Hubbry Logo
Job safety analysisJob safety analysisMain
Open search
Job safety analysis
Community hub
Job safety analysis
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Job safety analysis
Job safety analysis
Job safety analysis
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A job safety analysis (JSA) is a procedure that helps integrate accepted safety and health principles and practices into a particular task or job operation. The goal of a JSA is to identify potential hazards of a specific role and recommend procedures to control or prevent these hazards.

Other terms often used to describe this procedure are job hazard analysis (JHA), hazardous task analysis (HTA) and job hazard breakdown.

The terms "job" and "task" are commonly used interchangeably to mean a specific work assignment. Examples of work assignments include "operating a grinder," "using a pressurized water extinguisher" or "changing a flat tire." Each of these tasks have different safety hazards that can be highlighted and fixed by using the job safety analysis.

Terminology and definitions

[edit]
Workplace hazard categories

Workplace hazards can be allocated to six categories:[1]

  • Safety hazards: Examples: spills, working from heights, confined spaces
  • Biological hazards: Examples; bodily fluids, animal droppings, pathogens
  • Physical hazards: Examples: radiation, extreme temperatures, loud noises
  • Ergonomic hazards: Examples: awkward postures, incorrect lifting, vibration
  • Chemical hazards: Examples: vapors and fumes, pesticides, flammable liquids
  • Work organization hazards: Examples: workload demands, job stress, lack of respect
Mechanism of injury

Mechanism of injury (MOI) is the means by which an injury occurs.[2] It is important because in the absence of an MoI there is no hazard. Common mechanisms of injury are "slips, trips and falls", for example:

  • Hazard: a tool bag obstructing a walkway (the tool bag of itself would not be a hazard, the bad placement is necessary to make it a hazard)
  • Mechanism of injury: tripping over tool bag, falling onto hard surface.
  • Injury: bone fracture

Other common mechanisms of injury include:[citation needed]

  • Struck against or by
  • Contact with or by
  • Caught in, on, by or between
  • Exposure to
  • Fall to same or lower level
Likelihood

Likelihood is how often an event is reasonably and realistically expected to occur in a given time, and may be expressed as a probability, frequency or percentage.

Consequence
Consequence diagram

Consequence is the outcome of an event expressed qualitatively or quantitatively, being a loss, injury, disadvantage or gain. There may be a range of possible outcomes associated with an event.[3]

Consequence is the severity of the injury or harm that can be reasonably and realistically expected from exposure to the mechanism of injury of the hazard being rated. An implemented control may affect the severity of the injury, but it has no effect on the way the injury occurred. Therefore, when rating risk, the consequence remains the same for both the initial rating and the residual rating. People inherently tend to overestimate severity of consequence when rating risk,[3] but the rating should be both reasonable and realistic.

Risk

Risk is the combination of likelihood and consequence. The risk at hand ties directly into the likelihood and severity of an incident.

Risk authority

The risk authority is the organizational level of the person authorized to accept a specified level of risk. For example, different levels of risk authorities may be assigned as follows:

Risk level Risk authority
Low risk Supervisor
Moderate risk Superintendent
Significant risk Manager
High risk Unacceptable without mitigation
"As low as reasonably practicable" (ALARP)
"As low as reasonably pracicable" (ALARP) carrot diagram

As low as reasonably practicable[4] when applied to job safety analysis means that it is not necessary to reduce risk beyond the point where the cost of further control becomes disproportionate to any achievable safety benefit. The "ALARA" acronym ("As low as reasonably achievable") is also in common usage.[5]

Reasonably practicable

In relation to a duty to ensure health and safety, reasonably practicable means that which is, or was at a particular time, reasonably able to be done to ensure health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters including:[6]

  • The likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned occurring
  • The degree of harm that might result from the hazard or the risk
  • What the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about the hazard or risk, and about the ways of eliminating or minimizing the risk
  • The availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimize the risk
  • After assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimizing the risk, the cost associated with available ways of eliminating or minimizing the risk, including whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the expected reduction of risk
Work process
The way in which work is performed is called the work process. This entails all actions taken to do a specific role in the workplace.
PEPE

PEPE is used to assist in identifying hazards. It is an acronym for the four elements that are present in every task of the work process:

  • Process,
  • Environment,
  • People,
  • EMT, which is itself an acronym for 'equipment, materials and tools'.
Process

In this context, process is about procedures, standards, legislation, safe work instructions, permits and permit systems, risk assessments and policies. Key factors for effective process are that the relevant components are in place, easy to follow and regularly reviewed and updated.

Environmental hazards

People may be exposed to issues related to:

  • Access and egress
  • Obstructions
  • Weather
  • Dust, heat, cold, noise
  • Darkness
  • Contaminants
  • Isolated workers
  • Other workers
Personnel hazards

To assist people to be safe in their workplace they need to be provided with sufficient information, training, instructions and supervision. People may be:

  • Untrained
  • Not yet competent
  • Uncertified
  • Inexperienced
  • Unsupervised
  • Affected by alcohol or other drugs
  • Fatigued
  • Inadequately instructed
  • Suffering from stress from home life or workplace bullying
  • Have a poor attitude to, or refuse to follow procedures
Equipment, materials and tools (EMT)

The right equipment, materials and tools must be selected for the task, and incorrect selections may be hazardous in themselves.

  • The EMT may be hazardous, e.g. sharp, hot, vibrating, heavy, fragile, contain pinch points, a hazardous substance containing hydrocarbons, acids, alkalis, glues, solvents, asbestos, et cetera
  • There may be a need for isolating personnel from energy sources such as electricity, hydraulic, pneumatic, radiation and gravitational sources
  • Is the EMT in date? Does it require certification and/or calibration, tested and tagged?
  • Obstructions should be kept out of walkways and leads and hoses suspended?

Hazard controls

[edit]

Controls are the barriers between people and/or assets and the hazards. Controls can also be thought of as "guardrails" that prevent negative impacts from occurring.

  • A hard control provides a physical barrier between the person and the hazard. Hard controls include machine guards, restraint equipment, fencing/barricading.
  • A soft control does not provide a physical barrier between the person and the hazard. Soft controls include signage, procedures, permits, verbal instructions etc.

Control effectiveness criteria

[edit]

The effectiveness of a control is measured by its ability to reduce the likelihood of a hazard causing injury or damage. A control is either effective or not.

