[SystemSafety] Fwd: Re: Safety Culture

[Peter Bernard Ladkin]

On 2017-12-11 11:43 , Fredrik Asplund wrote:
> A) I fully agree that an experiment is the only way to conclusively argue for causality, if you are trying to get at new knowledge.

I don't know who you are agreeing with; certainly not me. If the above were to be the case, nobody
would ever be able to determine causality in an accident. (That is why the Counterfactual Test turns
out to be so useful. It works in individual cases and does not need experiment.)

The problems with assessing "safety culture" are that it is vague. Take my observation that two
industries with admired "safety culture" have dedicated UN agencies. Is it necessary for a
successful safety culture to have a UN agency dedicated to your industry? How would we ever get to
test that? Besides, UN agencies are by no means all as apparently effective as ICAO and IAEA, so
wouldn't it depend upon the quality of the agency, whatever that might be?

You have to go more deeply into the modes of operation. "IAEA does this", "ICAO does that", and
"this" and "that" are seen to be effective. So, say you conclude that "this" is an effective measure
for enhancing overall safety in the industry in question. You try to introduce "this" into some
other industry, and it flounders because operatives in that industry behave differently. Do we
conclude the new industry doesn't have a "safety culture"? Or do we conclude that the culture is
simply different and so "this" is ineffective?

There turns out to be very little guidance; effectiveness lies all in the detail.

Take the suggestion I considered, in which for "X" to be pervasive in a company, it is necessary
that "X" have representation and responsibility at Board level. You'll find this a common mantra -
in Anglo-Saxon-structured companies, as I pointed out. But actually what is expected is much more
detailed. It is expected that accurate information about X within the company will be effectively
transmitted to Board Member M whose responsibility it is. And that if Board Member M notes that some
procedures or phenomena need improving, heshe will take action to get those improvements
implemented, and that the action to implement the improvements will not flounder. There are a lot of
human-behavioural and organisational assumptions in there which must be fulfilled in order for these
measures to be effective. Sometimes they are present (for example, "X" is "finance"); sometimes they
are not. The point here is that "X has representation and responsibility on the Board" is just a
vague summary for a whole lot of detailed internal company procedure which needs to be in place and
effective.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
MoreInCommon
Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de







-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20171212/daae246b/attachment-0001.sig>