Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Technology in Society
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 10 August 2011
Received in revised form 28 September 2011
Accepted 28 September 2011
Focusing on the interaction of technology and organizational factors, the present paper
examines the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill for the purpose of developing a better
understanding of the requirements for a theory of organizational disasters. Drawing from
literature on organizational disasters, a model of technology-embedded disasters is
developed and discussed. After outlining the events surrounding the oil spill disaster, the
model is employed in analysis of the oil spill. The oil spill case is employed as a means of
reecting on the requirements for an improved model of organizational disaster.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Organizational disaster
Technology
Oil spill
Theory of catastrophic events
1. Introduction
One of the worst environmental disasters in world history
began in the early evening of April 20, 2010 as escaping,
uncontrolled hydrocarbons caused an explosion on the oil
drilling platform Deepwater Horizon, a facility leased by BP
Exploration & Production Incorporated from Transocean, an
international technology company providing rig-based, wellconstruction products and services. Within 36 h the gigantic
oil rig, approximately 300 by 300 feet and large enough to
provide living quarters for about 175 people, complete with
cafeteria, recreation facilities and helicopter pad, had crumbled and sunk into the ocean. Eleven inhabitants on the rig
died, most as a result of the explosion, and 17 others were
injured. The damage had only just begun. Crude oil gushed
from the uncapped well until July 15, 2010 and it was not until
September 19, 2010 that the well was completely sealed [52].
As the oil spill spread out to cover more than
88,000 square miles and made its way to beaches and
estuaries, incalculable damage was done to tourism and
shing industries and to the many marine animal and bird
species in and around the Gulf of Mexico [47]. By BPs
estimate [26], the oil spill cost the company more than $40
billion in both direct outlays, including a $20 billion victim
compensation fund.
During the six months following the BP oil spill media
coverage was so ubiquitous that perhaps historian Douglas
Brinkley was correct in his assessment that the general
public had experienced an oil spill fatigue [9]. While not
seeking to resuscitate oil spill fatigue, I provide yet another
analysis, one focused on the interaction of technology and
organizational factors and inter-organizational relations. I
provide no holistic analysis of the disaster in all its aspects
but, instead, use the disaster as a building block to further
understanding of the interactions of organizations and
technology in disasters [12]. The model presented here,
termed the technology-embedded disaster model, will
perhaps shed some small light on those disasters where
organizations and technology interact, but the model will
not account fully for diverse causes of the BP oil spill. It is
not my purpose to identify causal factors and then parse
them out according to their degree of culpability. Sufce to
say that the causes were many, diverse and interrelated and
that others (see especially [52] have already provided
causal analyses that are as exacting as we are likely, at least
in the near term, to obtain. My focus on the BP oil spill is
more as a case in point, using the case as a backdrop to
considering the need and possibilities for a better theoretical understanding of organizational disasters.
Inasmuch as the term technology plays a pivotal role
in this analysis, it is perhaps useful to begin by dening it.
My denition is a physical embodiment of knowledge
designed to in its application solve a problem or serve
a perceived need. In this usage, technology cannot be
only social; some physical embodiment is required. A
further elaboration of this denition can be found in [14].
The next section of the paper considers organizational
disaster as a topic for social science theory. After this
context setting, I discuss a technology-embedded disaster
model, a model designed to be applicable to a broad array
of organization disasters. Then the paper turns to the BP oil
disaster and its particulars, focusing specically on deep
sea drilling technologies and the events, both the idiosyncratic events and the institutional and organizational
contexts of those events. Finally, I refer to the technologyembedded disaster model and seek to determine the
ways in which the BP oil disaster has broader implications
for the interaction of technologies and organizational
cultures in disaster creation.
2. Organization disaster as a theory-building
challenge
When cataclysmic events occur, vast reportage and
government investigations follow soon afterward. This has
certainly been the case with the BP oil spill, as evidenced by
an outpouring of books (e.g. [22,27,34,64], media reports,
government reports [52] and scholarly articles [1,49]; Pade,
2010). Early analyses of the BP oil spill have varied in causal
attribution focusing variously on corporate greed, poor
government regulation, idiosyncratic factors, or on the
worlds addiction to oil.
Other disasters have generated ne works on the
interaction of technology and organizations, many focusing
on decision-making (e.g. [3,37]. From these works, we
245
Table 1
Denitions of organization disaster and related concepts.