To gauge this effectiveness several control criteria are used, which:[citation needed]

  • Address the relevant aspects of process, environment, people, and equipment, materials and tools (PEPE),
  • Reduce likelihood to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP),
  • Selected hard controls in preference to soft controls, and
  • Contain a 'doing word'.

There is no commonly used mathematical way in which multiple controls for a single hazard can be combined to give a score that meets an organizations acceptable risk level. In instances where the residual risk is greater than the organisations acceptable risk level, consultation with the organizations relevant risk authority should occur.

Hierarchy of controls

[edit]
Hierarchy of controls

Hierarchy of control is a system used in industry to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards.[7] It is a widely accepted system promoted by numerous safety organizations. This concept is taught to managers in industry, to be promoted as a standard practice in the workplace.[7] Various illustrations are used to depict this system, most commonly a triangle.[7]

The hierarchy of hazard controls are, in descending order of effectiveness: Elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment.

Scope of application

[edit]

A job safety analysis is a documented risk assessment developed when company policy directs employees to do so. Workplace hazard identification and an assessment of those hazards may be required before every job.

Analyses are usually developed when directed to do so by a supervisor, when indicated by the use of a first tier risk assessment and when a hazard associated with a task has a likelihood rating of 'possible' or greater.

Generally, high consequence, high likelihood task hazards are addressed by way of a job safety analysis. These may include, but are not limited to, those with a history of, or potential for, injury, harm or damage such as those involving:

  • Fire, chemicals or a toxic or oxygen deficient atmosphere
  • Tasks carried out in new environments
  • Rarely performed tasks
  • Tasks that may impact on the integrity or output of a processing system

It is important that employees understand that it is not the JSA form that will keep them safe on the job, but rather the process it represents. It is of little value to identify hazards and devise controls if the controls are not put in place. Workers should never be tempted to "sign on" the bottom of a JSA without first reading and understanding it.

JSAs are quasi-legal documents, and are often used in incident investigations and court cases.

Structure of a job safety analysis

[edit]

The analysis is usually created by the work group who will perform the task. The more minds and experience applied to analysing the hazards in a job, the more successful the work group is likely to be in controlling them. Sometimes it is expedient to review a JSA that was prepared when the same task was performed on a previous occasion, but care should be taken to ensure that all of the hazards for the job are controlled for the new occasion. The JSA is usually recorded in a standardized tabular format with three to as many as five or six columns. The more columns used, the more in-depth the job safety analysis will be. The analysis is subjective to what the role being investigated entails. The headings of the three basic columns are: Job step, hazard and controls. A hazard is any factor that can cause damage to personnel, property or the environment (some companies include loss of production or downtime in the definition as well). A control is any process for controlling a hazard. The job is broken down into its component steps. Then, for each step, hazards are identified. Finally, for each hazard identified, controls are listed. In the example below, the hazards are analyzed for the task of erecting scaffolding and welding lifting lugs:

Job Hazard Control
Erecting scaffolding Falling scaffolding components Barricade work area while erecting and dismantling scaffolding
Working at height Verify scaffolder competence
Inspect scaffold components and structure
Tag scaffolding after approval
Wear appropriate protective equipment (harness, hard hats, safety footwear etc.)
Tether tools
Welding Electrical current Wear insulated gloves
Inspect cables, connections and tools before use
Welding fumes Ventilate using intrinsically safe fume extraction fans
Wear respiratory protection when appropriate
Welding arc Wear welding helmet with eye protection, fire resistant overalls, welding gloves and apron
Erect welding screens if appropriate
Hot weld metal, sparks and slag Remove all combustibles from work area
Lay out fireproof drop cloths.
Set up appropriate fire fighting equipment in work area
Maintain a fire watch during task plus 30 minutes.
Housekeeping Obstacles in work area Maintain a clear path work area
Remove unnecessary and vulnerable equipment
Display warning signage
Barricade danger areas

Assessing risk levels

[edit]

Some organizations add columns for risk levels. The risk rating of the hazard prior to applying the control is known as the 'inherent risk rating'. The risk rating of the hazard with the control in place is known as the 'residual' risk rating.

Risk, within the occupational health and safety sphere, is defined as the 'effect of uncertainties on objectives[8]'. In the context of rating a risk, it is the correlation of 'likelihood' and 'consequence', where likelihood is a quantitative evaluation of frequency of occurrences over time, and consequence is a qualitative evaluation of both the "Mechanism of Injury" and the reasonable and realistic estimate of "severity of injury".

Example:

There is historical precedent to reasonably and realistically evaluate that the likelihood of an adverse event occurring while operating a hot particle producing tool, (grinder), is "possible", therefore the activity of grinding meets the workplace hazard criteria.
It would also be reasonable and realistic to assume that the mechanism of injury of an eye being struck at high speed with hot metal particles may result in a permanent disability, whether it be the eye of the grinder operator, a crew member or any person passing or working adjacent to, above or below the grinding operation.
The severity of reasonably and realistically expected injury may be blindness. Therefore, grinding warrants a high severity rating.
Wearing eye protection while in the vicinity of grinding operations reduces the likelihood of this adverse event occurring.
If the eye protection was momentarily not used, not fitted correctly or failed and hot high speed particles struck an eye, the expected mechanism of injury (adverse event) has still occurred, hence the consequence rating remains the same for both the inherent and residual consequence rating.
It is accepted that the control may affect the severity of injury, however, the rated consequence remains the same as the effect is not predictable.

One of the known risk rating anomalies is that likelihood and the severity of injury can be scaled, but mechanism of injury cannot be scaled. This is the reason why the mechanism of injury is bundled with severity, to allow a rating to be given.[2] The MoI is an important factor as it suggests the obvious controls.

Identifying responsibilities

[edit]

Another column that is often added to a JSA form or worksheet is the Responsible column. The Responsible column is for the name of the individual who will put the particular control in place. Defining who is responsible for actually putting the controls in place that have been identified on the JSA worksheet ensures that an individual is accountable for doing so.

Application of the JSA

[edit]

After the JSA worksheet is completed, the work group that is about to perform the task would have a toolbox talk, to discuss the hazards and controls, delegate responsibilities, ensure that all equipment and personal protective equipment described in the JSA are available, that contingencies such as fire fighting are understood, communication channels and hand signals are agreed etc. Then, if everybody in the work group agrees that it is safe to proceed with the task, work can commence.

