who are we? - uppsala university · training housekeeping 5 mto – a system safety view humans 6...

20
20110411 1 Human and organizational factors in accident and incident investigation – What are they and how can we find them? Lena Kecklund Uppsala Universitet April 4th 2011 Who are we? Consultancy and research in risk prevention concerning 2 the interaction between HuMans (M) Technologies (T) Organisations (O) The lecture Human and organisational factors, what are they? The MTO concept Wh i it i t t? 20110411 3 Why is it important? How can it be applied in accident and incident investigations? Examples Discussion

Upload: others

Post on 08-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

1

Human and organizational factors in accident and incident investigation –

What are they and how can we find them?

Lena Kecklund

Uppsala Universitet April 4th 2011

Who are we?

Consultancy and research  in risk prevention concerning

2

the interaction between

• HuMans (M)

• Technologies (T)

• Organisations (O) 

The lecture

Human and organisational factors, what are they?

• The MTO concept

Wh i it i t t?

2011‐04‐113

• Why is it important?

• How can it be applied in accident and incident investigations?• Examples

• Discussion

Page 2: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

2

MTO – design for humans and useability!

2011‐04‐114

DesignKowledge

Goals

MTO – influences on human behavior

Technology and equipmentRules and practices

Organisation

Humans Technology

Psychology

Physiology

Attitudes and values

Work environment

2011‐04‐11

gy q p

Communicaton

Education andtraining

Housekeeping

5

MTO – a system safety view

HuMans

2011‐04‐116

Technologies Organisations

MTO > M + T + O

Page 3: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

3

Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology – Organisation

(MTO)

• Systematic application of knowledge on human behaviour to optimize the interaction b h l i d

2011‐04‐117

between Humans, Technologies and Organisations 

• To apply knowledge on human behaviour and a system safety view

MTO/Human factors

An example:

”All the ”people” issues we need to consider to assure the lifelong safety and effectiveness of aassure the lifelong safety and effectiveness of a system or organisation”

”Understanding Human Factors v1.0r”,RSSB,UK, 2006

Three Mile Island M + T

2011‐04‐119

Page 4: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

4

Tjernobyl M + T + O

2011‐04‐1110

Fukushima M + T + O + O ?

2011‐04‐1111

2011‐04‐1112

Page 5: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

5

Discussion

Which MTO problems can you find in the nextslide?

2011‐04‐1113

How must humans adapt?

What can go wrong?

2011‐04‐1114

Why accidents occur(Reasons ”Swiss cheese” model)

Technologies• Design• Equipment • Tools

Organisation• Rules and procedures• Planning• Training• Communication• Housekeeping• Maintenance

2011‐04‐1115

• Work environment

HuMans• Competence• Knowledge of task• Motivation• Work satisfaction

ACCIDENT

Page 6: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

6

What is wrong and why?

2011‐04‐1116

2011‐04‐1117

www.csb.gov

Summary –What MTO is about

• System safety view

• Knowledge on human behaviour

2011‐04‐1118

• Methods and tools

Page 7: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

7

Texas City 2005

• Discussion based on the film 

• Film sequence approx 15 min

• Discuss

2011‐04‐1119

• What happened?

• What were the causes?

• Look for M, T och O

Human and organisational factors inHuman and organisational factors in accident investigation

20

Why do accidents and errorsoccur?

• Latent failures (in different parts of the system) creates error/producing conditions

• Unsafe acts och circumstances• Problems in the interaction beteeween Man

T h l i d O i tiTechnologies and Organisation

• Lack of protection; barriers/defences or existingdefences being broken

OFTEN COMBINATIONS IN WELL DEFENDED SYSTEMS

Page 8: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

8

LawsProcure-

mentG l

Right or wrong? Accident

Organi-sationManag-

Society Company Work-place

Person/Group Barriers

Error-d i

Organisational accident causation model

Goals and

demand

Errors and

violations

gmentCultureInformationResources

producing conditions?

LawsProcure-

mentG l

Right or wrong? Accident

Organi-sationManag-

Society Company Work-place

Person/Group Barriers

Error-d i

An example from the medical domain

Goals and

demand

Errors and

violations

gmentCultureInformationResources

producing conditions?

Legislation:Secrets acts

Medical journal not available on a 24 h basis for all involved in treatment

Staff on night-shift duty do not have full information

Risk of making wrong prescription

No barriers

Society

• Law

• Regulators

• Norms• Norms

• Resource allocation

• Demands made in procurements

Page 9: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

9

Company

• Management system• Quality control systems

S ffi• Staffing• Shift schedules/Work hours• Training/Knowledge• Rules, procedures, work practices• Responsabilities• Culture

Technical resources

• Designed for usability?

• Gives right support for the task?

• Gives feedback?• Gives feedback?

