A Comprehensive Comparison and Contrast of Two Accident Causation Models - Term Paper Example

Accident Causation Models Name Institutional Affiliation Accident Causation Models Introduction Accident cassation models imply the systematic and comprehensive method of ascertaining the reason of occurrence of an accident. Under definition of an accident, it implies a coincidence of phenomena, situation or activities, in a single and similar time and space. Since there are many variable to consider, the investigation of the causes of an accident can be quite difficult. However, it is very significant to understand the accident causation, to put the relevant measures to prevent it. There are several models, which has been developed, as an effort to shed light to the causation of accidents. These models include the simple linear model, complex linear model and the complex non-linear model. In relation to this, the present paper presents a comprehensive comparison and contrast of two accident causation models. Accident Causation Models As illustrated by Khanzode, Maiti & Ray (2012, there are three basic categories of models, which explain the accident causation. The first one is simple linear models, which were advocated by Heinrich in 1931. The models advocate that an accident come because of the series of sequential events, which plays out like dominos. The sequence of these events is starts with the social environmental factors, unsafe acts, individual factors and physical and mechanical hazards. Therefore, the model advocates that one dominos elimination may prevent the incident. Another model category is the complex linear models. The model holds that an accident results because of the combination of several unsafe conditions, and factors in which an individual interacts with the system which exposes him or her to a risk. The model advocates that setting appropriate controls could help to appropriately prevent an accident (Leveson, 2011). The complex non-linear models were the third models category, which were advocated by the Hollnagel in 2010. The model advocates accidents are because of the mutually interacting variables, which occur in real time environments. To prevent the accident, the model advocates the understanding of these multiple factors. Comparison and Contrast of the Accident Causation Model There are various similarities and differences, which exist between various accident causation models. In this case, the paper presents a comparison and contrast of the Human Factor Theory and the incident/accident causation model. Human factor theory Vs Domino theory There are several similarities and differences that exist between human factor theory and the domino theory, as illustrated below. Similarities Concept of accident One of the major similarity between the two theories is that they share the same concept of accident. Both theories defines accident, identifies the various causes of an accidents and tries to pint out how these accidents can be prevented from occurring. By definition, the human factor theory defines accident as the undesirable events, situations or circumstances, which are undesirable and affects an individual or an animal at the same time or moment (Saleh, & Pendley, 2012). The same concept is the domino model, which states that implies a coincidence of phenomena, situation or activities, in a single and similar time and space, holds him. Sequential events Another similarity between the domino and the human factor theory is their view regarding the sequential events causes of accidents. According to the domino theory, Heinrich Domino, its developer advocated that it is developer advocated that an accident is emanates from a sequence of activities, which he referred to as the chain of sequential events (Salmon, Cornelissen, & Trotter, 2012). He indicated that these events leading to an accident happens in a metaphorically manner, like the dominoes which are falling over. In such a case, when one domino falls, it triggers the falling of another domino, and that one triggers the falling of another and the sequence continues. In the same manner, the accident occurs, where a sequence of several events leads to occurrence of an accident. The human factor theory of accident causation occurs because of chain of events. He linked the occurrence of these events to the human error. In explanation, the events, which lead to human error, according to their sequence, include the overload, which leads to the inappropriate response. Inappropriate response on the other hand leads to the inappropriate activities, which eventually leads to an accident. Environmental Factors Another common concept shared between the two factors is effect of environmental factors to the occurrence of an accident. According to the Domino theory, it advocates that the unsafe environmental conditions lead to occurrence of an accident. He advocated that all accidents are linked in one way or another to an unsafe condition. In this case, the unsafe conditions include mechanical or physical hazards, which can affect an individual, such as the unguarded gears, removal of safeguards, unsafe performance of people, standing under a suspended load among others. Presence and exposure of these events to an individual leads to the occurrence of accidents. Similarly, human factor theory advocates that environmental factors, which results to occurrence of an accident, include the distractions, noise, climate changes among others. The theory considers these environmental factors as one of the contributing factor to the overload, which implies an imbalance between an individual’s capacity and the wit a particular time, and the load the person is carrying at that given state. Personal Fault Both of these theories linked the individual personality to occurrence of an accident. The Domino theory, in its second domino advocated that personality traits have a potential to accelerate the occurrence of an accident. According to