False, but ….We recognise that being a part of the detailed discussions that form the basis of the Hazard and Operability Study is a great way to appreciate all the nuances and issues that were felt to be relevant and led to the study conclusions. However, IEC 61511 requires that verification planning considers the independence needed for verification – and whether this should be an independent person, independent department or independent organisation.
The lowest level of independence is an independent person – who shall be “separate and distinct from the activities”. We interpret that to mean the verifier can’t be involved in the Hazard study meeting. If we accept that the verifier can’t be in the study meeting but must still confirm that the study meeting came to the correct conclusions, this challenge can only be solved by very careful documentation of the study decision making process and conclusions. "=Method's experience is that when we impose this requirement, we find that the value of the hazard study is enhanced.
If the study is not adequately documented, the verifier can’t follow the logic of the decision making well enough to check that the conclusion is correct, and the study does not pass verification. =Method’s experience is that when hazard studies are poorly documented they tend to gather dust on shelves because nobody can understand them. However, if they are correctly documented, they can be understood by the whole project team (i.e., not only those who were in the meeting), and become incredibly useful tools for both project and operational teams.