Improved Safety Science: Utilizing a Design Hierarchy

Authors: Ulrica Pettersson

Abstract:

Collection of information on incidents is regularly done through pre-printed incident report forms. These tend to be incomplete and frequently lack essential information. ne consequence is that reports with inadequate information, that do not fulfil analysts’ requirements, are transferred into the analysis process. To improve an incident reporting form, theory in design science, witness psychology and interview and questionnaire research has been used. Previously three experiments have been conducted to evaluate the form and shown significant improved results. The form has proved to capture knowledge, regardless of the incidents’ character or context. The aim in this paper is to describe how design science, in more detail a design hierarchy can be used to construct a collection form for improvements in safety science.

Keywords: Design science, data collection, form, incident report, safety science.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1131217

References:

[1] U. Pettersson, Improving Incident Reports in the Swedish Armed Forces. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University, 2013.
[2] R. Smith, The Utility of Force- The Art of WAR in the Modern World. Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2007.
[3] K. Åkerman, A. Emanuelson and P. Ahlgren, P. “Lessons learned – förutsättning för utveckling, effekt och förtroende”
[Lessons learned – conditions for progress, effect and trust] Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademins handlingar och tidskrift.
[The Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences], 2007.
[4] NATO Joint Analysis Handbook. Lisbon: Joint Analysis and Lesson Learned Centre, 2007.
[5] NATO ACO Directive 80-1 Lessons Learned. Unclassified and releasable to PfP/ISAF/KFOR, 2009.
[6] The NATO Lessons Learned Handbook, Second Edition. Lisbon, 2011.
[7] Nonaka, I. “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation”. Organization Science 5 (1), 14-37, 1994.
[8] CALL US Army Handbook Commanders Guide to Operational Records and Data Collection – Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures. Ft. Leavenworth: Combined Arms Centre, 2009.
[9] R. Espejo, W. Schuhmann, M. Schwninger and U. Bilello. Organisational Transformation and Learning. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, 1996.
[10] M. Popper, and R. Lipshitz. “Organizational Learning: Mechanisms, Culture, and Feasibility”. Management Learning, 31(2), 181-196, 2000.
[11] H. A. Simon. “Bounded Rationality and Organisational Learning”. Organisational Science, 2(1), pp. 125-134, 1991.
[12] H. A. Simon. “Bounded Rationality and Organisational Learning”. Organisational Science, 2(1), p 128, 1991.
[13] D. Castaneda and M. Fernandez. “From Individual Learning to Organizational Learning”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 5, No. 4, pp 363-372, 2007.
[14] Popper, K. R. (1979) Objective Knowledge. University Press, Oxford.
[15] C. Argyris. Personality and Organization. The Conflict between System and the Individual. Harper & Row, New York, 1965.
[16] B. Ahrenfelt. (1995) Förändring som tillstånd
[Change as a State], Studentlitteratur, Lund.
[17] Malhotra, Y. (2007) Knowledge Management Lessons Learned - What Works and What Doesn’t. Information Today, Inc. New Jersey.
[18] H. A. Simon. “Bounded Rationality and Organisational Learning”. Organisational Science, 2(1), p. 133, 1991.
[19] A. Chua, W. Lam and S. Majid. “Knowledge reuse in action: the case of CALL”. Journal of Information Science 32(3), pp. 251–260, 2006.
[20] J. Reason, J. The Human Contribution – unsafe acts, accidents and heroic recoveries. Ashgate, Surrey, 2008.
[21] J. Reason. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Hants: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1997.
[22] C. Lucier. “When knowledge adds up to nothing –why knowledge management fails and what you can do about it”. Development and Learning in Organizations 17(1), p 32-35, 2003.
[23] S. W. A. Dekker. “Just culture: who gets to draw the line?”, Cognition Technology and Work, Vol 11, No. 3, pp 177-185, 2009.
[24] N. Cross. “Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation”. Design Issues, 15(2) pp. 5-10, 1999.
[25] R. Buchanan. “Design Research and the New Learning”. Design Issues, 17(4), pp. 3-23, 2001.
[26] H. A. Simon. The Science of the Artificial 3rd ed. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, 1996.
[27] J. E. van Aken. Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management. British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, p 22, 2005.
[28] D. Denyer. D. Tranfield and J. E. van Aken. Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis. Organization Studies, 29 (03) pp. 393-413, 2008.
[29] S. Georg and D. Jones “The Anatomy of a Design Theory”. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 8(5) pp. 312-335, 2007.
[30] S. B. Brehmer. “Understanding the Functions of C2 Is the Key to Progress”. The International C2 Journal, 1(1), pp. 211-232, 2007.
[31] B. Brehmer. Introduktion till Ledningsvetenskap
[Introduction to Command and Control Science]. Swedish Defence University, Stockholm, 2013.
[32] J. Rasmussen, J. “The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision making and system management”. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 15(2), pp. 234-243, 1985.
[33] K. Dorst. “Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen”. Design Studies, 29 pp. 4-11, 2008.
[34] U. Pettersson. “A form to collect incident reports: Learning from Incidents in the Swedish Armed Forces”. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 150-157, 2013.
[35] S. W. A. Dekker. Just Culture Balancing Safety and Accountability. Ashgate, Publishing Ltd., Farnham, UK, 2007.
[36] U. Pettersson and J. Nyce. Hierarchy and Tacit Knowledge in the Swedish Armed Forces: An Organisational Approach. Proc to the 3th European conference on Intellectual Capital. pp. 328-332, 2011.
[37] US Army Handbook: commander’s guide to operational record and data collection – tactics, techniques, and procedures. Ft. Leavenworth: Combined Arms Centre, 2009. http://call.army.mil (accessed 12 November 2010).
[38] NATO Joint Analysis Handbook. Lisbon: Joint Analysis and Lesson Learned Centre, 2007, p. 98.
[39] U. Pettersson. Acquisition of Experience-based Knowledge form the Swedish Armed Forces International Missions; A Comparison between Groups and Individuals. Proc to 7th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning, November 11-12, 2010, Hong Kong, China.
[40] A. Jacobsson. Methodology for Assessing Learning from Incidents – a Process Industry Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University, 2011.
[41] The NATO NATO Lessons Learned Handbook, Second Edition. Lisbon, 2011.
[42] P-A. Granhag. P-A. Vittnespsykologi
[Eye Witness Psychology]. Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2001.
[43] R. E. Geiselman and R. P. Fisher. In D. G. Payne and F. G. Conrad (Ed.), Intersection in basic and applied memory research, pp. 291-310. Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, 1997.
[44] B-E. Andersson, B-E. Som man frågar får man svar
[Answers relation to Questions], Erlanders, Mölnlycke, 2007.
[45] L. B. Christensen. Experimental Methodology. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, 2007.
[46] N. E. Synodion. The “art” of questionnaire construction: some important considerations for manufacturing studies. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(3), pp. 221-237, 2003.
[47] J. Trost. Enkätboken
[the Book of Questionnaire]. Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1994.
[48] U. Pettersson. “A New Incident Report Form Leads to Improved Foundation for the Lessons Learned Cycle”. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 14-22, 2012.