Now we are going to see a comparative table
between Safety I versus Safety II made by professor Hollnagel.
The first thing we are going to see is
the proper definition of safety according to Safety I
is as few things as possible, go wrong.
We wanted to have the less number of accidents.
Safety II, on the other hand, states the definition
as many things as possible go right.
We are going to look for that everyday work,
for that or these positive outcomes.
From the perspective of safety management principles,
Safety I is reactive.
We are going to improve safety
when something wrong or negative happens.
Until we don't have negative outcomes, we are not going to do anything.
We are based on our future success in past things.
Safety II, on the other hand, is proactive.
It's always trying to anticipate developments and events continuously.
That means that we are going to have everybody involved.
We are going to focus on many frequent everyday activities.
From the human factors perspective or human factors in safety management,
Safety I takes into account the human actions mainly,
or takes the human actions manly as a liability or hazard.
So humans are bad.
In Safety II, on the other hand again, human actions are a source
for the system flexibility and resilience.
And here we are going to mention resilience.
Resilience is a term that means that a system or a person
is able to adapt to changing situations.
And in any kind of system, we are going to look always
for it to be resilient.
From the accident investigation perspective,
Safety I thinks or states that accidents
are cause by failures and malfunctions.
So our investigation is going to try to go backwards
trying to figure out what happened,
what led us to have that failures
or those malfunctions.
If we'll go to Safety II, we can say that things basically happen
in the same way many times.
What we are going to try to see is
how usually they work well,
rather than why they did go bad.
But once again, remember they are not...
...they are different philosophies, but they are not opposing.
We can use both philosophies. Now we are using just Safety I,
but we want to use both. We want to use Safety II
to improve safety.
And finally, from the risk assessment perspective,
in Safety I we can say that accidents are going to be caused
by failures or malfunctions.
And our investigations, as we said, are going to try to identify
those causes and factors that led to the accident.
That's not going to be always possible because the systems
are more and more complex.
They worked really well in the past, but as the time passes,
systems are going to be more complex.
And human interactions are going to be more complex.
So sometimes everything can go without knowing exactly what happened.
In Safety II we have to understand the conditions
where performance variability can become difficult
or impossible to monitor and control.
So here, the risk assessment is going to try
to see when it's going to be more difficult to do the task
or the everyday work.
And then it's when we are going to try to anticipate to those conditions.
So here you can see what professor Hollnagel
defined as Safety II, versus what he started to call
Safety I or conventional safety.