Introduction
As private companies and Government entities continue to use highly complex interdependent technology in high-risk sectors, we will continue to see organizational accidents. These accidents may be much rarer than your average car accident yet can kill and injure many people on a wide scale. We can look at the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident. The 2005 BP Texas oil refinery accident which killed 15 people injuring over 180 (CBS,2007) and many more to help examine why these accidents occur and why some are inevitable.
This essay critically evaluates the inevitability of organizational accidents. Specifically, it argues some organizational accidents are inevitable although many can be avoided using specific techniques.
…show more content…
This is because events which seemingly are unrelated accrue and align to cause major malfunctions that yield catastrophic results. By examining the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident, we can examine why these unexpected failures …show more content…
A High-Reliability Organization (HRO) is essentially an organization that aims to greatly reduce accidents in highly complex system industries. Instead of focusing on the impact of and design of complex technical systems like NAT. High-Reliability Organizations look at the amount of effort that is needed by people at all levels of an organization to help ensure safe operation of complex systems. (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2009)
HRO researchers including LaPorte and Consolini (1991) determined that the maintenance of closed systems, communication, reluctance to simplify, safety objectives, resilience, interactive safety culture, and systematic learning allows organizations to generate stability and consistency as well as lower the chance of accidents when operating (LaPorte and Consolini, 1991). HRO’s have learned how devastating accidents can be, from past catastrophic accidents like the 1988 fuselage failure of Aloha Airlines 243, DC-10 plane crash, and many others HRO’s have discovered ways to balance reliability and efficiency. (Roberts, K., Robert Bea, & Dean L. Bartles,
When it comes to safety most people think they are safe, and they have a true understanding on how to work safe. Human nature prevents us from harming ourselves. Our instincts help protect us from harm. Yet everyday there are injuries and deaths across the world due to being unsafe. What causes people to work unsafe is one of the main challenges that face all Safety Managers across the world.
On the 26th of April, 1986 unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power station was taken off the electrical grid to perform an experiment in which the reactor would be run at low power. The Chernobyl power station, which is located in the present day Ukraine and is approximately 12 miles south of the border with Belarus, did not react as designed and unit 4 proceeded to spiral out of control. The unconstrained fission reaction which followed resulted in a steam explosion that poured radioactive material into the atmosphere. To this day Chernobyl is the largest and farthest reaching nuclear disaster in human history.
The world has seen numerous engineering disasters and from each one, has gained insight to better prepare for future calamities. However, it is very difficult to fully foresee how an accident might occur just by looking back to past disasters. In addition, it is even harder to prepare for something that hasn’t even happened before. The Chernobyl accident is a prime example of an event that couldn’t be fully prevented just by looking to past disasters or even predicting this exact accident. Psychological biases, as well as other contributing factors such as human factors, and design flaws made the Chernobyl accident a catastrophe that no one could have anticipated.
The accident investigation indicated that BP focus on cost-cutting and high production caused the serious deterioration of safety regulations at the refinery. The spill resulted from the company’s fail...
Nuclear Crisis at Three Mile Island Abstract In March of 1979, just ten miles south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Power Plant at Three Mile Island Unit 2 came close to nuclear melt down. Despite standards set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the plant ran for several years prior to the accident under poor conditions. Communication certainly played a role in this near tragedy, as two engineers had foreseen the consequences, but their advice went unheeded. Although most of the economic and social impacts of this incident were minimal, this unpleasant event ended the nuclear power industry in America.
Countless engineering disasters have occurred in this world, many civilians lost their lives due to corrupted constructions. The most fatal and deadly engineering disaster that took place in our history was the Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl catastrophe was a nuclear setback that happened at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in on April 26, 1986. It is seen as the most recognizable terrible nuclear power plant cataclysm ever. A nuclear crisis in one of the reactors caused a fire that sent a cluster of radioactive consequence that on the long run spread all over Europe.
