Safety I vs. Safety II: An overview (2018)
safety4sea.com
safety4sea.com
The obvious failure mode of Safety I is an infinite list of rules governing all possible corner cases... Sometimes you stay at an AirBNB with a five-inch binder full of rules, every one of which traces back to some unfortunate (or at least mildly unpleasant) incident. But when the rules-list gets long enough, it may as well not exist.
Improved core process is the antidote, and I suppose what Safety II is supposed to be about.
My favorite safety book, Charles Perrow's "Normal Accidents", is sort of about that too, although it's not at all prescriptive.
The concern I thought I might have had, from the Safety4Sea article, is that it wasn't clear to me how you distinguish "the system working correctly" (normal work leads to a result with no adverse events) from "the system being lucky" (normal work is blind to some risks which arise rarely, and didn't arise this time). The paper looks like it's much clearer on "Safety II" being about understanding what went right, which is very reassuring.
Since the website is focused on safety at sea, let's suppose I go on a day cruise. I don't look at the weather or tidal forecasts, or even bother to check the depth of the anchorage at my destination. The weather turns out to be fine, with smooth, glassy seas, and by chance I pull into the anchorage at low tide and still have plenty of depth for my boat. Surely safety II wouldn't teach me that it's not important to check the weather, tides, or depth? On the other hand, if I get caught in a bad squall or run aground at my destination, it's hard to deny that I should focus on my lazy preparation as the root cause.
Are there some better, more specific guidelines for when and how to apply Safety II principles?