Human Error Analysis: Detection, Recovery, and Organizational Justice

This essay delves into the multifaceted concept of human error, exploring its detection and various recovery approaches. It begins by defining human errors and their significance, particularly in the context of accidents, and then proceeds to analyze the 'Swiss cheese' model and human factors involved in errors. The essay evaluates the person and system approaches to understanding unsafe acts, supported by relevant examples, and provides a critical analysis of rule-based behavior, highlighting its pros and cons. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of openness, transparency, and the application of just culture in managing errors. The essay also demonstrates the application of knowledge regarding the process of achieving organizational justice within a workplace setting, ultimately concluding with a summary of the key findings and implications for error management.

Essay

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
Understanding of human errors along with detection and recovery approaches........................1
Evaluating of perceptions of unsafe acts....................................................................................2
Exceptional evaluation of system approach and person approach supported with relevant
examples. ...................................................................................................................................2
Evaluation of system approach....................................................................................................3
Critical analysis of rule-based behaviour clearly identifying pros and cons of rule-based
behaviour .....................................................................................................................................3
Appreciation of openness and transparency to manage errors and exceptional knowledge of
application of just culture ............................................................................................................4
Demonstration of application of knowledge of the process of achieving organizational justice.
......................................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Human errors is the error which is occurred which not having the intension boy the actor
along with not having the desired by the certain set of rules and regulation. The external observer
that has led the task outside the system in its acceptable limits. For more proper understanding it
can be stated that he there deviation has been taken place without having intension, expectation
or any desirability. The report will have the understanding over the human errors detection along
with recovery approaches. It will also have the inclusion of advantage and disadvantage of rule
based behaviours which have appreciation of openness and transparency to manage the errors.
This will help in proper understanding of application of knowledge in the process of achieving
the organizational justice.
MAIN BODY
Understanding of human errors along with detection and recovery approaches
Human errors are most of the time being citied as the causes of accidents when all the
remaining factors are being eliminated. It is very difficult task to have the clear definition
regarding the human errors. The more understanding regarding the term can be that the error that
has been taken place when all the planned sequence failed to have achievement over intended
outcome. These are this error which cannot be totally eliminated the workplace but if the typical
error can be identified, it can substantially be reduced. As per the traditional point of view human
error is being an attribution after the fact which is being related to people, tools, task and the
operating environment. The human errors have being regards as the action errors which is further
categorized as the slips or thinking errors. Such errors have the deliberate actions which can have
adoption of incorrect course of actions. The intensification of human error can be done through “
Swiss cheese” model, as per the suggested model there are various internal defences along with
atypical condition which are having prevention of disease (Denison, Yan and Butler., 2019).
There are many holes in the slices of Swiss cheese which is having the continuous open, closing
and reallocation. This make permit for the trajectory accident opportunities. The next is about the
human factors that have the evolvement in dynamic processing for production and understanding
language. This also have the inclusion of context dependency with emergence of through talks
which can be a one type of discourse (Hillson and Murray-Webster., 2017). The next
identification is regarding the cognitive failure which has been predicted due to unsafe behaviour
ans the micro level of accidents among the worker. There are various factor who are leading to
1

