Normal Accident Theory versus High Reliability Theory: A resolution and call for an open systems view of accidents

Abstract

We resolve the longstanding debate between Normal Accident Theory (NAT) and High-Reliability Theory (HRT) by introducing a temporal dimension. Specifically, we explain that the two theories appear to diverge because they look at the accident phenomenon at different points of time. We, however, note that the debate’s resolution does not address the non-falsifiability problem that both NAT and HRT suffer from. Applying insights from the open systems perspective, we reframe NAT in a manner that helps the theory to address its non-falsifiability problem and factor in the role of humans in accidents. Finally, arguing that open systems theory can account for the conclusions reached by NAT and HRT, we proceed to offer pointers for future research to theoretically and empirically develop an open systems view of accidents.