80
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
at this particular moment in time not to be heard. Moreover, the frigate was not
plotted on Sola TS’s radar, which the AIBN points out may have to do with little
explicit communication between the crew of Sola TS and the pilot. According to
AIBN, this also affects the understanding of the situation on Sola TS’s bridge. On
the other hand, KNM Helge Ingstad was indeed sailing without AIS signals, which
resulted in the name not appearing at Sola TS. At the same time, the frigate was
not followed electronically by Fedje VTS. Technologies were available to all crews
which could have made each other’s identity and position more visible, but for various reasons the technology was not used as it could. It would be valuable to learn
more about such choices –why any given technology’s ( designed) affordances are
not manifested in use involves understanding how actors choose to prepare given
the events one expects.
Therefore, and based on Table 5.1 and the examples discussed above, three questions are proposed that are particularly relevant for an operationalization of prospective sensemaking to better understand the accident in Hjeltefjord:
1. How are distinct events coupled in time and space in the sociotechnical
system in question?
2. How are events made relevant through interaction between key players?
3. In what ways do key players prepare to handle expected events including the
principal resources used?
The first question thus addresses whether tension exists between l ong-term and
short-term expectations that hamper checking and or verifying own expectations
during course of events. The second question addresses the social construction of
events and particularly how events are rendered intelligible through crew negotiations. The third question explores the practices surrounding preparation, more
precisely situated action and the embedded ( technological) resources used by the
crew.
A DELIMITATION OF KEY ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS FOR THE
OPERATIONALIZATION OF PROSPECTIVE SENSEMAKING
Figure 5.1 conceptualizes distinct analytical dimensions coupled to the three
derived questions above. The idea is to argue for the need to analytically divide
and refine and then see in context specific dimensions that are relevant to understanding as well as evaluate prospective sensemaking, so as to also facilitate an
expanded understanding of what the AIBN ( 2019) accident report, for example,
describes as situational understanding per se. Of course, although an event, expectations, ways of preparing, as well as available information are mutually dependent dimensions, it is advantageous to analytically separate the elements from one
another. The intersection in F igure 5.1 illustrates interdependence while the smaller
arrows analytically illustrate how the various dimensions interact and affect each
other and how they can be analysed. An event involves a t ime-limited situation
while expectation is linked to the assumption of a future event. Ways of preparing
imply the actual practices coupled to how crew prepare while information/ cues are
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
at this particular moment in time not to be heard. Moreover, the frigate was not
plotted on Sola TS’s radar, which the AIBN points out may have to do with little
explicit communication between the crew of Sola TS and the pilot. According to
AIBN, this also affects the understanding of the situation on Sola TS’s bridge. On
the other hand, KNM Helge Ingstad was indeed sailing without AIS signals, which
resulted in the name not appearing at Sola TS. At the same time, the frigate was
not followed electronically by Fedje VTS. Technologies were available to all crews
which could have made each other’s identity and position more visible, but for various reasons the technology was not used as it could. It would be valuable to learn
more about such choices –why any given technology’s ( designed) affordances are
not manifested in use involves understanding how actors choose to prepare given
the events one expects.
Therefore, and based on Table 5.1 and the examples discussed above, three questions are proposed that are particularly relevant for an operationalization of prospective sensemaking to better understand the accident in Hjeltefjord:
1. How are distinct events coupled in time and space in the sociotechnical
system in question?
2. How are events made relevant through interaction between key players?
3. In what ways do key players prepare to handle expected events including the
principal resources used?
The first question thus addresses whether tension exists between l ong-term and
short-term expectations that hamper checking and or verifying own expectations
during course of events. The second question addresses the social construction of
events and particularly how events are rendered intelligible through crew negotiations. The third question explores the practices surrounding preparation, more
precisely situated action and the embedded ( technological) resources used by the
crew.
A DELIMITATION OF KEY ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS FOR THE
OPERATIONALIZATION OF PROSPECTIVE SENSEMAKING
Figure 5.1 conceptualizes distinct analytical dimensions coupled to the three
derived questions above. The idea is to argue for the need to analytically divide
and refine and then see in context specific dimensions that are relevant to understanding as well as evaluate prospective sensemaking, so as to also facilitate an
expanded understanding of what the AIBN ( 2019) accident report, for example,
describes as situational understanding per se. Of course, although an event, expectations, ways of preparing, as well as available information are mutually dependent dimensions, it is advantageous to analytically separate the elements from one
another. The intersection in F igure 5.1 illustrates interdependence while the smaller
arrows analytically illustrate how the various dimensions interact and affect each
other and how they can be analysed. An event involves a t ime-limited situation
while expectation is linked to the assumption of a future event. Ways of preparing
imply the actual practices coupled to how crew prepare while information/ cues are