Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 273, 2019
International Cross-industry Safety Conference (ICSC) - European STAMP Workshop & Conference (ESWC) (ICSC-ESWC 2018)
Article Number 02001
Number of page(s) 14
Section European STAMP Workshop & Conference
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201927302001
Published online 22 February 2019
  1. Alvarenga, M. A., Frutuoso e Melo, P. F., & Fonseca, R. A. (2014). A critical review of methods and models for evaluating organizational factors in Human Reliability Analysis. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 75, 25-41. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.04.004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. de Hoon, V. (2018). Exploring the Integration of Safety Models into a Single Uniform Safety Model. Unpublished BSc Thesis. Amsterdam: Aviation Academy, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  3. Debrincat, J., Bil, C., & Clark, G. (2013). Assessing organisational factors in aircraft accidents using a hybrid Reason and AcciMap model. Engineering Failure Analysis, 27, 52-60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.06.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dekker, S. (2006). The field guide to understanding human error (2nd ed.). Aldershot: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]
  5. Everdij, M. C., & Blom, H. P. (2016). Safety Methods Database. Version 1.1, August 2016. Maintained by Netherlands Aerospace Centre NLR, The Netherlands. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from http://www.nlr.nl/documents/flyers/SATdb.pdf [Google Scholar]
  6. Filho, A. P., Jun, G. T., & Waterson, R. (2017). Four Studies, Two Methods, One Accident - Another Look at the Reliability and Validity of Accimap and STAMP for Systemic Accident Analysis. In M. Cepin, & R. Bris, Safety and Reliability. Theory and Applications. Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2017) (pp. 75-82). Boca Raton: CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hollnagel, E. (2012). FRAM - The Functional Resonance Analysis Method. UK: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]
  8. Igene, O. O., & Johnson, C. W. (2018). Comparing HFACS and AcciMaps in a health informatics case study-the analysis of a medication dosing error. In H. e. al., Safety and Reliability - Safe Societies in a Changing World (pp. 3-10). London: Taylor & Francis Group. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Karanikas, N. (2018). Documentation of Assumptions and System Vulnerability Monitoring: the Case of System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA). Proceedings of the 5th STAMP European Workshop, 14-15 September 2017. Reykjavik University, Iceland: Journal of Safety Science, 2(1), 84-93. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24900/ijss/02018493.2018.0301 [Google Scholar]
  10. Le Coze, J.-C. (2013). New models for new times. An anti-dualist move. Safety Science, 59, 200-218. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.05.010 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Leveson, N. (2004). A New Accident Model for Engineering Safer Systems. Safety Science, 42(4), 237-270. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Leveson, N. (2011). Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Leveson, N., & Thomas, J. (2018, March). STPA Handbook. Retrieved from http://psas.scripts.mit.edu/home/ [Google Scholar]
  14. Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. New York: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Reason, J., Hollnagel, E., & Paries, J. (2006). Revisiting The Swiss Cheese Model Of Accidents. EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 2006-017. Brussels: Eurocontrol Experimental Centre. Retrieved from https://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/DOC_Report_2006_017.html [Google Scholar]
  16. Rejzek, M., Björnsdoéttir, S. H., & Krauss, S. S. (2018). Modelling Multiple Levels of Abstraction in Hierarchical Control Structures. Proceedings of the 5th STAMP European Workshop, 14-15 September 2017. Reykjavik University, Iceland: Journal of Safety Science, 2(1), 94-103. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24900/ijss/020194103.2018.0301 [Google Scholar]
  17. Salmon, P. M., Cornelissen, M., & Trotter, M. J. (2012). Systems-based accident analysis methods: A comparison of Accimap, HFACS, and STAMP. Safety Science, 50(4), 1158-1170. doi:j.ssci.2011.11.009 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Svedung, I., & Rasmussen, J. (2002). Graphic Representation of Accident Scenarios: Mapping System Structure and the Causation of Accident. Safety Science, 40(5), 397-417. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00036-9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Underwood, P., & Waterson, P. (2012). A critical review of the STAMP, FRAM and Accimap systemic accident analysis models. In N. A. Stanton, Advances in Human Aspects of Road and Rail Transportation (pp. 385-394). Boca Raton: CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Underwood, P., & Waterson, P. (2013). Systemic accident analysis: Examining the gap between research and practice. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 55, 154-164. doi:j.aap.2013.02.041 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Underwood, P., & Waterson, P. (2014). Systems thinking, the Swiss Cheese Model and accident analysis: a comparative systemic analysis of the Grayrigg train derailment using the ATSB, AcciMap and STAMP models. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 68, 75-94. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.07.027 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Underwood, P., Waterson, P., & Braithwaite, G. (2016). ‘Accident investigation in the wild’ - A small-scale, field-based evaluation of the STAMP method for accident analysis. Safety Science, 82, 129-143. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.08.014 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.