JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
System Thinking Perspective on the Dynamic Relationship between Organizational Characteristics of Nuclear Safety Culture
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
System Thinking Perspective on the Dynamic Relationship between Organizational Characteristics of Nuclear Safety Culture
Kim, Byung Suk; Oh, Youngmin;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to grasp the fundamental structure of incident occurrence in nuclear organizations based on system thinking, and analyze how various causes are interrelated in terms of the causal loop diagram. Background: The recent domestic and overseas nuclear power plant-related incidents and accidents are directly or indirectly associated with safety culture, and thus effective plans for the improvement of safety culture are being called for. While the safety of a nuclear power plant is highly dependent upon technology and equipment, the utilization, maintenance and inspection of the technology and equipment are conducted by workers of the nuclear power plant. Method: Methodology of system thinking perspective using causal loop analysis. Results: As a result of the analysis, first, it turned out that the fundamental cause of incident occurrence in nuclear organizations is time constraint. Second, if a workload of workers increases, their adherence to regulations and procedures comes to be reduced due to time constraint. Third, it is needed, through organizational learning education, to increase actions made from thoughts considering safety as the utmost priority in advance. Fourth, it is necessary to improve professionalism by enhancing educational programs for new workers, and to develop various scenarios with which they can cope with certain situations. Application: This paper provides a base for system dynamics simulation model for future study.
 Keywords
Nuclear safety culture;Organizational safety culture;System thinking;Causal lop diagram;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Assessment of Safety Culture in Organization Team (ASCOT)., ASCOT Guidelines. 1996.

2.
Ahn, N.S., Kwak, S.M. and Yu, J.K., A System dynamics model for assessment of organizational and human factor in nuclear power plant, Korean System Dynamics Review, 3(2), 49-68, 2002.

3.
Choi, N.H., A System dynamics approach in analyzing the dynamics of Seoul metropolitan and finding policy leverages, Korean Public Administration Review, 37(4), 329-358, 2003.

4.
Clarke, S.G., Safety Culture: underspecified and overrated?, International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(1), 65-90, 2000. crossref(new window)

5.
Cooke, D.L. and Rohleder, T.R., Learning from incidents: from normal accidents to high reliability, System Dynamics Review, 22(3), 213-239, 2006. crossref(new window)

6.
Health and Safety Commission., Organizing for Safety. 1993.

7.
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)., Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture. 2004.

8.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)., Application of the Management System for Facilities and Activities. 2006.

9.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)., Report of the expert mission to review the station blackout event that happened at Kori 1 NPP on 9 February 2012 Republic of Korea. 2012.

10.
International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG)., Summary Report on the Post-accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident. 1986.

11.
International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG)., Safety Culture. 1991.

12.
International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG)., Key Practical Issues in Strengthening Safety Culture. 2002.

13.
Jae, M.S., A Study on the effect of organizational safety culture on safety, The Korean Society of Safety, 2000.

14.
Kim, B.S., A Study on the effect of urban spatial structure characteristics on co2 emission, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chung-Ang, 2013.

15.
Kim, D.H., Moon, T.H. and Kim, D.H., System Dynamics. Seoul: Daeyoung Munhwasa, 1999.

16.
Leveson, N.G., Barrett, B., et al., Modeling, Analyzing and Engineering NASA's Safety Culture: Phase 1 Final Report. Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005.

17.
Lyneis, J. and Madnick, S., Preventing Accidents and Building a Culture of Safety: Insights from a Simulation Model, Working Paper, Composite Information Systems Laboratory, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008.

18.
Ministry of Science and Technology., A Study on the Promotion of Safety Culture in Nuclear Power Plants. 2001.

19.
Moon, T.H., Issues and methodological status of system dynamics, Korean System Dynamics Review, 3(1), 61-77, 2002.

20.
Moon, T.H., Sustainable city from system thinking perspective. Seoul:Jipmundang, 2007.

21.
Meadows, D.H., The Unavoidable A Priori, in Jorgen Randers. (ed.,), Elements of the System Dynamics Method, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1980.

22.
Minami, N. and Madnick, S., Reducing combat vehicle accidents via improved organizational processes. MIT Working Paper, 2007.

23.
Project Management Institute (PMI)., Construction Extension to The PMBOK Guide Third Edition. 2007.

24.
Richardson, G.P., Feedback Thought in Social Science and System Theory. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991.

25.
Richardson, G.P. and Pugh, A.L., Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with Dynamo. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1981.

26.
Rudolph, J.W. and Repening, N.P., Disaster Dynamics: Understanding the role of quantity in organizational collapse, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 1-30, 2002. crossref(new window)

27.
Senge, P., The fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Doubleday: NY, 1990.

28.
Yu, J.K., Ahn, N.S. and Kwak, S.M., The causal diagram for organizational and human factors in nuclear power plant, Korean System Dynamics Review, 2(2), 65-83, 2001.

29.
Weijia, C., The impact of safety culture on safety performance: A case study of a construction company, Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, 2005.