If at any time during the task circumstances change, then work should be stopped (sometimes called a "time-out for safety"), and the hazards and controls described in the JSA should be reassessed and additional controls used or alternative methods devised. Again, work should only continue when every member of the work group agrees it is safe to do so.

When the task is complete it is often of benefit to have a close-out or "tailgate" meeting, to discuss any lessons learned so that they may be incorporated into the JSA the next time the task is undertaken.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Job safety analysis

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Job safety analysis (JSA), also termed job hazard analysis (JHA), is a structured employed in occupational safety to dissect specific job tasks into sequential steps, pinpoint potential within each step, and devise control measures to eliminate or minimize risks of worker injury, illness, or fatality prior to task execution. The process prioritizes empirical hazard identification through observation and worker input, applying first-principles evaluation of causal factors like , environmental conditions, and equipment failure to inform preventive actions, often aligned with regulatory standards such as those from the (OSHA). Originating from early 20th-century industrial practices, including documented applications as far back as in transportation operations, JSA evolved as a foundational tool for proactive , gaining formal endorsement through federal guidelines in the decades following the establishment of OSHA in 1970. Key steps typically include selecting high-risk jobs for analysis, segmenting tasks into discrete actions, evaluating hazards such as slips, chemical exposures, or mechanical failures in each, and specifying controls via a —favoring elimination or engineering solutions over reliance on . Retrospective empirical studies demonstrate its efficacy in curtailing accident rates and fostering safer work behaviors when integrated into and operations, though outcomes depend on consistent application and avoidance of superficial checklists divorced from site-specific realities. Notable characteristics include its adaptability across industries like and , where it supports compliance, reduces downtime from incidents, and enhances worker accountability without mandating overly prescriptive bureaucracy.

History

Origins in Early Industrial Practices

Job safety analysis emerged from the job analysis methods of , developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to decompose tasks into elemental steps for efficiency optimization. These techniques, initially focused on productivity, were adapted in industrial settings like and transportation, where repetitive machinery operations in factories and railroads amplified injury risks from unguarded equipment, poor , and untrained labor. By the , as industrial accident rates climbed—with U.S. fatalities exceeding 20,000 annually in the early 1900s—practitioners began integrating identification into job breakdowns to mitigate unsafe acts and conditions. The first documented application of job safety analysis principles occurred in 1927, when the published guidance on "Job Analysis for Safety" targeted at streetcar operators. This involved subdividing operations into sequential steps, enumerating associated hazards such as track obstructions or electrical contacts, and prescribing standardized safe methods to prevent deviations that could lead to collisions or electrocutions. Similar adaptations followed in other sectors; for instance, a 1930 analysis by a safety engineer linked to proactive hazard spotting in assembly lines, emphasizing controls like over post-incident corrections. H.W. Heinrich formalized the term "job safety analysis" in his 1931 book Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach, applying it as a tool for employee selection and training by highlighting how task breakdowns reveal unsafe behaviors contributing to the majority of accidents—estimated at 88% from worker faults in his studies of over 75,000 insurance cases. Pre- implementations in heavy industries, such as mills, further refined these practices into multi-column formats listing steps, hazards, and remedies, influencing wartime programs that trained millions on hazard-aware job execution. These early efforts prioritized empirical observation over regulatory mandates, establishing job safety analysis as a foundational proactive measure in hazard-prone industrial environments.

Standardization Through OSHA and Beyond

The (OSHA), created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 signed into law on December 29, 1970, marked a turning point in formalizing job safety analysis (JSA) practices in the United States by promoting standardized hazard identification and control methods across industries. Prior to OSHA's establishment, JSA-like techniques existed in fragmented forms, such as early 20th-century industry-specific analyses, but lacked national uniformity due to reliance on state-level regulations and ad hoc company procedures. OSHA elevated JSA—often termed job hazard analysis (JHA)—as a recommended core tool for breaking down job tasks, pinpointing hazards, and developing controls, aligning it with the Act's General Duty Clause requiring employers to maintain hazard-free workplaces. OSHA's 1989 Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines explicitly incorporated routine JHA as an essential identification method within broader safety systems, influencing practices without mandating it as an enforceable standard. The agency further standardized the process through resources like the "Job Hazard Analysis" publication (OSHA 3071, updated periodically), which outlines a consistent four-step : selecting jobs, breaking them into steps, identifying hazards per step, and assigning controls. This framework ensured reproducibility, enabling employers to integrate JSA into compliance efforts for specific standards, such as those on (29 CFR 1910.212) or communication (29 CFR 1910.1200), while addressing gaps in high-risk operations. Extensions beyond core OSHA requirements include voluntary initiatives like the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), launched in 1982, which require participants to demonstrate advanced JSA integration for exceptional safety outcomes, surpassing minimum regulatory thresholds. Industry consensus standards from bodies such as the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) build on these by offering detailed protocols for JSA in areas like process hazard analysis, promoting voluntary adoption to enhance control verification and risk prioritization. In sectors like marine and offshore operations, JSA standardization aligns with international best practices and regulations, such as those from classification societies, to mitigate site-specific risks through systematic task reviews.

