Error-Proofing Design tasks and equipment so mistakes are physically impossible or immediately visible.

Clear, simple and visual work methods that reduce variability and cognitive load.

Memory support for critical steps to prevent slips and lapses during routine or high-stress work.

Reduce alarm noise to ensure operators can detect and react to real safety-critical deviations.

Adapt staffing, shift patterns and task complexity to human cognitive limits.

Prepare operators for unexpected scenarios where experience may be limited.

A proactive approach that ensures the job is prepared, executed, and verified correctly from the first attempt, preventing rework, waste, and human errors.

Hazard Identification - A structured brainstorming method used to identify potential hazards early in the lifecycle. Use in early design or planning stages to quickly identify potential hazards before detailed analysis. Focus: What could go wrong?

A simple method to estimate risk by combining consequence and likelihood ratings. Use after hazards are identified to prioritize which risks require action first. Focus: How big is the risk and what needs attention now?

A visual model showing how causes can lead to a hazardous event and what controls prevent or mitigate it. Use when you need to visualize how causes lead to an incident and whether current barriers are sufficient. Focus: Are our controls strong enough, and where are the gaps?

Hazard and Operability Study - A systematic, multidisciplinary analysis of deviations in process parameters to reveal hidden hazards and operability issues. Use for complex processes, typically before start-up or after major changes, to analyze deviations in operating parameters. Focus: How and why could a process deviation lead to a hazardous event?

Layer of Protection Analysis - A semi-quantitative method used to determine if existing safeguards provide enough risk reduction. It calculates the likelihood of a hazardous event by evaluating independent protection layers. Use when HAZOP identifies high-severity scenarios, or when a more detailed evaluation of safeguards and their effectiveness is required. Key question: Are our protection layers strong and independent enough to make the risk acceptable?

Use first to determine the most effective type of control — eliminate or reduce the hazard at its source before relying on administrative actions or PPE. Focus: What is the strongest control we can apply?

As Low As Reasonably Practicable - Use to justify that risk has been reduced to a tolerable level considering the cost, effort, and benefit of further controls. Focus: Is the residual risk as low as it can reasonably be?

Use when automated protection or safety instrumented systems are required — defines the reliability needed to prevent catastrophic events. Focus: What level of performance must the safety system achieve?

Use to continuously track whether risk controls are effective and whether the level of risk is changing over time. Focus: Are risks under control and trending in the right direction?

Use to verify that controls are correctly implemented and functioning as intended in the field. Focus: Are we doing what we said we would do?

Management of Change - Use whenever a process, equipment, materials, or organization changes — ensures risks are reassessed before changes take effect. Focus: Have risks changed because something else has changed?

Use to document identified risks, control measures, responsibilities, and follow-up actions in one visible place. Focus: Does everyone know the current risk status?

Use to clearly communicate specific risks and required precautions to frontline personnel before work begins. Focus: Do people who do the work understand the risks?

Use to define roles in risk control implementation — who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. Focus: Who owns which actions?

Key question: What happened and how serious could it have been?

Reporting events that did not result in harm but could have under slightly different circumstances, in order to identify weaknesses and prevent future incidents. Near misses are free lessons — they show where the next incident could happen if nothing changes.

A simple root cause analysis method that repeatedly asks “why?” to move past symptoms and uncover the underlying system causes of a problem. Stop asking why the person failed — start asking why the system allowed the failure.

A structured root cause analysis tool that organizes potential causes into logical categories to help teams understand how different factors contribute to a problem. It helps you see the whole system — not just the most obvious cause.

Actions implemented to eliminate the root causes of an existing problem or incident and prevent its recurrence.

Actions implemented to eliminate the causes of a potential problem or incident before it can occur.

Hierarchy of Controls helps us choose actions that fix the causes of incidents by starting with the strongest and most permanent solutions.

A concise communication tool used to share key findings and lessons learned from incidents or near misses, ensuring that the same mistakes are not repeated elsewhere in the organization. The value of a lesson is zero until it is shared and applied.

A learning method that uses real incidents and practical examples to help people recognize risks, understand causes, and apply the right controls in similar situations. People remember stories better than instructions — real cases create real learning.