Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this century society faces increasingly large-scale accidents and risks emerging from our own wondrous technologies. Two prominent organizational approaches to safety, Normal Accident Theory and High Reliability Organizations, have focused attention on a variety of industries that deal with hazardous situations, developed concepts to explicate organizational structure and culture, and debated whether accidents are inevitable in complex systems. We outline these approaches and identify some limitations, including narrow definitions, ambiguity about key concepts, confusion of reliability and safety, and overly pessimistic or optimistic conclusions. We believe that the debate between NAT and HRO can become a more productive three-way conversation by including a systems approach to safety emerging from engineering disciplines. The more comprehensive systems approach clarifies the strengths and weaknesses of NAT and HRO and offers a more powerful repertoire of analytic tools and intervention strategies to manage and control post modern risk in complex, high-tech, systems with their potential for catastrophic disruptions and losses.

Keywords

accidents safety risk reliability complexity socio-technical systems

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albee, Arden et al. 2000 `Report on the loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 Missions'. JPL Special Review Board, JPLD-18709, 29 March.

Beck, Ulrich 1992 Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Los Angeles: Sage.

Checkland, Peter 1981 Systems thinking, Systems practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Clarke Lee 1993 `Drs. Pangloss and Strangelove Meet Organizational Theory: High Reliability Organizations and Nuclear Weapons Accidents', Sociological Forum, 8:675-689.

Conant, R.C. , and W.R. Ashby 1970 `Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system'. International Journal of System Science 1: 89-97.

Dekker, Sydney W. A. 2005 Ten questions about human error: A new view of human factors and system safety. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dierks, Meghan M. , Nicolas Dulac , Nancy Leveson , Margaret Stringfellow

2008

`System dynamics approach to modeling risk in complex healthcare settings'. Proceedings of the System Dynamics Conference . Athens.

Dulac, Nicolas ; Brandon D. Owens , and Nancy G. Leveson

2007

`Modeling risk management in the development of space exploration systems'. International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Conference, Chicago, May 2007.

Hollnagel, Erik 2004 Barriers and accident prevention. Hampshire , England: Ashgate.

10.

Kasperson, Roger 1986 `Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication'. Risk Analysis 6: 275-281.

11.

La Porte , Todd R. 1996 `High reliability organizations: Unlikely, demanding, and at risk'. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 63/4.

12.

La Porte, Todd R. , and Paula Consolini 1991 `Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of high-reliability organizations'. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1: 19-47.

13.

Leplat, Jacques 1987 `Occupational accident research and systems approach' in New technology and human error. Jens Rasmussen , Keith Duncan , and Jacques Leplat (eds), 181-191. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Leveson, Nancy G. 1995 Safeware: System safety and computers. Addison-Wesley.

15.

Leveson, Nancy G. 2004 `New accident model for engineering safer systems' . Safety Science 42/4: 237-270.

16.

Leveson, Nancy G. , Nicolas Dulac , Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld , Betty Barrett , John Carroll , David Zipkin , and Stephan Friedenthal

2005

`Modeling, analyzing, and engineering safety culture'. First International Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Space Safety, Nice, October 2005.

17.

Owens, Brandon D. , Margaret Herring , Nicolas Dulac , Nancy G Leveson , Michel Ingham , and Kathryn Weiss

2008

`Application of a safety-driven design methodology to an outer planet exploration mission'. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, March 2008.

18.

Perrow, Charles 1999 Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

19.

Rasmussen, Jens 1997 `Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem' . Safety Science 27/2-3: 183-213.

20.

Roberts, H. Karlene 1990a `Managing high reliability organizations'. California Management Review 32/4: 101-114.

21.

Roberts, H. Karlene 1990b `Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization'. Organization Science 1/2: 160-176.

22.

Rochlin, Gene I. , Todd R. La Porte , and Karlene H. Roberts 1987 `The self-designing high reliability organization'. Naval War College Review, Autumn.

23.

Rogers, William P. 1986 Report of the Presidential Commission on the space shuttle Challenger accident. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

24.

Sagan, Scott D. 1995 The limits of safety. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.

25.

Sterman, J. John 2000 Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill .

26.

Turner, Barry A. 1978 Man-made disaster. London: Wykeham.

27.

Weick, Karl E. 1987 `Organizational culture as a source of high reliability' . California Management Review 29/2: 112-127.

28.

Weick, Karl E. , and Karlene H. Roberts 1993 `Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks'. Administrative Science Quarterly 38/3: 357-381.

29.

Weick, Karl E. , K. Sutcliffe , and D. Obstfeld 1999 `Organizing for high reliability'. Research in Organizational Behavior 21: 81-123.

30.

Woods, David D. , and Richard I. Cook 2002 `Nine steps to move forward from error'. Cognition, Technology, and Work 4/2: 137-144.

Moving Beyond Normal Accidents and High Reliability Organizations: A Systems Approach to Safety in Complex Systems

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References