0 saved
10.9K views
A popular model in risk management across domains as diverse as aerospace, healthcare, mining, and manufacturing, the Swiss Cheese Mo ... Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Ille enim occurrentia nescio quae comminiscebatur; Audax negotium, dicerem impudens, nisi hoc institutum postea translatum ad philosophos nostros esset. Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Ita prorsus, inquam; Quis enim est, qui non videat haec esse in natura rerum tria? Sed ego in hoc resisto; Quid ergo attinet gloriose loqui, nisi constanter loquare? Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt. Roges enim Aristonem, bonane ei videantur haec: vacuitas doloris, divitiae, valitudo; At, illa, ut vobis placet, partem quandam tuetur, reliquam deserit. At cum de plurimis eadem dicit, tum certe de maximis. Sed tamen enitar et, si minus multa mihi occurrent, non fugiam ista popularia.
- Assume that human error will occur.
Reason’s work was premised on the id ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Numquam facies. Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi; Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Bork Non quaero, quid dicat, sed quid convenienter possit rationi et sententiae suae dicere. Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Hoc est non dividere, sed frangere. Bork Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Certe non potest. Quid, quod res alia tota est? Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus.
Nonne igitur tibi videntur, inquit, mala? Sed tamen est aliquid, quod nobis non liceat, liceat illis. Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Quamquam id quidem licebit iis existimare, qui legerint. Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Ergo id est convenienter naturae vivere, a natura discedere. Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum.
The metaphor of Swiss Cheese has clearly resonated in safety and accident domains, though criticism has persisted. One of the prime criticisms is the simplistic nature of the metaphor that leaves it too generic and without value. Many point to the fact that Reason himself tried to expand his work with subsequent diagrams and papers which have not persisted like the Swiss Cheese Model. At worst, it's seen as a reductionist approach that was born from his period working as a consultant, at best it's seen as a tool he used to communicate important concepts, albeit relatively superficially, to management.
For example, some would argue the metaphor presents accidents as a linear occurrence, while in reality, they occur in dynamic and non-linear ways. This links to a broader criticism that it lacks a systems and dynamic view of problems, implying that each component, like a slice of cheese, can be altered and even fixed in isolation.
Another issue with the original diagram is how it continues to be interpreted so differently by practitioners. While some would argue that its broad definition allows for diverse agreement and application, others point to studies of practitioners who were revealed to have different understandings of what the model represents and what it means as a result.
Covid.
Below is Australian Virologist Ian Mackay’s repurposed version of the Swiss Cheese Model as it was applied to Covid mitigation.
Risk consultant Julian Talbot used this model to explain the devastation of the 2009 Australian bushfires in the diagram below.
Engineering.
Michigan Tech used this diagram to explore the safety elements in engineering, including a mitigation layer on the end.
d
According to James Reason, his inspiration for this model came in the 1970s while he was making tea. He was distracted by his large insistent cat and absent-mindedly dolloped a large spoonful of cat food into the teapot. Reason was fascinated by the similarities of the tasks that led to his mistake and this deepened his research that culminated into his book A Life in Errors - From Little Slips to Big Disasters. He particularly was interested in the impact of mistakes with human-machine interaction, particularly in the high-stakes fields such as aerospace to nuclear power.
Others have noted that Reason had input from John Wreathall in developing what was essentially a building on traditional safety management thinking with an understanding of human error. Reason published the original work behind this model in 1990, then explored it more explicitly in the British medical journal in 2000, though it was several years before it was developed as the organisational accident model, and later known as the Swiss Cheese Model.
My Notes
Oops, That’s Members’ Only!
Fortunately, it only costs US$5/month to Join ModelThinkers and access everything so that you can rapidly discover, learn, and apply the world’s most powerful ideas.
ModelThinkers membership at a glance:
“Yeah, we hate pop ups too. But we wanted to let you know that, with ModelThinkers, we’re making it easier for you to adapt, innovate and create value. We hope you’ll join us and the growing community of ModelThinkers today.”
You Might Also Like:
- Actionable summaries of the world's most powerful ideas.
Subscribe now and download this practical guide to transform your thinking, plus recieve one short, powerful and actionable idea in your inbox each month.