An interpretive model of safety performance - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: discuss about the An interpretive model of safety performance. Answer: Introduction This study deals with understanding the concept of Accident Investigation that fulfils the critical role for supporting continual improvement process (Zohar 2014). The process can be judged by managing occupational health as well as safety. The current segment help in explaining the large scale accident that results in assessing the performance of business by looking at the negative impacts like absence or injury, morale, higher insurance premiums, reduced productivity, negative media attention as well as increased likelihood of enforcement action and performance. It is necessary for both large and small organization to select appropriate accident causation models in order to prevent such accidents in future. It is for this reason why business enterprise should consider their approach for investigating certain accidents by utilizing learning opportunities as well as identifying deficiencies within their Occupational Safety and Health Management System. By adopting this method, busine ss organization will be able to understand the underlying cause behind the occurrence or accident. The present study elaborates about the significance of accident or incident investigations for preventing such repetitive cycle of misleading towards large-scale accident in case of any rail junction crash and the Herald of Free Enterprises that capsizes several accidents (Zohar and Polachek 2014). Entire study had been conducted to critically understand the success of accident causation theory, models as well as technique for examining small-scale and large-scale industrial event and accidents at the same time. Purpose of Accident Investigation Even if there is proper planning and forward thinking in the world, there will be still accidents happening at workplace. To avoid or minimize this type of accident in workplace, effective health and safety training should be conducted, as it will reduce the likelihood of an accident that take place. It is impossible to eliminate the possible for an incident or decrease the chances down to zero. The main aim of accident investigation is to evaluate what led to occurrence of such accidents with the ultimate aim of highlighting what can be enhanced such as safety controls, changes to defensive equipment and working practice. By this, same accident will not happen twice and even prevent serious accident taking place at some point of time in the near future (Zhou, Goh and Li 2015). Discussion on different Accident causation models as well as investigation methods Various Accident Causation Models as well as investigation methods that are readily available but it is treated crucial that business enterprise selects suitable model that reflects the complexity of the organizational systems that needs to be investigated beforehand. It is important to look at the greater likelihood for identifying deeper underlying causes of accidents. Selleck (2017) opines certain key factors that take into account degree of flexibility within operations as well as level of stability in association with the work environment and the involvement of manageability process. Accident Causation Theory is one of the theoretical models that display how an accident takes place in business enterprise. Addition to that, this particular model relies upon both organizational hierarchy as well as human error in given period. Furthermore, the model assumes that the distinctive accident occurs when numerous human errors have occurred at all levels in the managerial hierarchy in a way so that no such accident can be avoided. Sequential linear accident models is one of the model that display the idea where accidents are the result of a sequence of proceedings that takes place in a detailed as well as identifiable order (Yuan, Li and Tetrick 2015). Heinrichs Domino theory Heinrichs Domino Theory is one of the first sequential accident models where certain accident factors are taken into consideration of as being lined up sequentially such as dominos. This particular model is based on an assumption where the incidence of an avoidable injury is the natural culmination of a sequence of proceedings or situations that perpetually takes place in a permanent or reasonable order (Zhou, Goh and Li 2015). There are five factors associated to this theory and these factors are: Figure: Heinrichs five factors (Source: Wu et al. 2015) Fault of the person Accident Social environment or ancestry Unsafe acts, physical hazards and mechanical hazards Injury By using this model, accidents could be prevented and this is possible by removing one of the above-mentioned factors and so disrupting the knockdown effect. The model proposes that unsafe acts as well as mechanical hazards bring out certain factor especially in the accident series. Figure: Direct and proximate accident causes according to Heinrichs Domino theory (Source: Wachter and Yorio 2014) Epidemiological models