1. A Simple Guide to Hazard Identification

2. Who should identify the hazards? (1)
The Team….
Probably the most important factor in an effective hazard identification is the persons undertaking the task. They could be one of the following:
o the manager responsible for the work area
o a member of the workforce, usually but not exclusively, from that work area
o an internal health and safety manager or consultant
o an external health and safety consultant.
It is important to bear in mind a number of considerations when choosing someone to carry out a hazard identification exercise.
The first barrier is the attitude that it is usually regarded as a great idea, until someone has to undertake it. This is probably symptomatic of the frequently held belief that safety is extra work to the "normal" job in hand. Many managers will appreciate being able to use the results but do not want to "waste" their time doing it.
Anyone can undertake the work for an area - there are no formal qualifications required for doing so. However, the person(s) must be competent to carry out the task.
There are certain things that are necessary and these requirements are outlined below.
Who will do it?
It will depend on the variety of the hazards in the area of responsibility, but the task could be passed to:
o one person only
o one person with ad hoc assistance as required
o a team of people.
…or the Individual?

3. Who should identify the hazards? (2)
The Individual
Negative Aspects
Vast technical competence required
Implementing Manager required to take ‘leap of faith’ in individual
Perpetuates ‘safety is the Safety Depts problem’
Unlikely to be as comprehensive as team approach therefore questionable sufficiency
Output suffers from ‘Not invented here’ attitudes
Personal perception may influence judgement
(1)The initial requirement may seem obvious, but it is absolutely vital. The person must have a clear and comprehensive understanding of the work being carried out in the area. It is not sufficient just to have a list of the work done. One reason is the fact that what the manager thinks the workers do, what the workers say they do and what the workers actually do, are sometimes very different.
(2) Using a competent person has the advantage that he or she will likely have detailed knowledge of the activities under review. However, this can be a disadvantage in that it can result in a "blinkered" approach as familiarity with the area can lead to a different perception. For example, the assessor might overlook hazards that he or she sees every day because they "blend into the background”.
(3)Another requirements of the individual is a good working knowledge of the risk assessment system that will be used and an appreciation of risk control methods. This may, at first, seem strange, since at this point the hazards are being identified, not assessed. Without some appreciation of what is possible, there is likely to be little appreciation of what is reasonable and this will most certainly affect the individuals perception of a particular hazard. In theory, this effect should not occur, as a hazard presents a particular risk which is not related to the future control measures. In practice, however, there is always an mental process going on in the mind of the person, attempting to make their mental model of the foreseeability of an incident, and its likely severity, tie up with their experience of what has happened in the past.
(4)Along with an appreciation of the work practices, the person needs to have a regard for the technological aspects of the work they are investigating.

4. Who should identify the hazards? (3)
The Individual
Positive Aspects
Likely to produce quicker results
Less likely to be swayed by ‘peer pressure’
Decisions by committee are usually a long time in coming, not always the best approach when dealing with rapid changes in hazards in the workplace. Quite often you will need someone on hand who able to react without having to convene a meeting, put forward and seek approval for their idea or concern.
Additionally, committees tend to produce results which are a compromise between the parties involved. This can not always be allowed when dealing with H&S. The legislation in this country is littered with explicit duties for the employer. The legislators are not concerned with what the Production Manager may say about missing targets.

5. Who should identify the hazards? (4)
The Team Approach
Positive Aspects
Knowledge required to assess is likely to be available across the variety of positions
Judgements and decisions can be made to satisfy a variety of organisational interests
Promotes consultation with employees
Inclusion of Line Managers builds ownership of the outcome
More likely to reflect actual working practices
A team might consist of people with detailed knowledge of the areas being investigated, such as a manager, supervisor and someone fully conversant with risk assessment (eg a safety advisor or safety representative). A team of people is more likely to cover all hazards than an individual. Multi-disciplinary teams can combine the expertise from several departments.
One of the most productive ways of encouraging co-operation between management and the rest of the workforce is to share the information resulting from the assessment with all who might be exposed to the risk. This gives management an opportunity to explain the precautionary measures which are being considered, and to involve the workforce in their development.
Wherever possible, a team exercise involving different levels of personnel will help reinforce the feeling of ownership and be an important step towards the organisation's efforts to develop a positive safety culture.
Unless the Manager responsible for dealing with the eventual outcomes has a good understanding if the processes involved, he/she will have to implement any recommendations by this individual almost without question.
The team, will of course, be in a better position to ensure that the subsequent risk assessment meets the needs of various business needs such as legal compliance, protection of people and property, financial management and quality objectives.