Definitions and Terminology

Core Concepts and Synonyms

Job safety analysis (JSA), also known as job hazard analysis (JHA), is a systematic process for examining specific job tasks to identify potential hazards and implement controls to mitigate risks of or illness. It involves breaking down a job into discrete steps, analyzing each for associated hazards—such as mechanical, chemical, ergonomic, or environmental—and recommending preventive measures like , administrative changes, or . This technique prioritizes proactive hazard recognition over reactive incident investigation, enabling employers to integrate safety into routine operations and training programs. Core elements of JSA include sequential task decomposition, where jobs are divided into basic actions observable by workers; hazard evaluation, assessing likelihood and severity based on conditions like equipment condition or worker experience; and control specification, aligned with established safety hierarchies to eliminate or minimize exposures. Unlike broader safety audits, JSA focuses narrowly on individual tasks, making it applicable to high-risk activities in industries like construction or manufacturing, where it has been shown to reduce accident rates by fostering worker awareness and procedural standardization. Synonyms for JSA include job hazard analysis (JHA), the term predominantly used by the U.S. (OSHA), which treats the two as equivalent procedures for hazard control. Other variants encompass job hazard breakdown, emphasizing step-by-step dissection, and hazardous task analysis (HTA), which highlights risk-focused breakdowns in dynamic work environments. These terms are often interchangeable in professional literature, though JHA may underscore hazard identification more explicitly than the safety-oriented framing of JSA. Job safety analysis (JSA) is frequently used interchangeably with job hazard analysis (JHA), though some practitioners distinguish JSA as emphasizing the development of safe job procedures following identification, while JHA prioritizes the pinpointing of task-specific risks. The U.S. (OSHA) primarily employs the term JHA to describe a technique that breaks jobs into steps to identify unrecognized hazards and recommend controls, without drawing a formal semantic divide from JSA. In contrast to broader risk assessments, which evaluate systemic and long-term organizational risks across facilities or operations, JSA remains narrowly focused on individual job tasks, enabling immediate, granular mitigation for routine work activities. assessments often incorporate probabilistic modeling and enterprise-wide data, whereas JSA relies on observational breakdown of sequential steps to address human-task interactions directly. JSA differs from process-oriented methods like hazard and operability studies (HAZOP), which systematically examine continuous or batch processes—typically in chemical or industrial settings—by applying guide words (e.g., "no," "more," "less") to deviations in design intent, identifying both safety hazards and operability issues. HAZOP targets interconnected system flows and , often requiring multidisciplinary teams for complex facilities, while JSA applies to discrete, manual job sequences without such deviation keywords. Unlike (FMEA), which analyzes potential failure modes in components, subsystems, or designs to quantify effects on overall system reliability—frequently using severity, occurrence, and detection ratings—JSA centers on worker actions and environmental interactions in specific tasks, yielding qualitative controls rather than numerical priority numbers. FMEA suits and product development for preempting faults, whereas JSA addresses operational hazards in executed jobs, such as those involving tools or .

Methodology

Steps for Conducting a JSA

A job safety analysis (JSA), also known as job hazard analysis (JHA), systematically examines job tasks to identify potential hazards and implement controls, with OSHA recommending it as a proactive tool for preventing injuries by focusing on the job process rather than individual performance. The process emphasizes employee involvement to ensure practical insights, as workers performing the task often recognize unobservable hazards better than supervisors. Standard procedures, drawn from regulatory guidance, outline sequential steps to achieve thorough coverage without overcomplicating routine tasks. The first step involves selecting and prioritizing jobs for analysis, targeting those with high injury rates, severe potential consequences, new procedures, or non-routine high-risk activities, such as those involving or chemicals, to allocate resources efficiently. Prioritization criteria include historical incident data from OSHA logs or records, ensuring focus on empirical risk indicators rather than assumptions. Next, break the job into sequential steps, observing the task in its normal environment and listing discrete actions—typically 5 to 10 per job—to avoid excessive detail that could hinder usability, beginning each with an action verb like "position" or "align." This decomposition relies on direct or video review to capture actual practices, incorporating input from experienced workers to reflect real-world variations. For each step, identify potential hazards by evaluating physical (e.g., slips, machinery pinch points), chemical (e.g., exposure to corrosives), biological, ergonomic, or environmental risks, using techniques like what-if analysis or failure mode evaluation to uncover both obvious and latent dangers. Hazards are described precisely, considering worst-case scenarios supported by data such as material safety data sheets or past near-misses, to ground assessments in verifiable conditions. Subsequently, develop and implement controls for identified hazards, prioritizing engineering solutions (e.g., guards), administrative measures (e.g., procedures), and as a last resort, verifying effectiveness through testing or simulation before full adoption. Controls must address root causes, with documentation including responsibilities for maintenance to sustain long-term efficacy. Finally, review the JSA with all involved parties, including employees and supervisors, to validate steps and controls, followed by periodic updates—annually or after incidents, equipment changes, or regulatory shifts—to maintain relevance amid evolving conditions. on the revised procedures ensures comprehension and compliance, with feedback loops to refine the based on implementation outcomes.

Hazard Identification and Breakdown

Hazard identification in job safety analysis (JSA) follows the breakdown of the job into sequential steps and entails a detailed examination of each step to uncover potential sources of harm, including unsafe conditions, actions, or environmental factors that could lead to injury, illness, or property damage. Observers typically watch experienced workers perform the task under normal conditions while noting deviations, asking targeted questions such as "What can go wrong?" and "Under what conditions?" to reveal both obvious and subtle risks. This step prioritizes empirical observation over assumption, incorporating input from workers familiar with the job to account for real-world variations not evident in documentation alone. Hazards are then broken down by category to facilitate targeted , commonly classified as mechanical (e.g., or pinch points), physical (e.g., slips, trips, or falls), chemical (e.g., exposure to toxic substances), biological (e.g., pathogens in healthcare settings), ergonomic (e.g., repetitive strain or awkward postures), or electrical (e.g., shock risks). For each identified hazard, analysts delineate root causes—such as equipment failure, , or inadequate safeguards—and potential consequences, ranging from minor incidents to fatalities, using tools like or simple checklists derived from incident records. This breakdown ensures hazards are not treated in isolation but contextualized within the job step, enabling precise risk evaluation; for instance, in operations, hazards might be decomposed into ignition sources, exposure duration, and mitigation gaps. To enhance thoroughness, supplementary methods include reviewing historical accident reports, safety data sheets, and equipment manuals, as well as simulating abnormal scenarios like equipment malfunctions or environmental changes (e.g., wet floors increasing slip risks). Worker involvement is critical, as studies from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) indicate that frontline input identifies up to 30% more hazards than management-led reviews alone, due to of unscripted workarounds. Hazards overlooked in initial identifications—such as stressors like contributing to errors—are flagged through iterative reviews, ensuring the breakdown aligns with causal factors rather than superficial symptoms. Documentation of this process in JSA forms typically includes columns for steps, hazards, causes, and consequences, promoting and under standards like OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.
Hazard CategoryExamples in JSA BreakdownCommon CausesPotential Consequences
MechanicalUnguarded blades, crushing forcesPoor maintenance, operator errorLacerations, amputations
ChemicalFume inhalation, spillsInadequate ventilation, improper storageRespiratory issues, burns
ErgonomicHeavy lifting, prolonged standingLack of aids, poor workstation designMusculoskeletal disorders
PhysicalFalls from heights, noise exposureUnsecured ladders, absent barriersFractures,
This structured breakdown transitions directly into risk prioritization, where hazards are evaluated for likelihood and severity to inform control measures, underscoring JSA's emphasis on proactive prevention over reactive response.

Risk Assessment and Prioritization

Risk assessment within job safety analysis evaluates the probability of a occurring in each job step alongside the potential severity of , enabling systematic ranking of threats to inform control decisions. This process typically follows hazard identification and relies on qualitative or semi-quantitative methods to avoid over-reliance on subjective judgment. For example, the (OSHA) recommends assessing risks in context-specific terms, such as frequency of exposure and consequence magnitude, to prioritize interventions that address the most pressing dangers before less critical ones. A prevalent tool is the , which cross-references likelihood categories (e.g., rare: <1% chance; unlikely: 1-10%; possible: 10-50%; likely: 50-90%; almost certain: >90%) against severity levels (e.g., negligible: minor requiring no treatment; marginal: only; moderate: lost time ; critical: permanent ; catastrophic: fatality or multiple fatalities). The resulting risk level—often calculated as likelihood score multiplied by severity score—classifies as low, medium, high, or extreme, with extreme risks demanding immediate action. Studies on matrix usability emphasize defining scales consistently to enhance reliability, as inconsistent criteria can lead to misprioritization; for instance, a 2022 found that standardized 5x5 matrices improved inter-rater agreement in hazard evaluations by up to 30% when paired with . Prioritization sequences hazards by descending score, ensuring finite resources target those with the highest potential impact, such as tasks involving unguarded machinery where a likely fall could result in critical ( score of 20 in a 5x5 ). Historical , including OSHA-reportable incidents from 2019-2023 showing over 2.8 million nonfatal workplace injuries annually, validates this by correlating high- assessments with elevated incident rates in sectors like and . Quantitative extensions, like integrated into JSA, assign numerical probabilities derived from empirical to refine rankings, though qualitative matrices suffice for most operational contexts due to their simplicity and alignment with regulatory expectations.
LikelihoodSeverity
NegligibleMarginalModerateCriticalCatastrophic
RareLowLowLowMediumHigh
UnlikelyLowLowMediumHighHigh
PossibleLowMediumMediumHighExtreme
LikelyMediumMediumHighExtremeExtreme
Almost CertainMediumHighHighExtremeExtreme
This example 5x5 matrix illustrates prioritization: entries in the "Extreme" zone trigger or job suspension until mitigated, while "Low" risks may warrant only administrative monitoring.

Hazard Control Strategies

Hierarchy of Controls

The hierarchy of controls provides a prioritized framework for selecting hazard mitigation measures in job safety analysis, emphasizing strategies that address hazards at their source over those reliant on worker behavior. Developed as a core principle in occupational safety, it ranks interventions from most effective—elimination of the hazard—to least effective—use of (PPE). This approach, promoted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), aims to minimize workplace exposures by favoring methods that require minimal ongoing human intervention. At the apex, elimination involves completely removing the from the job process, such as automating a manual task involving heavy lifting to prevent musculoskeletal injuries. If elimination proves infeasible, substitution replaces the with a safer alternative, for instance, switching from a toxic to a non-toxic one in cleaning operations. These top-tier controls are deemed most effective because they prevent exposure without depending on compliance, reducing failure rates tied to . Next, isolate workers from the hazard through physical modifications, like installing ventilation systems to capture airborne contaminants or machine guards to prevent contact with moving parts; these maintain effectiveness over time with proper maintenance but may not fully eliminate risks. Administrative controls alter work practices, such as rotating shifts to limit exposure duration or providing training on safe procedures, though their success hinges on adherence and can degrade without enforcement. Finally, PPE, including gloves, helmets, or respirators, serves as a last resort, offering protection only when worn correctly and consistently, with empirical studies indicating higher injury rates when over-relied upon compared to higher-level controls. In job safety analysis, this hierarchy guides the evaluation of identified hazards by systematically assessing feasibility from elimination downward, ensuring controls align with causal factors of risks rather than superficial fixes. Evidence from and sectors supports its efficacy, with preliminary data showing reduced incident rates when higher controls are prioritized over administrative or PPE measures alone.
LevelDescriptionEffectiveness Rationale
EliminationPhysically remove the Highest; no exposure possible
SubstitutionReplace with less optionHigh; alters fundamentally
Engineering barriers or isolationReliable with maintenance; independent of behavior
AdministrativeModify procedures or Moderate; depends on compliance
PPEProvide protective gearLowest; user-dependent and secondary

Criteria for Control Effectiveness

The effectiveness of hazard controls in job safety analysis is primarily determined by their position within the hierarchy of controls, which ranks interventions from most to least reliable in mitigating risks. Elimination, the top tier, removes the entirely and is deemed the most effective due to its permanence and independence from human factors. Substitution follows by replacing the with a less dangerous alternative, such as using a safer chemical, thereby reducing exposure potential without relying on behavioral compliance. , like machine guards or ventilation systems, modify the work environment to isolate hazards, offering high reliability but requiring initial design and maintenance. Administrative controls and (PPE), lower in the hierarchy, are less effective as they depend on worker adherence and , which can vary and diminish over time. Effectiveness criteria emphasize the control's ability to consistently reduce severity, likelihood of occurrence, and potential impact on workers, evaluated through assessments that quantify exposure levels and probabilities. Controls must demonstrably lower risks to acceptable levels, often verified against permissible exposure limits set by regulatory standards, with engineering and elimination methods preferred for their superior long-term performance over reliance-based options. Additional criteria include technical feasibility, ensuring the control can be practically implemented within the job's constraints; economic viability, balancing costs against risk reduction benefits; and , assessing durability and ease of maintenance to prevent degradation. Worker acceptance and compatibility with are also considered, as controls that hinder may face non-compliance, undermining effectiveness. Post-implementation monitoring, such as exposure sampling or incident tracking, confirms ongoing efficacy, with periodic reevaluation required to adapt to changes in processes or conditions.

Applications and Scope

Suitable Industries and Job Types

Job safety analysis is most applicable to industries with elevated injury risks due to physical hazards, machinery operation, or environmental exposures, where empirical data show disproportionate accident rates. According to (OSHA) guidelines, prioritization targets jobs with the highest injury or illness rates, potential for severe harm, or recent changes in processes. These include construction, where falls, struck-by incidents, and electrocutions account for over 60% of fatalities annually as of 2023 data; manufacturing, involving assembly lines, , and equipment maintenance that contribute to repetitive strain and machinery-related injuries; and mining, particularly underground or surface operations with risks like cave-ins and explosions, as evidenced in copper mining hazard evaluations. In process industries such as oil and gas or chemicals, JSA supplements broader process hazard analyses by focusing on operational tasks like maintenance or entry, where failures can lead to releases or fires. Utilities and transportation sectors also benefit, applying JSA to high-voltage line work or heavy vehicle loading to mitigate and crushing hazards. Suitable job types emphasize manual or mechanical tasks with identifiable steps and hazards, rather than routine office work. Examples include:
  • Machinery operation: Such as operating forklifts or presses in , where pinch points and tip-overs pose risks.
  • Working at heights: Scaffolding assembly or roofing in , addressing fall potentials through sequential controls.
  • Hazardous material handling: , blasting, or chemical mixing, prioritized due to burn, , and threats.
  • Excavation and demolition: Trenching or in and , targeting cave-in and structural collapse hazards.
JSA's value lies in its adaptability to non-routine, high-consequence jobs, but it is less emphasized in low-hazard settings like administrative roles unless incident data indicates otherwise.

Integration with Regulatory Frameworks

Job safety analysis (JSA) serves as a practical tool for achieving compliance with occupational health and safety regulations by systematically breaking down tasks to identify hazards and prescribe controls that meet legal requirements for hazard recognition and mitigation. In the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) endorses JSA—often termed job hazard analysis—as an essential method for fulfilling hazard assessment obligations under standards like 29 CFR 1910.132, which mandates employers to evaluate workplace hazards prior to selecting personal protective equipment. This integration extends to OSHA's general industry standards, where JSA helps document proactive risk management to satisfy the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, requiring workplaces free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. In construction and maritime sectors, JSA aligns with OSHA's emphasis on task-specific analyses to prevent falls, electrical exposures, and machinery incidents, as outlined in 29 CFR 1926 and 1915. Internationally, JSA supports frameworks like , the standard for occupational health and safety management systems, particularly in clauses addressing hazard identification (Clause 6.1.2) and operational planning for risk control (Clause 8.1). Organizations pursuing ISO 45001 certification use JSA to generate evidence of systematic hazard evaluation, enabling integration with the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle for continual improvement and audit readiness. This approach ensures that JSA outputs, such as control hierarchies and evaluations, map directly to regulatory demands for verifiable risk assessments, reducing non-compliance penalties observed in enforcement actions across jurisdictions. In regions with OSHA-approved state plans, such as California's Cal/OSHA, JSA adapts to localized standards that often impose stricter documentation or frequency requirements, yet maintain core alignment with federal guidelines for breakdown and control verification. Empirical audits demonstrate that workplaces employing JSA report higher compliance rates during inspections, as it provides traceable records linking job steps to regulatory controls, though effectiveness depends on regular updates to reflect evolving standards like those for emerging chemical exposures under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200).

Implementation Practices

Assigning Responsibilities and

Assigning clear responsibilities ensures accountability in the job safety analysis (JSA) process, with employers ultimately responsible for initiating, overseeing, and integrating JSAs into workplace safety programs. Supervisors typically lead the development of JSAs for their teams by selecting high-risk jobs, breaking them into steps, and identifying hazards, while involving experienced workers to provide practical input on tasks and controls. Workers participate by reviewing analyses, suggesting improvements based on on-the-job knowledge, and adhering to specified safe practices, fostering ownership and compliance. This collaborative assignment reduces oversight gaps, as evidenced by OSHA guidelines emphasizing line personnel involvement to capture real-world hazards missed in top-down approaches. Training on JSA procedures is essential for effective , with OSHA recommending that analysts—often supervisors or coordinators—receive instruction on identification, evaluation, and control selection to standardize analyses across jobs. Workers must be on the specific safe steps and controls outlined in their job's JSA prior to performing tasks, serving as both initial and periodic refreshers to reinforce awareness and procedural adherence. For instance, JSAs identify targeted needs, such as operation or responses, which employers assign based on role-specific risks, with records maintained to verify competency. Supervisors undergo additional on leading JSA reviews and updating them after incidents or process changes, ensuring ongoing relevance. Empirical support for these practices comes from workplace studies showing that structured responsibility assignment and JSA-based training correlate with reduced injury rates; for example, programs integrating worker input in JSAs have demonstrated up to 20-30% improvements in hazard recognition during audits. Non-compliance, such as inadequate training delegation, has led to OSHA citations in cases where untrained personnel conducted incomplete analyses, underscoring the causal link between defined roles, skill-building, and preventive outcomes. Organizations should document assignments and training completions, with annual reviews to adapt to workforce changes or new hazards.

Documentation and Ongoing Review

Documentation of job safety analyses typically involves creating written records that outline the job steps, identified hazards, and recommended controls in a structured format, such as worksheets with columns for each element. These forms facilitate communication of safe procedures to workers and serve as a basis for and compliance verification. OSHA recommends involving experienced workers and supervisors in developing these documents to ensure accuracy, with retained as part of the employer's . Ongoing review ensures that job safety analyses remain effective amid evolving workplace conditions, requiring updates after process changes, new equipment introductions, regulatory shifts, or incidents like near-misses. Periodic audits, such as annual reviews or post-event evaluations, help verify that controls address current hazards and incorporate lessons from operational data. Employers should assign responsibility for these reviews to safety personnel or teams, documenting revisions with dates and rationales to track improvements and maintain accountability. Failure to conduct timely reviews can undermine hazard mitigation, as static analyses may overlook emergent risks from technological or procedural modifications.