human errors such as the skill based behaviours without having conscious control. The rule
based behaviours which is being structured by feed forward control. The lack of knowledge
regarding the unfamiliar situations.
Evaluating of perceptions of unsafe acts.
The explicative model regarding the behaviours of unsafe work to have the revelation
over the mechanism which is being contributing behaviours of the individual the workplace. The
human error can be viewed with the two ways which can be termed as the person approach and
the system approach. The both models has the error causation along with it gives rise to different
philosophies of error management. There is importance for understanding these implications for
coping the ever mishaps risk in the clinical practices. The two approaches have the problem of
fallibility of human that is the person and system approach. In the person approach there is long-
standing and widespread approach which is focusing of unsafe acts that is errors ans procedural
violations. It has been analysing the unsafe acts as arising primarily from aberrant mental process
such as the inattentiveness, poor motivation negligence and recklessness. This counter measures
will help in reducing the unwanted variation in human behaviour. Followers to have the
approach will tend to have treat error such as moral issues as having the assumption that bad
things happen to bad people. On the other hand the system approach is having the fallibility and
errors in human are expected even in the best organized company. In such approachers the errors
are seen as the consequence for the cause (Hillson., 2017). This has the inclusion recurrent error
traps in the organizational workplace and process. As the per the counter measures, there cannot
be nay changes in the human condition but there can be changes in which the human work which
will turn out the idea of central system defence. . All the technologies which are hazardous
possess barriers as the barriers and safeguards. The situation where the adverse condition take
place the important note is not about who is blundered, it is about how and why the defence
system has been failed (awhney, Marks and Black., 2016).
Exceptional evaluation of system approach and person approach supported with relevant
examples.
Evaluation of person approach
Having the blame over the individual is more satisfying that the targeting the regarding
institution. Propel in organization are considered to have the capability of understanding between
the safe and unsafe mode so the time when to condition turn wrong the individual will be
2

responsible (Ang., 2018). There are various drawbacks of the particular approach as it is ill-
suited to the domain of medical line. The effective level of the risk manageable depends on the
establishment of reposting culture. The time organization fails top have the talented analysis of
any type of mishap, incidents, it will out to be uncovering the current error traps and the fall over
it. In the reporting culture trust has been identifies as the key element over the one processing
collective understanding between the blameless and blameworthy actions. By the
implementation of approach there is puniness of greater safety and removing the error provoking
properties within the large system (Kinsey., 2017).
Evaluation of system approach.
In the system approach defences, barriers and safeguards occupy as the key position in the
system approach. The higher level of technologies have the different layer of defensible layers
such as the physical barriers, Automations and the respective shutdowns. All the technologies
which are hazardous possess barriers as the barriers and safeguards. The situation where the
adverse condition take place the important note is not about who is blundered, it is about how
and why the defence system has been failed. There are many layers of slices with the
continuation of opening shutting and shifting of various location. There are can be two different
reasons of the holes in defences that is active failures and the latent conditions. The respective
are explained such as the active failures are done by people who are in direct contact with system
such as the slips, lapses mistake and the procedural vasodilatation. For example- the operates
have followed the wrong procedure and have switched off the successive safety system which
have created the catastrophic explosion in core (Amalberti and Vincent., 2019). On the other
hand in latent conditions the decision are been taken by the blundered, designer or the higher
authority. Latent conditions may be dormant within system for years before they combine with
active failures and local triggers to create an accident opportunity. Unlike active failures, whose
specific forms are often hard to foresee, latent conditions can be identified and remedied before
an adverse event occurs.
Critical analysis of rule-based behaviour clearly identifying pros and cons of rule-based
behaviour
Rule based behaviours have the refers over the situation in which where the use of the particular
disregard of the particular rule along with assert of rules in an undesired outcome. This means
that there is the existence of certain rules and regulation which can be appropriated in one
3