6. Who should identify the hazards? (5)
The Team Approach
Negative Aspects
Committee approach can be too slow to react to changes
Team dynamics can affect outcome
Resource hungry in terms of total hours
As previously mentioned, if the team approach is used, it is important to avoid the "committee syndrome", where lots of meetings are held and no action is taken. In this scenario the results could be so long in coming as to be no longer valid.
One disadvantage of this approach is that the use of such a team can tie up resources and take longer, keeping several people away from their main work. There may also be difficulties in gaining a consensus on the hazards and risks.
This is particularly true if the personalities within the team clash. The end result can be a round of arguments , challenges and obstructive behaviour which will ultimately distil into the end result.

7. Who should identify the hazards? (6)
Each situation is unique
Each will require a different approach
Each is dependant upon process complexity
Increasing Expertise Required
Obvious low hazard or simple process
Obvious high hazard or complicated process
Supervisor
Expert Team
In summary, anyone can undertake the hazard identification exercise for an area, there are no formal qualifications required for doing so. However, the person must be competent to carry out the task.
It will depend on the variety of the hazards in the area of responsibility, but the person(s) involved could be:
one person only
one person with ad hoc assistance as required
a team of people.

8. Team Membership
Skill requirement must drive membership of assessment teams
understanding of assessment method in use
knowledge of work processes being assessed
understanding of interfaces, both internal and external
PLUS
The authority to commit necessary resources
It is important to remember that hazard identification is not an end in itself, it is a means to suitably and adequately controlling the risks posed by the work undertaken in the area of responsibility, and ultimately the whole organisation. To this end, it is most useful if the person, or the manager who has control of the person, has the authority and the resources to select and implement the control measures determined by the hazard identification. In other words, the manager with the responsibility for the work area is also accountable for the safety of that work. It is, regrettably, too easy where the assessment is passed on to someone outside the department, for the problems indicated by it not to be appreciated or "owned" by that manager.

9. Structure a brainstorm? How?
Brainstorming Rules
Postpone and withhold your judgement of ideas.
Encourage wild and exaggerated ideas.
Quantity counts at this stage, not quality.
Build on the ideas put forward by others.
Every person and every idea has equal worth.
By its very nature a brainstorming session cannot be structured, but it can be ‘guided’.
One of the first things you need to think about is whether you need to use a brainstorming session at all. A brainstorming session is used for generating lots of new ideas and solutions. It should not be used for analysis or for decision making. Of course you will need to analyse and judge the ideas but this is done afterwards and the analysis process does not involve brainstorming techniques.
As with most things in life there are a set of rules to follow if you want to run an effective brainstorming session.
It is sometime worth running a short ten minute trial exercise. This not only confirms the understanding off those involved, but enable the facilitator to identify any individuals who may be have a tendency to discount an idea as soon as it is heard.

10. Soliciting Ideas
define the problem area or the opportunity area to create ideas for
draw up a specific probortunity (problem/opportunity) statement which describes what you are trying to achieve
Once the team is selected and warmed up, you need to provide the direction. A brainstorming session must be targeted to a specific topic because you could downgrade the future sessions otherwise. You must define the problem area or the opportunity area to create ideas for. You must draw up a specific probortunity (problem/opportunity) statement which describes what you are trying to achieve. This statement must not even suggest what a typical solution might be because this will hinder the idea generation.
The very task of trying to define the problem will , in many cases, move seamlessly into the actual brainstorming session and can itself replace the initial exercise.

11. Soliciting Ideas with SCAMPER
Substitute
Combine
Adapt
Modify
Put to other purposes
Eliminate
Reverse
In any brainstorming session you will reach the stage where you either dry up on ideas, or even worse, fail to get started. There are several methods of starting the session up again, but perhaps one we would be most comfortable with would be the SCAMPER technique.
This borrows some principles from HAZOPs in that the meaning of words has a large part to play in the triggering of ideas.
For example, substitute a key word in a sentence, “You must be 17 to drive a car” becomes “You must be 17 to ride a car”.
Adapt a word i.e. “You must be 17 to drive a car” becomes “You mustn’t be 17 to drive a car”.
Eliminate words i.e. “You must be 17 to drive a car” becomes “You must drive a car”.
Reverse the word i.e “You must be 17 to drive a car” becomes “You must be 17 to crash a car”
This approach works very well in a rule based environment, such as ours where using these techniques can bring about some very interesting results!

