PART A: Position Paper
In this assessment task students will investigate the literature relating to two of the theoretical accident models and prepare a position paper.
You will select two accident models from the following list:
Heinrich’s Domino Theory
Reason System of Safety Management Model
Viner's Time Sequence Model
Viner's Extended Energy Damage Model
Explore the literature and:
Compare and contrast the features of the chosen models
Discuss the theoretical underpinnings of the chosen models and their expected validity today given the issues you identified in the on-line Moodle Discussions and others, such as:
a. Complexity of the models and their fit with the natural complexity of society, technology, work and human endeavour
b. Their effectiveness in addressing failures in:
iii. Human factors
iv. Social and organisational networks, including management, supervision
v. Education & Training
c. The models’ guidance on:
i. Establishing and validating corrective and remedial actions
ii. Learning from failure
iii. Risk minimisation
Your position paper should be limited to 2000 words maximum and be supported by relevant citations (minimum of 15) from the literature.
Part A of this assessment task attracts 15% of the overall marks for the unit
PART B: Theoretical Models Report
In this assessment task you will:
1. Populate the two models chosen in Part A with the critical factors from a case study selected from the following list, to explain, in the language of the model, the failures which occurred in the accident
The case studies to select from are:
Union Carbide Fatal Methyl Isocyanate Gas Leak, Bhopal India, December 2, 1984.
Pan American B747 and KLM B747 Collision at Tenerife, Canary Islands on March 27, 1977.
Waterfall rail accident, Waterfall Sydney Australia, January 31, 2003.
Level crossing collision between a school bus and train 7GP1 near Moorine Rock, Western Australia, 23 March 2009.
2. Evaluate and compare how well the two theoretical models enabled explanation of the accident phenomena in the case study.
3. Then prepare a written report to explain:
The key characteristics of the chosen theoretical models which enabled illumination of the tapestry of failures that led to the case study accident.
The perceived strengths and weaknesses of the chosen models in describing the accident phenomenon.
Your report should not exceed 1500 words. It should be supported by relevant citations (minimum of 10) from the literature.
Part B of this assessment task attracts 10% of the overall marks for the unit
PART C: Reflection
In this assessment task you will:
Reflect on an accident that you have personal knowledge of and consider the issues of causation that you understood at the time
Describe the accident “model”, perspective or “lens” that you were unconsciously applying to the situation
Compare and contrast the model you applied against those you have studied in this unit.
Discuss the changes you would apply if you were to analyse that same accident now.
You may find it useful to read Chapter 10 of Dekker (2006) to inform your reflections
You may choose the format for your response to this assessment task that suits you (eg short essay, brief report, mind map etc).
This assessment task (Part C) represents 5% of the overall assessment for this unit
Dekker S. (2006), The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error, Chapter 10 What is your Accident Model, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham