Discussion Paper

Near Miss Analysis and Reporting

INTRODUCTION
Why investigate near misses? Near misses share similar causal factors and underlying causes
as accidents. By investigating near misses and addressing the underlying causes of accidents
and near misses, the precipitating conditions can be influenced so as to be avoided in the
future. Near miss reporting is important for continuous improvement efforts for an organization’s
safety performance. The purpose of accident investigation is to identify causative factors and
develop corrective action to prevent accident recurrence, mishaps, or near misses.
TERMS/DEFINITIONS
Accident: Unplanned sequence of events accompanied by undesirable consequences
Causal Factor: Structural/Machinery/Equipment/Outfitting problems, human errors and external
factors that caused an incident, allowed an incident to occur or allowed the consequences of the
incident to be worse than they might have been.
Incident: Unplanned sequence of events with the potential for undesirable consequences (i.e.,
accidents and near misses)
Loss: Any condition or sequence of events and outcomes that leads to human injury, environ-
mental damage, equipment damage, or business loss.
Near miss: An unplanned sequence of events and/or conditions that results, or could have rea-
sonably resulted, in a loss event. According to the ABS Safety Manual, a near miss is an event
where no contact or exchange of energy occurred, and thus did not result in personal injury (and
any observed unsafe working conditions are to be reported electronically as a near miss).
Potential Loss: Any condition or sequence of events and outcomes that may potentially lead to
human injury, environmental damage, equipment damage, or business loss. These are events
where good fortune may have intervened, and thus avoided a loss.
Root Cause: Commonly used to describe the depth in the causal chain/analysis where an in-
tervention can reasonably be identified and implemented to change performance and prevent
an undesirable outcome.
DISCUSSION
Level of Concern
The contribution of human error to accidents has been a much discussed topic for decades.
Summarizing it all, about 80% of marine accidents involve human error. In about 50% of acci-
dents human error is the precipitating cause, and in about 30% of accidents human error is a
contributing cause (where a situation, such as weather, likely would not have resulted in an ac-
cident or loss if the human acted without error). This also suggests that only about 20% of ma-
rine accidents are not directly attributable to humans making errors.

Document generated in conjunction with the ABS Mariner Personal Safety Project pg. 1
Near misses are another matter, and it is only recently that the notion of analyzing “accidents
that almost happened” has been receiving wider attention and scrutiny. After all, the difference
between a loss and a non-loss is often due to circumstance and luck. The same precipitating
conditions can occur again – and lead to an actual loss, of unknown magnitude.
As a general rule of thumb, the ratio of near misses to accidents is about 300:1. That’s a lot of
near misses, and many (but certainly not all) can be used to identify opportunities for continuous
improvements in an organization’s safety management system by identifying the precipitating
factors (including human errors) and addressing them, it is hoped, before any actual loss oc-
curs.
For the seagoing maritime industry, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has published
the International Safety Management Code (the ISM Code), and states that a functional re-
quirement for a Safety Management System is the presence of “procedures for reporting acci-
dents and non-conformities.” Further, the supporting IMO guidance in relation to accident inves-
tigation states a basic principle of a safety management system is the provision of means of
“reporting and analyzing non-conformities, accidents, and hazardous occurrences (including
near misses).” Our own ABS policy requires both incident investigations as well as for near
misses.
What Constitutes a Near Miss?
A near miss can also be interpreted as a set of conditions or a sequence of events that could
reasonably have, but did not, result in an accident, and since there is no loss to cue our obser-
vation, how are near misses identified? How does one observe something that almost hap-
pened? One approach is to develop and use operational definitions. Operational definitions pro-
vide a means to define, quantify, and identify a situation, condition, or object that is (or was) not
tangible and therefore is not directly observable or measurable.
At a very high level, two operational definitions of a near miss are:
1. An event with no consequences, but that could have reasonably resulted in conse-
quences under different conditions
2. A near miss that had some consequences that could have reasonably resulted in much
more severe consequences under different conditions.
Examples of operational definitions of a near miss include:
1. Any event that leads to the implementing of an emergency response or procedure, and
where those actions spared a loss.
2. Any event where an unexpected condition existed that led to no adverse consequence,
but that might have (for example, had a person been standing where a load was
dropped).
3. Any dangerous or hazardous situation or condition that was not discovered until after the
danger passed.
4. Anytime an emergency action has taken place, such as summoning the fire department
or an ambulance.
5. Violation of a safety rule, procedure, or policy.
A very simple and common rule is that anytime someone observes a situation or sequence of
events, and considers it to be a near miss, it is an event that will undergo some level of scrutiny
to verify whether a near miss has occurred or not.