12. Brainstorm Ideas How to kill them... …and how to help them
Naturally enough, every creative thinking session comes up with items that, whilst amusing and vaguely related to the subject at hand, are not of any use. The problem is that following the rules of brainstorming you are required to explore each idea evenly.
Given enough time this should not present a problem, but when did we ever have enough time? Additionally, the obviously unworkable ideas (solar powered telescopes) need to be discounted without discouraging the person who thought them up. It is a sad fact that the most imaginative of brainstorming ideas tend to be the most impractical, and these in turn, tend to come form the creative thinkers in the group, just the person you want to encourage, but with direction.
…and how to help them

13. Brainstorm Ideas Killing the weak ones!
A good idea, but ..…
…people won't like it.
…it needs more study.
…let's make a survey first.
…against the company policy.
…the directors won't go for it.
…ahead of its time, people are not ready for it.
…let's sit on it a while.
…we've never done it that way before. Has anyone else tried it successfully?
You will notice I have called this slide, Killing the weak ones!. There is no such thing as a bad idea, only an underdeveloped idea!
Unfortunately, sometimes you just cannot allow development of an idea to take place. When this situation arises, or a monster of an idea is growing out of proportions, using these phrases will work in closing down avenues best not explored.

14. Brainstorm Ideas Helping the good ones!
Yes, ….
…that's a good idea/point/comment.
…great, let's try it.
…what resources would we need to do it?
…tell me more.
…how can we make it work?
…can you draw up a plan of action? What can I do to help this happen?
…that sounds interesting, tell me more.
Conversely there are times when you need to help along an idea to reach its’ full potential, especially if you can see the end result but want to develop the ownership of the solution amongst the participants.
These statements and questions actually move the conversation on to making the idea happen, not considering why it won’t. Note the use of the word WE over the previous slide promoting the use of teamwork.
In both cases the facilitator has to be experienced in managing the team so as not to appear to be breaking the rules themselves.

15. Beating subjectivity with hazard criteria
Have the team define what hazard means to them.
Explore various meanings
discourage those that are ambiguous
refine those that are succinct
don’t be afraid to suggest
agree and settle on one definition only
“A Hazard is something with the potential to cause harm (this can be include substances or machines, methods of work and other aspects of work organisation)”
MHSW Regs ACoP
Once you have your ideas, the next stage is to identify what is a hazard and what is not. One aspect which can cause confusion is the myriad of interpretations of familiar words such as accident, hazard, risk, danger and so on. Different sources of information put similar but different interpretations on these expressions which will come out from the group.
A way of guiding the group is to provide the definitions of accident, incident, risk, consequences and other well known concepts except the one you are attempting to define. Once this is done, there is very little room for anything other than the generally accepted definition.

16. Invisible hazards, how to identify what you cannot see.
Location
People
Method
Hazard?
For each element of the possible hazard, consider :-
Is there a source of harm?
Who or what could be harmed?
How could the harm occur?
Note that we are only examining what could fail, not how often it does, how likely it will do so or the consequences of the failure.
BS 8800 gives us some very good guidance here. It asks the person identify the hazards to look at a situation form three different perspectives, any one of which which bring into focus any hazard that exists.
By approaching from the location, you can refine the hazard by calling on the other two.
Example.
The top of a ladder in isolation is not a hazardous location
A person on top of the ladder is a hazard to themselves and those below
The method of work creates the hazard by placing a person at the top of the hazard.
This moves closely to, but not into actual assessment, and it is vital at this stage not to prejudge to possible likelihood, consequences or control measures.

17. Invisible hazards, how to identify what you cannot see.
Use a simple matrix to record the results
Method
People
Location
Source of Harm?
Who/what Harmed?
How Harm Occurs?
Sometimes the hazard is not immediately obvious and a prompt is needed to hunt it out. This simple matrix can be used for a variety of hazard recording situations with the added benefit that it can be carried forward in to the actual assessment of the risk involved and subsequent mitigation.
In our example,
Any positive answer means a hazard exists X

18. Team hazard spotting Three main hazard types usually missed
Undetectable to unaided eye, need active searching
look in, behind, under
ask why and what
Transient
unsafe behavior, listen to ‘jokes’
Latent
contingent upon other events i.e. breakdown, fire
It is important not to be side-tracked into identifying things as hazards that are in fact not hazards. This can waste time and results in a failure to address the real issues. For example, failure to wear eye protection when using a grinder is not a hazard, it is the abrasive wheel which is the hazard. Not wearing eye protection is a failure to comply with a control measure
By asking operators and other personnel involved in a task for their views on the safety aspects of the task, "near miss" information may be obtained on certain conditions experienced by the operator that would not otherwise be apparent during an inspection
It should also be noted that there may be situations where sharing a premises or visitors each contribute elements that together create a new hazard.

