Challenges, dilemmas, and quality criteria for safety reviews.

Five generic dilemmas shared by most safety reviews are identified, namely the complexity dilemma, the specialisation dilemma, the criteria dilemma, the independence dilemma and the ethical dilemma. These dilemmas are not always made sufficiently transparent, which may lead to a too optimistic view of what can be achieved by safety reviews. A two-dimensional characterisation of safety reviews is suggested; the dimensions are the degree of independence and the scope of the review. In conclusion ten quality criteria are proposed that can be used to cope with the dilemmas of conducting safety reviews.

Does the concept of safety culture help or hinder systems thinking in safety?

The concept of safety culture has become established in safety management applications in all major safety-critical domains. The idea that safety culture somehow represents a "systemic view" on safety is seldom explicitly spoken out, but nevertheless seem to linger behind many safety culture discourses. However, in this paper we argue that the "new" contribution to safety management from safety culture never really became integrated with classical engineering principles and concepts. This integration would have been necessary for the development of a more genuine systems-oriented view on safety; e.g. a conception of safety in which human, technological, organisational and cultural factors are understood as mutually interacting elements. Without of this integration, researchers and the users of the various tools and methods associated with safety culture have sometimes fostered a belief that "safety culture" in fact represents such a systemic view about safety. This belief is, however, not backed up by theoretical or empirical evidence. It is true that safety culture, at least in some sense, represents a holistic term-a totality of factors that include human, organisational and technological aspects. However, the departure for such safety culture models is still human and organisational factors rather than technology (or safety) itself. The aim of this paper is to critically review the various uses of the concept of safety culture as representing a systemic view on safety. The article will take a look at the concepts of culture and safety culture based on previous studies, and outlines in more detail the theoretical challenges in safety culture as a systems concept. The paper also presents recommendations on how to make safety culture more systemic.

Competing values, tensions and trade-offs in management of nuclear power plants.

The specific goal of the study is to look how tensions, competing values and trade-offs manifest in the management of nuclear power plants. Second goal is to inspect how existing frameworks, such as Competing Values Framework, can be used to model the tensions. Empirical data consists of thirty interviews that were conducted as part of a NKS study on safety culture in the Nordic nuclear branch. Eight trade-offs are identified based on a grounded theory based analysis of the interview data. The competing values and potential tensions involved in the trade-offs are discussed.

Strategies for dealing with resistance to recommendations from accident investigations.

Accident investigation reports usually lead to a set of recommendations for change. These recommendations are, however, sometimes resisted for reasons such as various aspects of ethics and power. When accident investigators are aware of this, they use several strategies to overcome the resistance. This paper describes strategies for dealing with four different types of resistance to change. The strategies were derived from qualitative analysis of 25 interviews with Swedish accident investigators from seven application domains. The main contribution of the paper is a better understanding of effective strategies for achieving change associated with accident investigation.

What you find is not always what you fix--how other aspects than causes of accidents decide recommendations for remedial actions.

In accident investigation, the ideal is often to follow the principle "what-you-find-is-what-you-fix", an ideal reflecting that the investigation should be a rational process of first identifying causes, and then implement remedial actions to fix them. Previous research has however identified cognitive and political biases leading away from this ideal. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the same factors that often are highlighted in modern accident models are not perceived in a recursive manner to reflect how they influence the process of accident investigation in itself. Those factors are more extensive than the cognitive and political biases that are often highlighted in theory. Our purpose in this study was to reveal constraints affecting accident investigation practices that lead the investigation towards or away from the ideal of "what-you-find-is-what-you-fix". We conducted a qualitative interview study with 22 accident investigators from different domains in Sweden. We found a wide range of factors that led investigations away from the ideal, most which more resembled factors involved in organizational accidents, rather than reflecting flawed thinking. One particular limitation of investigation was that many investigations stop the analysis at the level of "preventable causes", the level where remedies that were currently practical to implement could be found. This could potentially limit the usefulness of using investigations to get a view on the "big picture" of causes of accidents as a basis for further remedial actions.