An agent-based approach for structured modeling, analysis and improvement of safety culture

  • Alexei SharpanskykhEmail author
  • Sybert H. Stroeve
Open Access


Safety culture is broadly recognized as important for operational safety in various fields, including air traffic management, power plant control and health care. Previous studies addressed characterization and assessment of safety culture extensively. Nevertheless, relations between safety culture and formal and informal organizational structures and processes are yet not well understood. To address this gap, a new, formal, agent-based approach is proposed. This paper shows the application of the approach to an air navigation service provider, including structured modeling, analysis and identification of improvement strategies for the organizational safety culture. The model results have been validated using safety culture data that had been achieved by an independent safety culture survey study.


Safety culture Agent-based organizational modeling Social simulation Model analysis Model validation 

Supplementary material


  1. Bedford T, Cooke RM (2001) Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  2. Blom HAP, Stroeve SH, De Jong HH (2006) Safety risk assessment by Monte Carlo simulation of complex safety critical operations. In: Redmill F, Anderson T (eds) Developments in risk-based approaches to safety. Springer, London, pp 47–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordini RH, Dastani D, Dix D, El Fallah Seghrouchni A (eds) (2009) Multi-agent programming: languages, tools and applications. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  4. Bosse T, Jonker CM, Meij L, van der Treur J (2007) A language and environment for analysis of dynamics by simulation. Int J Artif Intell Tools 16:435–464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brazier FMT, Jonker CM, Treur J (2000) Compositional design and reuse of a generic agent model. Appl Artif Intell J 14:491–538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt RS (1987) Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence. Am J Sociol 92(6):1287–1335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne M, Kirlik A (2005) Using computational cognitive modeling to diagnose possible sources of aviation error. Int J Aviat Psychol 15(2):135–155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ek A, Akselsson R, Arvidsson M, Johansson CR (2007) Safety culture in Swedish air traffic control. Saf Sci 45(7):791–811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Endsley M, Garland D (2000) Situation awareness, analysis and measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah Google Scholar
  10. EUROCONTROL/FAA AP15 (2008) Safety culture in air traffic management: a white paper (December 2008) Google Scholar
  11. Fisher M (1996) A temporal semantics for concurrent METATEM. J Symb Comput 22(5):627–648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg LR (1993) The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am Psychol 48:26–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldman AI (1967) A causal theory of knowing. J Philos 64(12):357–372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffin RW, Bateman TS (1986) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In: Cooper CL, Robertson I (eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1986. Wiley, New York, pp 157–188 Google Scholar
  15. Hersey P, Blanchard KH, DE Johnson (2001) Management of organizational behavior: leading human resources Google Scholar
  16. Hofstede G (2005) Cultures and organizations. McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar
  17. Hopkins A (2006) Studying organizational cultures and their effects on safety. Saf Sci 44:875–889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horii T, Yan J, Levitt RE (2004) Modeling and analyzing cultural influences on project team performance. J Comput Math Organ Theory 10(4):305–321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janis I, Mann L (1977) Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. The Free Press, New York Google Scholar
  20. Kim J (1996) Philosophy of mind. Westview Press, Boulder Google Scholar
  21. Kunz JC, Levitt RE, Jin Y (1998) The virtual design team: a computational simulation model of project organizations. Commun ACM 41(11):84–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee S, Ravinder U, Johnston JC (2005) Developing an agent model of human performance in air traffic control operations using apex cognitive architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2005 winter simulation conference, INFORMS college on simulation, December 4–7, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp 979–987 Google Scholar
  23. Leveson N, Dulac N, Zipkin D, Cutcher-Gershenfeld D, Barrett B, Carroll J (2005) Modeling, analyzing, and engineering NASA’s safety culture. Phase 1 Final Report Google Scholar
  24. Locke EA (2001) Motivation by goal setting. In: Handbook of organizational behavior, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–54 Google Scholar
  25. March JG, Olsen JP (1975) The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research 3:147–171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meinolf D, Berthoin Anthal A, Child J, Nonaka I (2001) Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  27. Mohaghegh Z, Mosleh A (2009) Incorporating organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment of complex socio-technical systems: principles and theoretical foundations. Saf Sci 47:1139–1158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinder CC (1998) Work motivation in organizational behavior. Prentice-Hall, New York Google Scholar
  29. Popova V, Sharpanskykh A (2008) Process-oriented organisation modelling and analysis. Enterp Inf Syst J 2(2):157–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robbins SP (2004) Organizational behavior—concepts, controversies, applications, 4th edn Prentice Hall, New York Google Scholar
  31. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Wiley-Interscience, New York Google Scholar
  32. Searle J (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  33. Sharpanskykh A (2008) On computer-aided methods for modeling and analysis of organizations. PhD thesis, VU Amsterdam Google Scholar
  34. Sharpanskykh A (2009) Individual decision making in a learning organization. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on intelligent computing and information systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 535–544 Google Scholar
  35. Sharpanskykh A, Stroeve S (2010) Can we predict safety culture? In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS’10, ACM Press, New York, pp 1739–1746 Google Scholar
  36. Sharpanskykh A, Treur J (2010) Automated analysis of compositional multi-agent systems. Int J Agent-Oriented Softw Eng 4(2):174–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sierhuis M, Clancey W, van Hoof R (2007) Brahms: a multiagent modeling environment for simulating work processes and practices. Int J Simul Process Model 3(3):134–152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stroeve S, Sharpanskykh A, Kirwan B (2011) Agent-based organizational modelling for analysis of safety culture at an air navigation service provider. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.12.017 Google Scholar
  39. Tumer K, Agogino A (2007) Distributed agent-based air traffic flow management. In: 6th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2007), Honolulu, Hawaii. Google Scholar
  40. Uttal B (1983) The corporate culture vultures. Organ Cult J 17:66–72 Google Scholar
  41. van de Walle D (1997) Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educ Psychol Meas 57:297–301 Google Scholar
  42. Wolfe SR (2007) Supporting air traffic flow management with agents. In: AAAI spring symposium: interaction challenges for intelligent assistants, Stanford, CA Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.National Aerospace Laboratory NLRAir Transport Safety InstituteAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations