Why Most Job Hazard Analyses (JHAs) Miss the Mark — and How to Do Them Right

The Problem with Most JHAs

If you’ve ever read a JHA that listed “PPE” as the only control, you already know the issue. Most Job Hazard Analyses fail not because safety professionals don’t care — but because the process itself is misunderstood.

A JHA is supposed to predict failure before it happens. Yet in most workplaces, it’s treated like a checklist or paperwork requirement. When that happens, the JHA loses its power to prevent incidents.

Let’s break down why most JHAs miss the mark — and what separates a strong one from a weak one.

1. They Start with Tasks, Not Hazards

Many safety teams jump straight into listing job steps without identifying how those steps can go wrong.
This “task-first” approach buries the hazard analysis under routine description.

Example:

• Task: “Use grinder to remove weld slag”

• Hazard (poorly defined): “Flying particles”

• Control: “Wear safety glasses”

That control might meet compliance, but it doesn’t address severity (high-velocity fragment), exposure frequency (repetitive daily use), or human factors (poor visibility, fatigue).

Fix: Always start from the hazard. Ask:

• What could cause harm here?

• How severe could it be?

• What conditions make it more likely?

By thinking hazard-first, the task becomes the context — not the focus.

2. The Controls Are Too Vague

Controls like “use PPE,” “be cautious,” or “follow procedure” may look complete on paper but fail in practice because they’re not measurable or verifiable.

A strong JHA control should:

• Be specific: Identify which PPE, how to use it, and when it applies.

• Be layered: Include engineering, administrative, and behavioral controls — not just PPE.

• Be accountable: Assign responsibility for implementation or inspection.

Example:
Instead of “Use gloves,” write:
“Use ANSI A5 cut-resistant gloves when handling sheet metal during final assembly.”

That’s compliance and clarity.

3. Human Factors Are Ignored

Most JHAs assume that workers will always perform perfectly — alert, rested, and following procedure.
Reality says otherwise.

Cognitive overload, fatigue, rushing, poor ergonomics, and unclear communication all amplify risk. Yet few JHAs even acknowledge these factors.

Fix:
Add a “Human Factor Modifier” section to your JHA template. Consider:

• Fatigue: Are workers fresh or near shift end?

• Distractions: Are alarms, noise, or multitasking involved?

• Training: Is the worker competent or new to the task?

• Stress/Urgency: Are they under production pressure?

Integrating these factors turns a static form into a living risk model — one that reflects real people doing real work.

4. The Process Isn’t Dynamic

Once written, most JHAs sit in a binder until the next audit.
But job conditions change constantly — new materials, equipment upgrades, seasonal hazards, even worker rotation.

If your JHA process doesn’t evolve with the work, it quickly becomes obsolete.

Fix:
Adopt a review cycle that’s event-driven, not just annual:

• After a near miss or incident

• When new equipment or chemicals are introduced

• When procedures change

• When the workforce changes (new hires or contractors)

Digital tools — even a simple app or shared database — make real-time updates and version control painless.

5. Risk Levels Are Arbitrary

Many JHAs assign “Low, Medium, High” risk without explaining how those ratings were determined. That subjectivity leads to inconsistency across departments or shifts.

Fix:
Use a scoring model that combines severity, probability, and human factors.
Even better, integrate fuzzy logic or weighted sliders to capture uncertainty — because not every hazard is black and white.

When your scoring method reflects how humans actually perceive and manage risk, your JHA transforms from paperwork into a decision-making tool.

6. Workers Aren’t Truly Involved

The best insights often come from the people doing the job — not the ones writing about it.
A JHA that’s written for workers, not with them, misses critical nuances.

Fix:
Use “field verification.” After writing the draft JHA, walk the process with the team. Ask:

• “What actually happens when things go wrong?”

• “What’s the hardest part of this task?”

• “Where do people cut corners when they’re in a hurry?”

The goal isn’t to catch mistakes — it’s to capture reality.

How to Do JHAs Right

An effective Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) has five essential traits. It should be hazard-based, focusing on what can actually cause harm rather than simply describing the task. It must be data-driven, using logical or quantitative scoring to rank risks consistently. A strong JHA is also human-centered, considering real-world factors like fatigue, training level, and urgency. Every control listed should be specific and actionable, meaning it’s clear, verifiable, and assigned to a responsible party. Finally, it must be continuously updated, reviewed after any significant change, near miss, or incident. The best JHAs evolve alongside a company’s safety culture, transforming from static checklists into intelligent, data-informed systems that drive real prevention.

The Bottom Line

A Job Hazard Analysis shouldn’t be about filling boxes; it should be about seeing the invisible.
When you refine hazard definitions, specify controls, and include human factors, you transform your JHA from a document into a decision-making tool — one that actually prevents injuries and saves lives.

If your current JHAs feel like paperwork, it’s time to reengineer the process. Start small. Audit one job. Ask better questions.
You’ll be amazed at what you uncover.