@misc{9228027,
  abstract     = {{Background: Traditionally, safety management is driven by incidents and accidents, which are investigated to identify their causes and prevent recurrence. This failure-oriented approach is commonly referred to as Safety-I. A more recent paradigm, Safety-II, emphasises learning from how work typically goes well in everyday conditions. While previous studies suggest that Safety-II investigations can generate detailed insights into everyday work, little empirical research has examined how Safety-II investigations influence organisational discussions and improvement actions. Objective: This study explores whether the presentation of a Safety-II investigation leads to qualitatively different discussions and improvement actions than a Safety-I investigation within an aircraft maintenance organisation. Method: Following a typical incident (an in-flight engine shutdown), two investigations were conducted: a Safety-I investigation focusing on the causes of the incident and a Safety-II investigation examining how one relevant work process – handovers between maintenance shifts – is typically performed. The results were presented and discussed separately during two Safety Action Groups. A qualitative abductive approach was used to analyse differences in the discussions and proposed improvement actions. Results: Three main differences emerged. First, the Safety-I discussion focused on a broad but surface level discussion of many different processes and actions related to the incident, whereas the Safety-II discussion focussed on a deep exploration of maintenance task handovers. Second, the Safety-I discussion involved retrospective judgements of human behaviour, while the Safety-II discussion developed a shared understanding of everyday work practices. Third, improvement actions differed from top-down imposed barriers aimed at standardisation and compliance, to bottom-up improvements intended to support the practical performance of handovers. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the perspective underlying an investigation, influences how the organisation perceives and performs follow-up. Safety-I emphasises deviations and the strengthening of control mechanisms, while Safety-II emphasises understanding and supporting the conditions that enable successful performance in everyday work. Both perspectives may therefore contribute to safety improvement in complementary ways.}},
  author       = {{van Dijk, Shen}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Safety-II in Practice: Investigating Everyday Work in an Aircraft Maintenance Organisation}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}