Design, scope and focus of safety recommendations: results from aviation safety investigations

N. Karanikas, A. Roelen, Selma Piric
{"title":"Design, scope and focus of safety recommendations: results from aviation safety investigations","authors":"N. Karanikas, A. Roelen, Selma Piric","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2018.1539385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Literature and industry standards do not mention inclusive guidelines to generate safety recommendations. Following a literature review, we suggest nine design criteria as well as the classification of safety recommendations according to their scope (i.e. organizational context, stakeholders addressed and degree of change) and their focus, the latter corresponding to the type of risk barrier introduced. The design and classification criteria were applied to 625 recommendations published by four aviation investigation agencies. The analysis results suggested sufficient implementation of most of the design criteria. Concerning their scope, the findings showed an emphasis on processes and structures (i.e. lower organizational contexts), adaptations that correspond to medium degree of changes, and local stakeholders. Regarding the focus of the recommendations, non-technical barriers that rely mostly on employees’ interpretation were introduced by the vast majority of safety recommendations. Also, statistically significant differences were detected across investigation authorities and time periods. This study demonstrated how the application of the suggested design and classification frameworks could reveal valuable information about the quality, scope and focus of recommendations. Especially the design criteria could function as a starting point towards the introduction of a common standard to be used at local, national and international levels.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2018.1539385","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2018.1539385","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Abstract Literature and industry standards do not mention inclusive guidelines to generate safety recommendations. Following a literature review, we suggest nine design criteria as well as the classification of safety recommendations according to their scope (i.e. organizational context, stakeholders addressed and degree of change) and their focus, the latter corresponding to the type of risk barrier introduced. The design and classification criteria were applied to 625 recommendations published by four aviation investigation agencies. The analysis results suggested sufficient implementation of most of the design criteria. Concerning their scope, the findings showed an emphasis on processes and structures (i.e. lower organizational contexts), adaptations that correspond to medium degree of changes, and local stakeholders. Regarding the focus of the recommendations, non-technical barriers that rely mostly on employees’ interpretation were introduced by the vast majority of safety recommendations. Also, statistically significant differences were detected across investigation authorities and time periods. This study demonstrated how the application of the suggested design and classification frameworks could reveal valuable information about the quality, scope and focus of recommendations. Especially the design criteria could function as a starting point towards the introduction of a common standard to be used at local, national and international levels.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安全建议的设计、范围和重点:航空安全调查的结果
摘要文献和行业标准没有提及生成安全建议的包容性指南。在文献综述之后,我们根据其范围(即组织背景、涉及的利益相关者和变化程度)及其重点提出了九项设计标准以及安全建议的分类,后者与引入的风险屏障类型相对应。设计和分类标准适用于四个航空调查机构发布的625项建议。分析结果表明,大多数设计标准已得到充分实施。关于其范围,调查结果显示,重点是流程和结构(即较低的组织背景)、与中等程度变化相对应的适应以及当地利益相关者。关于建议的重点,绝大多数安全建议都引入了主要依赖员工解释的非技术性障碍。此外,调查机构和时间段之间也存在统计学上的显著差异。这项研究表明,应用建议的设计和分类框架可以揭示有关建议的质量、范围和重点的宝贵信息。特别是设计标准可以作为在地方、国家和国际各级采用共同标准的起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Safety risk factors in two different types of routine outsourced work: a systematic literature review Multimodal virtual environments: an opportunity to improve fire safety training? Road traffic collisions leading to human casualties in Riyadh: a retrospective study Addressing essential skills gaps among participants in an OHS training program: a pilot study Farewell from the editor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1