Methoden vergleichen

	Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP)	Bow-Tie Risk Analysis
Fachgebiet	Disaster Studies	Disaster Studies
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	2016	2016
Urheber	ICI (1960s practice); codified in IEC 61882 and CCPS guidelines	Synthesized review by de Ruijter & Guldenmund; standardized in ISO/IEC 31010
Typ	Structured guide-word deviation analysis of process designs	Barrier-centred cause-consequence risk diagram and analysis
Wegweisende Quelle	International Electrotechnical Commission. (2016). IEC 61882:2016 Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies) — Application guide (2nd ed.). IEC, Geneva.	de Ruijter, A., & Guldenmund, F. (2016). The bowtie method: A review. Safety Science, 88, 211-218.
Aliasnamen	HAZOP Study, Hazard and Operability Analysis, Guide-Word HAZOP, Deviation Analysis	Bowtie Method, Bow-Tie Diagram, Barrier Analysis (Bow-Tie), Cause-Consequence Barrier Model
Verwandt	3	3
Zusammenfassung	A Hazard and Operability Study, or HAZOP, is a structured, team-based examination of a process design that systematically searches for deviations from the design intent and judges whether each deviation could create a hazard or impair operability. Its signature device is the guide word: terms such as 'No', 'More', 'Less', 'Reverse' and 'Other than' are combined with process parameters like flow, pressure and temperature at each part of the system to provoke a complete and disciplined set of 'what if it went wrong this way?' questions. IEC 61882 is the international application guide that defines the technique, its guide words and its workflow, while the CCPS Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures situates HAZOP among the core hazard-evaluation methods of process safety. The method's power lies in its rigorous, qualitative completeness: by walking every node and every guide word, a multidisciplinary team aims to leave no credible deviation unconsidered.	Bow-tie risk analysis is a barrier-centred technique that places a single top event — the moment control over a hazard is lost — at the knot of a diagram, branches its possible causes to the left and its possible consequences to the right, and arrays along each pathway the barriers meant to prevent or mitigate it. The shape gives the method its name: the fanning threats and consequences form the two halves of a bow tie around the central event. de Ruijter and Guldenmund's 2016 review in Safety Science documents how the approach grew popular precisely because it combines, in one readable picture, the cause logic of a fault tree and the consequence logic of an event tree while foregrounding the controls that managers actually own. ISO/IEC 31010 lists bow-tie analysis among standard risk-assessment techniques, used both qualitatively to communicate risk and barrier coverage and quantitatively to estimate consequence likelihoods.