Disclaimer! This
is NOT an opinion piece, but rather a collection of various readings
and clippings which
serve to spur further exploration in the topic. These are not full
articles but simply excerpts from the bulk of reading material that is
available. As much
citation and references were taken with regards to the topic. Legitimacy
and
accuracy of the clippings are read at your own discretion.
Click here for More Aviation Reads
Safety I vs Safety II: An overview
Different philosophies and not opposing.
What goes wrong to what goes right?
Safety should not only be reactive but proactive as well.
The traditional thinking about safety has reached some notable landmarks, but the constantly renewed list of unexpected incidents comes to underline a need for a change in safety perception, unveiling there could be more than the traditional ways of ‘doing safety’.
A 2013 white paper by Professors Erik Hollnagel, Robert L Wears and
Jeffrey Braithwaite came to redefine the way we see safety with the
introduction of a new definition at the scope: The ‘Safety II’ concept
argues that we should stop focusing only on how to stop things from
going wrong but emphasize on why things go right instead.
The
‘Safety-II’ perspective acts as an evolutionary complement of the
conventional safety thinking, referred as ‘Safety I’.
Safety I
picture source https://blog.sucuri.net/2019/07/how-to-stop-a-ddos-attack-prevent-future-attacks.html
- Takes accidents as the focus point and tries to prevent bad
things from occurring
- An accident investigation through the lens of Safety I is to identify
the causes of adverse outcomes, while risk assessment aims to determine
their likelihood
- As little things to go wrong
- As little things done wrong as possible.
- Safety I relates to a condition where the aim is to be sure that the number of unwanted outputs will be as low as possible.
Safety II
picture source https://www.ethozgroup.com/blog/spread-positivity-not-negativity/
- emphasizing on ensuring that
as much as possible goes right, expanding much more than the area of
incident prevention and promoting a real safety management over a simple
risk assessment.
- Accident investigations under
Safety-II seek to understand how things usually go right, as this forms
the basis for explaining how things go wrong, while risk assessment aims
‘to understand the conditions where performance variability can become
difficult to control’.
- Safety II concerns the condition of being certain that the success of outputs will be as high as possible.
- As many things to go right? What went right?
Notably, the new concept does not seek to supersede what is already being done, but to complement the current approach, which means that many of the existing practices can continue to be used, just ‘with a different emphasis’. However, one cannot exist without the other.
SAFETY I vs SAFETY II
| Safety I | Safety II |
| Learn from our errors | Learn from our successes |
| Safety defined by absence | Safety defined by presence |
| Reactive approach | Proactive approach |
| Understand what goes wrong | Understand what goes right? |
| Accident causation | Repeat what goes right |
| Avoid errors | Enforce successful behaviors |
| Reduce losses | Create new process on successful behavior |
The way forward for a change of mentality seems long in an industry which has traditionally learned to shed focus on near miss reporting, but not on positive reporting, to claim liability but care less on praising exceptionally good performance.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285396555_Erik_Hollnagel_Safety-I_and_Safety-II_the_past_and_future_of_safety_management
- https://safety4sea.com/cm-safety-i-vs-safety-ii-an-overview/
- https://vimeo.com/89492241
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-man-cave/201908/toxic-positivity-dont-always-look-the-bright-side
This is a very useful blog that you shared with us,
ReplyDeletethank you
regards
hiring hacker