HAZOP360 vs. Excel vs. PHA Pro

If you've used Excel or PHA Pro in the past for HAZOPs, you might be wondering how does HAZOP360 compare to the other two. We've done some testing between the three methods and we're excited to share our testing results below. Each program was evaluated using the same P&ID, therefore all of the causes, consequences, safeguards and recommendations were kept the same. HAZOP360 was evaluated first, followed by PHAPro and Excel. Your individual results may vary depending on your proficiency in each program.

Set-Up Testing

All causes were individually entered into each program as part of the set up testing. Times could be faster using copy and paste or duplications.

1. HAZOP360 - 15 mins

2. PHAPro - 10 mins

3. Excel - 10 mins

Set-up time is longer for HAZOP360 compared to Excel and PHAPro, but a large factor in this is the user familiarity with the programs and the fact that HAZOP360 was the first program evaluated (i.e. familiarity with the causes may have sped up the set up time for PHAPro and Excel). If you don't have access to PHAPro or a well developed Excel template, HAZOP360 would likely be your quickest program.

Analysis Testing

A single small node was evaluated as part of the analysis testing. Each individual cause was analyzed. Times could be faster using copy and paste or duplications.

1. HAZOP360 - 4 minutes

2. PHAPro - 6 minutes

3. Excel - 6 minutes

Analysis time for HAZOP360 was quicker than Excel, especially for situations where a cause may have multiple consequences or if multiple safeguards are used in a scenario where you would have to add additional rows. HAZOP360 was also found to be quicker than PHAPro. However, there was an additional required safeguard category input in the PHAPro template used for testing which may be the main contributor for the time savings seen in HAZOP360.

Summary

The more complex a file, the larger the advantage HAZOP360 would have over Excel. Most people choose not to use Excel because it's cumbersome, meaning it is a great program where the use case would be smaller projects. The time reduced during analysis would be a significant saving and is overall more intuitive to use.

PHAPro is considered the industry standard for executing HAZOPs, however there is a significant licensing fee. The financial cost typically means most people do not have access to this program.

Other Findings:

• Live spell check when using HAZOP360 in a web browser. Both PHA Pro and Excel can only be spell checked afterwards

• HAZOP360 will automatically scroll to the next cause after the cause information box is exited. This enables a good flow through the file during the analysis.