Risk Management

Peer-Reviewed

Job Safety
Analysis
Its Role Today
By David D. Glenn

T
he process of breaking down a job into employee involvement and supervisory educa-
its constituent steps, listing the hazards as- tion (Swartz, 2001, p. 2). Bird and Germain (1990)
sociated with those steps and developing summarize the benefits of JSA-derived procedures
procedures to reduce those hazards appears to done correctly as “among the most valuable tools
be accepted theoretically in the SH&E profession imaginable for such important activities as job ori-
more than it is practiced. Job safety analysis (JSA), entation, task instruction, task observation, group
sometimes called job hazard analysis (JHA), has meetings, employee coaching, accident/incident
long been a safety program building block. Is the investigation, skill training” (p. 148).
process still useful as a risk control technique?
JSA Is Embedded in the
What Is JSA? SH&E Profession—Or Is It?
JSA refers to both the analytical process of de- In addition to the authoritative sources cited,
veloping safer job procedures and to the docu- other documents suggest JSA is integrated into
ment that is developed as a result of the SH&E professional practice guidance. Examination
IN BRIEF analysis (NSC, 2009, p. 240). The most blueprints for both the associate safety professional
•Job safety analysis (JSA) influential source for its format has been (BCSP, 2010b, p. 3) and CSP (BCSP, 2010a, pp. 1,
has been a widely recog- National Safety Council’s (NSC) three- 4) designations include JSA among the expected
nized tool for hazard identi- column form (Figure 1, p. 50). This form knowledge and skill subjects. OSHA’s 1989 Safety
fication, employee training first appeared (albeit with different and Health Management Guidelines include “rou-
and incident investigation. headings) in the fifth edition of Accident tine job hazard analyses” among the core hazard
•Experience suggests most Prevention Manual for Industrial Opera- identification methods. Those guidelines have
companies and most SH&E tions (NSC, 1964, p. 10), although a “job been incorporated into OSHA’s (2008) consulta-
practitioners currently de- breakdown” technique was described in tion materials and partnership programs, such as
vote little attention to JSA the first edition (NSC, 1946, pp. 495-496) the Voluntary Protection Programs (p. 27).
development and use. that related a job’s “sequence of events” Book-length treatments of the subject were not
•This article explores the or “main steps” to its “safety factors” or published until 2001 (Swartz) and 2008 (Rough-
history of JSA and its ap- “key points.” ton & Crutchfield). Nearly one in seven technical
plication to current causes ASSE’s Dictionary of Terms Used in the sessions at ASSE’s most recent professional de-
of cost-driving injuries and Safety Profession makes no distinction be- velopment conferences included JSA-related ter-
severe potential incidents. tween JSA and JHA (Lack, 2001, p. 58). minology (Table 1, p. 52). However, of the 1,367
JSA value can be increased This article uses JSA because that term has technical sessions at those conferences, only one
by suggested changes been in use longer and appears to be in (Swartz, 2003) had JSA as its primary subject mat-
to the tasks covered, current usage no less than JHA. ter. Furthermore, ANSI Z10-2005, Occupational
personnel involved and The various purposes of JSA are reflected Health and Safety Management Systems, uses JSA
the process of managing in the chapters in which different editions terminology only in the advisory column of the
engineering controls. of the Accident Prevention Manual (APM) document (AIHA, 2005, p. 6), where it is included
have included the subjects: safety training in a list of possible employee participation activities
(NSC, 1964, p. 1), hazard control (NSC, rather than for any intrinsic value of its own.
1974, p. 104) and hazard identification (NSC, 2009, The 2008 Safety Professionals Handbook, which
p. 229). Other uses include incident investigation, involved a large number of SH&E professionals as
contributors and peer reviewers and an even larger
David D. Glenn, CSP, is a national accounts manager, global loss prevention, at number to validate its content (Professional Safe-
Chartis Insurance in Chicago. He holds a B.A. from the University of Notre Dame ty, 2008, p. 20), mentions JSA in only two places
and an M.S. in Industrial Management from Northern Illinois University. Glenn is (Haight, Vol. I, pp. 158, 565).
a professional member of ASSE’s Northeastern Illinois Chapter. In addition, a recent survey of ASSE members
48 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2011 www.asse.org
ranked JSA well behind audits, training, corrective right. First, every job done by any man in the In consider-
actions and even near misses as a leading indicator department or unit being studied must be
of safety performance (Janicak & Ferguson, 2009, carefully scrutinized and every hazard noted ing whether
p. 4). In the author’s experience in insurance loss . . . . [I]t is then necessary to decide the best the JSA
control consulting, interest in JSA by insured com- means for eliminating them or minimizing concept is
panies and loss control consultants has diminished the possibility of injury from them. (Johnson,
noticeably over the past decade as well. 1941, p. 459) of current
In considering whether the concept is of current An example of derivative safety benefits of JA value, it may
value, it may be helpful to visit its origins and de- comes from a 1945 safety textbook: be helpful
velopment.
