Human error views: a framework for benchmarking organizations and measuring the distance between academia and industry

Nektarios Karanikas

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

21 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The paper presents a framework that through structured analysis of accident reports explores the differences between practice and academic literature as well amongst organizations regarding their views on human error. The framework is based on the hypothesis that the wording of accident reports reflects the safety thinking and models that have been applied during the investigation, and includes 10 aspects identified in the state-of-the-art literature. The framework was applied to 52 air accident reports published by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and 45 ones issued by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) from 1999 to 2014. Frequency analysis and statistical tests showed that the presence of the aspects in the accident reports varied from 32.6% to 81.7%, and revealed differences between the ATSB and the DSB approaches to human error. However, in overall safety thinking have not changed over time, thus, suggesting that academic propositions might have not yet affected practice dramatically.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 49th ESReDA Seminar, 29-30 October 2015, Brussels, Belgium
Number of pages8
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2015
Event49th ESReDA Seminar - Brussels, Belgium
Duration: 29 Oct 201530 Oct 2015

Conference

Conference49th ESReDA Seminar
CountryBelgium
CityBrussels
Period29/10/1530/10/15

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Human error views: a framework for benchmarking organizations and measuring the distance between academia and industry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this