Paper ESREL rev 5.1.pdf (165.6 kB)
Four studies, two methods and one accident – another look at the reliability and validity of STAMP and Accimap for systemic accident analysis
conference contributionposted on 2017-02-09, 13:30 authored by A.P.G. Filho, Gyuchan Thomas JunGyuchan Thomas Jun, Patrick WatersonPatrick Waterson
The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of two accident analysis methods. We identified four studies which analysed the same accident (the South Korea Sewol Ferry accident). Studies 1 and 2 used Accimap whilst Studies 3 and 4 applied STAMP. The four studies were compared in terms of analysis procedure taken, granularity of analysis, causal factors identified and recommendations suggested. The results indicate that the reliability between two STAMP studies (61%) is higher than two Accimap studies (31%) in terms of contributing factor identification. It was found that the recommendations made from each study reflect the focus and knowledge of the analyst.
Published inEuropean Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2017)
CitationFILHO, A.P.G., JUN, G.T. and WATERSON, P., 2017. Four studies, two methods, one accident—another look at the reliability and validity of Accimap and STAMP for systemic accident analysis. IN: Cepin, M. and Bris, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2017), Portorož, Slovenia, June 18-22nd. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp.75-82.
Publisher© CRC Press.
- AM (Accepted Manuscript)
Publisher statementThis work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
NotesThis is an Accepted Manuscript of a paper published by CRC Press in Safety and Reliability. Theory and Applications on 25 May 2017, available online: https://www.crcpress.com/Safety-and-Reliability-Theory-and-Applications/Cepin-Bris/p/book/9781138629370.