Balancing Safety I and Safety II: Learning to manage performance variability at sea using simulator-based training

Abstract The article explores how simulator-based training of professional maritime deck officers can improve the management of performance variability and safety during critical operations at sea. The research has a qualitative design and is based on observational data from two different training programmes and interviews with simulator instructors and experienced mariners attending these programmes. Learning and performance variability in this specific context is explored through the lenses of Resilience Engineering. The study aims to provide guidance to practitioners and researchers on how to achieve resilient performance. The data illustrates three key aspects in learning to manage variability: the ability to prevent adverse events by recognising anomalies and solve problems in a flexible manner, the ability to define limits of action through shared knowledge and the ability to operate the system with confidence. The results indicate that the simulator offers a necessary backdrop for realistic tasks that forms the basis for experiential learning and joint reflection among professionals. The study demonstrates that history of failure works as a repository for highlighting and improving the skills and confidence needed to deal with situational complexity and to maintain operational variability.

[1]  Donald A. Schön The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action , 1986 .

[2]  Magnus Hontvedt,et al.  Professional vision in simulated environments — Examining professional maritime pilots' performance of work tasks in a full-mission ship simulator , 2015 .

[3]  Gesa Praetorius,et al.  Modelling Vessel Traffic Service to understand resilience in everyday operations , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[4]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Joint Cognitive Systems: Patterns in Cognitive Systems Engineering , 2006 .

[5]  S. Timmermans,et al.  Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research , 2014 .

[6]  Jan Hayes,et al.  Use of safety barriers in operational safety decision making , 2012 .

[7]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness , 1974 .

[8]  Tarcisio Abreu Saurin,et al.  The design of scenario-based training from the resilience engineering perspective: a study with grid electricians. , 2014, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  Margaret Thomson Crichton From cockpit to operating theatre to drilling rig floor: five principles for improving safety using simulator-based exercises to enhance team cognition , 2016, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[10]  Gesa Praetorius,et al.  Control and Resilience Within the Maritime Traffic Management Domain , 2014 .

[11]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Barriers And Accident Prevention , 2004 .

[12]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Prologue: Resilience Engineering Concepts , 2006 .

[13]  Johan Bergström,et al.  On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[14]  Riccardo Patriarca,et al.  Modelling complexity in everyday operations: functional resonance in maritime mooring at quay , 2017, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[15]  Aud Marit Wahl,et al.  Expanding the concept of simulator fidelity: the use of technology and collaborative activities in training maritime officers , 2019, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[16]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human Supervisory Control , 2012 .

[17]  D. Kolb Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[18]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Making sense of qualitative data , 1996 .

[19]  Tarcisio Abreu Saurin,et al.  A systematic literature review of resilience engineering: Research areas and a research agenda proposal , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[20]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook , 2012 .

[21]  Mario F. Triola,et al.  Elementary Statistics , 1999 .

[22]  T. Laporte,et al.  Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations” , 1991 .

[23]  Hans Christian Arnseth,et al.  On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator , 2013, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[24]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  A Tale of Two Safeties , 2012 .

[25]  David D. Woods,et al.  Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience engineering , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[26]  Carlos Torres Formoso,et al.  Safety-I and safety-II: opportunities for an integrated approach in the construction industry , 2020, Proceedings: 8th REA Symposium on Resilience Engineering: Scaling up and Speeding up Linnaeus Univerity, Kalmar, Sweden, 24th-27th June 2019.

[27]  W. Ashby,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957 .

[28]  Jon Ivar Håvold,et al.  The Human Factor and Simulator Training for Offshore Anchor Handling Operators , 2015 .

[29]  K. Weick The Vulnerable System: An Analysis of the Tenerife Air Disaster , 1990 .

[30]  David Woods,et al.  Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts , 2006 .

[31]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  The Four Cornerstones of Resilience Engineering , 2016 .

[32]  Scott A. Snook,et al.  Friendly Fire , 2000 .

[33]  Riccardo Patriarca,et al.  Resilience Engineering: current status of the research and future challenges , 2018 .

[34]  Nancy G. Leveson,et al.  A new accident model for engineering safer systems , 2004 .

[35]  A. Hale,et al.  Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review , 2013 .

[36]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem , 1997 .

[37]  C. Argyris Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. , 1976 .

[38]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management , 2014 .

[39]  D. Woods,et al.  Behind Human Error , 2010 .

[40]  N. Dahlstrom,et al.  Fidelity and validity of simulator training , 2009 .

[41]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials , 2017 .