Turbo, re your
Not sure I understood the 'resilience' paper.
I think that it was a gentle poke at the regulatory organisations. (By someone who was then in an organisation)
The significant issues are in the conclusion, and that “you cant impose CRM on organisations”:-
A. “Resilience needs expertise and flexible and learning organizations”.
As per Hollnagel.
B. “… are regulatory authorities able to introduce and monitor resilient tools … if they are not themselves attuned to resilience?”
This suggests that regulators need to update their views on organizational safety, CRM, SMS, etc. ‘Resilience’ gives a pointer towards Hollngel’s work, which is by no means isolated. See the work of
Woods. ** May be inop; Google David D Woods – error, bias, etc.
C. “…. authorities … question their strategy of expertise and monitoring of their practices …”
This identifies the need for regulators to have appropriate expertise within the organization (HF, CRM) and questions whether the ‘inspect’ aspects of safety oversight / SMS will improve safety.
Other than some technical training aspects, resilience does not have to be linked to a crew.
Although much of the existing work focuses on organizations, individuals can be resilient both in the sense of a personal attribute and in safety, CRM behaviors.
However, I do not link achievement of the latter with ‘soft’ skills and team management as you imply; it is first necessary to improve the individual – the thinking skills, knowledge, and personal controls associated with behavior.
Rules – SOPs; yes there are many problems here. This too requires that management and regulators need the skills to identify and rectify these problems, they too need to be resilient, hence the conclusions in the paper.