Safety-I and Safety-II: it’s not a choice

Over the last decade, there has been an increasing debate about the merits of Safety-I and Safety-II.?

From Safety-I to Safety-II: A White Paper defined Safety I as “a state where as few things as possible go wrong”. Safety II, on the other hand, assumes that “the everyday performance variability needed to respond to varying conditions is the reason why things go right.”

How we ended up with two modes of safety thinking

Why did the distinction develop?

There was a sense that, while day-to-day safety was improving, catastrophic disasters such as Deepwater Horizon were still occurring. Despite all the rules we had, our safety work wasn’t doing enough.?

Fingers were pointed at a perceived desk-based approach to safety which prescribed practices that seemed to make sense but didn’t consider the everyday realities of work.?

People termed this approach Safety-I. They felt it did not accommodate the ability of humans to adapt to the practical situation around them, rather relying on additional rules to cover all eventualities. If you were going to embody this characterisation of Safety-I as a persona, it would be the stereotype of an EHS professional walking around with a big binder of documentation and a clipboard, writing people up for not following the rules to the letter.?

The Safety-II movement was a reaction to this. Whereas Safety-I looks at what goes wrong, Safety-II is more focused on what’s gone well and seeing how we can learn from that.?Safety-I defines a safe system of work in which humans are one component, while Safety-II recognises the ability of humans to apply practical judgement to the complex, interrelated environments found in modern workplaces.

Moving away from either/or

As with many debates, there are evangelists on both sides. Safety-II proponents say Safety-I is about restricting and locking down, while Safety-I supporters claim Safety-II is based on a wild west of abandoned rules.?

But, as with many debates, looking at it as an either/or is wrong. At Evotix, we believe that there need to be rules for the areas that matter most, supported by a safety culture in the fabric of your organisation to cover every other risk.?

Those of you that have been reading my recent articles will see a common theme here. For me, Safety I and Safety II are expansions on the subject of work as practised versus work as imagined I covered last time.?

So, what we’re really looking at is not choosing one over the other but applying the principles of both where relevant. There are some approaches that we specify and document because we know they are important to keep people safe.?But the modern workplace is complex, with no two situations being the same. There is a role for operator judgement to complement the required approaches defined in the safety case.??

How Safety-I and Safety-II together can drive real benefits

As I pointed out earlier, this whole discussion arose because we were still seeing major incidents despite day-to-day work becoming safer. I understand why distinctions develop between alternative approaches. We all have our own opinions on the best way to do something. Rather than debate the differences let’s take a step back and think about how we can combine the best of both to create safer working environments.?

Doing so creates a more holistic approach to safety management. It also greatly enriches the role of safety professionals – adding elements of communication and human psychology to the more technical safety disciplines.

I’m going to explore these topics in greater detail in the coming months.?In the meantime, I’m keen to hear your thoughts. Where do you come down in the discussion on Safety-I and Safety-II? Are you for one over the other or see the merits in combining the two? Or do you believe in another way entirely??