From Safety I to Safety II: Applying an HTO Perspective on Supervisory Work Within Aviation

  • Martina Berglund
  • Oscar Arman
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 821)


In aviation, there is a strong focus on safety to prevent accidents. This paper deals with how supervisory authorities in aviation can apply a Safety II perspective. In particular, the aim is to analyze how the concept of HTO (Humans, Technology, Organization) is related to a possible shift from Safety I to Safety II within supervisory work within aviation. Data for this case study research was collected through semi-structured interviews with inspectors at the civil aviation authority in Sweden. The study showed that the important building stone of proactivity in Safety II could be promoted by the Safety Management System (SMS), the Safety Performance Indicator, and systems for reporting incidents and near-accidents. These systems constituted examples of Technology. Similarly, the Humans consisted of the inspectors, and the Organization included international and national regulations that the inspectors needed to follow during inspections. In the analysis, it was clear that an internal HTO-perspective could be taken. The study indicated that the shift towards Safety II should first be done within the supervisory authority by applying an internal HTO-perspective. This could later be developed to an external HTO-perspective also including the operator organizations.


Humans Technology Organization 



The authors would like to acknowledge Klara Hall who participated in the study of the inspectors at the civil aviation authority in Sweden within her master’s thesis work.


  1. Daniellou F (2001) Epistemological issues about ergonomics and human factors. In: Karwowski W (ed) International encyclopaedia of ergonomics and human factors, part 1. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 43–46Google Scholar
  2. Hollnagel E (2014) Safety–I and Safety-II: the past and future of safety management. Ashgate Publishing Limited, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  3. Hollnagel E (2012) A tale of two safeties. Nuclear Saf Simul 4(1):1–9Google Scholar
  4. Hollnagel E, Nemeth CP, Dekker S (2008) Resilience engineering perspectives: remaining sensitive to the possibility of failure. Ashgate Publishing Limited, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  5. Karltun A, Karltun J, Berglund M, Eklund J (2017) HTO – a complementary ergonomics approach. Appl Ergon 59:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rollenhagen C (1997) The relationships between humans, technology, and organization: an introduction. Studentlitteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
  7. Waefler T (2001) Planning and scheduling in secondary work systems. In: MacCarthy BL, Wilson JR (eds) Human performance in planning and scheduling. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 411–447Google Scholar
  8. Westlander G (1999) Focus on the human in research on operations development. In: Ahlin J (ed) Forskningsperspektiven. NUTEK, Stockholm, pp 20–33 (1999). (in Swedish)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HELIX Competence Centre and Division of Logistics and Quality ManagementLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Division of ErgonomicsKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations