Choose the Gap to Fix First

Human Performance weekly series: lesson 27 of 52.

A 5–10 minute crew discussion, plus time to verify the actual controls. The crew talk and Word version are public. Separate supervisor and attendance records are included with free Safety & Systems membership.

Why this matters

An improvement list can leave a consequential gap waiting while easy items get closed. Start with actual exposure and missing protection. Separate immediate safety action from improvement priorities, then give the selected gap an owner and a clear result.

Learning objective

Describe one evidenced gap, justify its priority and define the protection, owner and verification needed to close it.

Key hazards or failure points

Choosing by popularity or convenience; vague problem statements; serious exposure left on a backlog; no decision owner; treating a purchase or revised form as the completed improvement.

Practical controls

• Describe the required or intended condition and the actual gap. Identify affected work, possible harm and existing protection. Keep urgent safety action separate from the discussion about which improvement project comes first.
• Use the organization’s assessment process with the appropriate expertise. Consider the exposure, consequences and reliability of current controls. Explain missing evidence rather than inventing a score or assuming an undocumented condition is acceptable.
• For the selected improvement, name an owner with authority and resources, a due point and the field result expected. Keep other unresolved gaps visible with their protection, restrictions and review owner.

Verify It in the Field

• Choose one real gap and compare its description with an authorized observation or current record. Confirm the location, affected activity and source of the required condition. Record the actual evidence and time without entering danger to strengthen the case.
• Ask the decision owner to explain why this gap needs the proposed priority and what protects people meanwhile. Check that the assigned person accepts the action and can obtain required resources. Record unresolved dependencies and escalation needs.
• Before marking the gap closed, have the proper checker compare the implemented change with its applicable criterion through the approved safe method. Record the actual result, checker and time. Ask affected workers whether the original difficulty remains or another has appeared.

Stop and reassess

Hold affected exposure when a required control is missing or unverified. Escalate if the improvement queue, budget or priority score is being used to justify continued unsafe work. Reassess the priority when conditions change or the evidence no longer supports the decision.

Crew discussion questions

• What observable condition makes this gap important?
• What protects people while the permanent action is pending?
• What field result will show that the gap is closed?

For each required control, record its acceptance source and criterion, safe verification method, responsible checker, actual result and time. Use VERIFIED, HOLD/NOT VERIFIED, or N/A with a reason. A tick alone is not evidence. Complete all applicable task inspections; do not enter danger or improvise a test to fill out a form.

Leader preparation and practical detail

A popular issue is not automatically the highest safety priority

Illustrative situation: many people mention an inconvenient storage arrangement while one report identifies missing protection at a consequential task. Both deserve a response, but the number of comments does not determine which exposure needs immediate control. Use the employer’s assessment process and appropriate technical help. Explain the priority using work conditions and potential harm. Keep the other issue on a visible action path rather than suggesting that selecting one improvement makes everything else acceptable.

Define closure before choosing the action

Illustrative situation: the selected response is to buy a tool, but the gap concerns whether workers can perform a step safely in a restricted location. A purchase order does not demonstrate suitability, access or availability when needed. State the result the improvement must achieve, obtain the governing criteria and identify the required check. The approved solution might involve equipment, layout, sequence or another control. Verify that it resolves the original problem without introducing another exposure.

Use an original exercise rather than the archived questionnaire

The archive’s gap-analysis questionnaire identifies its adaptation from an INPO publication. Its questions, attributes, rating categories and scoring approach are not reproduced here. This is a new practical prioritization exercise grounded in OSHA hazard-control guidance: describe the actual gap, control current exposure, assign an accountable action and verify the result. It is not a validated organizational assessment instrument, a compliance score or a substitute for the technical risk assessment the task requires.

Short supervisor field check

• Gap linked to actual work, evidence and a required or intended condition.
• Immediate exposure controlled independently of project ranking.
• Priority basis and missing information visible.
• Owner accepts resources, due point and unresolved dependencies.
• Closure requires an actual field result and affected-worker feedback.

Confirm the relevant trained/authorized people, unresolved items, interim protection, correction owner and recheck. Record required release authority and rebrief anyone affected. The separate sheet supports these records; it does not replace a specialist inspection, permit or engineering determination.

Attendance and follow-through

Use the separate attendance sheet for participants, roles, discussion concerns, actions and late-arrival rebriefs. Attendance is not proof of competence, functioning controls or authorization to work. Keep completed records private under employer procedures.

Source acknowledgment

This resource draws on the U.S. Department of Energy’s DOE-HDBK-1028-2009, Human Performance Improvement Handbook, Volume 2 (June 2009). Todd Jerome Jenkins makes no claim of authorship or copyright ownership in the original U.S. Government work. New explanations, examples, exercises and layouts are Todd Jerome Jenkins adaptations. No endorsement by DOE or the U.S. Government is implied. Third-party material credited in the handbook remains attributed to its source; this notice does not claim rights in that material.

Source excerpt: Volume 2/VOLUME 2 EMPLOYEE SURVEYS Human Performance Gap Analysis Tool.pdf; Printed pp. 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, blank/no text. The June 2009 handbook supplies concepts; this lesson uses original explanations and exercises.

Technical scope and references

References reviewed October 9, 2026. DOE human-performance tools and OSHA recommended practices support preparation and discussion; they do not establish universal technical acceptance criteria. Apply the current task procedure, manufacturer instructions, permit and required competent or qualified decisions. A successful exercise does not replace required training, technical verification or work authorization.

1. DOE-HDBK-1028-2009, Volume 2 — Human Performance Gap Analysis Tool, printed pp. 112–120 — Reference-only historical topic source. The INPO-derived questionnaire, rating categories and scoring are excluded; this is an original exercise.
2. OSHA — Hazard Prevention and Control — Current recommended practices for controlling serious hazards, assigning responsibilities and confirming effective implementation.
3. OSHA — Hazard Identification and Assessment — Current recommended practices for identifying exposure, consequences, interim controls and priorities; no invented numerical risk matrix used.

Connect this discussion to your JHA/JSA

Use the JHA/JSA planning and field-verification worksheet to record the actual task steps, hazards, responsible roles and controls. No task-specific worked example is linked for this topic yet. Return to What Changed Today? when the plan or conditions change.

Related Todd Jerome Jenkins articles: How to Conduct a Job Safety Analysis and What Is Human and Organizational Performance?.

Related crew discussions

• Self-Assessment: Compare the Plan with Real Work
• Safety Indicators: What Are the Conditions Telling Us?

Continue the weekly series

• Lesson 26: Employee Feedback: Ask, Listen and Report Back
• Lesson 28: Self-Assessment: Compare the Plan with Real Work

Put one check into practice

Use the free JHA/JSA planning and field-verification worksheet to record today’s change, the required protection and the evidence needed before exposure.