Introduction
System safety is an important concept in today’s technologically savvy society. Indeed, in the corporate world, different companies and organizations face different challenges related to system security. From these challenges, system safety emerges as an important organizational concept.
The system safety process mainly relies on identifying and analyzing hazardous elements in organizational systematic processes (Lin, 2012). These processes help to formulate remedial controls for the control or elimination of dangerous items in a system safety process (through a system-based approach).
These processes also require the inclusion of scientific, technical, and managerial skills in the identification, prevention, and mitigation of hazardous elements (Stephans, 2004).
The adoption of the system-based approach is a departure from traditional safety strategies, which depend on the control of external hazardous factors of an organization’s operational system (Stephans, 2004).
In the past, the traditional safety strategy depended on an epistemological analysis of a systematic process. This analysis also relied on past incidents in the risk management process.
Now, the system safety concept relies on the success of “synergy” because the underlying principle of the concept stipulates that the systematic working of different processes provide a better conception of how systems should work, as opposed to how one concept works (Stephans, 2004).
Nonetheless, the essence of understanding the concept of system safety does not only concentrate on understanding its definition, but also by understanding its implementation.
In this context, it is vital to understand that the concept of system safety requires a thorough understanding of the issues and challenges that may arise during its implementation. This paper explains the problems, challenges, and limitations of introducing system safety in an organizational context.
As a possible reaction to this analysis, this paper similarly outlines the possible solutions, which organizations may use to implement system safety effectively.
Challenges of Introducing System Safety
System Rigidity
As noted in this paper, the system safety approach mainly relies on the philosophy that “a whole is better than the sum of its parts” (Lin, 2012, p. 224).
However, there is a significant disadvantage to this philosophy because the reliance on a system safety approach introduces a lot of rigidity to an organization’s safety management process.
Therefore, if there are many environmental changes to different organizational processes, it may be difficult for organizational managers to mitigate such eventualities.
Mohamed (2011) says that the rigid safety management process may prompt a slow response to such security risks because managers often require employees to follow a systematic approach to risk management. This requirement leads to slow risk management.
Safety and Cost
The cost of introducing the system safety concept is often an important factor to consider during the introduction of system safety (in an organization) because most modern organizations have to manage increased costs of operations and increased security risks. Usually, the cost of introducing this system is high.
However, in lieu of the total costs that an organization may experience from a security incident, it is crucial for managers to protect their assets from any risk exposures that may equally lead to potential losses (Mohamed, 2011).
Certainly, for managers to protect their organizations from such losses, they need to adopt prudent management systems, especially concerning any safety factor that may cause this loss.
Indeed, Lin (2012) affirms that today’s managers appreciate the importance of prudent safety management because it is as much an essential component of an organization’s long-term sustainability as it is an organization’s financial management process.
Therefore, the adoption of the system safety process introduces significant challenges regarding a manager’s ability to balance safety and costs.
Often, researchers like Mohamed (2011) say that it is wise for managers to adopt a systematic approach to their organizational goals and objectives to ensure that their organizational safety goals are realistic and tenable. This paper investigates these views in the “recommendations” section.
Intensive Skill Requirements
Already, this paper shows that the system safety process is a multifaceted process that includes a systemic understanding of all the relevant factors that affect an organization’s safety management system.
Clearly, understanding and operating this safety management system requires intensive skill requirements that most people do not have.
In fact, for very complex organizations, the skill requirement for the organization is more complex. Such organizations also require complex analyses and complex analytical tools for the implementation of the safety management system (Lin, 2012).
Lack of Focused Approach
In the organizational context, every employee has the duty to commit their energy towards the fulfillment of their organizational duties. This commitment requires a focused approach to their tasks (Kamal, 2012, p. 3).
However, in the most demanding situations, most employees consider safety issues as a secondary requirement, as opposed to a primary function of their organizational activities. This perception undermines the success of the system safety process in the organization.
Closed Loop System
The system safety process is a closed-loop process. In other words, the system safety process requires adequate feedback for it to work properly (Kamal, 2012, p. 3). The adequate feedback enables the management to test the validity and effectiveness of the overall process.
Therefore, without the closed-loop process, it is difficult to ascertain the validity and effectiveness of the system safety process. However, for the closed-loop process to work effectively, there needs to be an effective synchrony among all the system safety requirements of the entire organization.
This process requires a sophisticated architecture that is sometimes difficult to implement (Lunde, 2003). It is, therefore, difficult to fine-tune the entire system to relay feedback in the system safety process. Consequently, its implementation becomes costly and complicated.
Complex Organizational Structure
A company’s organizational structure may pose a great challenge to the implementation of the system safety process because organizational structures affect the safety performance of organizations (Lin, 2012).
Depending on the nature of different organizations, they may have a complex or a simple organizational structure. For example, an organization’s decision-making process may be highly centralized or delegated throughout different levels of the organization.
Complex organizational structures pose a challenge to the effective implementation of system safety management processes. For example, Lunde (2003) explains that complex levels of management in an organization’s structure poses a problem with the implementation of the system safety processes.
