Development Trends of a Culture of Safety in Computer Integrated Manufacturing and Process Industries

  • H.-J. Weißbach
Conference paper
Part of the Schriftenreihe der Wissenschaftlichen Landesakademie für Niederösterreich book series (AKADNIEDERÖSTER)


The results of our research project “Security of network-based Systems” which has run since 1990 at Dortmund University on behalf of the Projektträger Arbeit and Technik, Bonn, may illustrate that the considerations of Douglas and Wildaysky (1982) referring to high-risk systems are applicable to all types of industrial work. According to Douglas and Wildaysky, different ways of risk-perception and risk-management are not only caused by individual styles of perception or by individual competences (as research on the role of human errors in accidents sometimes suggests), but that they are also depending on cultural conditions. Security cultures as we know them e.g. from the mining industry have always included both elements of personal safety and of system security. They have been shaped, as other elements of working cultures, under the influence of technical and economic constraints of the particular industry. The results of these processes have been institutional patterns, types of knowledge, homogeneous and obligatory values, standards, technical rules, and habits of mind of professional groups (habit as defined by Bourdieu 1987, 98: as a “modus operandi”) regulating riskperception as well as co-operation and communication in risk systems.


Personal Safety Computer Integrate Manufacture Collective Security Individual Style Security Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bourdieu, P. (1987). Sozialer Sinn. Frankfurt/M.Google Scholar
  2. Douglas, M., Wildaysky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  3. Henter, A., a.o. (without year): Tödliche Arbeitsunfälle. Forschungsbericht 235 der BAU Dortmund. Bremerhaven.Google Scholar
  4. Hölscher, H., a.o. (1988). Sicherheitsklassen. Forschungsbericht 543 der BAU Dortmund. Bremerhaven.Google Scholar
  5. Hölscher, H. (1989). Fachübergreifende Sicherheitsanforderungen - Technische Regeln im internationalen Vergleich. Technische Überwachung (30), No. 1, p. 18 etc.Google Scholar
  6. Möl1, G., Weißbach, H.-J. (1991). Qualifizierung in Risikosystemen. IuK-Institut Dortmund. Information & Kommunikation B.Google Scholar
  7. Perrow, C. (1987). Normale Katastrophen. Frankfurt/M.Google Scholar
  8. Ruppert, F. (1991). Der Fragebogen zur Sicherheitsdiagnose (FSD). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie (35), No. 2, p. 77 etc.Google Scholar
  9. Tacke, V., Borchers, U. (1992). Informatisierung und Risiko. In: Weißbach, H.-J., Poy, A.: Risiken der informatisierten Produktion. Dortmund (in publishing).Google Scholar
  10. Tyre, M.J. (1991). Manageing the introduction of new process technology. Research Policy (20 ) (in publishing).Google Scholar
  11. Wynne, B. (1988). Unruly technology: Practical rules, impractical discourses and public understanding. Social Studies of Science (18), p. 147 etc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.-J. Weißbach
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Economic and Social SciencesUniversity of DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations