WHAT TO EXPECT FROM DAY ONE
INSIGHT RISK SYSTEMS IS A THINKING PARTNER TO TALK THROUGH YOUR RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH
SHARED LANGUAGE
Calibrate language: Across your organization’s geography and business units, do you consistently define and track:
- Hazards: major incident hazards, ST(C)KY, high energy hazards, energy wheel
- Loss of control/containment scenarios: root cause analysis, after action reviews, event trees, fault trees, bowtie analysis
- High consequence risks: major unwanted event, serious injury and fatality (SIF), high-impact low likelihood (HILL), and potential losses (SIFp, PSIF)
- Controls: life-critical controls, critical controls assurance, critical controls management, tied to RACI to track responsibility/accountability
- Hazard-Risk-Control bundles: life-critical tasks, life saving rules, life saving actions
- Individual, team, and organizational factors: that can reinforce or degrade your ability to identify hazards, understand loss scenarios, change probability and consequences, implement controls
IDENTIFY GAPS
Give you line-of-sight to your gaps, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that block integration of your occupational and
operational risks into your enterprise risk management system.
DETAILED COLD-EYES REVIEW / DUE DILIGENCE OF YOUR RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM USING GapFinder. WHERE ARE YOUR STRENGTHS? WHERE ARE YOUR PRIORITY OPPORTUNITIES?
HAZARD RECOGNITION
“Do I see it?” — hazard recognition:
- The first failure mode is not that people choose the wrong control. It is that the hazard is not recognized clearly enough in the first place.
- This means the question is not simply: What hazards exist?
- It is: Are the hazards that can seriously harm people, assets, and environment visible in incidents, inspections, critical controls assurance, work planning, and business-unit reporting?
- Mining operations often ‘know’ their high-energy hazards, but the real question is whether the management system is consistently seeing them in practice.
HUMAN FACTORS
“Do I understand it?” and “Do I tolerate it?” — human/organizational factors and risk normalization:
- Even when a hazard is recognized, it may not be reported if workers / contractors fear social repercussions. If workers are fearful, they’re more likely to tell a third-party like Insight Risk Systems.
- If hazards are identified and reported, workers may still tolerate it because of familiarity, confidence, production pressure, time constraints, role modelling, voluntary action, perceived control, budget constraints, or normalized exposure.
- That gives GapFinder a stronger human-and-organizational layer: Not only “was the control present?” but “what conditions made weak control, degraded control, or risky exposure seem acceptable?”
CONTROL LAYERS
“How do I prevent or mitigate it?” — multi-layered controls:
- This is where the enhanced hierarchy of controls and process-safety layers of protection come in.
- By examining loss of control/containment scenarios by hazard/task, using bowtie analysis, we can identify more effective, upstream options to prevent and mitigate risk. And we can understand how human and organizational factors reinforce or degrade those controls.
- That is valuable because it connects:
-
- occupational safety controls
- process safety barriers
- critical controls
- LOPA-style layered protection
- human and organizational performance
- prioritized by potential consequences
GapFinder HELPS ORGANIZATIONS SEE WHERE CONTROLS BREAK DOWN: WHEN HAZARDS ARE NOT RECOGNIZED, WHEN EXPOSURE BECOMES TOLERATED, OR WHEN MITIGATION RELIES TOO HEAVILY ON WEAK OR DEGRADED LAYERS OF CONTROL
RECENT WORK
- Derisking the hydrogen value-chain in Canada
- Automated train inspection
- Enhanced train control systems