Heinrichs Domino Accident Causation Model and Gordons Multiple Causation Model - Case Study Example

Accident Causation Models Student’s Name Institution Affiliation Accident Causation Models Introduction The term accident is a very broad term that encompasses different types of health and safety risks and hazards. Nonetheless, the term accident can be defined as an unplanned event that results in an injury or any other unexpected outcome (Rowlison, 2004). A random search on the internet reveals that there is a lot of information on accidents and its causative factors. The availability of this information demonstrates the importance of this issue to humanity. However, its importance did not start with the onset of the digital age. From as early as the 1940s, industrialists and scholars began to appreciate the importance of understanding accidents and its causative factors. This led to the development of different accident theories and models over time. Most notably, each model proposed a different interplay of factors or events; hence, resulting in accidents or incidences. Thus, a review of such two such models attempts to draw a comparison between the two. The objective is to highlight the major similarities and differences between the Heinrich’s Domino Accident Causation Model and Gordon’s Multiple Causation Model, the epidemiological model. Background: Heinrich Domino Causation Model and Gordon’s Epidemiological Model Heinrich developed the domino theory on accidents was in 1941.This approach sought to examine the immediate causative factors that led to an accident. The US insurance industry used the model to allocate responsibility for accident actions. Therefore, Bohle and Quinlan (2010) note that the model was more geared to towards finding the immediate causes of accidents, referred to as unsafe acts, rather than the roots of the accidents. According to the Domino theory, five factors control the accident process. These include the social environment, human errors, mechanical, and physical hazards, the actual accident and the resultant injury (Stranks, 2007). The model proposes that the factors are organized in a fixed and logical order, each dependent on the other. Consequently, according to the theory accidents occur when an unfortunate event occurs on one of the adjacent factors depicted in the domino theory. The exact affected domino is thus referred to as the unsafe act or unsafe condition. Almost nine years after the Heinrich’s domino model, Gordon’s epidemiological model on accidents was developed. This model proposed that the interplay of different causative factors was the causes of accidents and injury. Rowlison (2010) points out that the epidemiological model considers accidents occur because of three forces namely: the host, environment, and agent. The model considers predisposition and situational characteristics as the major components that can cause accidents or injuries. Gordon's works were interested in finding out the factors that cause accidents as well as how they are interrelated. Gordon regarded these factors to be unlimited; consequently, he developed multiple strategies that he believed would prevent the injuries. His works were detailed as he also provided insights on the ergonomics and accidents, whereby, he proposed that design flaws and other human abilities and characteristics were contributed towards the likelihood of accidents occurring in the workplace. Comparisons: Theoretical Foundations Both the Domino and epidemiological models have significant differences in their theoretical foundations. To begin with, the domino theory seeks to establish the unsafe acts that lead to accidents and incidents rather than the exact root causes of accidents (Bohle and Quitan, 2010). The model seeks to highlight the single causative which if triggered is likely to be the cause of the accident. In its view, if a single causative factor is interfered with, then it triggers a sequential series of events that results in an accident or incident. However, the epidemiological model seeks to identify both the causative factors as well as how they interplay cause an accident. According to the model, an accident is because of a complex interaction of different factors. This model envisions accidents as having similar characteristics to infectious diseases; hence, it emphasizes on comprehending the cause-effect relationship between the factors (Rowiison, 2004). Therefore, the model focuses on identifying the processes of an accident, which is a significant difference with the domino model since its objective is to identify the specific causative agents. Secondly, Gordon focused on the distribution and causes of injury (Hilgenkamp, 2005). Hence, he identified the host, agent and environmental factors as the major factors or events that would likely lead to an accident. However, Heinrich preferred an ideological approach that enabled him to emphasize the cost implications of accidents (Bohle & Quinlan, 2010). In terms of the appropriation of the event, Heinrich considered social attitudes and behavior as the primary causative agents of accidents. The domino model allocates responsibility for industrial accidents on factors external factors with respect to the workplace. However, the epidemiological model assigns responsibility for accidents on both internal and external factors concerning the workplace. In fact, the model goes as far as looking at ergonomics as a contributor to accidents. Type of Causation Model The domino causation model is a simple linear model. This mode is also known as a simple sequential linear accident model. According to Hollnagel (2010), this type of model believes that accidents occur because of a series of events that occur in a specific known and logical manner. An evaluation of the Heinrich Domino theory reveals that it asserts that all events leading to the accident occur in a logical and recognizable order. Based on the model, social environment/ ancestry, unsafe acts/ mechanical and physical hazards, personal errors, accidents, and injuries are examples of the five situations and decisions that eventually lead to injury or damage (Toft, Dell, Klockner, & Hutton, 2012). Additionally, this type of model aims to identify the exact direct and proximate causes of errors. Consequently, it proposes preventive measures that call for the removal of the particular factor to prevent a knockdown effect. On the other hand, the epidemiological model is an example of a complex linear model. This type of model aims to establish the dynamics leading to the accident and recognizes that accidents are a result of the interplay of different factors (Qureshi, 2007 3). The epidemiological model identifies environmental, agent, and host, anomalies and how each influences the other; thereby, leading to injury or damage. The model refutes a simplistic view of accidents and calls for heightened understanding of both human and technical factors leading to an injury or damage. Additionally, this category of accident models encourages individuals to think about causal series and develop preventive measures that address all the factors associated with the causal series. Thus, it advocates for preventive strategies that focus on comprehending deviations in any of the three major factors as well as any other latent causes. The approach does not advocate for the elimination or suppression of identified causes as is the case in simple linear models, as it very likely that the event will reoccur. Rather, it proposes that the preventive systems in place should be reinforced to weather any deviations. Also, it proposes training on safe behavior and practices. Environmental Factors Both Gordon and Heinrich agree that one’s social environment predisposes them to either accidents or incidents. Based on the domino theory, social environment is the first domino in the five-part sequence. The Domino looks at how personality traits and ancestry contributes to one’s nature and consequently predisposing them to danger (International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Conference & Hassan, 2015). The model’s discussion on social factors is one geared towards identifying specific personal characteristics that can be classified as unsafe acts that are likely to cause accidents. On the other hand, the epidemiological model focuses on the social structures such as organizational policies besides personal abilities to establish their contribution towards an injury. The model attempts to understand human behavior in the context of value systems, work processes to comprehend how individual decisions and actions contribute towards an accident. The epidemiological model rejects the idea that accidents involve systematic transfer on inherent characteristics that predispose an individual to accidents (Stellman, 2008). Rather, it believes that that an unsupportive environment weakens the social environment, hence, leading to accidents (White, 2006). Similarity in Objectives Both models seek to achieve the same goal, elimination, or minimization of accidents or incidences. Although the approaches are different, both models converge at a similar point, the safety, and well-being of humans. Thus, both models could be said to be organization-oriented. The prevention proposals under each model all aim to establish a safe environment, where injuries and damages can be avoided. By identifying the individual causative factors, the domino model identifies the most probable and known risk factors (Hollnagel, 2012). This information is crucial to the development of health and safety plans. On the other hand, the epidemiological appears to build on the existing information exposed by the dominion model. Consequently, it begins to build on the existing knowledge such as social factors, technical and mechanical hazards, and types of accidents with the aim of charting out the different processes that lead to accidents. The epidemiological model does not necessarily discredit any of the information purported by the dominion model; rather it stimulates new perceptions on accidents and their prevention. Conclusion The comparative analysis has revealed that both Heinrich and Gordon's models on accidents have significant theoretical and categorization differences. However, their similarities demonstrate that both approaches are not entirely antagonistic. The reality is that the Gordon's epidemiological model appears to explore further the intricate interrelationships between the five factors identified by Heinrich's dominos model. Consequently, the discussion has revealed that both models seem to share the same basic views concerning the environmental factors that lead to accidents. Also, both models seek to provide insights into the founding principles of the recommended preventive measures. Eventually, both models seek to either eliminate or minimize accidents or incidences. Despite the similarities, both models have deeply rooted differences concerning their ideologies. The discussion has noted that the ideology drives the dominion model that any prevention measures should be driven by cost consideration, with particular focus being minimizing the cost implications associated with accidents. On the other hand, the epidemiological model is driven by the ideology that organizations should understand the processes that lead to accidents or incidences and put in place adequate preventive measures regardless of the cost implication. References Bohle, P., & Quinlan, M. (2010). Managing occupational health and safety: A multidisciplinary approach. South Yarra, Vic: Macmillan. Hilgenkamp, K. (2005). Environmental health: Ecological perspectives. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Hollnagel, E. (2010). FRAM background. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/erikhollnagel2/coursematerials/FRAM_background.pdf Hollnagel, E. (2012). FRAM, the functional resonance analysis method: Modelling complex socio-technical systems. Farnham, Surrey, UK England: Ashgate. International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Conference, & In Hassan, R. (2015). In CIEC 2014: Proceedings of the International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Conference 2014. Qureshi, Z. H. (2007, December). A review of accident modelling approaches for complex socio- technical systems. In Proceedings of the twelfth Australian workshop on Safety critical systems and software and safety-related programmable systems-Volume 86 (pp. 47-59). Australian Computer Society, Inc. Rowlinson, S. M. (2004). Construction safety management systems. London: Spon Press. Stellman, J. M. (2008). Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety. Volume 1. Geneve: International Labour Office/ ILO/ International Labour Organisation. Stranks, J. W. (2007). Human factors and behavioral safety. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Toft, Y., Dell, G., Klockner, K. K., & Hutton, A. (2012). Models of causation: safety. Safety Institute of Australia, Tullamarine, Victoria. White, K. (2006). The Sage dictionary of health and society. London: SAGE. Read More