Security I vs Security II: An outline
The standard excited about security has reached some notable landmarks, however the consistently renewed checklist of surprising incidents at sea involves underline a necessity for a change in security notion, unveiling there may very well be greater than the standard methods of ‘doing security’.
A 2013 white paper by Professors Erik Hollnagel, Robert L Wears and Jeffrey Braithwaite got here to redefine the best way we see security with the introduction of a brand new definition on the scope: The ‘Security II’ idea argues that we must always cease focusing solely on learn how to cease issues from going fallacious however emphasize on why issues go proper as an alternative. The ‘Security-II’ perspective acts as an evolutionary complement of the standard security considering, referred as ‘Security I’.
Security I takes accidents as the main focus level and tries to forestall dangerous issues from occurring, whereas Security-II is emphasizing on making certain that as a lot as doable goes proper, increasing rather more than the world of incident prevention and selling an actual security administration over a easy threat evaluation.
In a extra simplified means, the brand new security idea involves dislodge the curiosity from ’what goes fallacious’ to ‘what goes proper’, reminding that security administration shouldn’t solely be reactive, however proactive as nicely.
An accident investigation below the scope of Security-I is to establish the causes of adversarial outcomes, whereas threat evaluation goals to find out their chance. Quite the opposite, accident investigations below Security-II search to grasp how issues often go proper, as this kinds the idea for explaining how issues go fallacious, whereas threat evaluation goals ‘to grasp the situations the place efficiency variability can turn out to be tough to regulate’.
Notably, the brand new idea doesn’t search to supersede what’s already being achieved, however to enhance the present strategy, which implies that most of the present practices can proceed for use, simply ‘with a unique emphasis’. Nevertheless, one can not exist with out the opposite.
SAFETY I vs SAFETY II
| Security I | Security II |
| Be taught from our errors | Be taught from our successes |
| Security outlined by absence | Security outlined by presence |
| Reactive strategy | Proactive strategy |
| Perceive what goes fallacious | Perceive what goes proper |
| Accident causation | Repeat what goes proper |
| Keep away from errors | Implement profitable behaviors |
| Cut back losses | Create new course of on profitable behaviour |
Challenges forward
However what makes the transition to Security II needed? Constantly disruptive know-how, which makes navigation rather more complicated than it was, may very well be sufficient, however this isn’t the one reply.
In ‘Security II’, people are seen as a useful resource needed for flexibility and resilience. However in an period the place human error is attributed to the vast majority of maritime casualties, the view of people as a safeguard and never a legal responsibility would be the foremost problem.
On this respect, a place to begin for organizations inquisitive about Security II is to emphasise on enhancing their workers’ resilience, as the flexibility to watch issues and deal with conditions.
The best way ahead for a change of mentality appears lengthy in an trade which has historically discovered to shed concentrate on close to miss reporting, however not on optimistic reporting, to assert legal responsibility however care much less on praising exceptionally good efficiency.
The transition to this strategy was a key topic of the 2018 SAFETY4SEA Conference in Athens, the place world specialists targeted on how the trade can change mindset and embrace Security II. Particularly, the final two panels centred round security features describing why till at present delivery has adopted Security I idea, with panellists suggesting methods to maneuver ahead.
