Overview
This unit provides the basis for understanding the modern nature of work and how people interact successfully with evolving system complexity in order to ensure safe outcomes. You will apply a systems thinking perspective to recognise the elements of socio-technical systems and the challenges associated with the emergence of sub-systems within systems. Consideration of contemporary theories on learning from failure and for promoting high reliability safety outcomes will be critically evaluated for optimising system performance, resilience and adaptability.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
There are no requisites for this unit.
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 1 - 2025
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes - in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 6-credit Postgraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 12.5 hours of study per week, making a total of 150 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of 'pass' in order to pass the unit. If any 'pass/fail' tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully ('pass' grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the 'assessment task' section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University's Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure - Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure - International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback - Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
Feedback, Recommendations and Responses
Every unit is reviewed for enhancement each year. At the most recent review, the following staff and student feedback items were identified and recommendations were made.
Feedback from Verbal feedback
Students enjoyed having different lecturers present in their specialty area.
Continue to engage specialty lecturers for the different areas of this unit.
- Analyse the relationships between people, organisations and safety in organisations
- Apply contemporary safety science thinking to complex socio-technical systems
- Explain system failure and failure prevention measures
- Apply accident causation models to contemporary accident case studies
- Evaluate the application and effectiveness of reliability, resilience and accident causation models.
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
| Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1 - Written Assessment - 25% | |||||
| 2 - Literature Review or Systematic Review - 35% | |||||
| 3 - Critical Review - 40% | |||||
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
| Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1 - Knowledge | |||||
| 2 - Communication | |||||
| 3 - Cognitive, technical and creative skills | |||||
| 4 - Research | |||||
| 5 - Self-management | |||||
| 6 - Ethical and Professional Responsibility | |||||
| 7 - Leadership | |||||
| 8 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures | |||||
Textbooks
There are no required textbooks.
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: Harvard (author-date)
For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.
k.perry@cqu.edu.au
a.raineri@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
Introduction
The Extent of the OHS Problem
The broader context of safety
Chapter
Beaumont, D, 2021, ‘Global Concept: Health’ in The Core Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals (2nd edn), Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Dekker, S, 2019, ‘Global Concept: Safety’, in The Core Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals (2nd edn), Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Rafferty, M & Wright, S 2012, ‘Global Concept: Work’, in The Core Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals, Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Safe Work Australia 2013, The Cost of Work-related Injury and Illness for Australian Employers, Workers and the Community:2012-13, Safe Work Australia, Canberra, https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au
Safe Work Australia 2023, Australian Work Health and Safety (WHS) Strategy 2023–2033, Safe Work Australia, Canberra.
Safe Work Australia 2023, Key Work Health and Safety Statistics 2023, Safe Work Australia
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
The Organisational Context of Work
Modern work systems
Chapter
Burlington, D & Griffiths, M 2020, ‘The Organisation’ (2nd edn) in The Core Body of Knowledge for the Generalist OHS Professionals, Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Kanse, L., & Fruhen, L., 2022, ‘Work design’ in The core body of knowledge for generalist OHS Professionals (2nd ed.), Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
The Socio-Political Context of Work
Chapter
Bluff, E. 2019, ‘Socio-political context for OHS in Australia’ in The Core Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals, Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Burlington, D & Griffiths, M 2020, ‘The Organisation’ (2nd edn) in The Core Body of Knowledge for the Generalist OHS Professionals, Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Socio-technical systems approach
Systems thinking
Chapter
Karanikas, N & Pryor, P 2021, ‘OHS Management Systems’ in The Core Body of Knowledge for the Generalist OHS Professionals, Australian Institute of Health & Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Salmon, P.M., Read, G.J.M. & Hulme, A, 2023, ‘Systems and Systems Thinking’ in The Core Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals (2nd ed), Australian Institute of Health & Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria.
