PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11132050

Soft systems, hard lessons.

Abstract

This paper is concerned with practical experiences of achieving human factors and safety interventions in the nuclear power and process control industries. It rests upon the premise that, although human factors (HF) and safety may be technological in approach, they nevertheless must operate in a socio-technical environment, within companies with corporate structures and cultures, interacting with regulatory authorities. A crucial ingredient to the successful implementation and integration of human factors into company practices and procedures is therefore the nature of the inter-relationships between human factors personnel and those who control the existing procedures determining all aspects of the design and operational processes. Such inter-relationships can largely determine whether HF is implemented or not. These human-human interactions and interfaces in a socio-technical system may be referred to as soft systems. When training in human factors, much of the training is concerned with technical aspects of the discipline. However, when entering industry or consultancy, one quickly discovers that technical aspects are usually the least of one's problems. This paper is concerned with experiences and guidance to better help the human factors professional starting out in industry. There is little scientific method in the paper. It is, instead, a distillation of this author's and others' experiences in acting either as a practitioner or consultant, or as leader of a human factors unit in industries that have at times been reluctant or even hostile about the perceived 'invasion' of human factors. However, to avoid being purely anecdotal, the experiences are placed in a framework concerned with the life cycle of integrating human factors into an industry, from being the first HF person in a company, to the development of a successful unit, or the absorption of a successful unit into other departments. Within this framework a range of strategic aspects are dealt with, such as integration of HF into the design process, and selection of test-case projects.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Kirwan. 2000. Soft systems, hard lessons.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(00)00041-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Active sick leave for patients with back pain: all the players onside, but still no action.

STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured interviews, group discussions, and a mailed survey. OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers to the use of active sick leave (ASL) and to design an intervention to improve the use of ASL by patients with low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ASL was introduced in Norway in 1993 to encourage people on sick leave to return to modified work. With ASL the National Insurance Administration (NIA) pays 100% of wages, thereby allowing the employer to engage a substitute worker at no extra cost, in addition to the worker on ASL. Arranging ASL requires cooperation between the general practitioner (GP), employer, local NIA staff, and the patient, which may explain why ASL was used in less than 1% of the eligible sick leave cases in 1995, despite strong support from all players. METHODS: The authors conducted five in-depth interviews at a workplace where ASL was successfully implemented. Questionnaires were sent to 89 GPs, 102 workplace representatives, and 22 local NIA officers in three counties. Five patients with back pain who had used ASL were interviewed in a focus group, and 10 patients with back pain who had not used ASL were interviewed using a structured guide. Five workplaces participated in a dialogue conference. Data collection and analysis were iterative, and new data were constantly compared with the previously analyzed materials. RESULTS: About 80% of the GPs, employers, and NIA officers believed ASL is effective in reducing long-term sick leave. Among the barriers identified were lack of information, lack of time, and work flow barriers such as poor communication and coordination of activities between the players required to carry out ASL. Two strategies were designed to improve the workflow between them. A passive implementation strategy was designed to require a minimum amount of economic and administrative support. It included targeted information, clinical guidelines for low back pain, a reminder to GPs in the sick leave form, and a standardized agreement. A proactive strategy included the same four elements plus a kick-off continuing education seminar for GPs and a trained resource person to facilitate the use of ASL. CONCLUSIONS: Having all the players onside may be essential, but it is not sufficient to bring about action in workplace strategies for patients with low back pain. If early return to modified work is effective, implementing it may require interventions targeted at identified barriers.

Communication↗