JHA (Job Hazard Analysis) / JSA – Task-Level Risk Control

This topic is part of the SG Systems Global operations, safety, and compliance glossary series.

Updated October 2025 • Operational Risk • See also: HFE, HMI, FMEA, HAZOP, HACCP, CAPA, Internal Audit, Document Control, Change Control

Job Hazard Analysis (JHA)—also known as Job Safety Analysis (JSA)—is a structured, task-level method for identifying hazards, evaluating exposure and consequence, and defining controls before work begins. Where methods like HAZOP or FMEA analyze processes and designs at system scale, JHA/JSA zooms into what an operator, technician, or picker actually does step-by-step—lifting, dosing, cleaning, setting up, sampling, changeovers—and asks: what could go wrong here, for this person, in this context, with these tools and conditions? The output is a practical set of controls that are embedded in work instructions, permits, checklists, and training, and that are verified in day-to-day operations. This entry covers an unbiased overview of the method, typical scope and mechanics, roles and artifacts, and how JHA/JSA interacts with quality and regulatory frameworks; it then explains how the approach connects with SG Systems Global’s V5 platform and closes with a focused FAQ and further reading.

“JHA/JSA is where risk management meets the shop floor: specific job, specific hazards, specific controls—owned by the people who do the work.”

1) What It Is (Unbiased Overview)

At its core, a JHA/JSA is a risk study applied to a defined job or task. A “job” can mean routine operations such as batch weighing, line clearance, manual palletizing, or reagent preparation; non-routine tasks such as equipment changeovers, confined-space cleaning, or maintenance interventions; and ancillary activities such as sampling, label application, or manual data transcription. The analysis team decomposes the job into discrete steps, identifies hazards present in each step, assesses the likelihood and severity of harm, and determines controls to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Hazards may be physical (pinch, crush, fall, ergonomic), chemical (exposure, reactivity), biological (pathogens, high-risk allergens), mechanical/energy (stored pressure, lock-out tag-out), or informational (misidentification of lots, mis-labeling). The output is documented in a controlled record and then translated into actionable prompts in SOPs, batch steps, checklists, and permits to work.

While often housed within EHS programs, JHA/JSA sits at the intersection of safety, quality, and productivity. In food and beverage, allergen and sanitation hazards discovered in JHA feed the HACCP or preventive controls plan and influence FEFO/FIFO practices to separate incompatible materials. In pharmaceuticals and devices, insights inform gowning, cross-contamination control, in-process controls (IPC), and ALCOA+ data integrity behaviors when operators interact with HMIs and instruments such as HPLC. In warehouses, JHAs address forklift traffic, stacking, directed picking, and bin location management, guarding against ergonomic strain and mis-picks that could cascade into quality or regulatory issues.

The method is intentionally visual and concrete. Analysts observe the job (gemba walks), involve experienced operators, and consider variability: production speed, batch size, material states, shift patterns, and environmental conditions. The work product lists real hazards and real countermeasures: install a fixed guard; add an interlock to the HMI; swap solvent and water line color coding; add a weigh-back prompt in the eBMR step; enforce two-person verification for label print; require N95s when handling potent dusts; or require a hold & release check when a deviation occurs. Selection of controls favors the hierarchy—engineering controls ahead of administrative controls, with PPE last—so the system itself is safer even if a procedure is skipped.

2) Scope, Mechanics & Artifacts

Trigger & scope. Organizations trigger JHAs for new jobs, changes to equipment or layout (change control), repeated incidents or near misses (CAPA input), or periodic review cycles. Scope definitions include job boundaries, interfaces (material receipt, goods receipt, waste), and conditions (normal, upset, cleaning).

Decomposition & hazard identification. Teams break the job into steps with verbs (“retrieve drum,” “scan lot,” “charge hopper,” “verify weight,” “start mixer,” “sample,” “clean”). For each step, they identify hazards by category: mechanical motion, gravity, electrical, hydraulic/pneumatic, heat/cold, noise, dust/vapor exposure, trips, line-of-fire, ergonomic reach/force, and informational error sources such as look-alike/sound-alike components or label confusion (see GS1/GTIN and barcode validation). Where tasks interface with automated equipment, analysts review HMI screens and prompts to identify cognitive load and potential for mis-entry, aligning with human factors engineering.

Risk evaluation. Many sites use a simple risk matrix scoring severity (injury or quality impact), likelihood (exposure frequency and probability), and detectability to prioritize controls. Scores and rationales are recorded and fed into control selection. If a hazard also threatens product quality—e.g., allergen mix-ups or ID errors—those outcomes are carried into quality risk registers and may affect incoming inspection stringency, identity testing frequency, or finished goods release criteria.

Control selection & verification. Controls follow the hierarchy. Engineering: fixed/movable guards, interlocks, light curtains, physical keying to prevent mis-connects, ventilation and dust collection, ergonomic fixtures, error-proofing (poka-yoke) such as scale-to-recipe checks in batch weighing. Administrative: permits to work, standardized work, sign-offs with Part 11 e-signatures, dual verification for critical steps, training and competency matrices, and escalation rules. PPE: eye/face protection, respirators, cut-resistant gloves, antistatic footwear. Verification involves field checks that controls are in place, functioning, and used; gaps trigger nonconformance or CAPA.

Documentation & integration. A JHA lives as a controlled document linked to the job’s work instruction and associated SOPs through document control. When operations are electronic, key controls are “wired in” to the eBR/eBMR—for example, preventing progression if PPE confirmation is missing, or enforcing weigh tolerances and label scans before proceeding to the next step. Metrics, incidents, and near misses feed back into periodic review and management review frameworks (see ICH Q10 and ISO 13485 contexts).

3) Roles, Competence & Interfaces

Effective JHA/JSA is collaborative. Operators and technicians provide reality checks and tacit knowledge; supervisors own consistent execution; EHS facilitates the method; quality ensures alignment with product integrity, IPC, and release requirements; engineering owns the feasibility of engineering controls; and training teams ensure that competencies are defined and maintained through onboarding and refreshers. Auditors use JHAs as evidence that risks have been anticipatively addressed; they also sample field execution to verify that controls exist beyond paper. When a change is proposed—new raw material, equipment relocation, HMI redesign—the JHA is revisited under formal change control to prevent unintended risk migration.

JHA/JSA also interfaces with supply chain touches. During goods receipt, for example, JHAs might require drum venting procedures, pedestrian-forklift separation, and label verification with GS1/GTIN; in the warehouse, they mandate directed picking logic and segregation for allergens or hazardous chemicals. In production, JHAs may require pre-use checks, lock-out steps for interventions, and hold workflows if deviations occur. For laboratory support, JHAs cover sampling, reagent handling, and avoiding cross-contamination while protecting data integrity (audit trails, controlled calculations).

4) Where It Fits in Quality & Regulatory Frameworks (Unbiased)

Although not a regulation per se, JHA/JSA supports compliance duties. In pharma and biotech, the approach operationalizes quality risk management themes in ICH Q10 and supports process control under GMP/cGMP, especially where human actions interact with validated processes. For API manufacturing, the discipline complements expectations in ICH Q7 regarding documented procedures, training, and change control. In medical devices, ISO 13485 emphasizes personnel competence, infrastructure, and production controls—areas strengthened by robust JHAs feeding SOPs and DHR execution. In food sectors, JHAs intersect with HACCP and GFSI schemes by ensuring that operator-level hazards and controls are explicitly considered, trained, and verified. Across all GxP contexts, embedding JHA controls into electronic records, with Part 11 signatures and audit trails, provides defendable evidence that risks are managed as designed.

5) How This Fits with V5

V5 by SG Systems Global turns JHA/JSA outputs into enforceable behaviors. Controls from the analysis are translated into step logic inside eBR/eBMR workflows: mandatory PPE confirmations, interlocked scans for GTIN and lots, dual verification at high-risk points, and poka-yoke checks on weights and recipe components via the Batch Weighing module. On the shop floor, HMI prompts are simplified in line with human factors guidance, reducing cognitive load and mis-entry. In the warehouse, Directed Picking and expiry controls implement spatial and temporal safeguards identified in JHAs (e.g., segregated zones for allergens and hazardous goods), and exceptions automatically invoke Hold & Release until disposition. Training is tied to document versions through Document Control, ensuring operators are qualified on the latest risk-based procedures; gaps discovered in audits or incidents route to CAPA, with implemented changes tracked via change control and visible in the audit trail for inspection readout. Finally, risk-critical steps are surfaced in dashboards alongside CPV and SPC indicators so management can see both process capability and task-level conformance in one place.