Person

• Knowledge• Experience and skill• Motivation• Alertness• Stress• Workload• Attitudes

Page 10: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

10

Situational factors

• Time pressures• Staffing too short• High workloadg

Examples – Accidents in all areas of industry

• Nuclear; TMI, Chernobyl

• Oil; Piper Alpha

• Sea; Zebrugge Estonia• Sea; Zebrugge, Estonia

• Railways; Clapham Junction, Kings Cross fire, Paddington, Åsta

• Medical; Radiotherapy accidents

Examples of causes or error-producing factors

• Time pressure• Sleepiness/work hours• Poor ergonomics• High vigilance and mental demands• Poor training• Problems with rules and procedures (many

varieties)

Page 11: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

11

Examples of causes or error-producing factors

• Work environment – untidy work place• Problems in communication

Hi h kl d d t• High workload and stress• Problems in planning and control• Inadequate allocation of resources• Management• System goals incompatible with safety

How to perform an accidentinvestigation? – Parts of the analysis

• Data collection

Analyse:• Events 

• Deviations

2011‐04‐1132

Deviations

• Causes

• Barriers

• Consequences

• Make recommendations/suggest safety enhancing measures

How to apply the MTO view in an investigation

• Understand the peoples actions in relation to the circumstances and the situation

2011‐04‐1133

• Understanding based on knowledge from the behaviouralsciences

• Understand the relation to managment and organisation

• Understand the relation to regulators and society

Page 12: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

12

Example: Investigation of incident

2011‐04‐1134

Exempel: Tillbud med TP 101

Verktyg & procedurer saknas

Styrning; ledning; 

uppföljning

Litar inte på mätare

Bränsle slut i huvudtank

Rutiner & regler

2011‐04‐1135

Flygning planeras

Landning med en motor

Färdplanering beaktar inte meterologiska förhållanden

Flygning med tyngre last & under längre tid än planerat

Piloter tror att bränsle‐mätare visar 

fel

Motorstopp på en motor

saknas

Verktyg, procedurer & kompetens

Utrustning: Bränslemätare ej reparerad

Två motorer

Uppgift: Grundorsaksanalys

• Anna arbetar i en livsmedelsbutik

• Hon ska en tidig morgon med truck köra in en pall med tvättmedel från lastkajen till butiken

2011‐04‐1136

• Leveransen ska köras in i butiken med truck. De brukar vara två men kollegan är sjuk – det går influensa på arbetsplatsen

• Anna måste väja för en kollega som kommit i vägen, kör på ett föremål & trucken välter 

• Anna skadar armen

Page 13: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

13

Uppgift• Datainsamling

– Hur och vad skulle ni vilja samla in?

• Händelseanalys– Vad hände och i vilken ordning?

• Avvikelseanalys– Vilka avvikelser fanns mot normala förhållanden?

2011‐04‐1137

• Orsaksanalys– Vad berodde avvikelserna på? 

• Barriäranalys– Vilka barriärer fanns, vilka brast och vilka saknades?

• Konsekvensanalys– Vad hände och vad skulle kunna ha hänt?

• Rekommendationer/åtgärder– Vilka åtgärder skulle ni  vilja vidta och hur skulle dessa genomföras?

Exempel: Orsaks- och händelseanalys

Ovan att köra truck

Ordning & reda?

2011‐04‐1138

Kör in lastpall i butik

Truck välter; skadad arm

Kör truck ensam

Kollega i vägen

VäjningKör på föremål

Personal i truckens körväg

Kollega sjukSvårt att väja; 

trångt?Ordning & reda?

MTO-analys

Direktorsak

Grundorsak

Direktorsak Direktorsak

GrundorsakBidragande 

faktor

2011‐04‐1139

Händelse 1 KonsekvensHändelse 2 Händelse 3 Händelse 4 Händelse 5

Barriär Barriär Barriär

Page 14: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

14

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board

“In our view, the NASA organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as the foam. Organizational culture refers to the basic values, norms, beliefs, and practices that characterize the functioning of an instituti n At th m st b sic l v l institution. At the most basic level, organizational culture defines the assumptions that employees make as they carry out their work. It is a powerful force that can persist through reorganizations and the change of key personnel. It can be a positive and negative force.”

Columbia Space Shuttle,2003

Olyckan och påverkande förhållanden

Isolering lossnade vid återinträde i jordatmosfären

Kultur och förhållningssätt i organisationen som påverkade säkerheten negativt hade utvecklats, t ex

• Tidigare tillbud hade inte bedömts som tillräckligt allvarliga• Förlitade sig på tidigare framgångar – satte mindre tilltro till 

nya bedömningar och beräkningar• Organisationens utformning förhindrade effektiv 

kommunikation av viktig säkerhetsinformation• Bristande samordning i ledningsfunktioner mellan olika 

delprojekt• Informell lednings‐ och beslutsstruktur som inte följde de 

regler som fanns i organisationen

Page 15: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

15

MTO Säkerhet in accidentinvestigations

2011‐04‐1143

Investigations where we have particpiated

2011‐04‐1144

2011‐04‐1145

Page 16: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

16

2011‐04‐1146

2011‐04‐1147

2011‐04‐1148

Page 17: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

17

2011‐04‐1149

2011‐04‐1150

Brand i t‐banevagn i Rinkeby(Publicerad 22 februari 2007 kl 10:01)»Det var vid halv tio‐tiden på torsdagsmorgonen somtunnelbanestationen i Rinkeby fylldes med kraftig rök. Samtligapassagerare evakuerades och Rinkeby torg spärrades av. Dessutom fickflera lokaler och en skola utrymmas.«

2011‐04‐1151

Page 18: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

18

2011‐04‐1152

2011‐04‐1153

2011‐04‐1154

Page 19: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

19

2011‐04‐1155

2011‐04‐1156

2011‐04‐1157

Page 20: Who are we? - Uppsala University · training Housekeeping 5 MTO – a system safety view HuMans 6 2011‐04‐11 ... 2011‐04‐11 3 Human factors, Ergonomics, HuMans – Technology

2011‐04‐11

20

Conclusion

Human and organisational factors are always important

Look for the causal chain

2011‐04‐1158

Apply the system safety view

Use knowledge on human and organisational behaviour