Hazard identification

Hazard identification is about determining the hazards that concern people in a given organisation, geographical area, or activity. Hazard identification is a key step in the process of identifying risks and is intended to provide information for further analysis. As we have seen, hazard identification is not straightforward-people may have quite different perceptions on what constitutes a significant hazard. It is therefore important to seek views other than your own.

A group technique for identifying hazards

Hazard identification should be done using a group of people, such as an emergency risk management committee or planning group, with expertise in the area of work, and a commitment to the safety of that area.

*

'Groupthink' is a phenomenon that can occur in highly cohesive groups - to minimise conflict, the members of the group concur and restrict their thinking to the 'norms' of the group. No one wishes to be seen as 'out of place'. This can very much restrict the range of ideas and views that the group could otherwise generate.

One quick method to determine people's perceptions of the most serious hazards, and to avoid the pitfalls of 'groupthink', is the following:



Activity 4.4 - Planning group

learning portfolio activity

1.

Ask each individual in the group to write down on a piece of paper the 10 hazards (in the area you are investigating) that most concern them , and give them a few minutes to do this.

 

2.

When they have all finished the first task, ask them to rank the hazards they have listed 'high', 'medium', and 'low' in terms of seriousness (allow them to use their own definition of 'seriousness').

 

 

3.

Ask each person in the group individually to tell you what they have written down (without the ranking) and write the answer on a blackboard, whiteboard or large sheet of paper. When you start getting duplicated hazards, don't write the same hazard up twice. When you get very similar hazards, ask the contributors to help you refine the titles or names of the hazards so that you can either amalgamate or differentiate the similar hazards. Do not allow anyone to belittle any of the suggested hazards, but write them down uncritically.

 

 

4.

When you have allowed each person to contribute, draw up a table around the list of hazards that looks like this:

 

 

 

 

 

5.

Then go through each hazard you have listed, and ask how many people considered this hazard high in seriousness when they were asked to rank them, and put that number under the 'high' in the table, then ask how many considered this hazard 'medium' in seriousness and write down the number of people, and the same for 'low'.

 

 

6.

Then go through each of the other hazards in the list and do the same thing.

Print this activity


When you have finished, the table should look something like the following, where 'hazard A', 'hazard B' etc. mean each hazard that people suggested, and the numbers indicate how many people ranked that hazard as 'high', 'medium', or 'low'.

Table 4.8: Hazard ranking using a group technique

Hazard Ranking in terms of
'seriousness'

 

High
Medium
Low

Hazard A

2
3
0

Hazard B

0
0
1

Hazard C

4
0
1

Hazard D

0
2
3

Hazard E

0
2
0

Hazard F

1
2
0

Hazard G

6
0
0

Hazard H

0
2
0

Hazard I

2
0
0

Hazard J

0
3
0

Hazard K

0
0
2

Hazard L

1
0
0


What do the numbers mean? They are an indication of how the people in your planning group feel about the hazards in the area you are studying, and may reflect some accurate knowledge that some people may have. They certainly reflect the group's feeling about which hazards should be addressed. But do not get too concerned about the actual numbers you write down, and certainly do not start adding them up or further manipulating them in any mathematical way.

What is the benefit of this technique?
 

diagram
  1. It allows everyone to have their say, and avoids some of the problems of 'groupthink'. If everyone is allowed to contribute, then your likelihood of developing a meaningful hazard analysis are improved.
  2. It 'breaks the ice' if the group of people do not know each other, and will hopefully encourage all members of the group to continue to contribute.
  3. It gets the members of your planning group to think.
  4. It will demonstrate to all members of the planning group that people do have divergent points of view concerning hazard and risk, and will partially validate these different points of view.
  5. It will increase the commitment of group members to the hazard analysis, because they will feel that they have had a chance to contribute.

Sixthly , given that you most likely have a limited amount of time in which to study hazards, this technique will indicate the feelings of people as to which hazard/s you should analyse and then later address.

You can use the information from this group technique to either confirm or alter your project scope relating to the hazards chosen for full analysis within your risk assessment.

But the list is just a list-the rankings that the planning group have created do not suggest that one hazard is more likely to occur than another, or that one hazard will affect a larger area than another, or that one hazard may do more harm than another.

This information you will be able to determine later in the hazard analysis process.

Other techniques for identifying hazards

Once you have gained the opinions of your planning group, you can begin to use other techniques to identify hazards.

Further group work

The following questions for group discussion are the beginning of these techniques:

  1. What hazards have caused problems in our area historically? (You may need to ask people to do some research on this question: by referring to historical societies; by reading histories; by asking people, particularly older people, if they know of things that have happened; by reading relevant company records etc.)
  2. What are the hazards that exist or have existed in areas similar to our own?
  3. Are there any hazards that may be caused by the hazards we have listed?

 

Seeking direct evidence

Finally, you need to have a good look around your organisation, community or geographical area, to see what is there. It is surprising the number of potential problems you can find if you look for them, although not all of them may be serious problems when analysed.

Assignment work

Your first assignment is very close to being due. Check your Subject Outline for the due date. By now you should have all of the information at hand to complete your first assignment (Project Definition). Most of the information has already been placed into a draft document. Now you need to review that draft, reflect on its content compared to the information required, fine tune it and produce the final version for the first assignment. Of course, feedback from the first assignment marker and ongoing planning group discussions will likely require some aspects of the Project definition to be fine tuned or altered before inclusion in the Final Project Report (assignment 2). This is only natural and need not cause you to worry or be concerned.

You will also need to prepare for your ongoing planning group meetings. How many you have really depends upon the availability of planning group members and the tasks that need to be undertaken. However you should use these meetings to keep the planning group abreast of the project's progress. You first planning group meeting should:

 

 

about this CD | site-map | © Charles Sturt University