In this article, the author offers suggestions as to why Normal Accidents, and the theory it formed, continues to provoke. By placing a meaningful frame around flows of events, normal accident theory allows people to better grasp and analyze the complexity of technological organizations as they face the unexpected.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Lanzara, G. F. (1999). Between transient constructs and persistent structures: Designing systems in action. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8, 331-349.
2.
McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (1997). Strategic leadership: A view from quantum and chaos theories. Health Care Management Review, 22(1), 21-37.
3.
Paget, M. (1988). The unity of mistakes: A phenomenological interpretation of medical work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
4.
Snook, S. (2000). Friendly fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
Turner, B. (1978). Man-made disasters. London: Wykeham.
6.
Turner, B. A., &. Pidgeon, N. F. (1997). Man-made disasters (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
7.
Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 16(3), 571-593.
8.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Hospitals as cultures of entrapment: A re-analysis of the Bristol Royal Infirmary. California Management Review, 45(2), 73-84.