6) Practical Walkthrough (Example)

Consider a powder charging job for a mixer. The JHA steps include retrieving the raw (forklift aisle traffic hazard), verifying the lot (label confusion and mis-pick hazard mitigated by barcode scan and GTIN check), breaking the bag (dust and cut hazards mitigated by local exhaust and cut-resistant gloves), weighing to target (ergonomic lift and mis-weigh hazards mitigated by lift assist and enforced weighing tolerances), charging the hopper (fall/line-of-fire hazards mitigated by fixed guard and interlock), and confirming charge (data integrity risk mitigated by e-signature). The JHA also addresses cleaning: lock-out for blade access, chemical exposure from detergents, and allergen changeover verification with swab tests that feed into the site’s HACCP plan. In V5, all of these controls become required prompts and checks; if any guard is bypassed or a scan fails, the step cannot complete and the lot moves to Hold pending review.

7) FAQ

Q1. How is JHA/JSA different from HAZOP or FMEA?
HAZOP and FMEA examine failure scenarios at process or design level; JHA/JSA targets a specific job, operator actions, and local conditions. They are complementary: use FMEA/HAZOP to engineer hazards out of the system, and JHA/JSA to manage the residual risk in daily work.

Q2. When should we conduct a JHA?
At initial job design, before introducing new equipment or materials, after incidents/near misses, during significant layout changes, and at defined review intervals. Changes should be captured under change control to ensure updates propagate to procedures and training.

Q3. Who participates?
The people who do the work (operators/technicians), the supervisor, EHS, quality, and engineering. Involving operators early improves realism and adoption, while quality ensures integration with IPC, document control, and release criteria.

Q4. How do we prioritize controls?
Follow the hierarchy: engineering controls, then administrative controls, then PPE. Administrative measures should be backed by error-proofing and HMI design consistent with HFE; rely on PPE as a last line of defense.

Q5. How does JHA tie to data integrity?
Many job steps involve data entry or verification. JHAs can require dual checks, barcode scans, or automated data capture; execution within an eBMR framework with audit trails supports ALCOA+.

Q6. What evidence do auditors expect?
A controlled JHA/JSA document linked to the job, evidence of operator training/competency, field verification that controls exist (guards, interlocks, signage), and execution records showing prompts/sign-offs at critical steps. Nonconformances should trace to CAPA with effectiveness checks.

Q7. How often should JHAs be reviewed?
Set a cadence based on risk (e.g., annually for high-risk jobs) and always upon change or incident. Reviews should reconcile with changes in SOPs, HMIs, equipment, or materials.

Q8. Can JHA improve productivity?
Yes—by reducing errors, rework, and injuries, and by clarifying the safest, most efficient way to perform a task. Many engineering controls (fixtures, assists, guided scans) both reduce risk and speed throughput.

Q9. How do we ensure JHAs don’t become “paper only”?
Move controls into the flow of work: interlocks, scan gates, step logic in eBRs, and visible cues at the point of use. Audit execution routinely (see Internal Audit) and route gaps to CAPA.

Q10. Where does PPE selection fit?
After engineering and administrative options are applied. Selection should consider exposure routes, duration, and compatibility with the task. PPE requirements must appear in the SOP/eBR step with verification prompts.

Further Reading & Related
• Risk & Design: FMEA | HAZOP | HFE
• Execution Controls: eBR/eBMR | HMI | Poka-Yoke | Barcode Validation | GS1/GTIN
• Quality System Links: CAPA | Change Control | Document Control | Internal Audit | ICH Q10 | ISO 13485
• Manufacturing & Warehouse Context: Batch Weighing | In-Process Controls | Goods Receipt | Directed Picking | Expiration / Shelf-Life Control