Advertisement

New Technology Implementation in High-Risk Organizations - The Application of HRO Principles in New Technology Implementation in Railroad Industry

Conference paper
  • 930 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1212)

Abstract

High-risk organizations are inherently complex and depend on the latest technologies to survive and function properly. Therefore, introducing new technology to such an organization is inevitable. Studies show that the installation of new technology always involves some changes to the organization and its members. The railroad industry, as an example of a high-risk and safety-critical organization, strives to avoid catastrophic events, while performing dynamic tasks under strict time constraints, operating technology posing large-scale physical hazards. High Reliability Organizations (HROs) are a subset of high-risk organizations designed and managed to avoid such accidents. This paper discusses the adaptation of HRO principals as part of the implementation process for the Positive Train Control (PTC) technology in a safety-sensitive railroad organization.

Keywords

Human-systems integration New technology implementation System safety High reliability organizations Transportation Railroad 

References

  1. 1.
    Majchrzak, A., Meshkat, N.: Aligning technological and organizational change. In: Handbook of Industrial Engineering, Technology and Operations Management, 3rd edn., ch. 36, pp. 948–974. Wiley-Interscience Publication (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bea, R., Mitroff, I., Farber, D., Foster, H., Roberts, K.H.: A new approach to risk: the implications of E3. Risk Manag. 11(1), 30–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Long, R.J.: Human issues in new office technology. In: Computers in the Human Context: Information Technology, Productivity, and People, T. Forester. MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black, L.J., Carlile, P.R., Repenning, N.P.: A dynamic theory of expertise and occupational boundaries in new technology implementation: building on barley’s study of CT scanning. Adm. Sci. Q. 49(4), 572–607 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S.: Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuratio theory. Organ. Sci. 5(2), 121–147 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barley, S.R.: Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Adm. Sci. Q. 31, 78–108 (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffith, T.L., Northcraft, G.B.: Cognitive elements in the implementation of new technology: can less information provide more benefits? MIS Q. 20(1), 99–110 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciborra, C.U., Lanzara, G.F.: Formative contexts and information technology: understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. Acc. Manag. Inf. Technol. 4(2), 61–86 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Majchrzak, A., Markus, M.L.: Technology Affordances and Constraints in Management Information Systems (MIS). Encyclopedia of Management Theory (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tyre, M.J., Orlikowski, W.J.: Windows of opportunity: temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organ. Sci. 5(1), 98–118 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M.: Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity, Jossey-Bass (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carnes, E.: Highly reliable governance of complex socio-technical systems. In: The Macondo Blowout 3rd Progress Report, pp. 135–165 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meshkati, N., Khashe, Y.: Operators’ improvisation in complex technological systems: successfully tackling ambiguity, enhancing resiliency and the last resort to averting disaster. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 23(2), 90–96 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Placencia, G., Meshkati, N., Moore, I.J., Khashe, Y.: Technology and high reliability organizations in railroad operations safety: a case study of Metrolink/SCRRA and Positive Train Control (PTC) Implementation. In: ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    IAEA, Safety Culture in Pre-Operational Phases of Nuclear Power Plant Projects - Safety Reports Series 74. International Atomic Energy Agancy (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hartley, R.S.: High reliability organizations and practical approach. In: CCRM HRO Conference (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ditmeyer, S.: Confused about PTC yet? Trains 71(10), 24–31 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), SCRRA Positive Train Control System Concept of Operations (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Federal Railroad Administration, Human Reliability Analysis in Support of Risk Assessment for Positive Train Control, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, MA (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khashe, Y., Meshkati, N.: Evaluation of human-systems interaction of the PTC technology in railroad, a preliminary study. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hartley, R.S.: High reliability organization implementation. In: 8th Annual HRO Conference, Fort Worth, TX (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hollnagel, E.: The four cornerstones of resilience engineering. In: Resilience Engineering Perspective, Preperation and Restoration ed., vol. 2, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 117–133 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wong, D.S., Desai, V.M., Madsen, P., Roberts, K.H., Ciavarelli, A.: Measuring organizational safety and effectiveness at NASA. Eng. Manag. J. 17(4), 59–62 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K.: Managing the Unexpected - Sustained Performance in a Complex World, 3 edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khashe, Y., Meshkati, N.: Human and organizational factors of positive train control safety system - the application of high reliability organizing in railroad. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA (2019)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Transportation Safety Board, Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-of-Way Equipment Chester, Pennsylvania April 3, 2016, NTSB (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Viterbi School of EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations