The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error
Abstract
When faced with a human error problem, you may be tempted to ask 'Why didn't they watch out better? How could they not have noticed?'. You think you can solve your human error problem by telling people to be more careful, by reprimanding the miscreants, by issuing a new rule or procedure. These are all expressions of 'The Bad Apple Theory', where you believe your system is basically safe if it were not for those few unreliable people in it. This old view of human error is increasingly outdated and will lead you nowhere. The new view, in contrast, understands that a human error problem is actually an organizational problem. Finding a 'human error' by any other name, or by any other human, is only the beginning of your journey, not a convenient conclusion. The new view recognizes that systems are inherent trade-offs between safety and other pressures (for example: production). People need to create safety through practice, at all levels of an organization. Breaking new ground beyond its successful predecessor, The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error guides you through the traps and misconceptions of the old view. It explains how to avoid the hindsight bias, to zoom out from the people closest in time and place to the mishap, and resist the temptation of counterfactual reasoning and judgmental language. But it also helps you look forward. It suggests how to apply the new view in building your safety department, handling questions about accountability, and constructing meaningful countermeasures. It even helps you in getting your organization to adopt the new view and improve its learning from failure. So if you are faced by a human error problem, abandon the fallacy of a quick fix. Read this book.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The complexity of failure: Implications of complexity theory for safety investigations
Dekker, S., Cilliers, P., & Hofmeyr, J.-H. (2011) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.008 · Cited by 398
Self-citationWachter, J. K., & Yorio, P. L. (2014) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.07.029 · Cited by 280
Safety II professionals: How resilience engineering can transform safety practice
Provan, D. J., Woods, D. D., Dekker, S. W. A., & Rae, A. J. (2020) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.106740 · Cited by 267
Self-citationChen, S.-T., Wall, A., Davies, P., Yang, Z., Wang, J., & Chou, Y.-H. (2013) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.06.009 · Cited by 254
Love, P. E. D., Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D., & Irani, Z. (2016) · Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.007 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Dekker, S.
- Venue
- CRC Press eBooks
- Publisher
- CRC Press
- Published
- 2017-04-07
- OpenAlex
- W1859403526
- Cited by
- 534
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.49
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1201/9781315239675
- The paper
- Dekker, S. (2017). The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error. CRC Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315239675
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.