Community Emergency Planning Guide - Australian Emergency Manual (Natural Disaster Organization, 78 p.)
 CHAPTER FOUR - HAZARD ANALYSIS
 General The Hazard Analysis Process Summary Annex A - What if? Annex B - Factor Analysis Annex C - The FEMA Model Annex D - SMUG Hazard Priority System

### Annex D - SMUG Hazard Priority System

DESCRIPTION

1. This system, known by the acronym for Seriousness, Manageability, Urgency and Growth, allows a direct comparison of a number of possible hazards, through ratings of high, medium or low, against four separate factors which are common to all hazards.

2. Compare all hazards, using one factor at a time, recording results on the table at Figure 4D:1. Tick the assigned rating of H, M, or L, and provide a brief explanation to support the rating. The factors and rationale for ratings are detailed below:

SERIOUSNESS

3. Seriousness is the relative impact of a hazard in terms of dollars and/or people.

4. If a hazard represents a threat to the largest number of people and/or would cost the most numbers of dollars, then give that hazard a high rating. Then rate all identified hazards as either high, medium or low in terms of seriousness. It does not matter if we have a number of highs and, if the group cannot agree on a rating, give the highest one just to be on the safe side.

MANAGEABILITY

5. Manageability means can we do anything about the hazard. If we can lessen the impact of the hazard, then the rating for manageability would be high. If it were manageable only after it had occurred, then the rating would be low.

URGENCY

 6. a. High - indicates that we need to do something about it now. b. Med - indicates that we ought to do something about it in the near future. c. Low - there is no urgency and it would be appropriate to plan for action in the medium future.

GROWTH

7. If we do nothing about the hazard, will it grow worse or remain as it currently is. If the hazard would increase quickly, we should rate it high. If it would grow gradually, then rate it medium. If it will stay static, then rate low.

8. Having allocated a relative rating to all identified hazards on each of these factors, we can review our list. Those with the most highly rated factors are those which warrant a high priority for attention.

9. It is very important to provide evidence in support of your ratings, so that justification given can be clearly seen.

Figure 4D:1 SMUG HAZARD PRIORITY SYSTEM