Evaluating advancements in accident investigations using a novel framework

Safety is monitored by various proactive and reactive methods, including the investigation of adverse accidents and incidents, which are collectively known as safety investigations. In this study we demonstrate how accident and incident investigation reports can be useful to identify implicit safety views and accident investigation approaches. An analysis framework was developed based on contemporary safety literature. The framework incorporates aspects such as hindsight bias, judgemental approach, proximal or distal focus, and the application of systemic versus sequential accident causation models. The framework was piloted through the analysis of sixteen (16) accident investigation reports published by a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). The comments of independent researchers lead to framework refinements that increased the inter-rater reliability substantially. The initial results were validated through interviews with the staff of the NPP. Afterwards, the framework was applied to 52 air accident reports published by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) from 1999 to 2013. Frequency calculations revealed the extent of new safety thinking embracement from the DSB, and Fisher’s Exact Test showed that none of the modern safety aspects has changed over time. The framework can be used to analyse accident investigation reports published by various organisations as means to identify implicit safety views and evolution of accident investigation practices over time. Further research will explore the reasons for potential gaps between theory and practice and contribute to minimizing such distance.

[1]  J. Elliott Safety I and safety II: the past and future of safety management , 2016, Ergonomics.

[2]  Emmanuel Manatakis,et al.  Towards an evaluation of accident investigation methods in terms of their alignment with accident causation models , 2009 .

[3]  P. Waterson,et al.  Accident analysis models and methods: guidance for safety professionals , 2013 .

[4]  Nancy G. Leveson,et al.  Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety , 2012 .

[5]  Maurizio Catino,et al.  A Review of Literature: Individual Blame vs. Organizational Function Logics in Accident Analysis , 2008 .

[6]  J. Shaoul Human Error , 1973, Nature.

[7]  E. Hollnagel,et al.  The context and habits of accident investigation practices: A study of 108 Swedish investigators , 2010 .

[8]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Human factors and folk models , 2004, Cognition, Technology & Work.

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

[10]  工業講話会 安全装置工業事故豫防法 = Industrial accident prevention , 1918 .

[11]  Emery R. Hayhurst,et al.  Industrial Accident Prevention, A Scientific Approach , 1932 .

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

[13]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Study on Developments in Accident Investigation Methods: A Survey of the "State-of-the-Art , 2008 .

[14]  Mark S. Young,et al.  The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error , 2008 .

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