In 2013, Hollnagel, Wears, and Braithwaite coined the terms Safety-I and Safety-II to describe different approaches to safety work.
Safety-I and Safety-II are not in competition with each other; rather, they are complementary. Evans summarizes it as: “Safety-I minimizes the bad and Safety-II maximizes the good.” Safety-I focuses on the elimination of errors, while Safety-II ensures that as much as possible goes well.
SAFETY-I
corresponds to the traditional safety management approach.
The focus is on the analysis of errors, i.e., incidents, accidents, or injuries.
The absence of risks and the absence of events are equated with safety. Conversely, this means that if the error rate is low, there is a high degree of safety. In Safety-I, safety is measured by the absence of undesirable events, e.g., using accident rates or accident-free days.
Methods used in Safety-I include, for example:
- Accident analyses, which aim to prevent future identical or similar events by identifying causes and deriving measures.
- Standardization of work instructions, as Safety-I assumes that work can be fully analyzed and prescribed, and that Work-as-Imagined will align with Work-as-Done .
Safety-I asks why things go wrong and then attempts to find causes to ensure it does not happen again—attempting to restore Work-as-Imagined.
In contrast to this traditional view,
SAFETY-II
assumes that things go wrong and go well for the same reasons. Since more things usually go well, the focus of Safety-II is on identifying why things go well (or why nothing goes wrong) and ensuring that this is repeated.
Work-as-Done is not static in Safety-II, as working conditions, requirements, and resources are rarely stable. Particularly in complex systems, it is the employees who solve problems and adapt flexibly to working conditions and the environment. The way work is actually performed then serves as the basis for improvements and for identifying hazards.
In Safety-II, safety is defined as the ability to succeed under varying conditions.
The more complex the working world, the more Work-as-Done differs from Work-as-Imagined. In Safety-II, the difference between Work-as-Done and Work-as-Imagined is not viewed as a problem, but as potential—a source of information on how work is actually carried out. The goal is to find effective paths and keep the variability of Work-as-Done within acceptable limits.
Good to know
In practical implementation, Safety-II means: safety can only be improved on-site, as Work-as-Done in interaction with the respective working conditions is of crucial importance.
Thank you! Original photo credit to Skitterphoto.
