“This book introduces a comprehensive approach for the management of Safety-II called the Resilience Assessment Grid (RAG)”
“It explains the principles of the RAG and how it can be used to develop the resilience potentials.”
“it presents a workable method (RAG) for the management of Safety-II, with a proven track record.”
Of course, this is just spin and marketing for an idea (not principle or method) that simply shifts discourse from the negative to the positive. Then it frames its discourse trying to not say anything negative but falls back on traditional safety systems that are all about controlling the negative. There is no methodology, method or ‘proven track record’. This is all projection and spin.
So, what happens is a shift in discourse that previously focused on the resilience of systems to the naming of traditional safety as the resilience of systems. The shift in discourse demonises the prevention of failures and malfunctions and talks about ‘developing potentials’ for ‘performance’. But, all the while to discourse is framed against the negative in the form of academic gobbledygook that says nothing new and has no focus at all on persons.
The RAG (a suitable acronym, that demonstrates the naivety of S2 linguistics) is just a semiotic model, not a method. And, it’s all about as helpful as an old RAG. Of course, a RAG is a re-purposing of an older item of clothing, trying to gain that last bit of usefulness from it. However, it’s just the same old cloth as before.
There is nothing any of this S2 stuff that has a focus on the ethical nature of tackling risk or on the nature of persons. Any reference to resilience is about the resilience of the safety systems. In other words, just more traditional safety. The FRAM acronym refers to Functional Resonance Analysis Method that has a focus on systems and organisational performance. Sol, there you go, more traditional safety.
What we see in this discourse of S2, RAG and FRAM is a discussion of ‘potentials’ mapped in a model that lists ‘Response, Learning, Monitoring and Anticipation’ (p.68) interconnected to perceptions of hazards and controls (not named). The model (not methodology) is expanded in greater complexity and so resembles a ‘wicked problem’ (p.70). Essentially, it is an attempt to use semiotics to explain an Engineering view of safety. Yep, just more traditional safety. The language is all about ‘potentials’ NOT realities and has no focus on social relation or persons.
Of course, when S2 discusses ‘dysfunctional systems’ it is back to the negative of ‘unacceptable risks’ and the ambiguities of trying to explain exactly what Safety II is. Of course, no-one knows what safety-II is except that it tries to identify itself by what it isn’t. in the end, the idea of some kind of new version of safety is lost in the spin of ‘potentialities’ and a lack of method.
In an effort to be different, S2 fixates on measurement (traditional safety) and then calls this ‘the changing face of safety culture’ (p.86). Culture is not defined and a focus on measurement is just traditional safety.
The book finishes on a collection of ideas that it calls ‘principles’ that have no ethical or moral foundation and amount to just a few ideas connected to ‘functions’. There is no moral or ethical framework for these ‘functions’. There is no methodology or method for practice. There is no ‘proven track record’ and there is no ‘how to’ related to anything.
When you get to the end of this book, there is no idea of what to DO. All of the discussion is about traditional safety, focusing on systems and trying to make systems work. There is no method of how to do so. A method is a ‘how to’ and there is no ‘how to’. The same applies to the so-called ‘safety differently’ group and yet another book that talks about ‘how to’ with no method. There is no declared methodology or method, even though the discourse is about ‘doing’ and about ‘how to’. This is what traditional safety does so well: spin, marketing and finding new words for old safety systems.
There is no ‘doing’ or ‘how to’ in any of this stuff. It’s just spin about potential, performance and positivity but it’s just traditional safety
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Critical Thinking Needed More Than Ever in Safety - January 21, 2025
- Selling Safety and the Safety of Selling Safety Culture - January 19, 2025
- Hearing Voices - January 18, 2025
- You Can’t ‘Bust’ Myths - January 18, 2025
- There is No Such Thing as an HRO - January 18, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below