Epidemiological accident models are one of the models that can be traced back to the reading of disease epidemics as well as the explore for causal factors around their expansion. Podgrski (2015) predicts that injuries as differentiated from disease are evenly vulnerable to these methods. Furthermore, accident prevention methods match equally with epidemiological accident model emphasis upon mainly in performance deviations as well as explaining the concept of underlying causes of the accident. Addition to that, the causes might be found in divergence or unsafe acts that either are suppressed or eliminated that can prevent the accident happening again (Zhou, Goh and Li 2015). Swiss cheese Accident Causation Model Swiss cheese model is one of the accident causation models that are used in risk analysis as well as risk management. It mainly takes into account aviation safety, emergency service business enterprise, engineering and health care service. The real reason behind implementing this model is illustrating on how active and concealed failures combine for generating the conditions needed to impulsive an unfavorable event (Sinelnikov, Inouye and Kerper 2015). Dynamic between Humans Technology within Work Processes Environments The dynamic between humans and technology within the work process and environment had become multifaceted by nature that need to identify root causes of unfavorable events by using linear based methods. Addition to that, accident causation models develops to keep pace with this communal technological scheme. Furthermore, systematic causation models are one of the models that aim at adopting holistic view of the overall system. The model shows interrelationships between concepts like organizational culture as well as management commitment to understand the behavior of the individuals (Mullen, Kelloway and Teed 2017). The crucial feature of systematic models is that single component failings within the systems like errors, but not direct causes of accidents (Zhou, Goh and Li 2015). Furthermore, accidents are the consequences of dysfunctional inter-reactions between system mechanism as well as creating recurring error traps. For instance, Bhopal, the Herald of Free Enterprise capsizing and Chernobyl is one of the large scale accidents that was caused by patterns of systematic organizational behavior for a given time frame as well as suggesting aggressive cost-cutting strategy as it is important contributor to this behavior. However, the focus of accident investigation is to rely upon why defense failed and blame individuals for mistakes (Luning et al. 2015). High Hazard industries (examining and acting upon small scale accidents is an effectual way to prevent larger scale events by classifying negative cultures accountable for concealed breakdown) One of the most common prevention strategy that are used by high hazard industries like nuclear generation contains usage of multiple barriers as well as safeguarding activities that creates an appropriately robust arrangement as it prevent the alignment of a chain of active as well as latent failures. It is a known fact that business enterprise has very little understanding on matters relating to each of the control barrier. It was opined by Cooper (2015) misinterpreted accident investigation results from reinforcing as well as compounding the illusion of control as remedial action from investigation purpose that takes into account implementing additional layers of control. However, the absence of any of the crucial limit system reveals that business enterprise can feel safe, protection as they have means where they can measure how close the barrier is to breach (Cagno et al. 2014). As rightly put forward by Zohar (2014), system safety is treated as one of the control issue that need a continual focus upon improvement and it act as a proactive management system approach. It is a known fact that examining and acting upon small-scale accidents can be treated as an effective way for avoiding larger scale events by highlighting negative cultures that are accountable for concealed failures. According to Selleck (2017), adopting the principles of High Reliability Organization will guide business enterprise for addressing control imbalances in alignment with defense in-depth systems by developing surroundings that is already occupied with failures by using system of continual improvement. On the contrary, the reliability system help in maintaining high levels of coordination in all the situations that help in undertaking safety related decisions as it is consistent with central aim of the tasks (Lu et al. 2016). Loss of coordination can be treated as one of the key factor in the Tenerife air crash because of under pressure Air Traffic Controller that passes the responsibility for undertaking crucial decision on matters relating to runaway movements to a pilot of a back-taxing aircraft that failed to have a background score of aircraft manoeuvres at the airport On the other hand, critical decisions need to be made to deviate the overall aim of Air Traffic