This paper presents the findings from a ‘Safety Differently’ (SD) case study in aviation, and specifically in a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) organisation in Southeast Asia. The goal of the case study was to apply a new method of safety intervention that is part of the Safety Differently toolkit and utilises a bottom-up approach. This research tested the extent to which these interventions could be embedded into a continuous improvement program in a highly controlled environment, namely an Aviation MRO. The interventions (called micro-experiments, ME) are considered as a flexible tool, which allows testing of process improvements in a safe to fail way, empowering the lower levels of the organisation, challenging safety related issues and revealing key areas in need of transformation. The ideas for the interventions considered in the case study were retrieved from interviews conducted with 50 mechanics, and include issues to address aviation safety and occupational health as well as quality. We elected to include all three categories in this study as the ME approach is applicable to all of these. This MRO case study showcases the benefits and limitations of the ME in aviation, revealing the conditions under which it may become useful. Future studies should further explore the role of complex and heavily controlled industries in similar bottom up approaches, so that interventions can become part of a continuous improvement plan.
Although reengineering is strategically advantageous fororganisations in order to keep functional and sustainable, safety must remain apriority and respective efforts need to be maintained. This paper suggeststhe combination of soft system methodology (SSM) and Pareto analysison the scope of safety management performance evaluation, and presents theresults of a survey, which was conducted in order to assess the effectiveness,efficacy and ethicality of the individual components of an organisation’s safetyprogram. The research employed quantitative and qualitative data and ensureda broad representation of functional managers and safety professionals, whocollectively hold the responsibility for planning, implementing and monitoringsafety practices. The results showed that SSM can support the assessment ofsafety management performance by revealing weaknesses of safety initiatives,and Pareto analysis can underwrite the prioritisation of the remedies required.The specific methodology might be adapted by any organisation that requires adeep evaluation of its safety management performance, seeks to uncover themechanisms that affect such performance, and, under limited resources, needsto focus on the most influential deficiencies.
Reason’s typology of safety culture (i.e. Just, Informative, Learning, Flexible and Reporting cultures) is widely used in the industry and academia. Through literature review we developed a framework including 36 markers that reflect the operationalization of Reason’s sub-cultures and general organizational prerequisites. We used the framework to assess to what extent safety culture development guidelines of seven industry sectors (i.e. aviation, railway, oil and gas, nuclear, healthcare, defense and maritime) incorporate academic references, and are similar to each other. Gap analysis and statistics showed that the guidelines include 53–69 % of the safety culture markers, with significant differences across subcultures and industry sectors. The results suggested that there is a gap between the industry guidelines and literature, as well as variant approaches to safety culture across the industry. The framework suggested in the study might be used as reference for completing existing safety culture development plans and constructing safety culture assessment instruments.