Job analysis is an essential part of production to visit its
JSA Origins control and as such its technique has become
well developed and widely established in
origins. JSA
JSA appears to have evolved from the scientific
American manufacturing practice. It involves appears
management practice of job analysis (JA). In fact,
the first safety author to use the term job safety the accurate and detailed description of each to have
analysis was writing about JA (Heinrich, 1931, job in terms of duties, tools required, methods,
sequence of operations, and working condi-
evolved from
p. 96). The safety connection to scientific manage-
tions. As would be expected, such a procedure the scientific
ment is explicit in the subtitle to Heinrich’s Indus-
trial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach. of itself eliminates a high proportion of acci- management
Scientific management began with Frederick dent hazards. When, to adequate job analysis,
the other necessary factors of successful mass
practice of
Taylor’s proposal to improve wage-setting meth-
production are added, namely, plan­ning, su- job analysis.
ods (Drury, 1922, p. 75). The time studies involved
in this process consisted of “an analysis of a job as a pervision, training and continuous control, we
whole into the elementary movements of man and get a high degree of safety as an inherent part
machine” (Drury, p. 77). Lillian Gilbreth, another (we might say as “a by-product”) of quantity
scientific management founder, wrote in 1914 that production. (Blake, p. 69)
the standardization of work methods led to safety JA had a prior meaning to JSA as shown by a ques-
benefits: “The results of standardization. . . . The tion asked at the 1939 National Safety Congress:
fact that instructions are written provides against “Does job analysis help promote safety? Why?”
wrong methods of handling work” (Spriegel & (Clover, p. 403). At the same conference, an indus-
Myers, 1953, p. 421). trial relations manager delivered a paper claiming
The process of JSA preceded Heinrich’s use of safety benefits from JA and stressing the procedural
the term. A safety engineer from General Electric element, such as establishing “the most approved
wrote in 1930 that “job analysis should bring out methods” and “laying down safe practices” (Dool-
the hazards of the operations” so that standard ey, 1939, p. 509). This speaker went on to be the di-
procedures could be established (Goodspeed, p. rector of the Training Within Industry (TWI) section
32). A 1927 NSC magazine published “Job Analy- of the War Manpower Commission (TWI Angles,
sis for Safety,” which described a process of subdi- 1943, p. 1) whose job instruction documents were
viding the operations, listing related hazards and cited later by NSC.
adopting standard methods for streetcar operators
(p. 80). Heinrich’s Use of the JSA Term
It is not surprising that a transport operator may & the JSA Process
have been the first position to which JSA was ap- Heinrich (1931) used the JSA term as a way of
plied. The liability from mass transit crashes and emphasizing the safety benefits of JA as an em-
the belief that crashes were associated dispropor- ployee selection tool:
tionately with some operators led psychologists to Job Analysis. In the application of the prin-
devote extensive attention to the operator position ciples of accident prevention it is sometimes
in the 1920s (Burnham, 2009, pp. 67-73). A safety found that difficulty is experienced in cor-
historian observes that “job analysis was used to recting unsafe practices chiefly because em-
bring out risks just as it was being employed to en- ployees are inherently unsuited to the work
hance output” and “was also used to fit the worker which they are obliged to perform. . . . There
to the task” (Aldrich, 1997, pp. 158-159). is another way to attack the situation, how-
For the decades after Heinrich, the terminology ever, and that is to analyze the job and then,
used in this area is somewhat confusing as safety accepting employees as they are, select the
professionals discussed safety benefits of JA at the man best fitted to the peculiarities of the
same time the process of JSA development was work. This is fitting the job to the man rather
sometimes called JA. An example of the latter case than fitting the man to the job. Job safety
comes from a steel industry superintendent: analysis, in other words, has a place in acci-
The first step, job analysis, is one that re- dent prevention. Such analysis of a given job
quires much time and effort if it is to be done will show whether the work is heavy or light,
www.asse.org MARCH 2011 ProfessionalSafety 49
 Figure 1
Three-Column JSA Form & Instructions

Note. Reprinted from Accident Prevention Manual for Business and Industry: Administration and Programs (13th ed.), by NSC,
2009, Chicago: Author. Reprinted with permission.

50 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2011 www.asse.org

 whether it requires strength, skill, quickness designing controls in advance should be called “ad-
of hand or eye, judgment of distance or all vanced job analysis” (pp. 682-684). Blake (1945)
combined. It will indicate whether previous distinguished the analysis performed by the fore-
experience or training is required, whether man from the safety function’s follow-up “on-the-
a correct sense of color, hearing or smell is job safety analysis” (p. 77). A technology professor
necessary, and any other special physical or (Cox, 1949) used the term safety analysis to describe
mental qualities. (p. 97) “dividing our job or operation into small sections
Heinrich then describes the process recognizable . . . [to] secure not only an efficient and safe op-
as JSA: eration, but one in which the method is definitely
established” (p. 28).
In addition, it will break the job down into The connection to method is incorporated in an-
its several constituent operations and show other variant of the term. “Job method analysis has
the hazards of each so that the latter may be been surprisingly effective in reducing accidents. It
recognized in advance and made known to has been found very profitable to have a compe-
the employee, and so that he may be fully in-
tent person or committee make a safety analysis of
structed in avoiding them.
every job in the plant” (Rogers, 1949, p. 14). Thus,
This paragraph and the accompanying example in the 1930s and 1940s, vocabulary to describe the
figures of a completed JA persisted largely un- JSA process included SA, AJA, OTJSA and JMA, in
changed in future editions of Heinrich’s book. addition to the longer-established term, JA.
In the fourth edition (1959), the last sentence The format for JSAs was based on job break-
describing the JSA process was replaced by a four- down sheets. Samples provided in Heinrich (1931,
page discussion of “methods safety analysis” (pp. pp. 97-98), Blake (1945, p. 71) and APM (NSC,
86, 89-91), which Heinrich indicates is “a some- 1946) include job-identifying data, job steps and
what different approach” from JA and JSA (p. 86). safety information included as either “key points”
The process is familiar and hints at the three-col- or “remark” (p. 496).
umn format: APM states its source for job instruction as a
Making the Analysis. The methods safety pamphlet from TWI, a World War II-era govern-
analyst examines each step of the job or pro- ment agency that trained foremen and supervi-
cess from its very beginning with respect to sors to train the influx of inexperienced workers
the method, machine or material involved to in wartime industrial production (NSC, 1946, p.
see if any or all of these three can be respon- 498). This source included a breakdown sheet ex-
sible for the occurrence of accidents. If he ample and asserted that if “key points” are taught
finds a step that is potentially hazardous he successfully, the worker “won’t be ‘fighting’ the
notates (alongside the step description) the work—making mistakes—getting hurt” (Dooley,
type of accident apt to be caused. He has a 1942, p. 2). Job breakdowns were taught in TWI’s
record, therefore, of 1) the steps of the job, job instructor training program (Dooley), one of
2) those steps which might be hazardous and three 10-hour training programs the agency of-
3) a means of reference for additional study fered (TWI Angles, 1943, p. 2).
of these steps, if necessary, in order to apply Scientific management involved preparing “an
the proper corrective [action]. (p. 89) instruction or method card for each separate oper-
Therefore, it appears that the person who first ation, to show in detail, and step by step, just how
used the JSA term in safety continued to associate the operation is to be performed and what tools
it with job placement purposes only, and later bor- are to be used in doing it” (Person, 1929, p. 363).
rowed a mechanical engineering term to describe Job breakdown and instruction cards had equiva-
the writing of safe procedures associated with spe- lent meanings in APM (NSC, 1946, p. 495). Break-
cific job steps, instead of using JSA in this sense. downs came to be used synonymously with written
The fifth edition of Industrial Accident Prevention job analyses in personnel management (Calhoun,
was published in 1980. Its only mention of JSA was 1949, p. 150). The most current APM (NSC, 2009)
as a supervisory method for collecting information retains “job breakdown” terminology in the JSA
about “whether or not certain known workable directions (p. 242).
controls are in effect” (p. 116). The subtitle of the Possibly due to the influence of wartime training
book changed as well to A Safety Management Ap- initiatives (Powers, 1948, p. 49), the concept of job
proach. Thus, both scientific management and its breakdown was still addressed at safety conferences
JA practice were superseded in an influential safety in the 1950s. Fugal (1952) described his organiza-
management text. tion’s use of this format. “The job breakdown sheet
calls for a listing of important steps in the operation.
Evolving Terms & Format Opposite each step are listed the key points. A key
Other terms were used for the concept of JSA in point in the job is considered anything in the step
addition to JA. Fife (1942) explained that, in con- that might injure the worker . . .” (pp. 84-85).
trast to incident investigation, listing hazards and In a roundtable discussion concerning the ques-
www.asse.org MARCH 2011 ProfessionalSafety 51
 Metals Section by
Table 1 a Bethlehem Steel
ASSE Professional Development assistant superin-
tendent (Bennett,
Conference Proceedings p. 41). That paper
also explicitly con-
Key-word searches were performed on the CD-ROMs of ASSE’s Professional nects JSA to prior
Development Conference Proceedings from 2001 to 2009. The proceedings job study practices.
consist of presenter-provided materials that represent the content covered in “There is nothing
each conference’s technical sessions. Searches were performed for “job safety new or complicated
analysis(es),” “job hazard analysis(es),” “JSA” and “JHA.” The results are in the mechanics
tabulated below. of our Job Safety
Analysis plan. It
differs from an Op-
erations Analysis
only to the extent
that safety is given
importance equal
to other job factors,
and that time study
has been eliminated
as a factor.”
The Metals Sec-
tion address was
introduced by Beth-
lehem Steel’s safety
engineer who ex-
plained that since
tion, “Are Job Hazard Breakdowns Being Used,” he attended the 1946 Congress, they had developed
the format was equated with the JSA process. a plan. “We call it job safety analysis and it is a major
“Several plants reported using job safety analysis part of our safety program” (Morgan, 1950, p. 40).
or hazard breakdowns for training new employees Therefore, there is evidence that the steel in-
and transferees” (Coulon, 1953, p. 25). The sources dustry used the JSA term and the associated
treat job breakdowns primarily as a job instruction three-column format before that pairing became
training tool (Blake, 1945, p. 71; NSC, 1946, p. 495; widespread. This may explain why JSA is believed
Fugal, 1952, pp. 84-85). Basing a JSA on this tool to have originated from that industry (Swartz, 2002,
may be why procedure-based control methods p. 27). Earlier evidence of the industry following a
(Janicak, 2008, p. 158; NSC, 2009, p. 244; Swartz, JA process for safety includes a 1941 address by an
2003, p. 4) are emphasized more than design-re- Inland Steel superintendent (Johnson, p. 458).
lated controls in the JSA process. Based on the evidence in safety publications and
The breakdown sheet used to document the JA conference presentations, JSA as a term, as a format
was combined eventually with the term JSA and and as a process grew out of the earlier JA practice
the three-column format. and the associated job breakdown sheet documen-
The job analysis procedure is one method of tation and training tool. JSA’s purpose largely was
finding all the steps which make up the job, to develop standard procedures that could then
what must be taught about each step, and be used to train workers. Implicit in this approach
the order in which the operations should be is that most hazards are behavior-related and that
arranged for instructing the worker. . . . In desired behavior can be achieved through devel-
some cases, a separate heading is used to in- opment and enforcement of documented standard
dicate the safety precautions to be included. work methods. Whether those premises and pur-
The analysis is then called a “job safety anal- pose remain valid will determine the value of JSA to
ysis.” (NSC, 1964, p. 10) current professional practice.
While that source probably popularized the JSA
format known today, the earliest published use JA Comes Full Circle
of “a simple three-column worksheet” that lists Bird (1974) is associated with the broadening of
“in proper sequence the elementary steps of the JSA to include all aspects of a job, not just safety
method or operation” in the first column, hazards and health considerations. His Management Guide
in the second column, and “the proposed method to Loss Control includes a chapter on proper job
for the elimination or control of each hazard” in analysis (PJA), which has the underlying asser-
the third column was a 1950 address to the NSC tion that “all factors (including safety, quality and
52 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2011 www.asse.org
production) must be included in the analysis and Ranked fourth, bodily reaction includes bending, Based on
procedure” (p. 60). Later, using the term job/task climbing, reaching, standing, sitting, and slipping or
analysis (JTA), Bird and Germain (1990) explained tripping without falling. When combined with re- the evidence
the limitations of JSA’s effectiveness: petitive motion, these three strain-related event cat- in safety
Another method with some question as to its egories account for 38% of the cost burden tracked publications
by the index. Strain-type injuries, therefore, appear
complete success has been job safety analysis.
to be the most significant single injury cost driver and confer-
This approach frequently examines the work
only from the perspective of safety and health. when considered across American businesses. ence presen-
It has resulted in safer work. But it has also re- While focusing on strain-type injuries may ad- tations, JSA
dress historic cost drivers to most organizations, it
sulted in duplication of effort and paperwork,
does not prevent fatalities or other serious events as a term, as
with safety procedures, quality procedures,
efficiency procedures, etc. Because job pro- that can have significant financial impact on a busi- a format and
cedures which deal only with safety are not ness. Manuele’s (2008b) recent writings on serious as a process
injuries and fatalities assert that those events occur
related to the primary purpose for doing the
under different circumstances than more common grew out of
work, they tend to get ignored in the face of
other pressures. (p. 147) injury types, such as: the earlier
Those who agreed with Bird’s PJA or JTA ap-
1) when unusual or nonroutine work is being JA practice
performed;
proach continued to revise the term. A presenter 2) when upsets occur (meaning normal produc- and the as-
at the 1977 National Safety Congress delivered a
paper on “total job analysis” which “includes pin-
tion operations become abnormal); sociated job
pointing of key quality and production factors rath-
3) in nonproduction activities; breakdown
4) where sources of high energy are present;
er than just the key safety factors” (Barenklau, p. 3). 5) in what can be called at-plant construction sheet docu-
Citing the popularity of total quality management,
Perkinson (1995, p. 63) advocated Bird’s “task
operations (p. 34). mentation
analysis” as a way of involving the safety function
While addressing all risks is desirable, it may and training
be more feasible to address those with the most
in broader business concerns. likely or most severe outcomes. This concept is ex- tool.
Manuele (2000), citing Bird and Germain, sug- pressed commonly in the risk matrix that classifies
gests terms that relate to management’s several a given hazard along axes of probability and sever-
goals, such as “TAPES for Task Analysis for Pro- ity (DOD, 2000, pp. 18-19). Strain-type injuries
ductivity, Ergonomics and Safety; or TAPCERA and serious injuries (including fatalities) appear to
for Task Analysis for Productivity, Cost Efficiency warrant the most attention in occupational SH&E
and Risk Assessment” (p. 19). NIOSH researchers practice. Is JSA helpful toward these ends?
(Robertson, Cooper & Wiehegen, 2004) working
in the mining industry assert “job training analysis JSA & Ergonomics
[JTA] . . . is much different than Job Safety Analysis NIOSH (1997) defines ergonomics as “the sci-
(JSA)” because “JTA is far more holistic in concept ence of fitting workplace conditions and job
and approach” (p. 4). Whether a new term was demands to the capabilities of the working popu-
needed for marketability reasons, it appears these lation” with special reference to “assessing those
authors essentially advocate a return to JA, under- work-related factors that may pose a risk of mus-
stood in its original all-aspects sense. culoskeletal disorders” (p. 2). NIOSH describes
job analyses for ergonomic purposes: “Job analysis
Current Imperatives for the Profession breaks a job into its various elements or actions,
While the SH&E profession’s object is the “pre- describes them, measures and quantifies risk fac-
vention of harm to people, property and the en- tors inherent in the elements, and identifies condi-
vironment” (ASSEF & BCSP, 2007, p. 3), in the tions contributing to the risk factors” (p. 23).
context of occupational safety, practitioners can The similarity to the JSA process was noted by
support business objectives most effectively by Montante (1994) who proposed the term ETA for
addressing cost-driving loss types. It may be con- “an ergonomic approach to task analysis” (p. 18).
structive to view these losses from an aggregate Swartz (2001) asserts, “Many ergonomic hazards
perspective and also single catastrophic events that can be identified and eliminated while completing
could affect an employer. a job hazard analysis” (p. 131).
Liberty Mutual’s annual workplace safety index As Burke (1992) explains, ergonomic risk reduc-
provides a workers’ compensation cost-focused tion methods may occur in one or more of the fol-
report of “the most disabling workplace injuries lowing four categories: input, output, machine or
in the U.S.” that is derived from several sources worker:
(LMRIS, 2009). Overexertion is the most signifi-
cant injury event category in the index, account- The input is the item or items to be pro-
ing for 24% of the total cost. This category includes cessed, moved or acted upon in any way by a
injuries related to lifting, pushing, pulling, holding, specific worker. The output is the final con-
carrying or throwing. dition of that input as a result of the actions
www.asse.org MARCH 2011 ProfessionalSafety 53
 taken by the worker during the task being •Ensure that the strain risk factors which arise
studied. The machine is the tangible concrete from physical conditions are addressed by manag-
object(s) to which the worker will be ex- ers who can approve changes to equipment, lay-
posed. This would include the workstation, out, material, tool and other engineering controls.
tools, carts, environmental conditions and Incorporating ergonomics into JSA development
many other items. The worker is just that, the requires extra steps. That is, the third column of the
human worker. (pp. 159-160) form (recommended action or procedure) is limit-
Note that only one of the four categories, the ed to behavioral aspects while ergonomic improve-
worker, encompasses job procedures. The other ments often involve physical changes. Therefore,
categories involve physical circumstances whose re- before a final procedure can be documented, the
lated interventions would involve engineering con- necessary physical controls should be implement-
trols. JSA, therefore, would be of value primarily to ed. Ergonomic risk factors still can be documented
the extent that the process identifies strain-related in the potential hazards column, with an indicator
hazards created by physical conditions. if there is uncontrolled risk. The JSA development
This has implications for who performs JSA and process should account for how physical controls
how the process is implemented. The traditional will be addressed for strain hazards identified dur-
process (NSC, 2009, p. 245; OSHA, 2002, pp. 2, 4; ing JSA development and how the form will be re-
Swartz, 2003, p. 2) of having a supervisor develop the vised in both the second and third columns after
JSA with employee input may not identify the strain- the physical controls have been implemented.
related risk factors and a supervisor may not have
the authority to correct significant design issues. JSA & Serious Injury Prevention
Therefore, JSA development should have the fol- Although some strain-type injuries qualify as
lowing characteristics in order to address industry’s “serious,” the term is used here mostly for “low-
primary injury type cost generator: probability/serious-consequence events” that re-
•Involve those who are knowledgeable about er- sult in death or high numbers of lost workdays
gonomics in the analysis so they can identify strain (Manuele, 2008b, p. 34). Most JSA guidelines pro-
risk factors and their root causes, both physical and vide prioritization criteria that could be labeled
behavioral. “worst first” in selecting jobs for JSA development.
However, is JSA a useful technique for addressing
the specific types of serious in-
jury circumstances cited?
Focus Four Hazards
in the Construction Industry Nonroutine Tasks
The 2009 APM advises that
Primary causes of: Caught-in-between fatalities jobs done “infrequently or on
•Trench/excavation collapse an irregular basis” should be
Electrocution fatalities •Rotating equipment subject to prejob instruction
•Contact with overhead •Unguarded parts based on the applicable JSA
powerlines •Equipment rollovers (p. 248). A critical element in
•Contact with live circuits in •Equipment maintenance developing the task inven-
panels tory preparatory to breaking
•Poorly maintained cords Fall-related fatalities the job down is to “include
and tools •Unprotected sides, edges not only the tasks that a per-
•Lightning strikes and holes son normally does but also the
•Improperly constructed tasks that they might be called
Struck-by fatalities walking/working surfaces on to do in unusual situations.
•Falling objects •Improper use of access Experience has shown that
•Rigging failure equipment the latter category is a major
•Loose or shifting materials •Failure to properly use per- source of accident loss” (Bird
•Equipment tipover or sonal fall arrest system & Germain, 1990, p. 149).
