Zero to HRO (High Reliability Organisation)

Despite all the latest trendy spin about safety disruption the language in this paper was considered to be too “inflammatory” for publication in a mainstream traditional Safety Journal (download it and you will see why) – so it gives me great pleasure to publish it here:

Zero to HRO (High Reliability Organisation)

Abandoning antediluvian accident theory

DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER HERE:  Zero-to-HRO.docx (33 downloads)

Abstract

The recent resources boom in Australia saw a commensurate focus on occupational health and safety management. It also presented a unique opportunity to generate transformational change using a process and evidence based approach.

However, direct observation of activities and anecdotal evidence from colleagues on various projects, indicates there has been a significant resurgence of traditional accident theory. This has been supplemented with an array of nebulous soft systems change management processes, which includes the ubiquitous concept of zero harm.

This paper evaluates the attributes of risk and energy damage theory and accident theory and compares them with the contemporary Shingo model of operational excellence and features of high reliability organisations.

It recommends abandoning conventional accident theory and adopting risk and energy damage theory, which offers a process and evidence based approach to align with the guiding principles of operational excellence and the unique attributes of high reliability organisations.

Keywords

Accident theory, risk theory, operational excellence, high reliability organisations

Conflict of interest

The author of this paper declares no conflict of interest

DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER HERE:  Zero-to-HRO.docx (33 downloads)

---

CONCLUSION

The 21^st October 2016 marks 50 years since the Aberfan disaster in South Wales, United Kingdom ¹¹⁷ which resulted in the deaths of 116 school children and 28 adults and wiped out a generation.

Over the past 50 years, legislation has been implemented and supplemented by the introduction of many fashionable psychological approaches, which have been offered as silver bullets. ¹¹⁸

However, traditional accident theory and its many accoutrements remain enduringly popular despite their ostentatiously unscientific principles and social encumbrances. ¹¹⁹

Meanwhile, the carnage continues unabated and our performance can only be described as mediocre, at best. In Australia, the annual direct costs amount to approximately $80 billion or almost 8% of our gross domestic product. ¹²⁰

Moreover, the comments from Haddon et al ¹²¹ and Waller and Klein, ¹²² remain as pertinent today and still resonate with most academics and safety professionals.

Reactive accident theory does not manage risk or measure performance, we are merely counting with our fingers and toes crossed until…………………………………………..

Westgate Bridge (1970), Ibrox Park (1971), Summerland (1973), Flixborough (1974), Granville (1977), Seveso (1976), Three Mile Island (1979), Bhopal (1984), Bradford (1985), Chernobyl (1986), Zeebrugge (1987), Kings Cross Station (1987), Piper Alpha (1988), Hillsborough (1989), Thredbo’ (1997), Esso Longford (1998), Texas City Refinery (2005), Qinghe Steel China (2007), Deepwater Horizon (2010), Fukushima (2011), Lac Megantic (2013), Samarco (2015) and ………………………………………………………??????

It was the murderous tyrant, Joseph Stalin, (he was pretty conversant with totalitarian regimes and dystopian environments), who coined the phrase…..one death is a tragedy and a thousand deaths is a statistic.

On a much less sombre note, W. Edwards Deming, at a 1982 seminar in the United States, commented……there are two ways to improve figures; cheat or lie and just change the numbers and don’t count injuries or defective parts or improve the process. ¹²³

Transformational change will only occur when antediluvian accident theory is abandoned in favour of a process and evidence based approach and incidentally, this transition does not require tearing the entire house down.

Risk and energy damage theory fulfills this requirement and it reflects and aligns with the contemporary guiding principles of operational excellence and unique characteristics of high reliability organisations. It has many advantages over accident theory and its attributes are compared and summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Accident theory v risk and energy damage theory attributes

Accident theory	Risk and energy damage theory
Subjective speculation	Objective evaluation
Hierarchical	Organic
Adversarial	Collaborative
Downstream human focus	Upstream technological focus
General risk	General & operational risk
Descriptive	Process and evidence based
Linear and mechanistic cause-effect	Systemic
Intuitive	Scientific
Counting	Measuring
Pejorative	Constructive
Reactive hindsight	Predictive and preventive foresight
Blameworthy	Virtuous
Qualitative	Quantitative
Change the person	Change the situation
Receiver focus	Source focus

DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER HERE:  Zero-to-HRO.docx (33 downloads)