User:JSau/High reliability organization

Lead
High Reliability Organization s can be found in various different fields and professions, but there is a distinct similarity that conjoins them all. Despite the particular industry that the organization belongs to, the congruity amongst HROs is that a miniscule error could result in catastrophic consequences [1].

Article body
The commonality of having no room for error, bridges a gap that allows industries from Air Traffic Control to Nuclear Power Plants to fall under the scope of HROs [1 ]. Out of necessity, these environments facilitate performance and product that is next to perfection, due to the nature of the job. Other high risk industries have found this commitment to excellence enticing, and have also attempted to adopt the HRO approach. One of the most notable fields being healthcare. Based on medical errors being estimated as being the third leading cause of death in the United States in 2016, application of the 5 aforementioned HRO principles could prove to be beneficial [3. ] However, there are some inherent obstacles that are present in certain fields that have negative implications on reliability. One of them being that the complex systems of common HROs usually deal with operation of machinery and electronics, while fields like healthcare primarily deal with humans which are not nearly as predictable and easily controlled [2 ].

Despite the apparent challenges that are presented when adopting the HRO approach to a field that predominately deals with humans, the switch could provide a monumental pivot in work culture and reliability. To facilitate this, the organization must not only know the HRO characteristics, but embody them in their work culture and practice. This may require some adjustments to organizational structuring that may be contradictory to the HRO characteristics.

Preoccupation with failure
A staple of an HROs is their minimal exposure to system failures despite the complexity of the tasks being performed. To achieve this state of high performance with minimal errors, the organization must have a unique outlook towards the problems in their system. Some organizations will create policies and change their standard operating procedures, as a result of a near miss or complete failure. HROs are not only attentive to the small errors that do occur but instill a culture where everyone is thinking about the potential for failures before they ever manifest. Shifting the perspective from being proactive rather than reactive discourages complacency encourages vigilance in all processes [4].

Reluctance to Simplify
In the midst of such a complex network of interworking processes, it may be easy for employees to simplify their understanding of the organization. In HROs it is necessary for the employees to maintain a working knowledge of all the intricate processes that work in tandem to continuously yield an outcome with minimal variance.

Sensitivity to Operations
Although it is necessary to be cognizant of the complex systems at work that allow the HRO to function, it is also imperative that workers understand how all the processes work together to produce the desired outcome. This "big picture" perspective promotes situational awareness that allows individuals to see how operations could be promoting or threatening safety and efficiency.

Deference to Expertise
Another adjustments may be made in the hierarchal structure. A distinguishable hierarchy is a necessary and key component of HROs is deference to expertise. Nevertheless, deference to expertise is an emphasis on acquiring knowledge to solve a situation, rather than strict adherence to the predetermined hierarchy. To implement this, the most knowledgeable individuals must feel comfortable sharing their expertise should they deem it useful, regardless of their position [4].

Commitment to Resilience
Despite the thorough implementation and assessment of the aforementioned HRO characteristics, errors are still inevitable to some degree. What differentiates HROs is their preparedness to quickly assess and respond to these system shortcomings. This is made possible by frequent practice with assessment and response to difficult circumstances, which allows individuals to feel ready to act appropriately in the case of a system failure.