19. New hazards, what do they look like?
Just like the old ones
in different guises
Two main causes of new hazards
new process, people or location
previously unknown factor becomes apparent
All hazards were new at some stage, how did we identify them?
Hopefully everybody appreciates that a change to a process, location or in workforce will result in the creation, or eradication of hazards in some way, and that there will always be a need for someone to review the proposed changes in this light.
What is not so clear is that when looking at the hazards that may be present in the workplace, employers should be careful to identify the full range of possibilities.
Increasingly, many hazards that require serious consideration would not have been identified even a few years ago as a new, previously unknown factor has bee introduced. Smoking at work, the threat of violence, stress considerations are all examples of "new" hazards.
With the benefit if hindsight, these new areas are all too obvious, but lots of us missed them

20. New hazards, How to spot them?
The new process, people or location hazard.
Continual improvement
Initial Status
Review
OHS Policy
Planning
Implementation
and operation
Checking and
corrective action
Management
There is nothing new here. Many of you will have seen this or similar business models in use. This one is taken from ISO
The introduction of a change or new processes etc should go through this model.
It is important to recognise that hazards may not have been identified originally or may have been created by the control measures introduced to deal with hazards identified previously, after all, the introduction of a control measure can be a change to an element of a hazard.
Without some kind of review process, how will we know?

21. New hazards, How to spot them?
Previously unknown factor becomes apparent hazard
Increased coverage in trade press
publication of consultation document
approach by member of staff / public / customer / supplier
advice forthcoming from HSE / HMRI
No-one can be expected to see every hazard in every situation. Therefore follows that occasionally a piece of information will surface that identifies a hazard.. The question is how to spot these new infobites. The answer lies in two areas, research and review.
Sources that will help with hazard identification include HSE guidance literature, trade associations, Regulations/ACOPs, published accident and loss statistics/information, in-house studies, inspections and discussions and the many professionally made videos.

22. Simple Hazard Identification Tools How effective are they?
Several types of tool available
Workplace inspections
see what really happens
Job safety survey
see what is supposed to happen
Safety Audits
measure what happens against what should happen
Accident / incident data analysis
measure what went wrong
In their most basic form, inspections involve the identification of obvious visible physical hazards. However, there are a number of problems with this basic approach.
1.Not all hazards are obvious or visible
2.Some hazards may only be present at certain times
3.Some hazards may be associated with the methods of work rather than physical conditions.
For these reasons it is important to supplement the inspection with other hazard identification techniques
Job safety analysis involves identifying each stage involved in undertaking the task. When each step of the process has been identified, then the hazards associated with each step can more easily be identified.
Audits, if used correctly can be an excellent tool for measuring how an orgainsation sets about identifying hazards
Accident investigations should reveal the cause of injuries and damage and this will ultimately reveal the hazards at the root of these accidents.
A study of accident statistics may reveal a pattern of injuries or type of accident and, therefore, identify a particular hazard.
The lesson here is that no one technique can be relied upon in isolation, but together they make a very effective package.

23. Hazard Identification Tools The professionals choice
HAZAN & HAZOP
Fault Tree Analysis
Event Tree Analysis
Failure Mode Effect Analysis
There will always be a need to identify hazards with complex situations and scenarios. Many tools have been developed to assist, the simple ones we have already looked at. Now lets’ turn to the more complex.
HAZOP (hazard and operability studies) is a procedural tool designed to highlight the deficiency and shortcomings in the design and operation of industrial plants.
Benefits:The HAZOP technique is a powerful tool for hazard analysis. Its methodical approach ensures that deviations from design intent are detected and acted upon.
Limitations:HAZOP utilises a team approach and hence can not be conducted by a single analyst. The team should be skilled and multidisciplinary with good knowledge of the plant, its intended design and operation. HAZOP does not provide any quantitative measure of the effectiveness of the proposed modifications and improvements in reducing risk.
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) is a reliability and logic-based methodology. It is used for identifying and analysing the events that could lead to an accident or an undesirable event.
Benefits and Limitations
FTA is a very useful tool for studying the routes by which a hazard can occur, although its implementation requires skilled analysts. Furthermore, the quantification of the fault tree depends on the accuracy of the failure data and its availability.
Event Tree Analysis (ETA) is one of the logic tree methods for hazard identification. Unlike fault tree analysis, event tree analysis is a "forward thinking" process.
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a qualitative structured method for hazard identification. It is a simple method, that is easy to apply, yet it is a powerful tool that can be used to improve the quality of products and processes.
FMEA is a useful qualitative tool for failure analysis and identification and can be used extensively with other hazard identification techniques such as HAZOP and fault tree analysis.