Le Coze, J.C (ed) 2020, Safety Science Research: Evolution, Challenges and New Directions, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Waterson, P, Roberstson, M.M, Cooke, N.J, Militello, L, Roth, E & Stanton, N.A., 2015, ‘Defining the methodological challenges and opportunities for an effective science of sociotechnical systems and safety’, Ergonomics, 58:4, 565-599.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Simple Linear Accident Causation Models
Chapter
Toft, Y., Dell, G., Klockner, K., & Hutton, A. 2012, ‘Models of Causation: Safety’ in The Core Body of Knowledge for the Generalist OHS Professionals, Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Tullamarine, Victoria
Fu, G., Xie, X., Jia, Q., Li, Z., Chen, P. and Ge, Y., 2020. The development history of accident causation models in the past 100 years: 24Model, a more modern accident causation model. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 134, pp.47-82.
Rad, K.G., 2013. Application of domino theory to justify and prevent accident occurance in construction sites. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. IOSR-JMCE, 6, pp.72-76.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Systemic Linear Accident Causation Models
Chapter
Viner, D., 1991. Chapter 4 Accident analysis and risk control. VRJ Delphi.
Reason, J., Hollnagel, E. and Paries, J., 2006. Revisiting the Swiss cheese model of accidents. Journal of Clinical Engineering, 27(4), pp.110-115.
Katsakiori, P., Sakellaropoulos, G. and Manatakis, E., 2009. Towards an evaluation of accident investigation methods in terms of their alignment with accident causation models. Safety science, 47(7), pp.1007-1015.
Demirkesen, S., 2021. Investigating linear models of accident causation: A review study in the construction safety context. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 38(4), pp.1939-1949.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Complex Non-Linear Accident Causation Models
Chapter
Yousefi, A., Rodriguez Hernandez, M. and Lopez Peña, V., 2019. Systemic accident analysis models: A comparison study between AcciMap, FRAM, and STAMP. Process Safety Progress, 38(2), p.e12002.
Hollnagel, E., Pruchnicki, S., Woltjer, R. and Etcher, S., 2008, April. Analysis of Comair flight 5191 with the functional resonance accident model. In 8th International symposium of the Australian aviation psychology association (pp. 8-pages). (Practical example of FRAM)
Kristian González Barman (2023) Accident Causation Models: The Good the Bad and the Ugly, Engineering Studies, 15:2, 75-100, DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2023.2205024
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
The Fifth Age of Safety
The Adaptive Age
Adaptive Leadership for Complexity
Chapter
Borys, D, Else, D & Leggett, S 2009, 'The fifth age of safety: the adaptive age', Journal of Health & Safety Research & Practice, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 19-27.
DeRue, DS 2011, 'Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process', Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 125-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007
Dunn, R 2020, 'Adaptive leadership: leading through complexity', International Studies in Educational Administration, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 31 - 38, viewed 19 March 2024
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
High Reliability in Organisations
Chapter
Sutcliffe, KM 2011, 'High reliability organizations', Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, vol. 25, no. 2 pp. 133-144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2011.03.001
Haslman, SA, Jetten, J, Maskor, M, McMillan, B, Bentley, SV, Steffens, NK & Johnston, S 2022, 'Developing high-reliability organisations: A social identity model, Safety Science, vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 105814, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105814
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Organisational Resilience
Safety I – Safety II
Chapter
Barasa, E, Mbau, R &Gilson, L 2018, 'What is resilience and how can it be nurtured? A systematic review of empirical literature on organizational resilience', International Journal of Health Policy and Management, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 491-503, https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2018.06
Provan, DJ, Woods, DD, Dekker, SWA & Rae, AJ 2020, 'Safety II professionals: How resilience engineering can transform safety practice', Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 195, no. 1, pp. 106740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106740
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Emerging trends in OHS
Chapter
Endsley, MR 2023, 'Ironies of artificial intelligence', Ergonomics, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 1656-1668. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2023.2243404
Hancock, P 2017, NAS Colloguia, video, 16-17 November 2017, viewed 19 March 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKVVlOP9d3M (This talk was part of the Arthur M. Sackler Colloguium 2017, Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity, Washington, DC.)
