Not much to say – some extracts from a 2007 chapter from Erik Hollnagel, unpacking whether we really need “human error”? I knocked the summary up last night and will probably post in the next couple of weeks. Oh man, I need to give up on chapters…what a slog. He argues: · Human error “is not… Continue reading Hollnagel on “Human error”: error as cause, process or outcome
Tag: new-view
Contextualising new safety paradigms: A study in a large Australian construction company
This study explored the presence, implementation, appetite and feasibility of 12 principles representing “new safety paradigms”. It involved focus groups with 53 participants and a cross-sectional survey of 514 employees. I’ve skipped HEAPS (actually, the entire results section – so check out the full paper). Background: · “The review by Karanikas et al. (2022) revealed… Continue reading Contextualising new safety paradigms: A study in a large Australian construction company
Foundations of Safety Science: Resilience Engineering and safety as the presence of capacities
More extracts from Foundations of Safety Science, this time from Ch.11 on Resilience Engineering and the adaptive perspective. This is 1 of probably 2 or 3 more posts. Some extracts: “Resilience engineering is based on the premise that we are not custodians of already safe systems. Complex systems do not allow us to draw up… Continue reading Foundations of Safety Science: Resilience Engineering and safety as the presence of capacities
Human Factors and New Views of safety applied to management systems: A systematic literature review
This conference paper from Leonidas Brasileiro, Julio Cesar de Faria Alvim Wasserman and Gilson Brito Alves Lima may interest you. It explored how different concepts under HF and New View have been applied to management systems via literature review (2000 – 2023). Note: I’ve skipped a lot, so check out the paper. Some extracts: · “New… Continue reading Human Factors and New Views of safety applied to management systems: A systematic literature review
Doctors are more dangerous than gun owners: a rejoinder to error counting
This 2006 paper from Sid Dekker critically challenges the assumptions underlying “error counting” in safety. Some points: (Not a summary) Error background Error counts by organisations are seen to have numerous benefits – providing “an immediate, numeric estimate of the probability of accidental death, injury or other undesirable event” However, categorising errors requires “a number… Continue reading Doctors are more dangerous than gun owners: a rejoinder to error counting
