Sociotechnical systems (STS) approach to the design of complex systems has been researched extensively. It stresses the fact that system design is never complete; it is an open-ended iterative process wherein designing never stops. With increasing technological advancement and diverse social issues emerging, the new dynamics, system approach has to be followed ingenuously. This Causal System Scenario Tool is applied in this study to a near-miss accident analysis for Indian railways. In particular, we look at the incidence of signal passing at danger (SPAD) by the train pilot due to various sociotechnical and organizational factors. We modify the system scenarios tool by proposing an additional causal system scenario tool. The contribution of this paper is threefold. Firstly, the STS analysis of SPAD is a novel approach. Secondly, STS has been applied in the context of developed economies but we use the Indian scenario, that is, in emerging economies. Thirdly, it contributes to the methodology by supplementing STS analysis with the causal system scenario tool, making it more robust. The first step maps the ‘as is situation’ and utilizes affinity diagram for plotting the issues on the framework. This is followed by replicating the process for the ‘to be situation’ and causal modelling for balancing the system is used, validating this tool. This approach can provide insights to the practitioners and policy makers in designing appropriate interventions to enhance safety of train travel.
AdriaensenA., RiccardoP.SmokerA., & BergströmJ. (2019). A socio-technical analysis of functional properties in a joint cognitive system: a case study in an aircraft cockpit. Ergonomics. 62, 1-48. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2019.1661527
2.
AnandG., GunjanS., & SuryaP. (2013). The review of supply chain management research: An Indian perspective. IIM kozhikode Society and Management Review, 2(1), 1–19.
3.
AssociationI. E. (2016). Definition and domains of ergonomics. Retrieved June13, 2018 from International Ergonomics Association, http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html
4.
AxtellC. M., PK.., WallT. D., & GardnerP. (2001). Designing and evaluating new ways of working: The application of some sociotechnical tools. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 11(1), 1–18.
5.
BentleyT., TeoS., McLeodL., TanF., & BosuaR. G. (2016). The role of organizational support in teleworker wellbeing: A sociotechnical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207–215.
6.
BosurgiG., FisichellaG., & OP. (2007). A method to analyze the signal passes at danger (SPAD). 4th International SIIV Congress. Palmero,Italy: 4th International SIIV Congress. Retrieved from www.siiv.net/site/sites/default/files/Documenti/palermo/63_2848_20080120200729.pdf
7.
CarayonP. (2006). Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 525–535.
8.
ChernsA. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design.. Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792.
9.
ChernsA. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Human Relations, 40(3), 153–161.
10.
CleggC. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics . Applied Ergonomics, 31(5), 463–477.
11.
CleggC. W., GrayM. O., WatersonP. E., & . (2000). The charge of the byte brigade and a socio-technical response.. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(2), 235–251.
12.
CleggC., & WalshS. (2004). Change management: Time for a change!European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 217–239.
13.
DabekaussenM., SchaffT. V., & WrightL. (2007). Improving incident analysis in the Dutch railway sector. Safety Science Monitor, 1–3.
14.
DavisM. C.-T. (2014). Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: A call for bravery. Applied Ergonomics, 45(2), 171–180.
15.
de VriesL., & BligårdL.-O. (2019). Visualising safety: The potential for using sociotechnical systems models in prospective safety assessment and design. Safety Science., 111, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.09.003.
16.
DekkerS. (2011). Drift into failure: From hunting broken components to understanding complex systems. Aldershot: Ashgate.
17.
EdkinsG. D., & PollockC. (1997). The influence of sustained attention on railway accidents. Accident Analysis and Preview, 29(4), 533-539. Retrieved September10, 2014, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145759700033X
18.
EdmondsonL. D., FlorianK. K., & RoggeS. (2019). The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 48(10).
19.
EliasA. A. (2017). Systems thinking and modelling for stakeholder management. IIM Kozhikode Society and Management Review, 6(2), 123–131.
20.
FordR. (2001, April4). The forgotten driver. Transport Research International Documentation, 58(628), 45–52. Retrieved September14, 2014.
21.
GohY. M., HB.., & SpickettJ. (2010). Goh, Y. M., Brown Applying systems thinking concepts in the analysis of major incidents and safety culture. Safety Science, 48(3), 302-309.
22.
HendrickH. W. (1991). Ergonomics in organizational design and management. Ergonomics, 34(6), 743–756.
23.
HollnagelE., & GotemanO. (2004). The functional resonance accident model. Proceedings of Cognitive System Engineering in Process Plant, 155–161.
24.
HughesH. P., CleggChris W., BoltonL. E., & MachonL. C. (2017). Systems scenarios: A tool for facilitating the socio-technical design of work systems, . Ergonomics, 60(10), 1319-1335,. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1288272
25.
Independent Transport Safety and Reliability, Regulator (ITSRR). (2009, September). SPAD management: An information paper. ITSRR.
26.
KleinerB. M. (2006). . Macroergonomics: Analysis and design of work systems.. Applied Ergonomics, 37(1), 81–89.
27.
KohlsH.-H., & WatsonR. (2010). SPAD: Reducing timetable related risk. In KohlsH.-H., WatsonR., & SciuttoG. (Eds.), Safety and security in Railway Engineering (p. 8). Loughborough, UK: WIT Press. doi: 10.2495/978-1-84564-496-3/14
28.
LeavittH. J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry: Structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In LeavittH. J., & MarchJ. G. (Eds.), Handbook of organizations, (pp. 1144-1170). Rand McNally & Company.
29.