malfunction •Slips and trips (housekeep- In proposing an all-risk “job
•Lack of overhead ing) hazard assessment,” Geron-
protection sin (2001) includes “nonrou-
•Vehicle and equipment Note. Adapted from “Safety tine activities or processes” in
strikes Training for the Focus Four evaluating the severity of haz-
•Backing incidents Hazards in the Construction ards (p. 25). OSHA (2006) re-
•Workers on foot Industry,” by Associated General quires employers to specify the
•Flying objects Contractors of America, 2006. “methods the employer will
use to inform employees of the
hazards of nonroutine tasks”

54 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2011 www.asse.org

in their written hazard communication programs. jury risks can be managed by developing JSAs for A well-writ-
The procedural emphasis of JSA appears to be par- tasks that involve OSHA’s “focus four” hazards
ticularly well-suited to task-specific performance, for construction: falls from elevation, struck-by, ten JSA can
including those that are nonroutine. caught-in/between and electrical shock (sidebar, be a tool for
p. 54). Many hazards on that list are either created defining the
Abnormal/Upset Production Operations by, or avoided through, worker behavior, so proce-
In discussing the application of JSA as a tool to dures based on JSA should be effective. expected
develop the OSHA-required PPE hazard assess- None of this discussion is intended to over- behavior
ment, Mansdorf (1999) asserts, “JSA/JHA should emphasize the role of individual behavior in and the
also include ‘what if’ analysis for nonroutine and prevention of serious incidents. The broader con-
upset conditions . . . because accidents commonly siderations are explained as follows: process of
result from deviations from work practices and nor- Since the majority of the causal factors for in- implement-
mal operations” (p. 58). This is not likely covered by cidents that result in serious consequences are ing a JSA
most JSAs as performed, but could be added as an
explicitly required item to specific job steps in the
systemic, the safety efforts should be directed
to improving the system. Focusing preven-
program
first column of the form. tion efforts principally on the worker will not may help
address systemic problems. In a safety man- identify
Nonproduction Activities
Presumably, maintenance and servicing com-
agement system that concentrates on worker
behavior, management allocates resources
design and
prise most nonproduction-type activities. For ex- predominantly to the worker behavior aspects engineering
ample, ANSI/ASSE Z244.1-2003 on the control of of safety. Thus, inadequate attention is given shortcom-
hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) requires “each
unique piece of equipment, system or process shall
to systemic causal factors deriving from design
and engineering shortcomings, the hazards in
ings.
have detailed procedures developed and docu- the operational procedures, and the system of
mented for the control of hazardous energy during expected behavior that has developed. (Man-
servicing or maintenance activities” (ANSI/ASSE, uele, 2008a, p. 56)
2009, p. 18). The sample lockout/tagout program
and policy supplied in an annex to that standard Thus, even a well-written JSA cannot guarantee
mentions JSA as a method for developing these serious injury avoidance by itself. It can, however,
procedures (p. 39). be a tool for defining the expected behavior and the
Maintenance and servicing may involve a myr- process of implementing a JSA program may help
iad of other hazards in addition to those that are identify design and engineering shortcomings. As
energy-related. This brings up the critical need to with ergonomics, the latter consideration is reason
distinguish jobs (or tasks) within a single job clas- to involve in the JSA development process those
sification. “The term ‘job,’ in the context of the job with authority to make physical changes. Among
hazard analysis program, represents a sequence of the methods Manuele (2008a) suggests for reduc-
definite steps or separate activities that together ac- ing serious injury potential is “the implementation
complish a work goal. It does not represent the occu- of a prejob planning and safety analysis system. Its
pation of the worker” (emphasis in original, Swartz, purpose is to provide a means to study how the
2001, p. 6). work is to be done and the hazards and risks that
For nonproduction activities, the number of jobs may be encountered before the work actually com-
could be large and challenging to capture fully and mences” (p. 62).
to prioritize effectively. Rather than develop “a
larger number of breakdown sheets” (Blake, 1945, Conclusion
p. 76), it may be more practical to develop general Repackaging of the JSA term over time (sidebar,
practices that are transferrable across similar jobs p. 56) suggests that its underlying concept has not
(Bird & Germain, 1990, p. 148). sustained sufficient perceived value. This may be
due to the limited effectiveness of procedural con-
trols for some injury causes, such as musculoskel-
High Energy Sources etal disorders. It also may be attributable to the
In addition to lockout/tagout procedures, JSA lower return-on-investment from developing JSAs
has been listed as a primary method of protecting for lower-risk jobs.
nonutility employees engaged in “tasks that might JSA can contribute most to reduction of cost-
expose workers to the hazards associated with driving risks if changes are made to process imple-
electrical lines and equipment” (Tompkins, 2004, mentation and emphasis. The JSA development
pp. 5-6). process should specify how physical controls will
be addressed and how the form will be revised fol-
At-Plant Construction lowing the implementation of those controls.
Similar to maintenance activities, construction The task inventory for which JSAs will be de-
projects can involve many tasks that probably do veloped should include severe injury potential job
not have an existing JSA. However, the serious in- types, such as nonroutine tasks, nonproduction ac-
www.asse.org MARCH 2011 ProfessionalSafety 55
 JSA-Related Terms Used in This Article
Although there are some distinctions among some of the following, these terms have been used by
cited sources to convey substantially similar or overlapping meanings to job safety analysis (JSA).

Advanced job analysis (AJA) Methods safety analysis (MSA)

Ergonomic task analysis (ETA) On-the-job safety analysis (OTJSA)
Job analysis (JA) Proper job analysis (PJA)
Job breakdown (JB) Safety analysis (SA)
Job hazard analysis (JHA) Task analysis (TA)
Job hazard assessment (JHA) Task analysis for productivity, cost efficiency
Job hazard breakdowns (JHB) and risk assessment (TAPCERA)
Job method analysis (JMA) Task analysis for productivity, ergonomics
Job/task analysis (JTA) and safety (TAPES)
Job training analysis (JTA) Total job analysis (TJA)
Hazard breakdowns (HB)

tivities, high energy source exposures and at-plant BCSP. (2010a, Dec.). Comprehensive practice exam
construction. The sequence of basic job steps or po- blueprint (6th ed.). Savoy, IL: Author.
tential hazards columns should include abnormal/ BCSP. (2010b, Dec.). Safety fundamentals exam blue-
upset conditions that are related to normal job steps. print (6th ed.). Savoy, IL: Author.
