Near Misses Are Data — If You Treat Them That Way
Most organizations say they value near-miss reporting.
Far fewer actually use the information.
Near misses are often logged, reviewed briefly, and filed away — treated as administrative artifacts rather than operational intelligence.
That’s a missed opportunity.
What near misses really represent
A near miss is not “almost an accident.”
It is evidence that:
- A barrier failed
- A control was bypassed
- A process relied on luck instead of design
In other words, the system revealed a weakness — without charging you the full cost of failure.
That is valuable data.
The problem we see in the field
In many operations:
- Near misses are underreported because teams fear blame
- Reports lack enough detail to be useful
- Follow-up actions are vague or delayed
- Patterns are never aggregated or analyzed
The result is a false sense of safety.
Nothing happened, so it feels like nothing is wrong.
How effective teams use near-miss data
Organizations that treat near misses seriously do three things consistently:
- They look for patterns, not incidents
One report means little. Five similar reports mean something is broken. - They connect near misses to process, not people
The question is never “who messed up,” but “why was this possible?” - They close the loop visibly
When teams see that reporting leads to real changes, reporting increases.
Near misses are one of the few chances operations get to learn without paying full price.
Ignoring them doesn’t make risk go away — it just delays the invoice.
In our training programs, participants work through real-world near-miss scenarios to practice converting observations into actionable improvements.