For example, specific organizations have a centralized decision-making process, which is often useful in a predictable environment that has limited risk.
However, in an unpredictable environment that poses significant system risks, a centralized decision-making system is not appropriate because it may be difficult to respond effectively to changing organizational risks.
This situation also supports an earlier assertion in this paper that demonstrates the disadvantages of excessive rigidity in the system safety process because it may be equally difficult to respond to varying risks in a rigid environment (Lunde, 2003).
Broadly, the ability of an organization’s structure to adapt to change may be a success factor in the implementation of the system safety process. Stated differently, it is vital for organizations to adapt quickly to external or internal factors in the organization if it has a flexible organizational structure.
This is equally an essential feature in the design of the system safety process. Nonetheless, it is crucial to appreciate the difficulty of having uniform organizational structures for all organizations. Certainly, an organizational structure that works for one organization may fail to work for another organization.
Similarly, it is difficult to have a standard method for structuring an organizational system safety method. Lin (2012) says that ideally, the best organizational structure would be one that requires an employee who oversees the safety management function to report to the senior manager in the organization.
This simple organizational structure would avoid possible conflicts in the implementation of the system safety process.
Recommendations
Already, this paper shows that a high level of sophistication (that requires sophisticated human resource skills) characterizes the implementation of the system safety process. To counter this challenge, it is vital for an organization to recruit suitably qualified candidates that may manage the job.
However, it is crucial to say that the recruitment and selection of suitably qualified candidates need to occur throughout all levels of the organization because the implementation of the system safety method is a widespread organizational function (Lunde, 2003).
Therefore, the process needs reflect throughout all aspects of the organization (specifically because the system safety method is an amalgamation of different systems that permeate throughout the organization).
Therefore, all organizational departments need to understand the importance of shared responsibility in the implementation of the system safety method.
Within the concept of safety, as outlined in the universal definition of safe organizations, it is essential to say that “safe” organizations are ordinarily required to accommodate activities that support an effective and safe system (Mohamed, 2011).
The recruitment of suitable personnel that may implement the system safety method forms part of this requirement.
Other activities include the arrangement for training all relevant staff within the organization, the definition for acceptable standards and procedures for operation within the organization, and monitoring the performance of the services, equipment and methods within the organization that influences the organization’s system safety process (Mohamed, 2011).
It is also vital for an organization’s management to ensure that their employees pursue a focused approach to implement the system safety concept. One way for managers to achieve this objective is to allocate some numerical weight to safety sensitivity in an employee’s appraisal system.
Such an addition is bound to motivate employees to consider safety goals as a primary function in their work performance (Kamal, 2012, p. 3).
Regarding the high cost of introducing system safety, it is crucial to say that the process of identifying cost limitations and organizational performance is a standard approach for most industries (Lunde, 2003).
However, specifying acceptable and unacceptable risks offer the same level of importance as identifying the cost and performance factors that every organization provides. Certainly, the best way for organizations to achieve this system balance is by adopting a balanced system safety process.
Comprehensively, the best way managers may effectively embrace system safety is when they appreciate the balance between security and cost.
This process is continual and it involves “the identification of safety issues, associated risks, analysis of associated risks, selection and implementation of appropriate corrective actions, and the evaluation of results” (Lin, 2012, p. 166).
Therefore, if managers implement their system safety processes, they should not only realize improved organizational safety standards but also improved organizational effectiveness.
Conclusion
After weighing the findings of this paper, it is crucial to point out that the implementation of the system safety process is prone to several challenges. These challenges may occur before or during the implementation of the process.
Broadly, this paper shows that the organizational structure, rigidity of the system safety process, and the intensive skill requirements that are required for the implementation of system safety processes pose the most significant challenges for the implementation of the model.
Other considerable challenges include cost concerns and the closed-looped nature of the system safety process. A proactive management of these challenges may prevent them from occurring.
For example, preparing employees for the implementation of the system safety process and the recruitment and training of employees provide a desirable way for managing the human resource challenges that arise from the implementation of the system safety process.
These human resource solutions are bound to solve even some of the challenges witnessed from an unfocused employee group.
Lastly, appreciating the nature of the system safety method and its potential pitfalls may help in evaluating how the system may integrate with the existing organizational structure.
The importance of managers to evaluate their organizational structures and the influence that such organizational structures may have on the implementation of the system safety process, therefore, surfaces as an essential requirement for the implementation of the system safety process.
Generally, a broad assessment of the organizational competencies, the potential readiness of an organization to accept the new system, and an appreciation of the challenges of the system safety process provides an accurate assessment of the potential success for introducing the system safety process.
References
Kamal, T. (2012). Problems and Solutions in the Implementation of Safety Management System. Web.
Lin, Y. (2012). Modeling the important organizational factors of safety management system performance. Journal of Modelling in Management, 7(2), 166 – 179.
Lunde, K. (2003). Ensuring system safety is more efficient. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 75(5), 477 – 484.
Mohamed, S. (2011). System dynamics modelling of construction safety culture. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(3), 266 – 281.
Stephans, R.A. (2004). System safety for the 21st century: The updated and revised edition of system safety 2000. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.