Summary of Research

Woods [16]

Discussed five general patterns of organisational behaviour that were apparent in the Columbia space shuttle disaster and, identified four properties which could be used to enhance RE in organisations.

Abech, et al. [93]

Investigated resilience in a Fuel distribution plant, focusing on its ability to adapt and manage goal conflicts, through the gap between work as imagined and as practiced.

Carvalho, et al. [94]

Investigated the ability of nuclear power plant operators to deal with procedures, rules and norms amidst organisational constraints in order to understand whether i) following procedures always constituted best practice, ii) violations of NPP procedures improved safety, and iii) skills operators needed to optimize performance.

Chevreau [95]

Suggested a managerial approach for safety culture which took into account RE, and argued there was no need for RE as this was already included in safety culture.

Cook and Nemeth [96]

Explored resilience in the healthcare industry through observations of ‘soft emergency’ at an anaesthesia department and at a major hospital.

Da Mata, et al. [97]

Investigated disturbances which affected offshore helicopter transportation and how the system adapted to unforeseen events, and coped with multiple pressures, goal conflicts and dilemmas.

Dekker [85]

Reviewed key themes presented at the 1st Symposium on RE, identified the distance (gap) between work as imagined and work as performed as an important marker for RE.

Dijkstra [86]

Presented a case of how RE principles were integrated into Safety management systems in the Airline industry

Flin [76]

Decomposed RE at behavioural level, introduced managerial resilience, and suggested how these could be investigated empirically.

Nathanael and Marmaras [75]

Proposes a model explaining the interplay between prescription and practice of work, which could be used to explain flexibility in operations.

Woods [17]

Presented some basic concepts related to RE and adaptive capacity, and argued safety culture and learning from accidents were essential aspects.

Woods [40]

Proposed a number of factors and dimensions for monitoring resilience (balancing acute and chronic goals, sacrificial judgments.

Patterson, et al. [42]

Investigated whether collaborative cross-checking enhanced resilience of healthcare settings.

Antonsen, et al. [98]

Investigated the conditions which facilitated operators to balance work as designed (in formal procedures) versus actual conduct of work (operations) through a change process.

Back, et al. [88]

Decomposed RE at five levels of granularity (individual, small team, operational, plant and industry) and explained how these could be investigated in nuclear power plants.

Carvalho, et al. [89]

Presented a framework for analysing micro accidents as an opportunity for examining sacrificial decision-making in nuclear power plants.

Herrera and Hovden [99]

Explored leading indicators and their reasons, as a basis for looking forward and monitoring safety performance

Le Coze and Pettersen [100]

Explored whether RE was a realist or constructivist approach to safety, argued that both were useful for applied research.

Mendonça [56]

Explored interpretive and positivist approaches to assessing RE, argued that combining the two was a way of advancing research, and applied this to investigate key abilities in two case studies.

Sheridan [20]

Reviewed error/risk analysis and RE, argued that RE complemented traditional risk analysis but needed to include quantification.

Boring [101]

Reviewed human reliability assessment and RE and suggested ways in which these can be integrated to enhance organisational performance.