For purposes of this discussion, imagine you took on a project to replace the gas furnace in your family home. Probably not something you do routinely. If the installation is not done correctly, leaking gas could ignite and level the structure. This would be an example of a low-frequency, high hazard (LFHH) project. These share a set of defining characteristics: they occur rarely, there may be limited experiential data to reference and they present a potential for significant adverse safety, financial or operational consequences. Given the inherently high uncertainty, LFHH projects require thoughtful, proactive planning from the outset in order to be successful.
Effective preparation begins with clear objectives and a strong understanding of what the acceptable level of risk will be. In some scenarios, the risk level will exceed what the member’s internal resources can handle. It may ultimately be wiser to work with third-party vendors to complete the LFHH project because these entities have more experience (e.g., Most of us would contract with a reputable HVAC firm to replace a gas furnace in our house). Assessing the risks posed by the project and determining the level of risk to be tolerated will generally lead to successful approaches. One wants to avoid making decisions while under pressure which can result in less favorable outcomes.
A rigorous approach to hazard identification and risk assessment is recommended, and forms the backbone of effective LFHH project planning. Techniques such as “what-if” discussions and/or consultation with subject‑matter experts can help work teams to anticipate the full spectrum of credible worst‑case scenarios. For example in our gas furnace scenario, how would the homeowner handle a sudden gas leak in the course of installation? Would they know to turn off the main gas supply valve prior to loosening the fittings on the equipment? Would they even have the special utility tool required to actuate the gas shutoff? Engaging in this type of a discussion ensures data-supported decision-making as well as encourages the implementation of a layered control scheme – ranging from hazard elimination and substitution strategies to engineering and administrative controls, supported when necessary by personal protective equipment (PPE). In many cases, multiple independent layers of protection are preferred especially when the consequences of a failure are severe.
When dealing with LFHH projects, having a skilled project team is equally important. Developing the skills of employees and contractors via targeted training, tabletop exercises and simulations can help them to understand their roles and responsibilities as well as communication expectations before work begins. All this preparatory work supports the development of a detailed work plan which ultimately supports a disciplined rollout in the field.
Once the shovel digs into the earth, the detailed work plan will guide the approach of the work. It can be help to break down activities into defined steps in the work plan, with clear “go/no‑go” criteria. For example, “If the gas supply to the furnace cannot be turned off, do not proceed with work until this step is corrected.” This ensures that the project will only advance when conditions are safe and all precautions are met. Experienced project managers will recognize key activities routinely used in completing projects – Pre‑task briefings, Job Safety Analysis’ (JSAs) and specific escalation triggers which direct personnel to “pause, reassess, and adapt” to ensure continued safety and success.
Monitoring the project by those with authority as well as planning for contingencies are additional considerations for project success. Identifying early warning indicators (i.e., “Someone smells natural gas.”), along with predefined responses (i.e., “Stop work, evacuate, contact the utility company and management.”) can help workers to react quickly to emerging threats. Workers should be familiar with established emergency response plans; however, if they are not it is important to review the expected response in the event of various probable emergencies as part of the project planning discussions.
At the conclusion of the LFHH project, there will likely be valuable lessons worth capture and archiving for future reference. Post‑project (aka “after-action”) reviews help capture insights, refine procedures and update contingency plans. The lessons learned with each successful project ensure the organization is better positioned when the next LFHH project comes along!