as of the publication/update date; contact us for an assessment specific to your business.