Effectiveness and Critiques

Empirical Evidence on Outcomes

A of job safety analysis (JSA) applications, published in 2023, analyzed original research articles and found that studies consistently demonstrated JSA's effectiveness in preventing workplace accidents and fostering safe behaviors, though quantitative metrics varied by implementation context. For instance, Aksorn and Hadikusumo's 2008 study on Thai projects measured JSA within broader safety programs, associating it with enhanced recognition and reduced exposure, contributing to overall program efficacy. In the United States, OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), which mandate comprehensive job hazard analyses as a core element, report participating sites achieving lost-workday injury and illness rates roughly 50% below industry averages, based on data from thousands of verified workplaces as of the program's long-term evaluations. Effective safety programs incorporating JSA have also been linked to economic benefits, yielding approximately $4 in savings for every $1 invested through lower costs and higher , per federal analyses of integrated hazard control strategies. Case-specific evidence supports these patterns; a 2018 study in Malaysian plantations applied JHA to risks and confirmed its utility in mitigating physical strain hazards, leading to targeted interventions that improved worker posture and reduced potential, though pre- and post-implementation injury rates were not statistically quantified. Similarly, a 2014 intervention in modular homebuilding using methods integrated with JSA showed measurable gains in safety performance indicators, such as fewer near-misses and better compliance with controls. Despite these associations, direct causal attributions of injury reductions solely to JSA remain challenging due to confounding factors like concurrent or regulatory , with meta-analyses on broadly affirming proactive identification's role in lowering incident rates by 20-40% across interventions but lacking JSA-specific isolates. NIOSH evaluations, including 2001 testimony, endorse JHA for effective hazard exposure identification, correlating it with downstream reductions in occupational illnesses in high-risk sectors.

Limitations, Costs, and Common Failures

Job safety analyses (JSAs) are inherently time-consuming, as they require breaking down tasks into steps, observing operations, consulting workers, and developing controls, often demanding several hours per job in complex environments. This process can overburden small organizations or those with limited safety personnel, diverting resources from other priorities. A key limitation stems from the absence of standardized methods across JSAs, leading to inconsistencies in prioritization and control selection; studies reviewing JSA applications note that varying approaches undermine comparability and reliability. JSAs may also overlook arising from surrounding activities, rare events, or interactions with non-task elements, as the focus remains narrowly on isolated job steps without an initial comprehensive inventory. Additionally, JSAs emphasize procedural controls but often underemphasize human factors such as , complacency, or behavioral deviations, which empirical reviews identify as contributors to incidents despite formal analyses. Costs associated with JSAs include direct expenses for analyst time—typically 4-8 hours for initial assessments of routine tasks, escalating for high-risk jobs—and indirect costs from training analysts and integrating findings into operations. Periodic reviews, recommended annually or after incidents, compound these, with failure to update potentially leading to regulatory fines under standards like OSHA 1910.132, which have averaged $14,502 per serious violation in fiscal year 2023. In resource-constrained settings, such as small enterprises, these investments may yield delayed returns, as benefits like reduced require consistent implementation to materialize. Common failures include insufficient worker involvement, which results in overlooked practical hazards known only to those performing the tasks; analyses without frontline input have been linked to persistent incident rates in high-risk sectors. Incomplete or to apply the of controls often leaves residual risks unaddressed, as evidenced by cases where JSAs prioritized administrative measures over solutions. Neglecting ongoing reviews after process changes or incidents exacerbates vulnerabilities, with OSHA guidelines stressing revision yet reporting non-compliance in up to 30% of inspected workplaces involving hazard analyses. Poor communication of JSA findings to teams further diminishes effectiveness, fostering non-adherence and undermining preventive intent.

Recent Developments

Technological Enhancements

Digital software platforms have automated traditional JSA processes by enabling electronic documentation, standardized templates, and collaborative assessments, reducing manual errors and improving accessibility across teams. Tools such as JSA On The Go facilitate cloud-based creation of JSAs with integrated scoring and features, allowing real-time updates and compliance checks. Similarly, viAct's JHA software employs for detection and , streamlining workflows in construction and industrial settings. Artificial intelligence enhances JSA through predictive hazard identification and computer vision analysis of video feeds or site data. Platforms like Intenseye use AI to detect unseen workplace hazards in real time, integrating findings into JSA updates for proactive controls. Protex AI applies machine learning to aggregate data from CCTV, wearables, and IoT devices, forecasting risk patterns to inform JSA revisions. A 2025 analysis highlights AI's role in EHS for JSA by automating repetitive assessments and prioritizing high-risk tasks based on historical incident data. Field1st's AI-driven tools further support OSHA-compliant JHAs by flagging potential accidents pre-emptively through site-specific modeling. Virtual and technologies simulate job tasks for visualization during JSA development, allowing workers to experience risks without exposure. VR training has demonstrated a 30% increase in awareness and compared to conventional methods, as evidenced in Industry 4.0 applications. Recent 2025 advancements in VR for enable immersive scenario replication for JHA refinement, improving recognition in dynamic environments. AR overlays digital indicators onto real-world views, aiding on-site JSA validation, while studies confirm its efficacy in reducing injury-related downtime, such as a 43% drop in mining lost time incidents post-implementation. Wearable sensors complement these by providing real-time biometric and environmental data to validate JSA controls, alerting to deviations like or toxic exposures.

Adaptations to Emerging Risks

Job safety analyses (JSAs) are updated periodically or whenever job procedures, , environments, or external conditions change to incorporate emerging hazards, ensuring continued in preventing injuries. This includes revising analyses after incidents, near-misses, or identified gaps to address unrecognized risks that arise dynamically. Such adaptations maintain the core JSA process—breaking down tasks, identifying hazards, and recommending controls—while expanding scope to novel threats like those from technological shifts or global events. In response to the , organizations adapted JSAs by supplementing standard analyses with protocols for biological hazards, such as enhanced PPE requirements, sanitation steps, and exposure risk categorization aligned with OSHA's occupational risk pyramid (dividing tasks into very high, high, medium, and lower risk levels based on proximity to infected persons). The U.S. Agency, for instance, issued a JHA supplement on July 6, 2020, tailored for field work, mandating task-specific controls like and symptom screening until the emergency subsided. These updates involved retraining workers on modified procedures to mitigate risks in high-exposure jobs like healthcare or . For emerging technological risks, JSAs now routinely assess hazards from , AI, and advanced , including ergonomic strains from repetitive tasks enabled by exoskeletons, psychosocial stress from job monitoring via wearables, or entanglement dangers from collaborative robots. Centre for Occupational Health and Safety recommends integrating worker input during assessments to evaluate likelihood and consequences across operations, maintenance, and testing phases, applying the hierarchy of controls to minimize exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). tools have been employed to enhance JSA visualization, aiding hazard identification in complex setups where traditional methods falter, particularly for inexperienced workers. Climate-related risks, such as intensified heat stress or events, prompt JSA revisions to include and adaptive controls like scheduled breaks or hydration protocols in outdoor or heavy-labor roles. The U.S. EPA notes that rising temperatures, projected to increase heat-related illnesses among workers, necessitate proactive hazard evaluations in vulnerable sectors like and , where failure to update JSAs could elevate morbidity rates. Automated software further supports these adaptations by enabling analysis to detect evolving patterns in dynamic environments.

