How to Build a SIMOPS Risk Map in 10 Days

Simultaneous operations, often shortened to SIMOPS, become dangerous when several individually acceptable jobs create a combined exposure that no single permit, JSA, or supervisor can see alone. This guide shows EHS managers, operations leaders, and contractor coordinators how to build a SIMOPS risk map in 10 days.

The common mistake is treating SIMOPS as a scheduling issue. The planner sees work packages, dates, areas, and people. The field sees welding near a live process line, a crane crossing a pedestrian route, a contractor isolating equipment while another crew needs access, and an emergency exit blocked by material staging.

The thesis is direct. A SIMOPS risk map is useful only when it changes sequence, access, authority, or controls before crews overlap. If the map only describes work that has already been approved elsewhere, it becomes a colorful version of the same planning optimism that allowed the interface risk to grow.

What you need before starting

Before day 1, collect the shutdown schedule, daily work plan, permit-to-work list, contractor mobilization plan, lifting plan, traffic plan, isolation register, critical-risk register, emergency routes, and open management-of-change items. ISO 45001:2018 expects organizations to manage operational control, procurement, contractors, outsourcing, change, and emergency preparedness, which gives SIMOPS mapping a clear management-system anchor.

Do not start from a blank template. Start from the work that is already planned, then ask what happens when the work meets other work. Across 25+ years in executive EHS roles, Andreza Araujo has seen that serious risk often appears in the boundary between teams, where each group believes its own controls are sufficient.

The 10-day version should not attempt to map every small activity in the company. It should focus on a defined period, area, or campaign where overlap can create serious harm. Good candidates include turnarounds, warehouse redesign, construction inside operating plants, commissioning, or a maintenance backlog recovery week.

Step 1: Define the SIMOPS window and boundary

Start by defining the time window, physical boundary, and operational state covered by the map. A useful first scope might be one unit during a 10-day shutdown, one warehouse during dock reconstruction, or one production area during a contractor-heavy maintenance campaign.

The boundary should include the area where work happens and the area affected by that work. A lift may occur inside a barricade, although its swing radius, load path, ground condition, spotter position, and emergency exclusion zone may affect people outside the original job front.

Write the scope in one sentence and test it with the area owner. If the owner cannot explain what is inside and outside the map, supervisors will not be able to use it during the morning coordination meeting.

Step 2: List work packages by exposure, not by department

On days 1 and 2, list the work packages that can change exposure. Use categories such as hot work, line breaking, confined space, lifting, electrical isolation, vehicle movement, work at height, chemical transfer, pressure testing, excavation, energization, and contractor tie-ins.

This prevents the map from becoming an organizational chart. A maintenance job, a contractor task, and an operations adjustment may all create the same interface risk when they share energy, access, timing, or emergency response resources. The map should group work by what can hurt someone, not by which team owns the purchase order.

Connect this list with the existing contractor mobilization safety plan when third parties control part of the exposure. Contractor work is often where SIMOPS becomes fragile because the host company owns the site, while the contractor owns the method and crew.

Step 3: Mark where time and space overlap

On days 2 and 3, place each work package on a simple grid with time on one axis and location on the other. The first map can be a spreadsheet, board, or drawing, provided that supervisors can read it quickly before work starts.

Use color only to clarify decisions. Red should mean stop or redesign, amber should mean controlled with named conditions, and green should mean the overlap has been reviewed and accepted within defined limits. Avoid decorative colors that make the map look mature while hiding unresolved authority.

The trap is believing that different permits mean different risks. Two permits in the same unit may share one access route, one fire watch, one gas test, one rescue team, or one isolation point. The map must make that dependency visible before the crews discover it in the field.

Step 4: Identify shared energy, routes, and emergency resources

On days 3 and 4, identify what the jobs share. The most important shared items are energy sources, access routes, lifting paths, ventilation, fire protection, emergency exits, rescue equipment, spotters, isolation points, utilities, laydown areas, and qualified personnel.

