Citation

Gordon R, Kirwan B, Perrin E. Safety Sci. 2007; 45(6): 669-695.

Affiliation

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, BP 15, Bretigny-sur-Orge F-91222, France (rachael.gordon@eurocontrol.int)

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2007.04.004

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This paper describes two safety surveys carried out in an Air Traffic Management Research and Development centre (EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre). The paper discusses the differences and similarities between the two tools with regard to their development, the method of conducting the surveys, the results and their implications. It has been estimated that about 50% to 60% of accidents and incidents appear to have their roots in the design and development process, and since this is the core business of the EEC, it was deemed necessary to investigate the maturity of safety at the EEC. The challenge for the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) was to develop a tool that is relevant to a research and development environment with the objectives of (i) identifying areas of weakness in the safety culture of the organization (ii) helping in developing a Safety Management System. The first objective was addressed by developing a Safety Culture Survey (SCS) tool and surveying the EEC (March, 2003). The second objective was addressed by customizing an existing (SMS) survey tool (RD) for the R and D environment. The SCS is based on traditional measures adapted to ATM and then to R and D, and the River Diagram (RD) is more of a safety management survey, adapted from other industries and already applied to HQ (EUROCONTROL Head Quarters) to examine their commitment to safety. Nevertheless, the two surveys have been compared to see where they agree and where they `dissociate'. Overall, the SCS has a broader focus on "softer issues", i.e. more complex issues of `trust in management'. Diagnostically, the River Diagram survey helps the practitioner develop SMS implementation plans more readily than the Safety Culture survey.