Controller (Armstrong and Taylor 2014). One of the key considerations mainly helps in influencing high reliability performance as it is developed in a positive culture for placing need accountability on safety. Furthermore, it enhances an acknowledging the need for various as well as flexible leadership styles for managing slack effectively and making the business more responsive and dynamic at the same time. However, the further need high investment commitment that shows the act may be inappropriate for smaller as well as less hazardous business enterprise based on cost and risk-relevance in the most effective way (Idris, Dollard and Tuckey 2015). Large and small organizations (can influence the effectiveness of Accident Investigation) Most of the large business enterprise that engages in dealing with complex and high hazard based operations needs to adopt accident investigation methods. It is because these methods render sufficient root cause detection as well as analyze continual improvement in the near future. One of the theory or method known as Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Process shows a systems approach that contains both proactive as well as reactive measures. These measures help in measuring the control problems as and when needed (Di Gravio et al. 2015). One of the basic philosophy of STAMP theory is to preserve an prepared equilibrium by referring to repeated development criticism that help in informing and adjusting controls as it acknowledges the view where accidents takes place for the time frame of disturbance. Other model that can be used in large organization is Management Oversight ad Risk Tress model as it helps in encouraging investigators for moving beyond immediate causes by drilling d own into particular area of interest (Han et al. 2014). On the other hand, smaller business enterprise mostly have incorrect viewpoint about accident causation and they have limited understanding about the benefits that is linked with using feedback loops as a part of frequent upgrading approach especially for health and safety. The perception of this small organization is that accident causation is due to some unforeseen situations. They treated it as a psychological reaction in association with injuring employee whom they have close as well as informal relationship (Guchait, Pa?amehmeto?lu and Dawson 2014). It is recommended to this smaller organization to select suitable models and methods to reduce the accident that takes place at workplace (Zhou, Goh and Li 2015). The decisions need to be made based on complexity of systems as well as knowledge and skill base. Most of the systematic models are too expensive and this smaller organization cannot afford these models for solving the control issue faced. It is suggested to this smaller organization to use or adopt Work Accidents Investigation Technique and HSG245 as these two investigation methods are treated to be appropriate in and across a range of these small business enterprise. Adopting WAIT method by this smaller organization will help in acknowledging the importance of latent failures in accident causation. The other method (HSG245) accident investigation method is explained with the help of templates and documents that increases its potential practicability for smaller organization (Glendon, Clarke and McKenna 2016). Nature and extent of an organizations Proactive Safety Health Management (will control the range, efficiency and quality of Accident Investigation) In this particular question, it is needed to mention about nature and extent of an organizations practical method to the management of safety as well as health as it influences the scope, quality and effectiveness of accident investigation. There is difference notified between proactive as well as reactive approaches that are blurry because one influences on the other. It is opined by Podgrski (2015) that accident investigation model selection where business enterprise need to prioritize the development of an effective reporting culture that is built upon just culture principles. It is necessary to bring improvement in the trust relationships as it ensures an organization-wide as well as collective understanding of the difference between blameless as well as blameworthy. It is important to keep a note on the culture of organization that influences the organizational as well as individual behavior as it recommend latent failures that should be continued to interact and create changing factors for shaping human behavior in a challenging work environment (Fernndez-Muiz, Montes-Pen and Vzquez-Ords 2014). Conclusion At the end of the study, it is concluded by keeping the circumstance of accident causation investigation and prevention by enhancing explaining of association between individuals as well as business enterprise within the social-technical system. The above analysis even look at the role of human factors that are present in form of human behavior as well as error that result to widespread agreement where systematic models are capable to provide complete as well as detailed approach to accident causation. It is even understood that there are several factors that influences the effectiveness of accident causation models as well as methods as employed by business enterprise. There are various factors that directly influences the success within an organization and it need further understanding of level of complexity of own systems as it is coupled with their accident range of consciousness of accident investigation models. Therefore, the combination directly influences the probability for choosing a model that is mostly suitable for the personality business enterprise. It becomes difficult to understand the fact whether accident investigation and prevention can be treated as reactive approach for the purpose of management of safety as well as health. Addition to that, increase use of methods that are based on accident investigation approaches are used in a proactive as well as predictive way. These ways ranges from assessing risk profile and becomes integral part. One of the positive approaches used for accident investigation has the ability to influence employee attitudes as well as perceptions. The general commitment to safety need to identify the real causes behind any of the adverse event or circumstances. Reference List Armstrong, M. and Taylor, S., 2014.Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page Publishers. Cagno, E., Micheli, G.J.L., Jacinto, C. and Masi, D., 2014. An interpretive model of occupational safety performance for Small-and Medium-sized Enterprises.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,44(1), pp.60-74. Cooper, D., 2015. Effective safety leadership: Understanding types styles that improve safety performance.Professional Safety,60(2), p.49. Di Gravio, G., Mancini, M., Patriarca, R. and Costantino, F., 2015. Overall safety performance of Air Traffic Management system: Forecasting and monitoring.Safety science,72, pp.351-362. Fernndez-Muiz, B., Montes-Pen, J.M. and Vzquez-Ords, C.J., 2014. Safety leadership, risk management and safety performance in Spanish firms.Safety science,70, pp.295-307. Glendon, A.I., Clarke, S. and McKenna, E., 2016.Human safety and risk management. Crc Press. Guchait, P., Pa?amehmeto?lu, A. and Dawson, M., 2014. Perceived supervisor and co-worker support for error management: Impact on perceived psychological safety and service recovery performance.International Journal of Hospitality Management,41, pp.28-37. Han, S., Saba, F., Lee, S., Mohamed, Y. and Pea-Mora, F., 2014. Toward an understanding of the impact of production pressure on safety performance in construction operations.Accident Analysis Prevention,68, pp.106-116. Idris, M.A., Dollard, M.F. and Tuckey, M.R., 2015. Psychosocial safety climate as a management tool for employee engagement and performance: A multilevel analysis.International Journal of Stress Management,22(2), p.183. Lu, M., Cheung, C.M., Li, H. and Hsu, S.C., 2016. Understanding the relationship between safety investment and safety performance of construction projects through agent-based modeling.Accident Analysis Prevention,94, pp.8-17. Luning, P.A., Kirezieva, K., Hagelaar, G., Rovira, J., Uyttendaele, M. and Jacxsens, L., 2015. Performance assessment of food safety management systems in animal-based food companies in view of their context characteristics: a European study.Food Control,49, pp.11-22. Mullen, J., Kelloway, E.K. and Teed, M., 2017. Employer safety obligations, transformational leadership and their interactive effects on employee safety performance.Safety science,91, pp.405-412. Podgrski, D. (2015). Measuring operational performance of OSH management systemA demonstration of AHP-based selection of leading key performance indicators.Safety Science,73, 146-166. Selleck, R., 2017. A step change in safety performance through critical control management.The APPEA Journal,57(2), pp.539-542. Sinelnikov, S., Inouye, J. and Kerper, S., 2015. Using leading indicators to measure occupational health and safety performance.Safety science,72, pp.240-248. Wachter, J.K. and Yorio, P.L., 2014. A system of safety management practices and worker engagement for reducing and preventing accidents: An empirical and theoretical investigation.Accident Analysis Prevention,68, pp.117-130. Wu, X., Liu, Q., Zhang, L., Skibniewski, M.J. and Wang, Y., 2015. Prospective safety performance evaluation on construction sites.Accident Analysis Prevention,78, pp.58-72. Yuan, Z., Li, Y. and Tetrick, L.E., 2015. Job hindrances, job resources, and safety performance: The mediating role of job engagement.Applied ergonomics,51, pp.163-171. Zhou, Z., Goh, Y.M. and Li, Q., 2015. Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the construction industry.Safety science,72, pp.337-350. Zohar, D. and Polachek, T., 2014. Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: A randomized field study.Journal of Applied Psychology,99(1), p.113. Zohar, D., 2014. Safety climate: Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement.The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture, pp.317-334.