Abstract
After an incident there often is pressure to ask for further evaluations of the system in order to improve its safety. It is a reactive and often piecemeal way to deal with improvements. And if latent weaknesses of the system are not dealt with, incidents will recur. Systematic, planned, and intentional activities are equally needed to anticipate and solve problems. Periodic evaluations are sometimes used to this end, in the form of periodic safety reviews, control room reviews, and the like. In this paper I intend to discuss my experiences with these and discuss some consequences of a developmental view on safety.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Olson, J., & Thurber, J. (1991). Learning in Nuclear Power Plants. Seattle, WA: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers.
Svensson, G. (1992). Operatörsarbete och Kontrollrumsutformning vid 01 och 03—Rapport fan en Enkätundersökning Vintern 1989–90. SKI, Teknisk rapport, 2, (In Swedish).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Svensson, G. (1993). System Validation — A Step in a Continuous Improvement Process. In: Wise, J.A., Hopkin, V.D., Stager, P. (eds) Verification and Validation of Complex Systems: Human Factors Issues. NATO ASI Series, vol 110. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02933-6_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02933-6_26
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-08155-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-02933-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive