This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Shrivastava, S. Articles by Pazzaglia, F. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Normal Accident Theory versus High Reliability Theory: A resolution and call for an open systems view of accidents

Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, sshrivastava{at}swin.edu.au

Karan Sonpar

University College Dublin, Ireland, karan.sonpar{at}ucd.ie

Federica Pazzaglia

University of Manitoba in Canada, pazzagli{at}cc.umanitoba.ca

We resolve the longstanding debate between Normal Accident Theory (NAT) and High-Reliability Theory (HRT) by introducing a temporal dimension. Specifically, we explain that the two theories appear to diverge because they look at the accident phenomenon at different points of time. We, however, note that the debate’s resolution does not address the non-falsifiability problem that both NAT and HRT suffer from. Applying insights from the open systems perspective, we reframe NAT in a manner that helps the theory to address its non-falsifiability problem and factor in the role of humans in accidents. Finally, arguing that open systems theory can account for the conclusions reached by NAT and HRT, we proceed to offer pointers for future research to theoretically and empirically develop an open systems view of accidents.

Key Words: high reliability • negentropy • normal accident • open system theory • requisite variety

Human Relations, Vol. 62, No. 9, 1357-1390 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0018726709339117


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?