Author
Dr Mike Tainsh Abstract
Current work within the team of ergonomics, safety and operability specialists on user risk assessment for naval systems, has enabled the development of comparative techniques. They start from user system architectures, and the identification of user tasks in a form that supports assessment and mitigation of risks. In this paper the aim is to present assessment techniques for comparing safety aspects of design options. An example addresses the introduction of an automated information system.

Author
Tiago Fonseca Albuquerque Cavalcanti Sigahi, Lucca Pérez Pompeu, Ivan Bolis and Laerte Idal Sznelwar Abstract
Developing engineering actions that favour the work and the worker requires acknowledging the existence of different rationalities in the universe of production. Distinguishing types of rationalities is an operation that researchers and practitioners can benefit from, while disjoining risks leading to blindness by not capturing the complexity of work. Based on this idea, we use concepts of activity-centred ergonomics and psychodynamics of work to distinguish between four types of rationalities involved in work. Then, we briefly explore some insights from the concept of rationality of complexity, as opposed to a disjointed view, and conclude with some implications of a complex view of rationalities for developing engineering actions.

Author
Natalie Sanford, Dr Mary Lavelle, Dr Ola Markiewicz, Dr Gabriel Reedy, Professor Anne Marie Rafferty, & Professor Janet E. Anderson Abstract
Resilient Healthcare is an emerging theoretical field that has developed with influence from engineering, safety science, psychology, ergonomics, human factors, and aeronautics. Resilient Healthcare research has centred on understanding and improving the quality and safety of healthcare delivery. Theory is increasingly well-developed, but so far has only been applied in limited ways with select settings and activities. In order to improve the quality and safety of healthcare, it is essential to first understand the sources of complexity in clinical work. This ethnographic study of five hospital teams in a large, teaching hospital in central London aims to contribute to this growing evidence base by presenting data on specific challenges faced by healthcare workers and the adaptations they use to overcome them in everyday clinical work. This paper will present a new framework for recognising misalignments between demand and capacity and corresponding mechanisms for adaptation, which can be used to understand work-as-done in complex settings and to manage risk.

Author
Dr. Ann Bicknell, C.Psychol. & Dr. Mandana Kazem, IET Abstract
Safety culture remains one of the most challenging and complex areas of culture change practice which is the approach behind this session. Our argument is that organisational culture with respect to safety most obviously exemplifies tensions between Safety as the ‘first priority’ and the many tasks that organisations must complete to achieve continuity and reasonable prosperity. Arup have learned that not only does working on Safety Culture require an appreciation of the butterfly effect in working with complexity, it requires genuine stamina on the part of change agents and programmes, most likely because our experience is that it exposes so many organisational challenges and reluctant stones that need turning over - for this reason we position Safety Culture as a ‘litmus test’ of organisational agility and integrity. But which stones and where? This case study shares some observations and provocative opines illustrated by examples of client data from our global client base together with our responses: including the launch of a Dynamic Systems Model and a set of Five Transformation Levers borne out of extensive and detailed client data and from projects with large infrastructure, construction, healthcare and aviation contexts. We also share our experiences of undertaking this journey in-house: some rather humility promoting moments, as well as intra-organisational reflections and our experiences of involvement in ‘best practice’ research seeking to move the needle on safety culture. Whilst the ISO, HSE, IOSH etc principles are reflected in our People and Change approach, the model involves discrete levers and an approach that can be shared to promote transformation. In a universe of potential safety foci, we propose a Dynamic Safety Systems Model to de-construct challenges and to create a defensible programme of work. We would like to use this session for peer review and developing our practice.

Author
Mike Tainsh Abstract
This work addresses the development and application of an ergonomics contribution to the process of safety assessment for complex systems. The approach is general, but in a Naval context.

Author
Jack Forrest, Andrew Shelton, Joanne Kitchin Abstract
This paper describes the application of a proportional, risk‑based spatial review screening process to prioritise Human Factors (HF) assessment within a large high‑hazard construction project, including the benefits and challenges of this approach. The approach enabled targeted spatial review under time and information constraints, supporting early HF integration.

Author
Anna Vereker, Martine Gravil Abstract
The UK rail industry faces persistent challenges in managing fatigue risk, despite regulatory mandates and lessons from major incidents such as Clapham (1988) and Sandilands (2016). Structural changes, including the creation of Great British Rail, add new pressures and constraints, while progress is hindered by economic, operational, and cultural barriers. This paper argues that a deeper, systems-based understanding and the application of human factors tools are essential to develop pragmatic, multidimensional solutions alongside industry.