Skip to main content
Log in

Understanding and using near-misses properties through a double-step conceptual structure

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Though in literature there has been an extensive demonstration of the strict relationship between the frequency of occurrence of near-misses and the number of major accidents, there is a clear evidence in the industrial practice of a lack of a common accepted definition and denotation of a near-miss and the absence of an explicit model for assessing their main properties and how to turn into knowledge the information gathered thereby. The paper tries to fill this gap by providing a denotation and classification model of near-misses which can be easily adopted in the managerial practice. The structure is composed of a model based on the set theory which enables to denote the different categories (error, incident, operational interruption, accident and near-miss), and a classification algorithm to properly define each category. This double-step structure helps in understanding of how to use the power of near-misses properties in order to implement a company-wide improvement program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams E.E. (1995) Total quality safety management. An introduction. American Society of Safety Engineers, Des Plaines

    Google Scholar 

  • Barroso M.P., Wilson J.R. (2000) Human error and disturbance occurrence in manufacturing systems (HEDOMS): A framework and a toolkit for practical analysis. Cognition Technology & Work 2: 51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A. (1984) Seguridad en el Trabajo. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Bier V.M., Yi W. (1995) The performance of precursor-based estimators for rare event frequencies. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 50: 241–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird F.E., Germain G.L. (1966) Damage control. American Management Assoc. Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird F.E., Germain G.L. (1996) Practical loss control leadership. Det Norske Veritas, Loganville

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantarella A. (1997) Incident investigation: Critical to the safety effort. Professional Safety 42: 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich H.W. (1931) Industrial accident prevention. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones S., Kirchsteiger C., Bjerke W. (1999) The importance of near-miss reporting to further improve safety performance. Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industries 12: 59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kletz T. (2001) An engineer’s view of human error. IChemE, Rugby

    Google Scholar 

  • Labelle J.E. (2000) What do accidents truly cost?. Professional Safety 45: 38–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake B. (1998) Accidentally on purpose. Risk and Insurance 9: 43–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthans F., Kreitner R. (1985) Organizational behavior modification and beyond. Scott Foresman, Glenview

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison L.M. (2004) Best practices in incident investigation in the chemical process industry with examples from the industry sector and specifically from Nova Chemicals. Journal of Hazardous Materials 111: 161–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Safety Council. (2001) Accident prevention manual. National Safety Council, Itasca

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J. (1976) Outlines of a hybrid model of the process operator. In: Sheridan T.B., Johannsen G. (eds) Monitoring behaviour and supervisory control. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason J.T. (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason J.T. (1991) Too little and too late. In: Schaaf T.W., Lucas D.A., Hale A.R. (eds) Near-miss reporting as a safety tool. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña M.A.M., Herrero S.G., del Campo M.A.M., Ritzel D.O. (2003) Assessing definitions and concepts within the safety profession. The International Electronic Journal of Health Education 6: 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Seveso II. (1997). Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accident hazard involving dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 10 13, Luxembourg.

  • Sutherland V.J., Makin P.J., Cox C.J. (2000) The management of safety. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tye J. (1976) Accident ratio study. British Safety Council, London

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Schaaf, T. W. (1992). Near-miss reporting in the chemical process industry. Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindoven.

  • van der Schaaf T.W. (1995) Near-miss reporting in the chemical process industry: An overview. Microelectronic Reliability 35: 1233–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright L., van der Schaaf T.W. (2004) Accident versus near miss causation: A critical review of the literature, an empirical test in the UK railway domain, and their implications for other sectors. Journal of Hazardous Materials 111: 105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Cavalieri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cavalieri, S., Ghislandi, W.M. Understanding and using near-misses properties through a double-step conceptual structure. J Intell Manuf 21, 237–247 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0193-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0193-2

Keywords

Navigation