Risk Radar · psychosocial risk intelligence

Your annual survey is a photograph. The risk is a moving picture.

Risk Radar reads psychosocial exposure from data your organisation already generates, rosters, timesheets, reports and events, corroborates it against what workers say, and benchmarks both against published Australian evidence. The result is a defensible, current read on safety and compliance, and clear direction on what to control now and what to build next.

Request a briefing How it works

Who it serves

One instrument, three audiences.

Psychosocial risk now carries a legal duty in every Australian jurisdiction, and the codes no longer say the same thing in each one. Risk Radar is built for the people who have to answer for that.

WHS and risk leaders

A defensible compliance position

A living hazard register aligned to the code that applies at each site, with evidence trails, honest coverage statements, and artefacts ready for your safety system, your board, or an inspector.

Executives and boards

Early signal, not last year's story

Exposure moves weekly. Annual reporting cycles cannot see it. Risk Radar surfaces combinations of hazards as they form, before they become injuries, claims, or prosecutions.

Providers and partners

Direction for intervention

For coaching, training and wellbeing providers: a grounded read of each client environment, so the right intervention lands at the right tier, at the right time, with a measurable rationale.

How it works

Measure the work, not the worker.

Four streams of evidence, fused by corroboration rather than averaging. Most of the data already exists inside your systems, and workers are asked for seconds of their time, not surveys every week.

Observe

Exposure from operational data

Rostering, timesheet and case metadata become daily exposure indicators, mapped to the psychosocial hazards named in your jurisdiction's code. Nobody is surveyed, tracked or scored. No content, no keystrokes, no location.

Listen

A pulse that takes seconds

A single validated style check in, with optional attribution, converts worker experience into the same hazard language as the operational data. Voluntary, pseudonymous, and reported only in aggregate.

Anchor

Validated instruments at the right cadence

Internationally validated survey instruments run at the frequency they were designed for, benchmarked against published Australian working population data, not international averages or vendor norms.

Direct

From signal to action, at two speeds

Structural recommendations address the design of work over months. Adaptive recommendations give supervisors context for the work design decisions they already make daily. Both target the work, in line with the control hierarchy that regulators now expect. Enhancement is recommended only once an environment is stable, never into an unmanaged hazard, and workers are consulted before any control is decided.

What it produces

A defensible read, in the language of your code.

Each site is assessed against the hazards named in the code that applies to it, and each hazard shows which independent sources agree. The monthly report is written to sit in a safety management system, not in a slide pack.

Hazard posture

Risk level comes from the direction of the signals. Confidence comes from how many independent sources agree, so a single noisy input cannot drive a conclusion on its own.

Monthly report

Phase, gate criteria, hazard posture and coverage, mapped to the applicable instrument.

Recommended actions

Every recommendation carries its position in the control hierarchy, the evidence behind it, and an owner. Enhancement stays locked until the environment is stable.

Illustrative data throughout. Calibration thresholds and decision logic are not shown.

The evidence stance

Built on published evidence, stated honestly.

No invented scores, no proprietary wellbeing index, no claims the science cannot carry. Every benchmark traces to a published source, and the tool says plainly what it can and cannot see.

Validated instruments, used at the cadence they were validated for, with Australian population benchmarks from peer reviewed research.
Regulatory alignment by jurisdiction, reflecting the codes of practice and regulations that actually apply at each site, which now differ materially between states.
Combination detection, reflecting the regulator's own position that psychosocial hazards interact and combine to create new or higher risks.
Weighted the way the regulator asks. One state's code directs that greater weight be given to information that is objective, independent and representative of all workers. That is precisely what operational exposure data is, and it is why response rates are reported beside every survey score rather than buried.
Built around review obligations, not just reporting cycles. The codes require control measures to be reviewed when specific events occur, not on a calendar. Those triggers are tracked and surfaced, including the ones no software can detect.
Honest coverage. Some hazards cannot be read from operational data. The tool reports them as such, rather than implying coverage it does not have. It supports the consultation duty; it does not pretend to discharge it.
Privacy by architecture. No individual scoring, minimum aggregation thresholds, worker consultation before deployment, and decision logic that is visible and inspectable, not a black box.

Why this, why me

Two decades in risk. A masters in what makes work good.

Risk Radar is not a wellbeing app with a compliance sticker. It is a risk instrument, built by someone who has spent more than twenty years designing and delivering governance, risk and safety systems for some of the most safety conscious organisations in the world, across mining, energy, rail and logistics.

That practitioner grounding is paired with a Master of Applied Positive Psychology from the University of Melbourne, which is what shapes the second half of the tool: knowing not just how to make work safe, but what to build once it is.

The approach is set out publicly in the four part series Rethinking Psychosocial Risk, available on the main site.

Steve Humphris

Founder, Well, Let's Talk · Melbourne

20+ years in governance, risk and safety systems
Enterprise delivery across mining, energy, rail and logistics
Master of Applied Positive Psychology, University of Melbourne
ISO 45003 aligned practice across assessment, controls and capability
Advisory across psychosocial compliance, work design and leadership

Next step

See it working before you commit to anything.

A working demonstration exists and is shown under confidentiality to organisations and partners evaluating a pilot. Briefings cover the measurement architecture, the evidence base, the governance safeguards, and what a low friction pilot looks like using data you already hold.

Request a briefing Download the overview

Risk Radar is in staged development with pilot partners. Access to the working demonstration is by invitation and under confidentiality.