composition so may b inappropriate in another one. As the application of the inappropriate rule
occurs when rule has been worked over the previous occasion so it can be applied to the similar
situation with the having the incorrect expectation that it will work (Cleden., 2017). On the other
hand some time the rules are inappropriate there is upcoming of the negative outcomes. The
desired outcome cannot be delivered with the application of inappropriate rule. This will also
lead to have created the incorrect knowledge or the good rule any became have the bad following
along with challenges that have not been proper managed. The advantage and the disadvantage
of the rule based behaviour are such as the advantages are there is no need for the understanding
for the reasoning beginning the step. The courses of actions as the expert backing along with
threat it has the level of consistency. On the other hand the disadvantage are they can be termed
as more time-consuming and creates unthinking compliance. They cannot be applicable at every
situation and lead to risk of being wrong procedural selection (Mohanna and Chambers., 2018).
Appreciation of openness and transparency to manage errors and exceptional knowledge of
application of just culture
Just culture is the concept and philosophy which balance the need of open and honest reporting
environment and also it influences the employees to work with efficiency and also reduces the
error and also it requires the change in working style that helps in reducing the error. In a just
culture, both the organization and its people are held accountable while focusing on risk, systems
design, human behavior, and patient safety (Aven., 2017). There are certain types of error and
the human error cameo on the top and there are some other errors such as instrumental errors
which affects the accuracy in the work. There are several measures of just culture are the
constant concern about the possibility of failure and the ability to adapt the unexpected errors,
ability to concentrate on the task while having a sense of the big picture. There are some cases
that are as follows-One nurse select the wrong way of medication and the another nurse gave the
wrong drug and causing heart failure. These are the clear case of human errors and also this cases
addresses just culture that aware the employees about working with accuracy and also the error
free work. The bigger organizations are completely strict about the accuracy and encourage the
employees by giving proper training and it also ensures the safety of employees as well as of the
company. Just culture not only identifies the action but also it is accountable to each other which
gives the positive outcome (Paul, Sarker and Essam., 2015).
4

Demonstration of application of knowledge of the process of achieving organizational justice.
The Organizational justice deals with how the employees view the work environment and
fairness in the place of employment. There are three types of justice which are Organizational,
procedural and Distributive justice which deals with the fairness, procedure and the outcomes
from the process. The people are just focused on the work and the quantity but not on the
performance and this impacts on the company productivity. So the company gives the training
for the development of the employees so that the employees will give the error free work and
also helps the company in giving the growth and success to the company. The best application of
the organizational justice is to make the decision and also performance through the direction and
routines (Carter., 2018).
CONCLUSION
From the above repost it can be concluded that It is very difficult task to have the clear
definition regarding the human errors. The more understanding regarding the term can be that the
error that has been taken place when all the planned sequence failed to have achievement over
intended outcome. The person approach and system approach are the models for error causation
along with it gives rise to different philosophies of error management. There is importance for
understanding these implications for coping the ever mishaps risk in the clinical practices. The
rule method have the advantage and disadvantage that there is no need for the understanding for
the reasoning beginning the step and applicable at every situation and lead to risk of being wrong
procedural selection respectively. It also summarizes about the appreciation of openness and
transparency to manage errors and exceptional knowledge of application of just culture and at
last the demonstration of application of knowledge of the process of achieving organizational
justice.
5

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Hillson, D. and Murray-Webster, R., 2017. Understanding and managing risk attitude.
Routledge.
Hillson, D., 2017. Managing risk in projects. Routledge.
Ang, B.S., 2018. Approach and Assessment of Osteoporosis: Identifying and Managing
Risk. The Singapore Family Physician, 44(3), pp.7-10.
Amalberti, R. and Vincent, C., 2019. Managing risk in hazardous conditions: improvisation is
not enough. BMJ quality & safety, pp.bmjqs-2019.
Cleden, D., 2017. Managing project uncertainty. Routledge.
Mohanna, K. and Chambers, R., 2018. Risk matters in healthcare: communicating, explaining
and managing risk. CRC Press.
Paul, S.K., Sarker, R. and Essam, D., 2015. Managing risk and disruption in production-
inventory and supply chain systems: A review. Journal of Industrial & Management
Optimization, 12(3), p.1009.
Carter, D.J., 2018. Managing Risk Around Upstream Services.The Australian Hospital &
Healthcare Bulletin.
Aven, T., 2017. A conceptual foundation for assessing and managing risk, surprises and black
swans. In The Illusion of Risk Control (pp. 23-39). Springer, Cham.
Kinsey, S., 2017. Managing risk. In The International Business Archives Handbook (pp. 356-
381). Routledge.
Sawhney, S., Marks, A. and Black, C., 2016. Discharge after acute kidney injury: recognising
and managing risk. Clinical Focus Primary Care.
Denison, D.V., Yan, W. and Butler, J.S., 2019. Managing Risk and Growth of Nonprofit
Revenue. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 5(1), pp.56-73.
6

7

8

9

10