The evaluation of common contemporary occupational accident models using two accident investigations
Zeynep Sagir ORCID ↗ · Ertugrul Tacgin ORCID ↗
International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy · 2020 · Vol. 2 / Issue 4 · 24-35
Publication metrics
External links open provider records or DOI searches. Provider counts are not combined. Mendeley readership measures saves, not citations.
Dimensions
Live provider badge. If unavailable, use the Dimensions link above.
Observed 21 Oct 2026, 00:14 UTC
Observed 22 Oct 2026 01:42 UTC
Observed 22 Oct 2026 01:42 UTC
OpenAlex and Mendeley observations refresh on article visits, at most once per 24 hours. Unavailable data is not zero. Google Scholar opens a DOI search.
Citations received by this article, grouped by the year of the citing work. Crossref and OpenAlex lifetime totals remain separate in Publication metrics.
2017–2026 Annual history last updated:
Citations received
OpenAlex · year of the citing work
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
View data & coverage
2026 is incomplete. Within a successfully fetched ten-year window, omitted years mean zero. Years beyond a saved observation’s window remain unknown (—). Older citations are excluded, so this chart’s sum may differ from the OpenAlex lifetime total. The date above belongs to this annual history; an unsuccessful refresh keeps the previous observation.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to compare three contemporary accident causation models, namely the Swiss Cheese, HFACS, and Fu (2018) Model-based on two accidents existing in the literature. The accidents reviewed are a mine explosion accident and an electrical plant accident. In this way, the validity of the models can be evaluated and weaknesses and strengths revealed. This study discussed the advantages and possible limitations of these models, and according to this discussion, all these models include human and organizational factors and have been found scientific and systematic. According to the results, Fu (2018) and HFACS are more modern, since they were developed based on Swiss Cheese. The product of this research will be a recommendation for safety investigators and accident inspectors which way to turn when choosing the most applicable accident analysis method
Keywords: {'name': 'Occupational Accidents'}, {'name': 'Accident causation models'}, {'name': 'Human and organizational factors'}
Authors & affiliations
Zeynep Sagir
Affiliation not supplied
Ertugrul Tacgin
Affiliation not supplied
Deposited references
Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:2(273)
DOI: 10.4324/9781315202778
DOI: 10.1007/s12182-017-0171-4
Fu, G., Fan, Y., Tong, R., Gong, Y., Cao, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, J., Jiang, W., Fan, F., & Fu, W. (2017). A Universal Method for the Causation Analysis of Accidents (Version 4.0). Journal of Accident Prevention ??????, 3(1), 1–7.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.010
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.08.042
Hollnagel, E. (1998). Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elsevier.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2009.12.003
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.026
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2007.07.011
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:7(816)
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2011.01.002
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139062367
Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system–HFACS. US Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine.
DOI: 10.4324/9781315263878