25 marquee operators · 21 countries · verified roster
Bayer · Pfizer · TATA · Adani · JSW · ISRO · Siemens · Bosch · DuPont · Mahindra · Hindalco · and others
Threats through the top event to consequences · every barrier named, owned and tested.
A bow-tie puts the whole hazard on one page · what can release control, what happens if it is released, and every barrier on both sides. It is the one risk technique a board, a regulator and a control room operator can all read, which is why it carries the ALARP argument.
Barriers, and whether anyone owns them. A risk register records that a hazard exists and assigns it a rating. A bow-tie draws the pathway · each threat that can release the hazard on the left, the top event in the centre, each consequence on the right, and every prevention barrier and mitigation barrier positioned where it actually sits on that pathway. The moment the diagram is drawn, three things become visible that a register conceals · threats with only one barrier, barriers that are claimed on several different pathways at once, and barriers that nobody in the organisation actually owns or tests.
Escalation factors are the second contribution. A barrier is not a permanent property of the plant; it is defeated by specific conditions · a bypassed interlock, a degraded detector, an untrained crew on nights, a deferred proof test. A bow-tie names those conditions and requires a control against each, which is what converts a diagram into a management system.
ALARP then rests on something defensible. Demonstrating that risk is as low as reasonably practicable requires showing which further measures were considered and why the sacrifice was grossly disproportionate to the reduction. That argument is far stronger when it is made against a named set of barriers than against a risk rating.
Barrier-based analysis with escalation factors and named ownership · ALARP demonstration documented for regulatory and board review. Routes to the Risk + Safety practice lead within 24 hours.
The hazard and the top event stated precisely · the top event is the moment control is lost, not the consequence and not the cause. Getting this wrong is the most common error in bow-tie work, and it produces a diagram in which threats and consequences sit on the wrong sides and no barrier can be placed correctly.
Every credible threat capable of releasing the top event on its own is identified on the left, and every credible consequence flowing from it on the right, drawing on HAZOP findings, incident history and major accident scenarios rather than starting from a blank page.
Prevention barriers placed on each threat line and mitigation barriers on each consequence line, each classified by type · hardware, instrumented, procedural or behavioural · and tested against whether it is genuinely effective, independent and auditable. A barrier that only detects, or only warns, is recorded as such rather than credited as a barrier.
For each barrier, the conditions that would defeat or degrade it are identified · bypass, deferred testing, competence gaps, environmental conditions, common cause between barriers claimed as independent · and a control assigned against each escalation factor.
Every barrier assigned a named owner, a performance standard and a verification activity, so the diagram becomes a live assurance framework. The ALARP argument is then documented · the further measures considered, their cost and their risk reduction, and the reasoning where a measure was ruled out as grossly disproportionate.
Barrier analysis and ALARP demonstration follow recognised major accident hazard and risk management practice as applied by regulators and corporate safety functions. Every deliverable independently reviewed and signed by a Chartered Engineer (CEng MIE India).
Three landmark engagements from our verified roster · quantified outcomes, no client names disclosed without written permission.
Bow-ties built for the principal loss-of-containment top events, which identified several threat lines carrying a single prevention barrier and one barrier being credited independently on multiple pathways where a common cause existed.
Existing bow-ties reviewed for ownership and assurance rather than redrawn. A material proportion of barriers had no named owner and no verification activity, and were being reported as in place on that basis.
ALARP demonstration prepared for a major accident scenario, documenting the additional measures considered, the risk reduction each would deliver and the reasoning for those ruled out as grossly disproportionate.
Tell us your plant, region, and scope · a named Chartered Engineer responds within 24 hours.