Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety

被引:158
作者
Dekker, S [1 ]
机构
[1] Linkoping Inst Technol, Dept Mech Engn, Div Ind Ergon, SE-58183 Linkoping, Sweden
关键词
procedures; adaptation; safety;
D O I
10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00031-0
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
This paper introduces two models on procedures and safety and assesses the practical consequences these have for organizations trying to make progress on safety through procedures. The application of procedures is contrasted as rote rule following versus substantive cognitive activity. It reveals a fundamental double bind: operators can fail to adapt procedures when adapting proved necessary, or attempt procedural adaptations that may fail. Rather than simply increasing pressure to comply, organizations should invest in their understanding of the gap between procedures and practice, and help develop operators' skill at adapting. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:233 / 238
页数:6
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], MAINTENANCE HUMAN FA
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1994, HUMAN ERROR COGNITIV
  • [3] CARLEY WM, 1999, WALL STREET J 0121
  • [4] Human Factor Analysis of JCO Criticality Accident
    K. Furuta
    K. Sasou
    R. Kubota
    H. Ujita
    Y. Shuto
    E. Yagi
    [J]. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2000, 2 (4) : 182 - 203
  • [5] GOTEMAN O, 2001, FLIGHT DECK CALLOUTS
  • [6] HANCOCK PA, 1995, GLOBAL APPROACHES EC, P14
  • [7] Klein GA, 1993, DECISION MAKING ACTI, P138, DOI DOI 10.1002/BDM.3960080307
  • [8] Lautman L, 1987, CONTROL CREW CAUSED, P1
  • [9] McDonald N, 2002, P 5 WORKSH HUM ERR S
  • [10] MESSICKHUEY B, 2000, WORKLOAD TRANSITION