Safety technology gets bought on a demo and abandoned within a year more often than anyone admits. This guide forces the questions that predict whether a system survives: what problem it solves, whether the workforce will accept it, who owns the data, and what happens when it produces a false alarm at three in the morning.
This resource is free to read, print and use right here — no sign-up. We can also email you our most-requested free checklists and templates. The full library is always at Free HSE Resources.
We send occasional Canadian OHS updates. Unsubscribe any time.
Hazard or exposure this is intended to address:
Incidents, near misses or precursors that evidence it:
What we have already tried, and why it was not enough:
| Requirement | What good looks like | Y / N / N-A | Evidence or gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elimination considered | Can the exposure be removed — remote operation, changed sequence, task removed entirely? | ||
| Substitution considered | A less hazardous method, material or equipment. | ||
| Engineering control considered | Physical separation, barriers, interlocks, ventilation. | ||
| Why technology is the right layer | Recorded reasoning for adding detection or monitoring rather than removing the hazard. |
| Category | Addresses | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Proximity detection / collision avoidance | Vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-vehicle interaction underground and on surface. | Alarm fatigue from false positives; operators disabling or ignoring it. |
| Fatigue and distraction monitoring | Operator alertness on haul and long-cycle equipment. | Worker acceptance; how the data is used in performance management. |
| Environmental and gas monitoring | Atmosphere, ventilation, ground movement, seismic. | Calibration discipline; who is watching the dashboard at 3am. |
| Automation and tele-remote | Removing people from the exposure entirely — the only category that eliminates. | New hazards at the human-machine boundary; capital and skills. |
| Wearables and tracking | Location for emergency response, exposure monitoring, lone worker. | Privacy, consent, and scope creep into productivity monitoring. |
| Data platforms and analytics | Aggregating leading indicators across systems. | Dashboards nobody acts on; integration cost underestimated. |
| Requirement | What good looks like | Y / N / N-A | Evidence or gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workers consulted early | JHSC and affected workers involved before selection, not informed after. | ||
| Purpose limited and written | Exactly what the system monitors, and what it will never be used for. | ||
| Performance management boundary | Written commitment on whether safety data can be used in discipline. | ||
| Data ownership and retention | Who holds the data, where it lives, how long it is kept, who can access it. | ||
| Privacy obligations reviewed | Applicable privacy legislation and any collective agreement provisions checked. | ||
| Union engagement | Where applicable, engagement completed before deployment. | ||
| Off-shift and personal use | Whether wearables track outside working hours, and the answer communicated. |
Score each candidate 1–5 against every criterion, multiply by the weight, and total. Agree the weights before you see the scores.
| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk reduction for the stated hazard | 5 | |||
| Evidence it works in comparable operations | 4 | |||
| Worker acceptance and usability | 4 | |||
| False alarm rate and alarm management | 4 | |||
| Reliability in this environment (dust, water, temperature, vibration) | 4 | |||
| Integration with existing systems | 3 | |||
| Maintenance and calibration burden | 3 | |||
| Vendor support and Canadian presence | 3 | |||
| Total cost of ownership over five years | 3 | |||
| Regulatory alignment in our jurisdiction | 3 | |||
| Privacy and data governance | 3 | |||
| Training required and skills available | 2 | |||
| Scalability across the operation | 2 | |||
| Weighted total |
| Requirement | What good looks like | Y / N / N-A | Evidence or gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defined scope | One area, one crew, one shift pattern — not the whole site. | ||
| Baseline measured first | Pre-pilot data captured so improvement can be demonstrated. | ||
| Success criteria agreed in advance | Written and signed before the pilot starts, including what would make you reject it. | ||
| False alarm tracking | Every alarm logged and classified true or false. | ||
| Worker feedback captured | Structured feedback from the crew using it, not just from supervisors. | ||
| Defined pilot duration | Long enough to cover seasonal and shift variation. | ||
| Go / no-go decision point | A date and a named decision-maker. |
| Success criterion | Baseline | Target | Actual at end of pilot |
|---|---|---|---|
General evaluation guidance. Technology supplements the hierarchy of controls; it does not replace elimination or engineering controls. Confirm all regulatory and privacy obligations in your jurisdiction before deployment.