sAx_R54;
Surely this is only one send of a scale
Not sure a linear, "binary-opposites" method of examining the issue produces useful results. "Method" can either illuminate or mask phenomena - placing the discussion on a continuum does not make clear those "arenas" which contribute heavily to a safe operation while at the same time permitting very low-cost operations - "lo-cost" does not automatically equate to "unsafe" or "lower safety", (I believe you know this already and we're perhaps discussing the same thing, expressed differently).
Presenting straightforward, honest information on "risk" which effectively, captures first the interest then the imagination of those who's primary role and responsibility is to control costs, is a great challenge within this industry because of the characteristics I mentioned. To move an "operations" manager off his/her position of "cost" and towards a position of "the sprinklers are worth it", (to employ your example), is, curiosly in this industry, an extremely difficult and very long, time-consuming process in most cases - some are obvious, most are not.
Even with clear, undeniable data which highlights higher risk, the motivation (and social beliefs) to not spend money "needlessly", (
which is felt and seen as exactly the "right and responsible" approach to business) and to not compromise production, (
reducing productivity - airplane turn-around times, for example, must be very firmly justified with a "business case"), eclipes the safety dialogue such that "I'll see it when I believe it" becomes the operating factor - it is very difficult to address and change "world views" without commanding reasons.
Flight safety data is not like "a business case" - one cannot quantify or digitize risk but one can point to it. In such "pointing", one can use the term "stochastic" to describe this process...it means "randomness, with a 'preferred' outcome", (
not preferred in the sense that that is what was desired, but preferred in terms of chance outcomes).
A "continuum" model won't capture these notions nor will it carry the sense of "risk-reward", "cost-benefit" forward such that action comes out of the board-meeting on Monday morning or that managers suddenly experience a very cold chill down their spine and break into cold-sweats, something which I have seen our own flight data safety team do and not infrequently.
The risk, too, in such a model is that it provides operations people with a "point along the line between "safe-but-expensive and breaking-even-but-not-so-safe" and that's not the way flight safety works or should be thought of. Under time and production pressures, even when in operations or safety meetings, the power of being able to point to "a place" along a continuum and announce "we are 'here', on this line between cost and safety", (forgive...very simple example, I know).
So many managers think that "work safety" is wearing high-visibility vests on the ramp, to use one of a thousand other examples, but it is not. It is a way of travelling, an approach to action, a consideration and not a "technique".
These understandings aren't ivory-towerish, purely for books, either. They work in the push-and-pull world of rushed daily operations. They're exactly the same as what pilots do in the cockpit...paced, deliberate, reflective but not hesitant actions, all according to exacting SOPs which are both robust and error-tolerant in the "layered" sense.
So an airline may be very safe in some areas and literally quite blind in others. An "SMS" approach to safety means that such blindnesses are sought out and eradicated. That is what a healthy safety culture does, and it doesn't impede business...it facilitates it and it keeps the investment safer and thus the shareholders happier.
sorry...long, but I think such thinking is still very rare within airline managements who are under severe pressures and who are only trying to get through another day of "disastrous" costs with little reward or "feel good". It isn't the only key by a long shot but it's a primary one and it doesn't always "sell" well.
"Listening" is a social approach to information. "Hearing" is a physiological quality.