who are we? - uppsala university · training housekeeping 5 mto – a system safety view humans 6...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
2011‐04‐11
4
Tjernobyl M + T + O
2011‐04‐1110
Fukushima M + T + O + O ?
2011‐04‐1111
2011‐04‐1112
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
2011‐04‐11
15
MTO Säkerhet in accidentinvestigations
2011‐04‐1143
Investigations where we have particpiated
2011‐04‐1144
2011‐04‐1145
2011‐04‐11
16
2011‐04‐1146
2011‐04‐1147
2011‐04‐1148
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
2011‐04‐11
18
2011‐04‐1152
2011‐04‐1153
2011‐04‐1154
2011‐04‐11
19
2011‐04‐1155
2011‐04‐1156
2011‐04‐1157
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