82
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
well suited to explore the type of accident ( during normal operations) that occurred
between KNM Helge Ingstad and Sola TS. Based on the review of the course of
events from the Accident Investigation Board’s report ( AIBN, 2019), three main
questions have been derived where the idea is to elucidate key aspects of prospective sensemaking, which the conceptualization of analytical dimensions ( F igure 5.1)
thereafter elaborates.
An important element of the applicability associated with prospective sensemaking is about transferability to other situations, as well as to other domains. It can be
envisaged that such a perspective is also useful in the investigation in, for example,
aviation including the Boeing 737 MAX accidents where weak human-centred design
is part of the picture ( Endsley, 2019), and to issues of unfortunate human–automation
interaction, i.e., the safety paradox ( Evjemo & Johnsen, 2019). The transferability of
prospective sensemaking to similar domains is thus rooted in the operationalization
and conceptualization of the term. Applied use of prospective sensemaking means
that one can complement the most often used situational understanding, i.e., situational awareness ( Endsley, 1995), however also going beyond a foremost cognitive
approach to sensemaking ( Weick 1995) via incorporating the social and a forwardoriented perspective. At the same time, the operationalization and conceptualization of prospective sensemaking involves a clear analytical focus on technology use
as situated ( Suchman, 1987; 2007), which is also illustrated by the examples from
Hjeltefjord.
There are potentially several learning points from an applied use of prospective
sensemaking for future accident investigations that are important to bear in mind.
Firstly, there are specific methodological issues. When investigating these types of
accidents, it is necessary to identify and map in detail the sequential ordering of
action, which applies to both the overall movement of a vessel and to the interaction
between crew on the bridge and between the crew and other actors such as in our
example, Fedje VTS. Furthermore, a specific analytical focus on the use of participants’ resources including the use of distinct technology is imperative to understand why events evolved the way they did. Secondly, it is important to consider
how empirical material is collected. What methods are most appropriate to capture
both participants’ meanings as well as action? Rosness et al. ( 2015) used a variety of methods in their study of hospital work and Evjemo ( 2017) argues the need
to combine interviews and observational work to ensure sufficient proximity to the
empirical data in complex work settings where compliance to standards are imperative to safety. Thirdly, and from a practical standpoint, one can also imagine that
future formal team safety training including technology use can incorporate ideas
from prospective sensemaking, e.g. available interactional resources and their use to
strengthen the crews’ ability to identify and handle safety critical situations in a more
proactive manner.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is worth recapitulating the point of departure for the chapter, namely that the purpose was not to assess whether prospective sensemaking was evident among the
crew on the frigate and the tanker or within the traffic control centre. The purpose
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
well suited to explore the type of accident ( during normal operations) that occurred
between KNM Helge Ingstad and Sola TS. Based on the review of the course of
events from the Accident Investigation Board’s report ( AIBN, 2019), three main
questions have been derived where the idea is to elucidate key aspects of prospective sensemaking, which the conceptualization of analytical dimensions ( F igure 5.1)
thereafter elaborates.
An important element of the applicability associated with prospective sensemaking is about transferability to other situations, as well as to other domains. It can be
envisaged that such a perspective is also useful in the investigation in, for example,
aviation including the Boeing 737 MAX accidents where weak human-centred design
is part of the picture ( Endsley, 2019), and to issues of unfortunate human–automation
interaction, i.e., the safety paradox ( Evjemo & Johnsen, 2019). The transferability of
prospective sensemaking to similar domains is thus rooted in the operationalization
and conceptualization of the term. Applied use of prospective sensemaking means
that one can complement the most often used situational understanding, i.e., situational awareness ( Endsley, 1995), however also going beyond a foremost cognitive
approach to sensemaking ( Weick 1995) via incorporating the social and a forwardoriented perspective. At the same time, the operationalization and conceptualization of prospective sensemaking involves a clear analytical focus on technology use
as situated ( Suchman, 1987; 2007), which is also illustrated by the examples from
Hjeltefjord.
There are potentially several learning points from an applied use of prospective
sensemaking for future accident investigations that are important to bear in mind.
Firstly, there are specific methodological issues. When investigating these types of
accidents, it is necessary to identify and map in detail the sequential ordering of
action, which applies to both the overall movement of a vessel and to the interaction
between crew on the bridge and between the crew and other actors such as in our
example, Fedje VTS. Furthermore, a specific analytical focus on the use of participants’ resources including the use of distinct technology is imperative to understand why events evolved the way they did. Secondly, it is important to consider
how empirical material is collected. What methods are most appropriate to capture
both participants’ meanings as well as action? Rosness et al. ( 2015) used a variety of methods in their study of hospital work and Evjemo ( 2017) argues the need
to combine interviews and observational work to ensure sufficient proximity to the
empirical data in complex work settings where compliance to standards are imperative to safety. Thirdly, and from a practical standpoint, one can also imagine that
future formal team safety training including technology use can incorporate ideas
from prospective sensemaking, e.g. available interactional resources and their use to
strengthen the crews’ ability to identify and handle safety critical situations in a more
proactive manner.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is worth recapitulating the point of departure for the chapter, namely that the purpose was not to assess whether prospective sensemaking was evident among the
crew on the frigate and the tanker or within the traffic control centre. The purpose