Measuring and evaluating safety management system effectiveness using Data Envelopment Analysis

Stolzer, Alan J.; Friend, Mark A.; Truong, Dothang; Tuccio, William A.; Aguiar, Marisa

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.037

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• self-interested reports used as measures of quality, such as safety personnel reporting on the quality of safety management in their organisation, e.g. Santos et al [46] and Stolzer et al [47]; • self-reported behaviour used as measures of behaviour, such as individuals describing their own safety conduct, e.g. Kievik et al [48];…”

Section: Issue Giving Rise To This Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A manifesto for Reality-based Safety Science

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Issue Giving Rise To This Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A manifesto for Reality-based Safety Science

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A key performance metric of a functional and mature SMS is a resilient safety culture under all operational conditions (Paries, Macchi, Valot & Deharvenght, 2018). Measuring resilient safety culture is an essential part of SMS and a path towards continuous monitoring and improvements of organizational safety (Stolzer, Friend, Truong, & Aguiar, 2018). Reason (2011) provides a measurement strategy through a conceptual model of a resilient safety culture engine that drives an organization's safety program based on the Degani and Wiener (1991) model of organizational management factors namely; Principles, Policies, Procedures and Practices (4Ps).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results also support literature that suggest that Policy framework forges a consistent and pragmatic review of procedures for use by "sharp-end" employees in an organization. (ICAO, 2013;Stolzer, 2018). The strongest predictive relationship was between Procedures and Practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

21st International Symposium on Aviation Psychology

Kibler¹,

Pyatt²,

Motamedi³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Katharine and Orville Wright sitting in Wright Model H Flyer, created 1914. Used courtesy of Special Collections and Archives, Wright Brothers Collection, Wright State University Libraries. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms1_photographs/ 1088/ Description. Katharine Wright, wearing flying goggles, and Orville Wright sitting in a Wright Model H Flyer. Note on back, "Note vertical radiator made out of speaking tubes. Also note brake against wheel." i

show abstract

“…A well-known proactive approach to managing safety in aviation is the Safety Management System (SMS) programs (Kearns & Schermer, 2017;Stolzer, Friend, Truong, Tuccio, & Aguiar, 2018). The FAA defines SMS as the "formal, top-down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risk and assuring the effectiveness of safety risk controls.…”

Section: Human Error and The Aviation Maintenance Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These programs support safety practices by viewing safety from a holistic perspective as opposed to merely a reactionary one. In practice, SMS systems provide an architecture for aviation organizations to proactively manage safety (Stolzer, Friend, Truong, Tuccio, & Aguiar, 2018). In aviation maintenance environments, however, the decision-making process that occurs while troubleshooting AOG aircraft or other high-pressure scenarios has not been fully explored.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Classroom to Industry: Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance Decision-Making

Mrusek¹,

Douglas²

2020

CARI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of human factors in aviation remains a critical area of research given the safety implications of human error. Understanding what specific factors contribute to human error allows managers and operators to take steps to mitigate these hazards. Several methods have been tested in the cockpit and cabin crew environments, but less attention has been given to the aviation maintenance sector, despite the prevalence of accidents resulting from human error. With the introduction of AC-172A, the FAA validated the need for additional research and training on the role of human factors in aviation maintenance errors. However, a key component in this process is often overlooked--the role of decision-making. In aviation maintenance, the environment can change rapidly. Technicians must react and adjust their behavior, and their decision-making abilities, accordingly. Human factors such as fatigue, pressure, and distractions can interrupt cognitive processes and judgment, and in turn, decision-making. As technicians adapt to these environmental challenges, strategies must be in place to facilitate optimal decisionmaking. Recommendations for addressing the presence of human factors in aviation maintenance and the resulting impact on the decision-making process include taking both a proactive and reactive approach to human error identification. Proactively screening for individuals who are too risk-averse or too comfortable with taking risks can help hiring managers employ the right personnel equipped to make appropriate decisions in high consequence industries, such as aviation. Additionally, by encouraging and reviewing hazard reports, steps can be taken to mitigate human error factors in the future. Anonymous hazard reporting tools such as the REPAIRER allow maintenance managers to leverage existing (and FAA-required) safety management systems (SMS) by including a human factors analysis.

show abstract

Measuring and evaluating safety management system effectiveness using Data Envelopment Analysis

Cited by 24 publications

References 11 publications

A manifesto for Reality-based Safety Science

A manifesto for Reality-based Safety Science

21st International Symposium on Aviation Psychology

From Classroom to Industry: Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance Decision-Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About