References

  1. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3071.pdf
  2. https://osha.oregon.gov/pages/topics/job-safety-analysis.aspx
  3. https://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/videoresource/stpjobsafetana.pdf
  4. https://quizlet.com/study-guides/history-and-purpose-of-job-hazard-analysis-843d4d67-e556-4984-9e3b-81aa5daf225e
  5. http://blog.dol.gov/2024/07/09/6-steps-to-an-effective-job-hazard-analysis
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10300476/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753518316874
  8. https://www.ehs.com/2024/05/job-safety-analysis-jsa-the-essential-ohs-compliance-tool/
  9. https://www.vectorsolutions.com/resources/blogs/a-breakdown-of-the-4-steps-of-a-job-safety-analysis/
  10. https://aeasseincludes.assp.org/professionalsafety/pastissues/056/03/048_057_F2Glenn_0311Z.pdf
  11. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-workplace-safety-in-the-united-states-1880-1970/
  12. https://www.ehs.com/2016/06/job-safety-analysis-simplifies-compliance-with-oshas-hazard-assessment-requirements/
  13. https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/6368-examining-the-foundation
  14. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/osha
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7144431/
  16. https://www.assp.org/standards/standards-development
  17. https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/other/198_jobsafetyanalysis/jsa_gn_e.pdf
  18. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Job_Hazard_Analysis_Worksheet.pdf
  19. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/job-haz.html
  20. https://www.vectorsolutions.com/resources/blogs/is-there-a-difference-between-a-jsa-and-a-jha/
  21. https://training.amiosh.com/how-to-tell-the-difference-between-job-safety-analysis-and-job-hazard-analysis/
  22. https://fatfinger.io/difference-between-job-hazard-analysis-and-risk-assessment/
  23. https://www.osha.gov/safety-management/hazard-identification
  24. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/safetysamurai_hazop-fmea-riskassessment-activity-7369566129045893121-O1_U
  25. https://sphera.com/resources/glossary/what-is-the-difference-between-pha-hazop-lopa/
  26. https://www.arnolditkin.com/blog/work-accidents/job-safety-analysis-jsa-other-risk-assessments-i/
  27. https://d6m6mexz47twc.cloudfront.net/2024/06/25/understanding-the-differences-between-fmea-and-hazard-analysis/
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10229026/
  29. https://blog.dol.gov/2024/07/09/6-steps-to-an-effective-job-hazard-analysis
  30. https://www.safetyworksmaine.com/safe_workplace/safety_management/hazard_analysis.shtml
  31. https://kpa.io/blog/job-safety-analysis-essential-steps-to-conducting-a-jsa/
  32. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/fy16_sh-29629-sh6_HAandJSAtrainingmanual.pdf
  33. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/resource_jha_guide.pdf
  34. https://www.assp.org/news-and-articles/conducting-job-safety-analysis-and-risk-assessments
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8910355/
  36. https://safetyculture.com/topics/risk-assessment/5x5-risk-matrix
  37. https://www.ehs.com/2024/07/standardizing-jsa-risk-assessment-criteria/
  38. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hierarchy-of-controls/about/index.html
  39. https://www.osha.gov/safety-management/hazard-prevention
  40. https://www.tdi.texas.gov/tips/safety/hierarchy-of-controls.html
  41. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf
  42. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213002649.pdf
  43. http://www.osha.gov/safety-management/hazard-prevention
  44. http://www.osha.gov/safety-management/hazard-identification
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389411945_APPLICATION_OF_JOB_SAFETY_ANALYSIS_IN_COPPER_MINING_OPERATIONS_A_REVIEW
  46. https://fatfinger.io/exploring-job-hazard-analysis-examples-and-its-applications/
  47. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/job-hazard-analysis
  48. https://www.smithers.com/resources/2024/april/iso-45001-and-risk-management
  49. https://www.risk-strategies.com/blog/using-job-hazard-analysis-to-meet-osha-regulatory-requirements
  50. https://www.safetyproresources.com/blog/best-practices-for-job-safety-analysis-jsa
  51. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/SHPM_guidelines.pdf
  52. http://www.niosh.com.my/images/Journal/2018/Article/2018-JOSHFULL-ARTICLE-2---JUNE-2018-21-29.pdf
  53. https://mikechristian.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13307/2016/11/Christian-et-al-2009-JAP-Safety-MA.pdf
  54. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-108/pdfs/2001-108.pdf
  55. https://www.ehs.com/2025/06/job-safety-analysis-the-essential-safety-management-tool/
  56. https://jsaonthego.com/
  57. https://www.viact.ai/solutions/job-hazard-analysis-software
  58. https://www.intenseye.com/
  59. https://www.protex.ai/
  60. https://www.ehs.com/2025/10/ai-and-ehs-use-cases-job-safety-analysis/
  61. https://field1st.com/job-hazard-analysis/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12331925/
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396599887_Recent_advances_in_virtual_reality_applications_for_construction_safety_management
  64. https://aidarsolutions.com/augmented-reality-safety/
  65. https://www.thesafetymaster.com/leveraging-technology-for-enhanced-job-safety-analysis-common-mistakes-to-avoid-in-job-safety-analysis/
  66. https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/hazards
  67. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/documents/epa_covid-19_jha_supplement_final_07062020.pdf
  68. https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework
  69. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safety_haz/new_technology.pdf
  70. https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/RR2022-virtual-technology-job-hazard-analysis.pdf
  71. https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-and-health-workers
  72. https://ehsleaders.org/2025/01/how-comprehensive-job-safety-analysis-can-improve-business-risk-management/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.