A JHA follows a simple, repeatable logic, and once you see the structure it stops being intimidating. The core is three columns of thinking applied to one task:
Break the job into steps. Take the task and lay it out in its basic sequence — not every micro-motion, but the meaningful steps a worker actually performs, in order.
Identify the hazard in each step. For each step, ask what could cause harm — the caught-between, the fall, the exposure, the struck-by. One step often has more than one hazard.
Define the control for each hazard. For every hazard, specify how it's controlled, following the hierarchy of controls — eliminate or engineer it out where you can, then administrative controls and PPE.
The result is a document that turns "be careful" into a specific, teachable plan for a specific task. Good JHAs are also living: they get reviewed when the task, equipment, or conditions change, and after any incident tied to that task.
The two places JHAs go wrong
The first is being too generic — a JHA that could describe anyone's job describes no one's, and won't hold up when a task actually has site- or equipment-specific hazards. The second is the opposite: drowning in detail nobody will read. A useful JHA is specific to the real hazards of the real task, at a level a crew will actually use in a pre-job briefing.