We all aim for safe processes. However, providing safety is a complex endeavour. What is it that makes a process safe? And what is the contribution of humans? It is very common to consider humans a risk factor prone to errors. Therefore, we implement sophisticated safety management systems (SMS) in order to prevent potential "human failure". These SMS provide an impressive increase of safety.In safety science this approach is labelled "Safety-I", and it starts to be questioned because humans do not show failures only. On the contrary, they often actively contribute to safety, sometimes even by deviating from a procedure. This "Safety-II" perspective considers humans to be a "safety factor" as well because of their ability to adjust behaviour to the given situation. However, adaptability requires scope of action and this is where Safety-I and Safety-II contradict each other. While the former restricts freedom of action, the latter requires room for manoeuvring.Thus, the task of integrating the Safety-II perspective into SMS, which are traditionally Safety-I based, is difficult. This challenge was the main objective of our project. We discovered two methods that contribute to the quality of SMS by integrating Safety-II into SMS without jeopardizing the Safety-I approach.

Preface1 Introduction2 Safety Management Systems (SMS)2.1 Pillars of SMS2.2 A Safety-II based Tool Developing Existing Safety-I based SMS3 Safety-I and Safety-II3.1 Safety-I3.2 Safety-II3.3 Safety-II as Complementarity and Extension of Safety-I4 Theoretical Background of the Measure Evaluation Tool (MET)4.1 Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Off4.2 One-Best-Way, Bimodality and Work-As-Imagined4.3 Performance Adjustments, Prioritizations, Variability and Work-As-Done4.4 Safety Boundaries4.5 Compliance, Non-Compliance and Over-Compliance4.6 Factors influencing Activity Performance4.6.1 Activity and Output4.6.2 Operating Conditions: Input, Time, Control, Precondition and Resources4.6.3 Primary and Secondary Operating Conditions4.6.4 Focus of Operating Conditions: Adverse Event vs. Normal Operation5 The Measure Evaluation Tool (MET)5.1 Objectives of the MET5.2 Steps of the MET5.3 Guiding Questions of the MET5.4 Application Concept of the MET6 Guidelines for Implementing the MET in existing SMS6.1 Process Integration6.2 Change Process6.3 Training Need7 Theoretical Background of the Effectiveness Assessment Tool (EAT)7.1 Levels of Implementation Check and Effectiveness Assessment7.1.1 Level 1 HF-Measures7.1.2 Level 2 Implementation7.1.3 Level 3 Knowledge, Skills and Attitude7.1.4 Level 4 Behavior7.1.5 Level 5 Transfer Promoters and Barriers7.1.6 Level 6 Outcome7.2 Implementation Check7.3 Effectiveness Assessment8 The Effectiveness Assessment Tool (EAT)8.1 Objectives of the EAT8.2 Steps of the EAT8.2.1 Step 1 Development of Indicators8.2.1.1 Definition of Construct8.2.1.2 Definition of Indicators8.2.1.3 Definition of References8.2.2 Step 2 Descriptive Measurement of Indicators8.2.2.1 Quality Criteria8.2.2.2 Methods of Data Collection8.2.2.3 Methods of Data Evaluation8.2.3 Step 3 Normative Assessment of Indicators8.3 Guiding Questions of the EAT8.4 Application Concept of the EAT9 Guidelines for Implementing the EAT in existing SMS9.1 Process Integration9.2 Change Process9.3 Training Need10 Bibliography11 List of Figures12 List of Tables