HAZOP (Hazard and Operability) studies are a widely used method for identifying risks and recommending improvements. They generate valuable insight, but they also generate actions, and managing those actions effectively is often more challenging than conducting the study itself.
Action tracking is meant to ensure that HAZOP recommendations are owned, completed and verified. When it goes well, risks are reduced and compliance is strengthened. When it goes poorly, actions drift, accountability blurs and opportunities to prevent incidents are lost.
Understanding the common challenges in HAZOP action tracking helps organisations build stronger systems, improve follow-through and close the loop between risk identification and risk control.
High Action Volume
HAZOP workshops can produce a large number of actions. This volume can overwhelm teams if action tracking is not structured and prioritised.
When teams are faced with long lists of actions, it becomes difficult to distinguish between critical issues that must be addressed quickly and lower-priority improvements that can be scheduled further out. Without prioritisation, high-risk actions may be delayed or lost in the noise.
A practical approach involves categorising actions by risk and impact, so that the most pressing controls receive the attention they deserve and resource planning becomes more effective.
Unclear Action Ownership
One of the most common problems in action tracking is unclear or shared ownership. When an action is assigned to “the team” or left ambiguous, progress stalls because individuals are unsure who is responsible.
Effective action tracking requires that each action has a **named owner** who understands their responsibilities and has the authority and resources to complete the task. Without this clarity, actions become someone else’s problem, and follow-through diminishes.
Lack of Realistic Deadlines
Actions without realistic deadlines often remain open indefinitely. When deadlines are set without considering workload, dependencies and resource availability, they may be missed or ignored.
Realistic deadlines should be agreed between the action owner and supervisor, reflecting the complexity of the task and other commitments. This improves accountability and helps teams plan their work in a sustainable way.
Poor Quality of Action Definitions
Another frequent challenge is poorly defined actions. Actions that are vague, generic or written without clear intention are hard to complete effectively.
For example, an action that says “improve isolation procedure” leaves interpretation open and can lead to delays in execution. A better description would specify what needs to be improved, how it will be done, and what evidence will show completion. Another common problem is that 'issue descriptions' are used in place of actions - so a problem is described rather than an action to resolve it.
Clear, specific action definitions support accountability and reduce confusion during implementation.
Disconnected Systems
Lots of organisations track HAZOP actions in spreadsheets, shared drives or email threads. These disconnected systems often don't have consistent version control, visibility and integration with other risk management tools.
When tracking is scattered across multiple platforms, it becomes difficult to see the full picture. Teams may not know what actions are open, overdue or completed, and leaders have no reliable way to assess overall HAZOP progress.
A centralised tracking system increases visibility, supports reporting and reduces the risk of lost information.
Inadequate Follow-Up and Verification
An action is not complete until it has been verified and closed. A common issue is that actions appear as “done” because someone marked them as complete, but there is no verification that the risk has actually been addressed.
Verification requires a reviewer or supervisor to check the evidence, confirm effectiveness and sign off appropriately. Without this step, actions may be closed prematurely, leaving risk controls untested.
Insufficient Integration with Broader Risk Processes
HAZOP action tracking is most effective when it is integrated with the organisation’s broader risk management, incident reporting and Permit to Work processes.
When action tracking operates in isolation, opportunities to align risk controls across systems are missed. For example, actions arising from a HAZOP study might not be reflected in daily risk assessments, training, operational checks or work authorisation workflows.
Integration ensures that HAZOP insights influence how work is planned and executed, turning recommendations into sustained safety improvement.
Lack of Feedback and Learning
Tracking is not just a logistical exercise; it is a learning opportunity. When actions are closed, teams should reflect on what worked, what didn’t and what barriers were encountered.
In many cases, this feedback loop is absent. Teams close actions without capturing lessons learned, meaning similar issues are repeated in future studies.
Embedding learning into the action tracking process strengthens organisational memory and improves future HAZOP outcomes.
Resource Constraints
Some HAZOP actions are complex, requiring engineering changes, budget approval or coordination across departments. When teams lack the resources to implement actions, progress slows significantly.
Practical action tracking recognises resource constraints early and includes steps for planning, escalation and support. Involving the right stakeholders in the planning stage increases the likelihood that actions are adequately resourced.
Resistance to Change
Even when actions are clear and prioritised, resistance to change can slow implementation. People may view HAZOP actions as external to their core responsibilities, or organisational culture may be unsupportive of new procedures.
Addressing resistance involves communication, training and leadership support. When people understand why actions matter and see them connected to real risk reduction, engagement improves.
Over-Engineering of Tracking Systems
Some organisations respond to these challenges by over-engineering their tracking systems. They add too many fields, complex approval chains or rigid workflows that become barriers rather than enablers.
A practical tracking system balances structure with flexibility. It captures essential information, supports clear ownership and deadlines, and remains adaptable to different types of actions without bogging users down.
An Embedded HSE tool
When implemented well, a good action tracker ensures that actions from HAZOPS (or any other high-governance study) translate into real safety improvements. When it falters, actions languish, visibility is lost and risks persist.
Common challenges such as unclear ownership, disconnected systems, poor definitions and weak follow-up aren't unique to any one organisation, although they will present in different ways. They reflect the complexity of managing change, priorities and risk in dynamic work environments.
Addressing these challenges requires clarity of roles, realistic planning, leadership support and continuous learning. 