Crawford, E, Pazell, S & Karanikas, N 2023, 'Envisaging regenerative futures through Good Work Design', in D. Golightly, N. Balfe & R. Charles (Eds.) Contemporary Ergonomics & Human Factors 2023: Proceedings for the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors Annual Conference, Kenilworth, UK, 25-26 April 2023. Linke to the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
The sixth age of safety
Chapter
Ali, SH, Al-Sultan, HA & Al Rubaie, MT 2022, 'Fifth industrial revolution', International Journal of Business, Management and Economics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 196-212. https://doi.org/10.47747/ijbme.v3i3.694
Standards Australia 2023, Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Management system (AS ISO/IEC 42001:2023), Standards Australia, Sydney.
Norman, D. 2023, Design for a better world: Meaningful, sustainable, humanity centered, E-book, The MIT Press, ISBN: 9780262373845
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Permission to use Generative AI is given for limited purposes.
Please see the 'Permission to Use AI' sheet on the Moodle site.
Please refer to the CQUniversity guideline on AI Awareness for Academic Integrity V2 as it relates to plagiarism.
1 Written Assessment
Develop a conceptual model that represents the relationship between people, the organisation, technology and systems that can be used to develop an anticipatory sociotechnical systems approach to managing safety in the organisation.
This conceptual model should be in the form of a graphical representation.
Provide a detailed explanation that justifies the proposed model. This should be supported by recent, reputable literature relating to the organisational context, OHS management systems. a socio-technical system approach and an overall socio-political context of work.
Vacation Week Monday (14 Apr 2025) 9:00 am AEST
Week 7 Monday (28 Apr 2025)
Relevance (25%)
Depth of understanding in formulating a conceptual model.
A cogent conceptual model is presented.
The model design demonstrates relationships between people, the organisation, technology and systems.
The model provides an anticipatory sociotechnical systems framework that can be used to understand work systems and what can contribute to system success.
Validity (25%)
Connections are made between the model presented, supporting evidence and discussion.
Depth and extent of discussion, ie: understanding of concepts is evident.
Accuracy and originality of the discussion.
Judgement and reasoning is applied in the discussion; ie: assertions made are based on level of critical thought, analysis and synthesis of current literature.
Depth and extent of evidence used in the discussion (25%)
Quality of evidence sourced in support of the model and discussion.
Ability to critically analyse literature and apply to real-world contexts.
Linkages to systems used within the organisation are evident.
Presentation (25%)
Structure and flow of information is clear and methodical.
Coherence and clarity of expression (spelling, grammar, syntax).
Style and formatting in accordance with required academic standards.
Typographical precision is evident.
- Analyse the relationships between people, organisations and safety in organisations
- Apply contemporary safety science thinking to complex socio-technical systems
- Explain system failure and failure prevention measures
- Apply accident causation models to contemporary accident case studies
2 Critical Review
This assessment has 2 parts.
Part A. Critical review
Select one accident causation model from each of the categories below:
- Simple linear model
- Systemic linear model
- Complex non-linear model
Explore literature and critically review the theoretical underpinnings of the chosen models in relation to their effectiveness in:
- Addressing failure,
- Establishing and validating corrective, remedial and preventative actions, and
- Learning from Failure in general.
Part A should be limited to 2000 words maximum and be supported by relevant citations (Minimum of 8) from the literature.
Part B. Position paper.
In this assessment task you will choose a case study of an accident that has occurred in the 21st century. Ensure that the case study you chose has adequate published material to enable you to complete the task.
Select two of the 3 models used in Part A.
Populate the models with the critical factors from your chosen case study to explain, in the language of the models, the failures which occurred in the accident.
Prepare a written report to contrast and explain how well the two theoretical models enabled explanation of the accident phenomena in the case study.
Part B should not exceed 2000 words. It should be supported by relevant citations (minimum of 8) from the literature.
Both papers are to be written in the third person.
Week 10 Monday (19 May 2025) 9:00 am AEST
Week 12 Monday (2 June 2025)
- Critically reviews the theoretical underpinnings of 3 accident causation models. (20%)
- Reviews the models in relation to their effectiveness in addressing the failure, establishing and validating corrective, remedial and preventative actions and learning from the failure. (20%)
- Populates the selected accident causation models and provides a clear depiction of the chosen accident. (20%)
- Compares and contrasts the selected models on their effectiveness in explaining the accident phenomena in the selected case study. (20%)
- Submissions are professionally presented and (5%)
- Grammar and spelling are consistently accurate (5%)
- References including the provision of a reference list and intext referencing in Harvard style for all information, data, table, images sourced for this assignment. (10%)
- Explain system failure and failure prevention measures
- Apply accident causation models to contemporary accident case studies
- Evaluate the application and effectiveness of reliability, resilience and accident causation models.
