We can try to see how the safety process goes.
And we safety process we mean Safety II process.
The first thing that we are going to do is
looking at the things that go right
and as well to the things that go wrong.
And we are going to learn from success and failures,
or from success and fails.
From that we can continue saying that things do not well,
do not go well, sorry, just because people
simply follow the procedures or everything worked as imagined.
Because work as imagined is the work you do or you imagine in your mind
when you design a system.
But they are variable things that are going to do
that the real work or work as done is from that imagined thing.
So work as done is the work that everybody does
and has to adapt to different situations.
So things go well because people make sensible adjustments
according to the demands of the situation.
With this in mind, what we are going to do
is we are going to find those adjustments.
We are going to try to learn from them.
It's at least as important
as finding out the causes of an adverse condition or outcome.
When something goes wrong, it is unlikely to be a unique event.
It is rather something that has gone well many times before
and it will go well many times in the future too.
So it is necessary to understand how such everyday activities go well.
How they succeed.
Based on this we have to look for what happens regularly.
We are going to focus on events based on their frequency,
rather than on their severity.
Many small improvements of everyday performance
may count more than a huge or large improvement
of exceptional performance.
Although Safety II focuses on things that go well,
we have to be open to failure. We have to keep in mind
that things also can go wrong
and, as professor Hollnagel said,
"remain sensitive to possible failure".
But the "possible failure" is not just that something may go wrong,
corresponding to a Safety I view,
but also that the intended outcomes may not be obtained
as we imagined.
So things didn't go properly well.
Making sure that things go right
requires an ongoing concern of whatever is working or succeeding,
not only to ensure it succeeds but confirmation bias
or to focus on the most optimistic outcomes.
This leads us to see some advantages of Safety II versus Safety I.
We can say that Safety II, if you remember about the control,
Safety II improves the control.
There are more cases to study, more feedback.
Because we are focusing on more frequent events.
While Safety I was focusing on accidents that happened few times,
at the very beginning they can happen many times,
but as time passes and our efforts improve safety,
according to Safety I there is going to be less and less events.
So in this case, we have more cases for automatic control.
As mentioned before, feedback is the basis for a proper control.
Now, looking at the vocabulary.
Recurring to safety when it is present, when it is there,
it's going to make people to understand better what means safety
and to adhere better to safety principles.
The negative vocabulary is not going to be forgotten,
but it's going to be on a second level.
And this positive philosophy based on the presence of safety
leads to the idea that people are going to tend to be more proactive.
If we remember, we said that Safety I was reactive.
We just work when there is absence of safety.
But here people are not going to be so scared of giving their opinions.
Because they know perfectly when something is safe
and how their performance can improve safety.
And finally safety is not waiting for something negative to happen,
but learning that from everyday work instead,
it is possible to improve efficiency.
There are more positive human actions every day to improve
and there is more feedback.
So in general, we are going to have better efficiency.
And those four are really important advantages
from Safety I versus Safety... sorry from Safety II versus Safety I.