Document generated in conjunction with the ABS Mariner Personal Safety Project pg. 2
For ABS, operational definitions are defined in the ABS Safety Manual.
Note that an operational definition of a root cause is:
1. The cause can reasonably be identified. In some cases it cannot, for example when a
worker is unaccounted for and never discovered. About the only conclusion that can be
drawn is that he probably went over the side. The “why” of it will likely never be identi-
fied?
2. That means to fix or correct the root cause can reasonably be identified (again, in some
cases it cannot, for example a rogue wave)
3. That management has the authority to implement the recommended fix (due to costs,
legal impediments, effectiveness of a proposed fix)
A Process for Analyzing a Near Miss
Depth of analysis for a near miss investigation should be guided by the extent and likelihood of
the potential consequences of a recurrence of the conditions and actions associated with the
near miss. If, for example, in the course of a near miss a significant consequence was avoided,
and if those conditions are deemed to be likely to reoccur, then an in-depth analysis may be
called for. For a near miss deemed to be of low likelihood or consequence, then an in-depth
analysis would not be needed. Depending on the depth of analysis to be performed, and the
specific activities of the process to be performed, the process could be done reasonably quickly.
A brief process follows that is suitable for any level of depth of analysis.
Determine Whether a Near Miss Occurred and Determine Depth of Analysis.
The first decision to be made is whether a near miss merits investigation. After documenting the
early information about a near miss (e.g., who and what was involved? What happened and
where? What was the potential extent of loss? How near was a loss to actually being realized?),
a decision must be reached as to whether a near miss should be investigated. When the actual
or potential consequences of the near miss are minor, it may be sufficient to simply enter the
near miss into a database. If the decision is to not investigate, relevant facts should be docu-
mented and filed – including the factors leading to the conclusion that an investigation is not
necessary. When considering whether to investigate a near miss as a near miss, the following
can be considered:
 What could the consequences of the near miss have been? Should the potential near miss
consequences be considered an acceptable risk? The larger the potential consequences,
the more resources should be committed to an investigation.
 Is the risk associated with this near miss well understood? Is the risk associated with the
near miss acceptable? If a decision has been made that the risk from this near miss is ac-
ceptable, then an investigation would not result in any significant changes.
 Are adequate safeguards in place to protect the workers and the public against these near
misses? If adequate safeguards are provided, then an investigation would not result in any
significant changes.
 Are there apparent causes (immediately obvious causes) that require validation by means of
further interviews or other causal analysis?

Document generated in conjunction with the ABS Mariner Personal Safety Project pg. 3
ABS Safety Manual Basic Accident Investigation and Reporting Technique
Effective investigations are imperative to the success of a safety program. The purpose of acci-
dent investigation is to identify causative factors and develop corrective action to prevent acci-
dent and near miss recurrence. Effective investigations will:
 Describe what happened. Thorough investigations can sift through sometimes conflicting
evidence and arrive at an accurate description of the incident.
 Determine the causation. Any investigation should be detailed and thorough in order to
reach a conclusion of the causes of the incident.
 Determine the risks. Good investigations provide the basis of deciding the likelihood of re-
currence and the potential for major loss -- two critical factors in determining the amount of
time and money to spend on corrective action.
 Develop controls. Adequate controls that minimize or eliminate a problem can only come
from a sound investigation, which has truly identified the problem. Otherwise, the problem
will appear again and again but with different symptoms.
 Define trends. Few accidents and incidents are truly isolated cases. When a significant
number of good reports are analyzed, emerging trends can be identified and so controls can
be set.
 Demonstrate concern. Accidents give people vivid pictures of threats to their well-being. It is
assuring to see a prompt, objective investigation in process. Good investigations aid per-
sonnel relations.
Reporting
The ultimate objective of near miss identification, analysis and reporting is to identify safety
threats of concern and to devise means for management to implement corrective actions. To do
so requires that recommendations be generated, shared, and acted upon. It may take years for
safety trends to be discerned, and so reporting must be archived and revisited for trending from
time to time.
Since near miss reports should be trended with actual accident reports, there must be con-
sistency in the identification and nomenclature of near miss and accident root causes.
For further information please consult the ABS Safety Manual, Section 3, “Accident Investigation
and Reporting; Basic Accident Investigation and Reporting Technique,” and “Section 6; Accident
Evaluation & Control Occupational Mishap Investigation and Reporting Procedures” for report-
ing requirements of incidents, injuries, and near misses.
Overcoming Barriers to Reporting Near Misses
Some of the chief barriers to reporting of near misses are fear of being thought blameworthy,
being disciplined, embarrassed, fear of legal liability, and so on. Other factors that may be barri-
ers to reporting are complacency on the part of those observing or identifying a near miss, dis-
incentives to report, such as demanding that an investigation and report be performed on one’s
own time, or for fears of reprisal.
An effective means of addressing the bulk of these barriers is to, as part of the reporting pro-
cess, “sanitize” reports so that individuals involved are protected from identification, thereby
avoiding fear of retribution, disciplinary action, embarrassment, and so on. There also must be
management commitment to a no-blame culture, and this must be perceived to be (and to be in

Document generated in conjunction with the ABS Mariner Personal Safety Project pg. 4
reality) a sincere commitment by management. The ABS Safety Manual states that ABS “policy
encourages personnel to report safety concerns without fear of reprisal.”
The keys to overcoming barriers to reporting can be summarized as:
 Establishing a blame-free near miss reporting company culture
 Assuring anonymity for reporting near misses, as requested, by company policy and by
“sanitizing” analyses and reports of information identifying persons associated with the near
miss. Of course, there must be one individual (usually the near miss investigator) who must
be identified as being the originator of a report.
 Establish and communicate management dispositions to the recommendations, if any, con-
tained in a near miss report. This means that once recommendations are provided, their
dispensation (implemented, planned to be implemented, or not to be implemented) must be
communicated to the person who submitted a report and/or recommendation. Lack of feed-
back of this sort will curtail reporting as there will be a feeling that the effort was simply
wasted time.
SUMMARY
Near miss analysis and reporting are important components of a Safety Management System
intended to continuously improve, and trend, safety performance over time. The ABS Policy
Manual lays out the policy, processes and procedures, and protection of near miss reporting.
REFERENCES
American Bureau of Shipping. (February, 2014). “ABS Guidance Notes on the Investigation of
Marine Accidents.” Houston: Author.
American Bureau of Shipping. (2011). “ABS Safety Manual.” Houston: Author.
International Maritime Organization. (2011). “International Safety Management Code (ISM
Code).” London: Author.

Document generated in conjunction with the ABS Mariner Personal Safety Project pg. 5