James Reason's Swiss cheese model is useful here because SIMOPS failures usually do not come from one dramatic mistake. Several layers weaken at the same time: access gets crowded, communication slows, a permit assumption becomes stale, and one supervisor thinks another team owns the control.

Create one field in the map called shared control. If the shared control has no owner, the overlap should not proceed. A shared emergency route, for example, cannot be owned by everyone in general because everyone in general usually means nobody in the moment of conflict.

Step 5: Compare PTW, JSA, and MOC against the overlap

On days 4 and 5, compare each overlap with the existing permit-to-work, JSA, and management-of-change records. The question is not whether each document is complete alone. The question is whether the documents still describe the field after other work starts nearby.

Use the logic in MOC vs PTW vs PSSR when the team is unsure which control owns the decision. PTW may control the immediate task, MOC may control the changed condition, and PSSR may control safe startup. SIMOPS mapping shows whether the controls collide or leave a gap.

Pay attention to stale assumptions. A JSA written for normal access may be weak when the access route is now shared with forklifts. A hot-work permit may be correct until a contractor stores combustible material nearby. A line-break permit may be correct until another crew changes pressure, isolation, or drainage conditions.

Step 6: Assign one interface owner for each red or amber overlap

On days 5 and 6, assign one interface owner for every red or amber overlap. The owner is the person who can change sequence, timing, barricades, access, resource allocation, or work release. That usually means an operations leader, area owner, or shutdown coordinator, not the person who merely updates the spreadsheet.

This is the point where many SIMOPS routines become weak. EHS identifies the conflict, contractors explain their plan, supervisors negotiate, and no one has authority to say which work waits. The map then records concern without changing exposure.

Andreza Araujo's book A Ilusao da Conformidade, glossed as The Illusion of Compliance, is relevant because SIMOPS can look controlled while authority remains vague. The interface owner turns visible concern into a decision.

Step 7: Write stop and escalation triggers before work begins

On days 6 and 7, write the stop and escalation triggers for each critical overlap. Typical triggers include unplanned work in the mapped area, changed weather, failed gas test, blocked emergency route, changed lift path, missing spotter, delayed isolation, contractor crew change, additional vehicle movement, or a permit condition that no longer matches the field.

The rule should say who stops, who is called, how quickly the decision must be made, and what evidence is needed before restart. A vague phrase such as escalate to management is too weak when two crews are already waiting with tools in hand.

Link this step with the field risk escalation matrix. SIMOPS needs the same clarity because the supervisor closest to the overlap should not have to invent authority while production pressure is rising.

Step 8: Run a daily SIMOPS review and revise the map

On days 8 to 10, run the SIMOPS review at the daily coordination meeting. Keep it short enough for supervisors to use, but specific enough to change work. Review new work, changed work, unresolved red items, amber conditions, shared controls, emergency routes, and any field condition that invalidated yesterday's map.

The review should produce decisions, not only awareness. A decision may resequence work, separate crews, add a spotter, change access, delay a lift, move material, assign a rescue resource, or require a fresh permit walkdown. If the review never changes the plan, the map is not doing control work.

In more than 250 cultural transformation projects supported by Andreza Araujo, a recurring pattern appears: organizations improve when leaders make field risk visible early enough to act. SIMOPS mapping follows the same principle. It does not reward the cleanest plan. It rewards the plan that survives contact with real work.

SIMOPS map compared with common planning tools

A SIMOPS risk map does not replace the normal planning system. It connects the planning system at the point where separate approvals meet the same field condition.

Conclusion

A SIMOPS risk map works when it changes what happens before overlap begins. It should expose shared controls, name interface owners, and give supervisors a stop rule that survives pressure from schedule, contractors, and production recovery.

If your operation has many permits, contractors, lifts, energy isolations, and vehicle movements happening at the same time, the risk is probably not inside one document. It is between documents, teams, and decisions. Andreza Araujo can help connect risk management, safety culture, and field leadership routines through Andreza Araujo.