Advertisement

Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 509–522 | Cite as

Occupational Health and Safety Systems, Corporate Governance and Viable Systems Diagnosis: An Action Research Approach

  • Susanne Tepe
  • Tim Haslett
Article

Abstract

This paper establishes a theoretical basis for the implementation of governance systems in Occupational Health and Safety (OHS). This arose when a complex government organization reviewed the usage of its OHS computer system. This review precipitated several cycles of Action Research (AR). The AR allowed the recognition that the organization needed to define its OHS strategy, clarify its commitment to OHS, and examine its OHS systems in order to provide an effective OHS management and corporate governance system. As part of the review, a Viable Systems Diagnosis was done on the OHS function. It was recognized that Stafford Beer provided valuable insights into the information needs and communication flows of OHS information throughout this complex organization. Action research appears to be a particularly useful method for examining and implementing OHS management systems.

action research in OHS OHS management systems OHS corporate governance viable systems diagnosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Argyris, C. (1982). The executive mind and double-loop learning. Organ. Dyn. 11(2), 5-22.Google Scholar
  2. Australia, S. (1997). AS/NZS 4804:1997 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems-General Guidelines on Principles, Systems and Supporting Techniques, Standards, Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Beer, S. (1975). Platform for Change, Chichester, NY, Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise, Chichester, NY, Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the Firm, 2nd edn., Chichester, NY, Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Oxford, University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carver, J. (1997a). Designing Policies that Make a Difference. Boards That Make a Difference: A New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations, Jossey, Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 36-49.Google Scholar
  8. Carver, J. (1997b). A New Vision for Governing Boards. Boards that Make a Difference: A New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations, Jossey, Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-20.Google Scholar
  9. Checkland, P. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology: A 30 year Retrospective. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice Includes a 30-Year Retrospctive, Wiley, Chichester, NY, pp. A3-A66.Google Scholar
  10. Espejo, R., Schuhmann, W., Schwaninger, M., and Bilello, U. (1996). Organizational Transformation and Learning: A Cybernetic Approach to Management, Wiley, Chichester, NY.Google Scholar
  11. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total System Intervention, Wiley, Chichester, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  13. OECD, A. H. T. F. o. C. G. (1999). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, OECD, Paris, pp. 1-25.Google Scholar
  14. Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (2001). Preface. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London, pp. xxiii-xxxi.Google Scholar
  15. Sarah, R., Haslett, T., Molineaux, J., Olsen, J., Stephens, J., Tepe, S., and Walker, B. (2002). Business action research in practice-A strategic conversation about conducting action research in business organisations. Syst. Pract. Action. Res. 15(6), pp. 535-546.Google Scholar
  16. Schein, E. (2001). Clinical Inquiry/Research, Chapter 21, In Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London, p. 233.Google Scholar
  17. Schwaninger, M. (2001). Intelligent organizations: An integrative framework. Syst. Res. 18, 137-158.Google Scholar
  18. Vidgen, R. (1998). Cybernetics and business processes: Using the Viable System Model to develop an enterprise process architecture. Knowledge Process Manage. 5(2), 118-131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Tepe
    • 1
  • Tim Haslett
    • 2
  1. 1.Management Action AustraliaMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of ManagementMonash UniversityCaulfieldAustralia

Personalised recommendations