LevesonN. G.. (2004). A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science, 42(4), 237–270.
30.
LevesonN. G. (2011). Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events. Safety Science, 49(1), 55–64.
31.
LiA., RichN., FoundP., KumarM., & BrownS. (2020). Exploring product–service systems in the digital era: A socio-technical systems perspective,. The TQM Journal, ahead-of-print. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2019-0272
32.
MayJ., HorberryT., & GaleA. (1996). Railway Signal passed at danger: The prevention of human error. In MayJ., HorberryT., GaleA., & RobertsonS. (Eds.), Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 221-227). London, Uk: Taylor and Francis.
33.
McGowanA.-M. R. S.DalyW. B., PapalambrosP., & SeifertC. (2013). A socio-technical perspective on interdisciplinary interactions during the development of complex engineered systems. Procedia Computer Science, 16, 1142–1151.
34.
MetcalfeR. (2006). Management of SPAD risk: The UK experience. Rail Achieving Growth, (pp. 465-469). Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=212148731768896;res=IELENG
35.
Ministry of Railways. (2014). Indian Railways safety performance. New Delhi: Government of India Press.
36.
Ministry of Railways. (n.d.). Indian Railways. Retrieved September8, 2014, from indianrailways.gov.in: http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/eff_res/AssetReliability/EF%20Data%202002-03%20onwards.pdf
37.
MumfordE. (2006). The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Information Systems Journal, 16(4), 317–342.
38.
NaweedA. (2013). Hurry up and wait: Danger signals in the rail environment. Ergonomics Australia, 1–7.
39.
NeleD. G. (2020). Cultural differences in management: Two aspects. IIM Kozhikode Society and Management Review, 9(1), 9–22.
40.
PatriarcaR., BergstromJ., & GravioG. (2017). Defining the functional resonance analysis space: Combining abstraction hierarchy and FRM reliability. Engineering and System safety, 165, 34–46.
41.
PremkumarP. & RamkumarP. (2019). Literature review of locomotive assignment problem from service operations perspective: The case of Indian Railways. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 8(1), 74–86.
42.
RanjanR., & PrasadD.(2013, March-April). Work-life of Indian Railway’s drivers (loco-pilots). Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 39-48. Retrieved September18, 2014, from www.iosrjournals.org
43.
RasmussenJ. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27(2/3), 183–213.
44.
RDSO, Ministry of Railways. (2012). An analytical study of ALP’s involved in SPAD. Lucknow: Ministry of Railways.
SalmonP. M., CornelissenM., & TrotterM. (2012). Systems-based accident analysis methods: A comparison of Acci Map. HFACS, and STAMP. Safety Science, 50(4), 1158-1170.
47.
SalmonP. M., ReadG. H., GoodeG. J. N., & StantonA. N. (2016). Fitting methods to paradigms: Are ergonomics methods fit for systems thinking?Ergonomics, 60(2), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1103385
48.
SinhaD., & VeerupaxiB. (2019). A causal review of dynamics in Indian ports. IIM kozhikode Socity and Management Review, 8(1), 60–73.
49.
SpiersF., & JohnsonC. (2002, May29). Safety culture in the face of industrial change: A case study from the UK Rail Industry. Retrieved August24, 2014, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.15.3243
50.
StantonN. A., SalmonP., HarrisD., MarshallA., DemagalskiJ., YoungM. S., … DekkerS. (2009). Predicting pilot error: Testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approach. Applied Ergonomics, 40(3), 464–471.
51.
StantonN., & HarveyC. (2017). Beyond human error taxonomies in assessment of risk in sociotechnical systems: A new paradigm with the EAST ‘broken-links’ approach. Ergonomics, 60(2), 221-233. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2016.1232841
52.
TristE. L., & BamforthK. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38.
53.
UnderwoodP., & WatersonP. (2014). Systems thinking, the Swiss cheese model and accident analysis: A comparative systemic analysis of the Grayrigg train derailment using the ATSB. AcciMap and STAMP models,. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 68, 75–94.
54.
VicenteK., & ChristoffersenK. (2006). The Walkerton E. coli outbreak: A test of Rasmussen’s framework for risk management in a dynamic society. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(2), 93–112.
55.
WalkerG. H., GibsonH., StantonN. A., BaberC., SalmonP. M. & GreenD. (2006). Event analysis of systemic teamwork (EAST): A novel integration of ergonomics methods to analyse C4i Activity. 2006. Event Analysis of Ergonomics, 49, 1345–1369.
56.
WastellD. (2011). Managing as designing in the public services: Beyond technomagic. Triarchy Press.
57.
WatersonP., & EasonK. (2019). Revisiting the sociotechnical principles for system design (Clegg, 2000). In BagnaraS., TartagliaR., AlbolinoS., AlexanderT., & FujitaY. (Eds), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (pp. 366–74). Springer International Publishing.
58.
WatersonBagnara S., TartagliaR., AlbolinoS., AlexanderT., FujitaY. (Eds), Ergonomics in design, design for all, activity theories for work analysis and design, affective design. (Vol. VII, pp. 366–371). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5
59.
WatersonP., RobertsonM. M., CookeN. J., MilitelloE. R., & StantonN. A. (2015). Defining the methodological challenges and opportunities for an effective science of sociotechnical systems and safety. Ergonomics, 58(4), 565–599.
60.
WiegmannD., ShappellS., BoquetA., DetwilerC., … FaaborgT. (2005). Human error and general aviation accidents: A comprehensive, fine-grained analysis using HFACS. No. DOT/FAA/AM-05/24). Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0524.pdf
