Skip to content
If you handle, store or move dangerous goods, you can’t afford guesswork. Auditors expect a clear, defensible method for spotting what could go wrong before it does; frontline teams need practical tools that fit real workflows; and managers want consistency across sites, modes and shifts. Yet many organisations struggle to pick the right approach from a crowded field of hazard identification techniques, leading to patchy risk assessments, missed issues and avoidable non‑compliances with IATA, IMDG, ADR or internal standards.
This guide sets out the five techniques we recommend most often and, crucially, when to use each. We’ll explain what they are and how they work, the strengths and limitations, typical outputs to expect, the team and time you’ll need, and tools or templates to get started. You’ll also see dangerous goods examples to make the methods tangible. On the list: Logicom Hub’s structured HAZID for dangerous goods, HAZOP, Bow tie analysis, FMEA, and checklists, inspections and JSA. First up, a focused HAZID designed for DG contexts.
1. Logicom Hub’s structured HAZID for dangerous goods
Our structured HAZID is a facilitated, DG‑specific way to surface hazards end‑to‑end across classification, packing, storage and transport by air, sea, road and rail. It blends recognised hazard identification techniques with regulation prompts (IATA, IMDG, ADR, RID) to keep sessions practical, compliant and action‑oriented.
What it is
A workshop‑based, qualitative hazard identification method that captures what could go wrong, why, and how to control it. In DG contexts it maps hazards from product receipt to delivery and emergency response.
How it works
You scope the flow, gather evidence, then run a focused, guided session. Typical steps include:
- Define scope: boundaries, assumptions, interfaces.
- Review requirements: SDS and IATA/IMDG/ADR/RID rules.
- Use DG prompts: classification, packing, segregation, documentation, stowage/handling, emergency.
- Record and rank: hazards, causes, consequences, existing controls, actions.
When to use it
Use it early and at change points to avoid blind spots. Ideal for:
- New products/routes/carriers
- Process or equipment changes
- Post‑incident reviews and periodic refresh
Strengths and limitations
Key points at a glance:
- Strengths: fast, cross‑functional, regulation‑anchored, exposes compliance gaps.
- Limitations: qualitative, expertise‑dependent; may miss complex interactions—pair with HAZOP or FMEA for depth.
Typical outputs
Expect concise, actionable artefacts:
- Hazard register: causes, consequences, controls, actions.
- Risk view: ranked priorities and owners.
- Analysis starters: candidate bow‑ties and inspection focus areas.
Team and time needed
A small cross‑functional group works best: DGSA/safety lead, operations/warehouse, transport planning, compliance/quality and a frontline representative. Most flows can be covered in a single focused workshop with light pre‑read and follow‑up actions.
Tools and templates you can use
A simple risk register, a DG prompt list aligned to IATA/IMDG/ADR/RID, and a one‑page bow‑tie canvas; acceptance, packing and segregation checklists help anchor the discussion.
Dangerous goods example
Introducing lithium batteries by air alongside existing sea shipments. The HAZID rapidly surfaces:
- Misclassification/documentation errors
- Handling damage and short‑circuit risks
- Inadequate fire containment and emergency response
2. HAZOP (hazard and operability study)
HAZOP is a structured, team-based review that tests a process or operation against its design intent to uncover hazardous deviations and operability issues. Recognised across industry and by safety bodies, it adds depth beyond a broad HAZID by systematically challenging each part of the process.
What it is
A qualitative technique that examines “nodes” (logical sections of a process or procedure) using prompt words to reveal how deviations could occur, what the consequences would be and whether existing safeguards are adequate.
How it works
The team reviews one node at a time against its normal intent, then explores deviations and causes before agreeing actions. Typical flow:
- Select node and intent
- Explore deviations using structured prompts
- Identify causes and consequences
- List existing safeguards
- Agree risk ranking and actions/owners
When to use it
Apply when risk is significant and detail matters:
- New or modified plant/equipment
- Complex procedures or multi‑step DG operations
- Before commissioning and after incidents
Strengths and limitations
- Strengths: highly systematic; exposes interaction failures; produces defensible action lists.
- Limitations: time‑intensive; needs good data and experienced facilitation; can miss broader organisational hazards—pair with HAZID/bow ties.
Typical outputs
- HAZOP worksheet per node (deviations, causes, consequences, safeguards)
- Action register with priorities and owners
- Updated procedures/P&IDs and training inputs
Team and time needed
Facilitator, scribe, process/operations lead, maintenance/engineering, safety/DGSA and frontline operators. Expect multiple sessions; duration scales with scope and number of nodes.
Tools and templates you can use
Current P&IDs or process maps, SDS, operating and emergency procedures, deviation worksheets and a simple risk matrix for ranking.
Dangerous goods example
A HAZOP of a flammable liquid decanting skid (road tanker to IBCs) surfaces deviations such as over‑pressurisation, incorrect hose connection and loss of earthing, with actions to improve interlocks, labelling, checks and emergency isolation.
3. Bow tie analysis
Bow tie analysis turns complex risk pathways into a clear picture of what you must prevent, and what you must be ready to mitigate if prevention fails. It sits neatly between high‑level hazard identification techniques and detailed studies, making it ideal for communicating major risks and critical controls to busy teams.
What it is
A visual model that links a hazard to a single “top event” (loss of control), with threats on the left and consequences on the right, separated by preventive and mitigative barriers. It helps you see where controls are strong, weak or missing.
How it works
You build the bow tie collaboratively and validate barriers against real practices and rules.
- Define the hazard and top event
- List credible threats that could trigger the top event
- Map preventive barriers and who owns them
- List consequences if the top event occurs
- Map mitigative barriers and recovery measures
- Add escalation factors and controls that keep barriers effective
- Assign assurance tasks (tests, inspections, drills)
When to use it
Use bow ties to focus effort on critical controls and to brief decision‑makers and frontline staff.
- After HAZID/HAZOP to summarise key scenarios
- For major accident hazards and DG compliance hotspots
- At interfaces (handoffs across air/sea/road/rail)
- Post‑incident to visualise improvements
Strengths and limitations
Bow ties drive barrier thinking and make assurance visible, but they are qualitative and can oversimplify if threats or controls are poorly defined.
- Strengths: intuitive, barrier‑centric, great for communication and assurance planning
- Limitations: relies on good inputs; not a substitute for detailed engineering analysis
Typical outputs
Expect concise artefacts that keep risk live and actionable.
- Bow tie diagram(s) per top event
- Barrier/critical control register with owners and performance standards
- Assurance plan (tests, frequency, evidence)
Team and time needed
A facilitator with process/DG knowledge, DGSA/safety, operations/warehouse, transport planning, maintenance and emergency response. One major scenario typically takes a half‑day workshop including preparation.
Tools and templates you can use
A one‑page bow tie canvas, a barrier register with simple performance criteria, your risk matrix for prioritisation, and prompts from IATA/IMDG/ADR/RID to test barrier completeness.
Dangerous goods example
For pressurised flammable gas cylinder storage and loading: hazard = flammable gas; top event = loss of containment. Threats include impact during handling, heat exposure and valve damage. Preventive barriers: cylinder securing, valve caps, segregation from heat sources, trained handling. Consequences: fire/explosion, injury, property damage. Mitigations: firefighting media, emergency isolation, evacuation and responder notification, with assurance tasks for inspections, training and drills.
4. FMEA (failure modes and effects analysis)
FMEA is a bottom‑up, systematic way to anticipate how parts of a process, product or task could fail, what the effects would be, and which controls or improvements will reduce the chance of it happening. It complements broader hazard identification techniques by driving granular, component‑level thinking.
What it is
A structured review that lists each step/component, identifies potential failure modes, their effects and causes, then prioritises actions using severity, occurrence and detection ratings.