Burke, M. (1992). Applied ergonomics handbook. Chel-
The potential hazards column should include ergo-
sea, MI: Lewis Publishers.
nomic risk factors, which suggests that those who Burnham, J. (2009). Accident prone: A history of
develop the JSA should have ergonomic knowledge technology, psychology and misfits of the machine age.
and experience. These guidelines will increase the Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
business value of JSAs by aligning with exposures Calhoon, R. (1949). Problems in personnel administra-
and controls of high-cost incidents. PS tion. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Clover, H. (1939). Roundtable discussion of the
Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Industries Sec-
References tion. Transactions of the 28th National Safety Congress.
Aldrich, M. (1997). Safety first: Technology, labor and Chicago: NSC.
business in the building of American work safety, 1870- Coulon, V.P. (1953). Roundtable discussion: Paper
1939. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Converting Division. Transactions of the 41st National
ANSI/AIHA. (2005). American national standard for Safety Congress (Vol. 27, pp. 24-25). Chicago: NSC.
occupational health and safety management systems Cox, W.N. (1949). Safety analyses an aid to on-the-
[ANSI Z10-2005]. Fairfax, VA: Author. job instruction. Transactions of the 37th National Safety
ANSI/ASSE. (2009). Control of hazardous energy: Congress (Vol. 15, pp. 27-28). Chicago: NSC.
Lockout/tagout and alternative methods [ANSI/ASSE Department of Defense (DOD). (2000, Feb. 10).
Z244.1-2003 (R2008)]. Des Plaines, IL: Author. Standard practice for system safety (MIL-STD-882D).
ASSE Foundation (ASSEF) & BCSP. (2007). Career Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: SAF/AQR Deputy Assistant
guide to the safety profession (3rd ed.). Des Plaines, IL: Au- Secretary.
thor. Retrieved Aug. 25, 2009, from www.asse.org/foun Dooley, C.R. (1939). How can job analysis and merit
dation/publications/docs/2007_Career_Guide.pdf. rating programs help solve accident prevention prob-
Associated General Contractors of America. lems? Transactions of the 28th National Safety Congress.
(2006). Safety training for the focus four hazards in the Chicago: NSC.
construction industry (Susan Harwood Grant No. 46C5- Dooley, C.R. (1942, May). How to instruct a man on
HT09). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. the job (Bulletin No. 2-C). Wash­ington, DC: War
Retrieved Sept. 11, 2009, from www.agc.org/galleries/ Manpower Commission, Training Within Industry
career/FocusFour01.pdf. Division. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2009, from www.li­brary­
Barenklau, K. (1977). Total job analysis. NSC Trans- .illinois.edu/archives/e-records/ALA%20Ar
actions, 5, 3-11. ­chives/­­2050006/Box%206/­2850006-006-006-Training
Bennett, R.S. (1950). Job safety analysis. Transactions _Within_Industry_1943_opt.pdf.
of the 38th National Safety Congress (Vol. 18, pp. 41-43). Drury, H. (1922). Scientific management: A history
Chicago: NSC. and criticism. New York: AMS Press.
Bird, F. (1974). Management guide to loss control. Fife, J.A. (1942). Safety through advanced job analy-
Loganville, GA: Institute Press. sis. Transactions of the 31st National Safety Congress
Bird, F. & Germain, G. (1990). Practical loss control (Vol. 1, pp. 682-685). Chicago: NSC.
leadership. Loganville, GA: Institute Publishing/Interna- Fugal, G.R. (1952). Start them right. Transactions of
tional Loss Control Institute. the 40th National Safety Congress (Vol. 15, pp. 82-90).
Blake, R. (1945). Industrial safety. New York: Chicago: NSC.
Prentice-Hall. Geronsin, R. (2001, Dec.). Job hazard assessment:
56 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2011 www.asse.org
A comprehensive approach. Professional Safety, 46(12), and industry: Administration and programs (13th ed.).
23-30. Chicago: Author.
Goodspeed, M.C. (1930, July). Job analysis reveals OSHA. (1989, Jan. 26). Safety and health management
the accident causes. National Safety News, 32, 112-113. guidelines, issuance of voluntary guidelines. Washington,
Haight, J. (Ed.). (2008). The safety professionals hand- DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Author. Retrieved Aug.
book (Vol. I & II). Des Plaines, IL: ASSE. 19, 2009, from www­.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp
Heinrich, H.W. (1931). Industrial accident prevention: .show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER
A scientific approach (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill &p_id=12909.
Book Co. OSHA. (2002). Job hazard analysis (OSHA 3071).
Heinrich, H.W. (1959). Industrial accident prevention: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Author.
A scientific approach (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Retrieved Oct. 18, 2007, from www.osha.gov/Publica
Book Co. tions/osha3071.pdf.
Heinrich, H.W., Petersen, D. & Roos, N. (1980). OSHA. (2006). Hazard communication [29 CFR
Industrial accident prevention: A safety management ap- 1910.1200(e)(1)(ii)]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
proach (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. of Labor, Author. Retrieved Sept. 11, 2009, from www
Janicak, C. (2008). Benchmarking and performance .osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_docu­ment
criteria. In J. Haight (Ed.), The safety professionals hand- ­?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id​=10099.
book: Management applications (Vol. I). Des Plaines, IL: OSHA. (2008, April 18). Voluntary Protection
ASSE. Programs (VPP): Policies and procedures manual (CSP
Janicak, C. & Ferguson, L. (2009). Integrating safety 03-01-003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,
performance measures into the safety management Author. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from www.osha.gov/
system. Proceedings of ASSE’s Safety 2009 Professional OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CSP_03-01-003.pdf.
Development Conference, USA. Perkinson, L. (1995, Aug.). JSA: A new look for an
Job analysis for safety. (1927, April). National Safety old friend. Occupational Hazards, 63-66.
News, 80. Person, H. (Ed.). (1929). Scientific management in
Johnson, H.W. (1941). Job analysis: Its relation to American industry. New York: Harper & Brothers
safety. Transactions of the 30th National Safety Congress Publishers.
(Vol. 1, pp. 458-461). Chicago: NSC. Powers, M.L. (1948). Job safety analysis: How to
Lack, R. (2001). The dictionary of terms used in the apply the facts. Transactions of the 36th National Safety
safety profession (4th ed.). Des Plaines, IL: ASSE. Congress (Vol. 2, pp. 47-51). Chicago: NSC.
Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety. Professional Safety. (2008, April). The safety profes-
(2009). Workplace safety index. Hopkinton, MA: sionals handbook: An interview with editor-in-chief Joel
Author. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2010, from www.libertymu Haight. Professional Safety, 53(4), 20-22.
tualgroup.com/omapps/ContentServer?c=cms_docu Robertson, S., Cooper, D. & Wiehegen, W. (2004).
ment&pagename=LMGResearchInstitute%2Fcms­ Safety improvements for roof bolter operators. Proceed-
_document%2FShowDoc&cid​=1138365240689. ings of ASSE’s Safety 2004 Professional Development
Manuele, F. (2008a). Advanced safety management: Conference, USA.
Focusing on Z10 and serious injury prevention. New Rogers, R.L. (1949). Essentials of accident control.
York: John Wiley & Sons. Transactions of the 37th National Safety Congress (Vol.
Manuele, F. (2008b, Dec.). Serious injuries and fatali- 30, pp. 12-15). Chicago: Author.
ties: A call for a new focus on their prevention. Profes- Roughton, J. & Crutchfield, N. (2008). Job hazard
sional Safety, 53(12), 32-39. analysis: A guide for voluntary compliance and beyond.
Manuele, F. (2000, April). Task analysis for produc- Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth-Heinemann.
tivity, cost efficiency, safety and quality. Professional Spriegel, W. & Myers, C. (Eds.). (1953). The writings
Safety, 45(4), 18-22. of the Gilbreths. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Mansdorf, Z. (1999, Sept.). Hazard assessments. Oc- Swartz, G. (2001). Job hazard analysis: A guide to
cupational Hazards, 57-58, 60, 62, 64. identifying risk in the workplace. Rockville, MD: Govern-
Montante, W. (1994, Feb). An ergonomic approach ment Institutes.
to task analysis. Professional Safety, 39(2), 18-22. Swartz, G. (2002, Nov.). Job hazard analysis: A
Morgan, E.D. (1950). Introduction to job safety primer on identifying and controlling hazards. Profes-
analysis. Transactions of the 38th National Safety Con- sional Safety, 47(11), 27-33.
gress (Vol. 18, p. 40). Chicago: NSC. Swartz, G. (2003). Job hazard analysis: The key to
NIOSH. (1997, March). Elements of ergonomics pro- injury prevention. Proceedings of ASSE’s Safety 2003
grams: A primer based on workplace evaluations of mus- Professional Development Conference, USA.
culoskeletal disorders (NIOSH Publication No. 97-117). Tompkins, P. (2004). High-voltage electric safety:
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Safety precautions for working on or near high-voltage
Services, CDC, Author. power lines. Proceedings of ASSE’s Safety 2004 Profes-
NSC. (1946). Accident prevention manual for industrial sional Development Conference, USA.
operations (1st ed.). Chicago: Wm. H. Pool Co. TWI Angles. (1943, March 10). Issue No. 1. Chicago:
NSC. (1964). Accident prevention manual for industrial Training Within Industry, District No. 15. Retrieved Sept.
operations (5th ed.). Chicago: Author. 1, 2009, from www.library.illinois.edu/ar­chives/
NSC. (1974). Accident prevention manual for industrial e-records/ALA%20Archives/2050006/Box%203/­­285​
operations (7th ed.). Chicago: Author. 0006-003-010-Job_Evaluation_and_Training_Joint​
NSC. (2009). Accident prevention manual for business _Sub_committee_on_1944_opt.pdf.
www.asse.org MARCH 2011 ProfessionalSafety 57