Abstract
Operations of safety critical industries unquestionably
require a diversity of technical and organizational
control measures to increase stability and predictability
of the complex sociotechnical systems. Nevertheless,
experiences from recent severe accidents and results of
safety research have questioned the effectiveness of the
prevailing safety management strategy that mainly relies
on standardization and designed-in defenses. This paper
discusses the identified need to balance between
stability and flexibility in a concrete safety issue,
i.e., proceduralization.
The main research problem of our study is whether
procedure guided practice can offer sufficient support
for flexibility of operating activity. We shall frame our
study with the help of a model that explains different
aspects of procedures. We then elaborate how these
different aspects were considered empirically in our
3-phase study. In the first study we interviewed 62 main
control room operators and asked how they consider
procedures to support balancing. In the second study we
observed in detail 12 NPP operator crews' activity in a
simulated loss-of-coolant accident. In a third study we
inquired 5 procedure designers about their conceptions
concerning procedure guidance in operator work. Drawing
on either interview or behavioral data we analyzed the
personnel's stance to the flexibility and stability
balancing, and how the conceptions portray in the
practices of procedure usage.
Our results demonstrate that the operators are aware of
the need for balancing flexibility and stability and
consider successful balancing to represent "good"
professional action. In actual action many operators,
however, tend towards more straightforward following of
procedures. Designers also see the capability for
balancing stability and flexibility as a key operator
competence but describe actual acting simply as
procedure-following. According to the documents of the
nuclear community, procedure-following is the ideal to be
emphasized. The paper will be finished by discussing what
new insights our results would provide for developing
training of procedure usage and for the design of
procedures.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 213-221 |
Journal | International Journal of Nuclear Safety and Simulation |
Volume | 5 |
Issue number | 3 |
Publication status | Published - 2014 |
MoE publication type | A1 Journal article-refereed |
Keywords
- procedure guidance
- interpretative use of procedures
- resilience