3 Literature Review or Systematic Review
For this task, assume you work within the health and safety team for a large and complex organisation. Senior management is aware of two theories that explain system safety in complex systems and have tasked you to write a report on the two theories: High Reliability Theory and Organisational Resilience, how they differ, and how effective might they be into the future?
To complete this task, you will need to review the literature on both theories, and then critically compare the two theories. Based on this comparative exercise, you are to consider which theoretical approach is more effective at addressing system failure into the future. For this you will need to critically reflect on both theories and present an argument for why one theoretical approach will likely be more effective in the future than the other by presenting reasons that informed your judgement.
To be effective, you will need to identify and consider future needs of the organisation and how the theoretical model might address system failure. This could include technology advancement, workforce changes, business strategy, climate change etc.
Word count - Maximum 3000 words
Week 12 Friday (6 June 2025) 9:00 am AEST
Exam Week Friday (20 June 2025)
This assessment item is graded according to the following assessment criteria:
Literature review (40 marks)
- Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of both theories under examination (10 marks)
- Key concepts, principles and historical developing are clearly explained (10 marks)
- The literature review is substantial and covers seminal and recent research on both theories. (10 marks)
- A broad range of highly reputable academic sources are utilised to form judgement (i.e. peer reviewed) support the analysis (a minimum of 10 sources). (10 marks)
Analysis (20 marks)
- Critically evaluates the merits of theory in addressing identified future challenges. (10 marks)
- Identifies future trends and the challenges they create to system safety in complex organisations. (10 marks)
Discussion (20 marks)
- Demonstrates insight of the theoretical and practical implications for safety in complex systems. (10 marks)
- Presents a well-reasoned argument for which theory is likely to be more effective in the future. (10 marks)
Recommendations (10 marks)
- Recommendations are logical and link to the future challenges previously identified. (5 marks)
- Recommendations are prioritised and supported to enhance their adoption. (5 marks)
Technicalities (10 marks)
- The report is well-structured, concise, and appropriately formatted.
- Adheres to academic writing standards (CQUniversity Harvard Style in referencing style)
- Analyse the relationships between people, organisations and safety in organisations
- Apply contemporary safety science thinking to complex socio-technical systems
- Evaluate the application and effectiveness of reliability, resilience and accident causation models.
As a CQUniversity student you are expected to act honestly in all aspects of your academic work.
Any assessable work undertaken or submitted for review or assessment must be your own work. Assessable work is any type of work you do to meet the assessment requirements in the unit, including draft work submitted for review and feedback and final work to be assessed.
When you use the ideas, words or data of others in your assessment, you must thoroughly and clearly acknowledge the source of this information by using the correct referencing style for your unit. Using others’ work without proper acknowledgement may be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in your university study ensures the CQUniversity qualification you earn will be valued as a true indication of your individual academic achievement and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it deserves.
As a student, you are responsible for reading and following CQUniversity’s policies, including the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure. This policy sets out CQUniversity’s expectations of you to act with integrity, examples of academic integrity breaches to avoid, the processes used to address alleged breaches of academic integrity, and potential penalties.
What is a breach of academic integrity?
A breach of academic integrity includes but is not limited to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, and academic misconduct. The Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure defines what these terms mean and gives examples.
Why is academic integrity important?
A breach of academic integrity may result in one or more penalties, including suspension or even expulsion from the University. It can also have negative implications for student visas and future enrolment at CQUniversity or elsewhere. Students who engage in contract cheating also risk being blackmailed by contract cheating services.
Where can I get assistance?
For academic advice and guidance, the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) can support you in becoming confident in completing assessments with integrity and of high standard.
What can you do to act with integrity?
