Designed systems inevitably rely to some degree for their protection on organizational artefacts. These are rules, procedures, instructions, authority structures and so on that are designed, like physical devices, but have organizational rather than physical functions. An analysis was conducted of maritime accidents to investigate how these organizational artefacts were implicated in failure, and a method was then developed to help system designers to perform a failure modes analysis of these artefacts. The proposal is that analyses of failure modes in physical devices should be accompanied by parallel analysis of failure modes in organizational artefacts.
WildeG. J. S.The theory of risk homeostasis: Implications for safety and health. Risk Analysis, 1982, 2, 209–225.
3.
ReasonJ.Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, 1997 (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire).
4.
RasmussenJ.Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Sci., 1997, 27, 183–213.
5.
EvanW. M.EvanW. M.Minding the Machines. Preventing Technological Disasters, 2002 (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey).
6.
ReasonJ.The identification of latent organisational failures in complex systems. In Verification and Validation of Complex Systems: Human Factor Issues (Eds WiseJ. A.HopkinV. D.StagerP.), 1992 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).
7.
LutzhoftM. H.LutzhoftM. H.On your watch: Automation on the bridge. J. Navig., 2002, 55, 83–96.
8.
VaughanD.Autonomy, interdependence, and social control: NASA and the Space Shuttle Challenger. Admve Sci. Q., 1990, 35, 225–257.
9.
KirwanB.The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques—THERP, HEART and JEDI. Part 1: Technique descriptions and validation issues. Appl. Ergonomics, 1996, 27, 359–373.
10.
AnsellJ.Reliability: Industrial risk assessment. In Risk: Analysis, Assessment and Management (Eds AnsellJ.WhartonF.), 1992 (John Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex).