How it works
- Define scope and break the process into functions/steps
- List failure modes per step and the effects on safety/compliance
- Capture causes and current controls
- Rate severity, occurrence and detection; prioritise actions
- Assign owners and verify effectiveness
When to use it
- Detailed review of equipment, packaging lines or procedures
- Supplier or design changes affecting DG compliance
- Recurring minor defects signalling deeper issues
Strengths and limitations
- Strengths: rigorous, repeatable, great for preventing known failure patterns
- Limitations: can be time‑consuming; may miss system‑wide or emergent risks—pair with HAZID/HAZOP
Typical outputs
- FMEA worksheet with ranked actions
- Updated SOPs, inspection points and training cues
- Evidence trail for audits
Team and time needed
Facilitator/scribe, process/operations lead, maintenance/engineering, quality/compliance/DGSA and an operator. Small scopes fit in a half‑day; complex assemblies take longer.
Tools and templates you can use
Standard FMEA worksheet, process map, SDS, equipment manuals, torque/inspection specs, simple risk matrix.
Dangerous goods example
Packing Class 3 flammable liquids into UN‑spec cartons: failure modes include incorrect inner closure torque, missing absorbent, wrong UN packaging code, label/mark omissions and leaky tap sets. Actions add verified torque checks, packout checksheets, barcode verification of UN codes and in‑process labelling audits.
5. Checklists, inspections and job safety analysis (JSA)
This trio is the day‑to‑day backbone of hazard identification techniques. Checklists and inspections make sure critical requirements are met every time, while a JSA breaks a task into steps to spot what could hurt people or breach DG rules. Together they keep small deviations from becoming incidents.
What it is
Checklists and inspections are structured verification of conditions, equipment and documents against defined standards. A JSA (sometimes called a task risk assessment) systematically reviews each step of a job to identify hazards, decide controls and brief the team before work starts.
How it works
Start with clear criteria drawn from procedures, SDS and transport rules, then verify in the field. For JSAs, walk the job: list steps, hazards, existing controls and improvements, agree who does what, and confirm understanding with the people doing the work.
- Plan the scope and standards
- Walk‑through and observe
- Engage operators for insights
- Record gaps and actions
- Verify close‑out
When to use it
Use at the coalface: daily, pre‑task and at handovers. It’s essential for routine DG operations, contractor activities, non‑routine tasks and before seasonal peaks or new shifts/routes.
Strengths and limitations
- Strengths: fast, repeatable, highly practical; drives compliance discipline; empowers frontline.
- Limitations: can become tick‑box; may miss system interactions—supplement with HAZID/HAZOP for complex change.
Typical outputs
- Completed checklists with pass/fail and notes
- JSA sheets with agreed controls and signatures
- Action logs for defects, training or maintenance
Team and time needed
One competent inspector can run most checks; JSAs work best with a supervisor plus the task crew and a safety/DGSA input. Most inspections take minutes; a focused JSA takes 15–30 minutes and pays back in fewer errors.
Tools and templates you can use
- Receiving, packing and segregation checklists
- Vehicle/container inspection forms
- Documentation and marking/labelling checks
- PPE and housekeeping audits
- Simple JSA template and a 3×3 or 5×5 risk matrix
Dangerous goods example
A pre‑dispatch checklist for lithium batteries by air confirms UN‑spec packaging, short‑circuit protection, state‑of‑charge limits, correct marks/labels and paperwork. A short JSA for the packing step adds controls for handling damage, tape/insulation checks, and a second‑person verification before sealing and sign‑off.
Putting it into practice
Choose the technique to match the decision you need to make. Start broad with a structured HAZID to frame the risks, then go deeper where it matters: HAZOP for complex operations, FMEA for component‑level weaknesses, bow ties to fix and assure critical controls, and checklists/JSAs to embed the behaviours that keep you compliant every day.
If you want a pragmatic start, run a short, DG‑focused HAZID on a single flow and turn the outputs into one bow tie and three frontline checks. We can facilitate, provide templates and coach your team to own the controls. Talk to us at Logicom Hub to scope a session that fits your routes, products and regulatory drivers.