NASA allowed itself to evolve into an organization with inconsistent authority and responsibility in its safety structure, exhibiting differences between and even within its centers. Over time NASA left the responsibility for safety to contractors and was unaware of critical details. The safety structure is vital, especially in organizations like NASA. Safety managers must have authority and voice in decision making. Issues regarding safety should be brought to management without fear. Unexpected events occur and solutions come from line workers, not senior management. (Disaster, 2008)
“On March 23, 2005, at 1:20 pm, the BP Texas City Refinery suffered one of the worst industrial disasters in recent U.S. history. Explosions and fires killed 15 people and injured another 180, alarmed the community, and resulted in financial losses exceeding $1.5 billion.” (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2007) There are many small and big decisions and oversights that led to the incident. Underneath all the specific actions or inaction is a blatant disregard for addressing safety violations and procedures that had been pointed out to BP even years before this event. The use of outdated equipment and budget cuts also contributed to the circumstances that allowed this accident to happen.
In recent years, many organizations particularly in a high risk industry have experienced significant losses. For this reason, they have been more considered the importance of the concept 'High Reliability Organization' (HROs). Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) as cited in Takagi and Nakanishi (2006), claim that a comprehending of the HRO concept can lead to clearly understand a technical system within an organization. This leads to minimize any failures from unexpected circumstances. To be more precise, it can be said that the HRO principle assists the organization to determine the risk factors that may negatively affect a company performance in an early stage of a project life cycle. Similarly, Laporte and Consolini (1991) as cited in Aase and Tjensvoll (n.d.) state that any high risk organizations who has applied the HROs principles tend to have an outstanding safety records.
Strategies must touch upon all aspects of a complex work environment. According to Roux and Halstead (2009), some characteristics of an effective client safety culture consists of acknowledging human limitations, avoiding oversimplification of near miss or sentinel events, support from management and leadership in non-punitive problem solving approach in investigations, an interdisciplinary approach to collaboration which includes front line staff to enhance communication and reporting of concerns and errors, and training on intended changes prior to its development and implementation (p.
Accidents are an inevitable part of life. Children learn this at an early age by bumping their head, scraping their knees, or falling off the swings. They learn that sometimes painful experiences just happen, seemingly without cause or reason. These children carry these lessons into adulthood, and then project their tolerance for accidents onto their families and occupation. The chemical industry, while one of the safest industries, has the potential for catastrophic accidents. Through experience and renewed focus on the conservation of life, the chemical industry has improved its safety considerably. In 2005, chemical industry fatality rate (the number of fatalities per year per total number of people in the applicable population) was the third lowest when compared to industries such as agriculture, coal mining, and construction1. However, accidents still occur, sometimes with regrettable repercussions. In 2005, Formosa Plastics Corporation in Point Comfort, Texas experienced an accident with severe consequences.
Prior to 1959, faulty equipment was the probable cause for many airplane accidents, but with the advent of jet engines, faulty equipment became less of a threat, while human factors gained prominence in accident investigations (Kanki, Helmreich & Anca, 2010). From 1959 to 1989, pilot error was the cause of 70% of accident resulting in the loss of hull worldwide (Kanki, Helmreich & Anca, 2010). Due to these alarming statistics, in 1979 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) implemented a workshop called “Resource Management on the Flightdeck” that led to what is now known as Crew Resource Management (CRM) or also known as Cockpit Resource Management (Rodrigues & Cusick, 2012). CRM is a concept that has been attributed to reducing human factors as a probable cause in aviation accidents. The concepts of CRM weren’t widely accepted by the aviation industry, but through its history, concepts, and eventual implementation, Crew Resource Management has become an invaluable resource for pilots as well as other unrelated industries around the world.
A candidly of risk occurs in every organisation. Governance principals and the occupational health and safety urge that the organisations take reasonable measures to hinder loss, charge or rage to the organisational and all stakeholders/management. Injury and accidents can even happen ultimately with stringent OHS and the fact that an accident when occurs, does not mean that someone is liable if all responsible steps for prevention or minimisation has been taken.
Finally to conclude this report, the safety management system in an organization is very important as this forms the basic framework on how the organization works, maintaining safety. The four pillars (main objectives of SMA) are that ones that lead the organization in that direction. From the accident, the four pillars application will benefit the organization but however if the SMS has been a part of the organization even before, accidents as such would not have occurred in the first place.
Although workplace accidents are very common, the majority of them can be prevented. As a company, you are obliged by the law to protect your employees, so it is important to take the necessary actions that will minimize the risk of accidents (Intelligent HQ, 2015).