Citation

Farooqi A, Ryan B, Cobb S. Safety Sci. 2022; 146: e105571.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105571

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Many methods have been developed to understand and improve system safety. Previous research has indicated that a 'research-practice gap' exists in use of methods, where systemic methods are not adopted in practice. This study extends this research, by using interviews and focus groups with 29 safety experts to investigate their choice and use of different error and accident analysis methods. This study supports previous conclusions on the research-practice gap in different analysis approaches taken by researchers and practitioners, and provides new insights in understanding experts' familiarity and willingness to consider safety II approaches to safety analysis, including their interpretations of the principles of emergence and resonance. The key findings were that participants, both with and without prior experience of using FRAM (Functional Resonance Analysis Method, Hollnagel, 2012), used various strategies to identify how performance variabilities may resonate through the system to produce unwanted outcomes. They recognised the value of the safety II perspective in providing detailed recommendations for improving system safety, although some did not understand the underlying concepts, or described FRAM as time consuming and complex to use. There is a need to enhance the practical applicability of emerging methods, which provide further avenues of research.

Language: en

Keywords

Accident analysis; FRAM; Human error identification methods; Research-practice gap; Systems approach