# A Comprehensive Comparison and Contrast of Two Accident Causation Models – Term Paper Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

the paper "A Comprehensive Comparison and Contrast of Two Accident Causation Models" is an excellent example of a term paper on science.   Accident causation models imply the systematic and comprehensive method of ascertaining the reason for the occurrence of an accident. Under the definition of an accident, it implies a coincidence of phenomena, situations, or activities, in a single and similar time and space. Since there are many variables to consider, the investigation of the causes of an accident can be quite difficult. However, it is very significant to understand the accident causation, to put the relevant measures to prevent it.

There are several models, which have been developed, as an effort to shed light to the causation of accidents. These models include the simple linear model, complex linear model, and the complex non-linear model. In relation to this, the present paper presents a comprehensive comparison and contrast of two accident causation models. Accident Causation Models As illustrated by Khanzode, Maiti & Ray (2012, there are three basic categories of models, which explain the accident causation. The first one is simple linear models, which were advocated by Heinrich in 1931.

The models advocate that an accident comes because of the series of sequential events, which plays out like dominos. The sequence of these events starts with the social environmental factors, unsafe acts, individual factors, and physical and mechanical hazards. Therefore, the model advocates that one dominos elimination may prevent the incident. Another model category is complex linear models. The model holds that an accident results because of the combination of several unsafe conditions, and factors in which an individual interacts with the system which exposes him or her to risk.

The model advocates that setting appropriate controls could help to appropriately prevent an accident (Leveson, 2011). The complex non-linear models were the third model's category, which was advocated by the Hollnagel in 2010. The model advocates accidents are because of the mutually interacting variables, which occur in real-time environments. To prevent the accident, the model advocates the understanding of these multiple factors. Comparison and Contrast of the Accident Causation Model There are various similarities and differences, which exist between various accident causation models. In this case, the paper presents a comparison and contrast of the Human Factor Theory and the incident/accident causation model. Human factor theory Vs Domino theory There are several similarities and differences that exist between human factor theory and the domino theory, as illustrated below. Similarities Concept of accident One of the major similarities between the two theories is that they share the same concept of an accident.

Both theories define accidents, identifies the various causes of accidents, and tries to pint out how these accidents can be prevented from occurring. By definition, the human factor theory defines accident as the undesirable events, situations or circumstances, which are undesirable and affects an individual or an animal at the same time or moment (Saleh, & Pendley, 2012).

The same concept is the domino model, which states that implies a coincidence of phenomena, situations, or activities, in a single and similar time and space, holds him. Sequential events Another similarity between the domino and the human factor theory is their view regarding the causes of the sequential event of accidents. According to the domino theory, Heinrich Domino, its developer advocated that it is developer advocated that an accident is emanated from a sequence of activities, which he referred to as the chain of sequential events (Salmon, Cornelissen, & Trotter, 2012).

He indicated that these events leading to an accident happen in a metaphorical manner, like the dominoes which are falling over. In such a case, when one domino falls, it triggers the falling of another domino, and that one triggers the falling of another and the sequence continues. In the same manner, the accident occurs, where a sequence of several events leads to the occurrence of an accident.

The human factor theory of accident causation occurs because of the chain of events. He linked the occurrence of these events to the human error. In explanation, the events, which lead to human error, according to their sequence, include the overload, which leads to the inappropriate response. The inappropriate response, on the other hand, leads to inappropriate activities, which eventually leads to an accident.

References

Behm, M., & Schneller, A. (2013). Application of the Loughborough Construction Accident

Causation model: a framework for organizational learning. Construction Management and Economics, 31(6), 580-595.

Goh, Y. M., Love, P. E., Brown, H., & Spickett, J. (2012). Organizational accidents: a systemic model of production versus protection. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 52-76.

Khanzode, V. V., Maiti, J., & Ray, P. K. (2012). Occupational injury and accident research: A

comprehensive review. Safety Science, 50(5), 1355-1367.

Leveson, N. G. (2011). Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events. Safety

Science, 49(1), 55-64.

Manu, P. A., Ankrah, N. A., Proverbs, D. G., & Suresh, S. (2012). Investigating the multi-causal

and complex nature of the accident causal influence of construction project features. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 48, 126-133.

Otte, D., Jänsch, M., & Haasper, C. (2012). Injury protection and accident causation parameters for vulnerable road users based on German In-Depth Accident Study GIDAS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 44(1), 149-153.

Saleh, J. H., & Pendley, C. C. (2012). From learning from accidents to teaching about accident causation and prevention: Multidisciplinary education and safety literacy for all engineering students. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,99, 105-113.

Salmon, P. M., Cornelissen, M., & Trotter, M. J. (2012). Systems-based accident analysis methods: A comparison of Accimap, HFACS, and STAMP.Safety Science, 50(4), 1158-1170.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us