By Shawn Brent Kurbanali
Anyone who has ever booked a ticket on an airline expects they will arrive safely at the destination or that ticket would never have been booked in the first place. Indeed, it is surprising how many of us every day pin our hopes and put our lives in the hands of all kinds of companies, hoping those companies get it right. Yet, accidents still occur. Lives are still lost. And there are numerous examples of carriers forced to cease operations due to safety issues or inability to recover from a catastrophic accident. We mention airlines to highlight the concept and need for high reliability organizations (HROs) in aviation and to discuss HROs within the broader critical context of risk management. This topic is important because when an HRO fails, there is often severe and catastrophic impact on society. Historically (and even to this day) society has held HROs to an exceptionally high level of accountability. The expectation is that HROs will perform to a high standard every time, even while conducting risky technical activities in a constantly changing high-threat environment. HROs and risk management are not mutually exclusive and merits quality discussion on how the HRO manages risk, its application to aviation, and to what extent the concept can replace any aspects of enterprise risk management itself.
In assessing how HROs relate risk management as a way of managing risk, we note that HROs emerged from a study in1984 (Casler, 2014) and like risk management, is still an emerging a discipline. Similar to risk management, Rochlin et al. (1987) recognizes HROs according to auditing, training and continual learning, while Roberts & Rousseau (1989) adds hierarchal differentiation, and redundancy in rapid feedback. HROs also use cultural diversity to detect errors and solve problems (Casler). Since “the existence and operation of HROs has actually been documented for only relatively small organizations” (Casler, p.233), enterprise risk management can apply HRO-specific strategies to a corporation’s smaller business unit (Casler). But why would the aviation industry use HRO methods to address some of its risks, with or without any published risk strategy?
As mentioned, HROs and enterprise risk management are not mutually exclusive but if we consider airlines and business aviation, it becomes apparent that some aviation enterprises are HROs as defined by their operating characteristics and framework. Glassman (n.d.) points out that both HROs and aviation businesses operate on a compressed timeline, have high accountability, use small decision loops, and are exposed to high public visibility. Glassman further describes HRO frameworks as involving (1) complex systems (2) complex environments (3) complex work (4) high error consequence (5) low error rates and (6) repeated predictable outcomes. But there are other parallels: Not only can mistakes in an HRO be fatal, but also, Casler (2014) as cited in Rochlin (1993), mentions that methods used by HROs to achieve objectives and overcome problems can be technically complicated. Consequently, these methods are not well understood by those external to the HRO (Casler). Finally, research indicates that ability to distill and synthesize complexity to prioritize and reduce a situation to simple components, is highly characteristic of an HRO. While there are reasons the aviation industry would use an HRO approach to address some risks (with or without) a risk management strategy, we ask the question: Is the HRO a replacement for enterprise risk management?
Based on the research the answer to the above question is no. Casler (2014) mentions that “no large public organization can in its entirety embrace all the characteristics of a [sic] HRO” (p. 242). Also, HROs are limited to a certain size, above which, HRO methods may not be successful (Casler). In addition, HROs usually have a straightforward and clear objective (Casler). By contrast, a recognized risk management strategy would also address larger companies. Larger companies (especially public enterprises) often have multiple, complicated goals (Casler). We also identify the following to support our position: First, a recognized business risk management strategy addresses business threats from the external environment. However, HROs are not as receptive to this and are often insulated by the parent company (Casler). Your author notes after 36 years in the airlines, four airlines were slow in reacting to economic downturns. This was followed by bankruptcy proceeding of all four carriers. Second, HROs have a pre-occupation with failure (Casler, as cited in Weick & Sutcliff, 2001) leading to the view (especially in larger HROs) that they can foresee and prepare for all contingencies (Casler). By contrast, enterprise risk management makes no such assumption. And third, HROs risk missing out on undiscovered potential. Casler, as cited in Rochlin (1993) says HROs may have reluctance or inability to test the limits of reliability or, as Casler also references in Shullman (1993), no experimentation near the operational limits. On the other hand, enterprise risk management encourages a safe and acceptable level of calculated risk-taking to unlock hidden potential.
To conclude, the HRO relates to managing risk as it considers similar aspects in defining its approach to risk management. In considering why aviation would use the HRO approach to address some of its risks (with or without enterprise risk management) we noted aviation parallels HROs not only conceptually, but also, operationally, and that aviation itself is very much an HRO endeavor. Research also suggests that HROs cannot replace enterprise risk management as the HRO approach to risk management is not as comprehensive, although some aspects of it can be utilized.Â
Shawn is a pilot with Air Canada with more than 18,000 flight hours.