Heinrich, the obtained or inborn characters such as inconsiderateness, bad temper, recklessness and ignorance contributes in one way or another. The personal fault according to the human factor theory of accident causation is the internal factors. According to the internal factors, these factors include personal problems, individual worries and the emotional stress. Situational Factors Causes Another similarity between the two models is their view that situational factors leads to possibility of increase of the rate of an accident. The human factor theory of accident causation advocates that the situational factors, which lead to acceleration of an accident, include unclear situation involved in an accident and the personal problems (Otte, Jänsch, & Haasper, 2012). On the other hand, the domino model describes the situational factors responsible for occurrence of accidence includes lack of knowledge and skills to apply in the situation, and physical unsuitability. The models advocate that these factors contribute to the occurrence of an accident. Differences between Domino Model and human factor theory of Accident Causation Chain of events leading to accidents One of the significant different between the two theories is the sequence of e vents which causes an accidents. According to the Domino theory, the accident results from a chain of sequential events. These events occur through a series over a period. These events start with the social environment and the ancestry. In this stage, the sequence involves the personality of worker. In this case, the model suggests the personality traits such as the stubbornness and recklessness are passed through the inheritance (Manu, Ankrah, Proverbs, & Suresh, 2012). The inheritance and social environmental factors leads to fault of a person. The next level is the fault of a person, which implies the carelessness of a person. In this case, the model argues that the bad temper, recklessness and ignorance of an individual contribute to unsafe acts. Unsafe acts or unsafe conditions as defined by the model include the starting machinery without a warning. He advocated that these were the central factors, which has leads to the occurrence of accidents. The unsafe acts leads occurrence of accidents. The accidence in turn leads to occurrence of an injury. The human factor theory on the other hand advocates accident occur because of the occurrence of sequence of events, which are ultimately related to the human error. The sequence starts with the overload, which leads to the inappropriate response, which in turn results to the inappropriate activities associated with an accident (Goh, Love, Brown & Spickett, 2012). Overload refers to the imbalance between an individual capacity, and the load he or she is carrying at any particular point in time. The overload makes a person to have an inappropriate response and incompatibility, which includes exposure to hazardous conditions, but the individual, does nothing to correct it. The incompatibility of an individual with working station factors such as size and forces leads to accidents and injuries, because of inappropriate activities taken by an individual. Prevention of accidents The two models present differing views on how to respond and prevent the occurrence of an accident. The Domino theory advocates that accidents can be prevented through removing any of the factors, which are found in the sequential events. The model also advocates that accidents could be minimized by reducing the unsafe acts and conditions (Behm & Schneller, 2013). The human factor theory on the hand implies that accidents could be minimized through appropriate response to the hazardous conditions. This could be done by establishing an appropriate safety procedure. Conclusion From the above analysis, it is evident that there are various theories, which describes the causation of occurrence of accidents. They are in three categories, which include complex linear models, simple linear models and the complex non-linear models. There several differences and similarities between Domino model and the human factor model of accident causation. The similarities include the concept of accidents concept, sequential events, environmental factors, personal fault and situational factor causes. The differences are the sequence of events of accident occurrence and the prevention of accidents. References Behm, M., & Schneller, A. (2013). Application of the Loughborough Construction Accident Causation model: a framework for organizational learning. Construction Management and Economics, 31(6), 580-595. Goh, Y. M., Love, P. E., Brown, H., & Spickett, J. (2012). Organizational accidents: a systemic model of production versus protection. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 52-76. Khanzode, V. V., Maiti, J., & Ray, P. K. (2012). Occupational injury and accident research: A comprehensive review. Safety science, 50(5), 1355-1367. Leveson, N. G. (2011). Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events. Safety Science, 49(1), 55-64. Manu, P. A., Ankrah, N. A., Proverbs, D. G., & Suresh, S. (2012). Investigating the multi-causal and complex nature of the accident causal influence of construction project features. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 48, 126-133. Otte, D., Jänsch, M., & Haasper, C. (2012). Injury protection and accident causation parameters for vulnerable road users based on German In-Depth Accident Study GIDAS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 44(1), 149-153. Saleh, J. H., & Pendley, C. C. (2012). From learning from accidents to teaching about accident causation and prevention: Multidisciplinary education and safety literacy for all engineering students. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,99, 105-113. Salmon, P. M., Cornelissen, M., & Trotter, M. J. (2012). Systems-based accident analysis methods: A comparison of Accimap, HFACS, and STAMP.Safety science, 50(4), 1158-1170. Read More