Organizational concept
Denition
Crisis
An organizational crisis (1) threatens high-priority values of the organization, (2) presents a restricted amount
of time in which a response can be made, and 3) is unexpected or unanticipated by the organization. ([33]; 64).
.We dene crises as events characterized by threat, surprise, and magnitude, with a need for a quick response
and high potential costs if they are not resolved effectively. ([28]; 27).
Crises are characterized by low probability/high consequence events that threaten the most fundamental goals
of an organization. Because of their low probability, these events defy interpretations and impose severe demands
on sensemaking. ([72]; 629).
Crisis implies a perception that an individual or set of individuals faces a potentially negative outcome. Crisis can be seen
as a composite perception based on several different dimensions of an issue. In particular, the perceived importance,
immediacy, and uncertainty of an issue all contribute to how threatening an issue is perceived to be. ([23]; 502).
Disaster is a type of routine nonconformity that signicantly departs from normative experience for a particular time
and place. It is a physical, cultural, and emotional event incurring social loss, often possessing a dramatic quality that
damages the fabric of social life. For an accident to be dened as a disaster, the accident would need to be large-scale,
unusually costly, unusually public, unusually unexpected, or some combination. ([70]; 292).
Industrial crises are disasters caused by human agencies and the social order; natural disasters are acts of nature.
The impacts of industrial crises sometimes transcend geographic boundaries and can even have trans-generational
effects. ([62]; 287)
Catastrophe refers to trauma in the workplace, typically arising from injuries, accidents or violence [5,43].
Failure, in organizations and elsewhere, is deviation from expected and desired results. This includes both avoidable
errors and the unavoidable negative outcomes of experiments and risk taking. ([18]; 300).
Disaster
Catastrophe
Failure
246
247
(HH/LT)
(HT/HH)
Corps of Engineers
Everglades Dredging
BP Oil Spill
High
Technological
Culpability
Challenger
Concorde
(HT/LH)
Enron
LH/LT
(HT/HH)
Environmental
Complexity
(HH/LT)
External Constraint
High
Technological
Culpability
(HT/LH)
Low
Technological
Culpability
LH/LT
248
249
250
References
[1] Adcroft A, Hallberg R, Dunne JP, Samuels BL, Galt JA, Barker CH,
Payton D. Simulations of underwater plumes of dissolved oil in the
Gulf of Mexico. Geophysical Review Letters 2010;75(5):490502.
[2] Aldag RJ, Fuller SR. Beyond asco: a reappraisal of the groupthink
phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes.
Psychological Bulletin 1993;113(3):53343.
[3] Allison G. Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American
Political Science Review 1969;63(3):689718.
[4] Barley SR. Corporations, democracy, and the public good. Journal of
Management Inquiry 2007;16(3):20115.
[5] Barton Laurence. Trauma in the aftermath of organizational catastrophe: the short- and long-term impact on employees and their
supervisors. Disaster Prevention and Management 1994;3(1):1826.
[6] Birkland T, Nath R. Business and political dimensions in disaster
management. Journal of Public Policy 2000;20(3):275304.
[9] Bosman J. No shortage of books on oil spill. July 20, 2010, downloaded from. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/
21/books/21oilbooks.html; 2010.
[10] Bowman E, Kunreuther H. Post-Bhopal behaviour at a chemical
company. Journal of Management Studies 1988;25(3):387400.
[11] Bozeman B. All organizations are public. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishing; 1987.
[12] Bozeman B. Toward a theory of organizational implosion. American
Review of Public Administration 2011;41(2):11940.
[14] Bozeman B, Rogers JR. A churn model of scientic knowledge value:
Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research
Policy 2002;31(5):76994.
[15] Bunzl M. Causal overdetermination. Journal of Philosophy 1979;
76(3):13450.
[16] Bureau dEnqutes et dAnalyses. Report on accident on 25 July 2000
at "La Patte doie" at Gonesse, http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/
concorde/concorde-en.htm; 2002.
[17] Cameron KS, Tschirhart M. Postindustrial environments and organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities. The Journal of
Higher Education 1992;63(1):87108.
[18] Cannon, Edmondson A. Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently): how great organizations put failure to work to innovate and
improve. Long Range Planning 2005;38(3):299319.
[19] Carroll JS. Incident reviews in high-hazard industries: sense making
and learning under ambiguity and accountability. Organization and
Environment 1995;9(2):17597.
[20] Casciaro T, Piskorski M. Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and
constraint absorption: a closer look at resource dependence theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly 2005;50(2):16799.
[21] Covaleski MA, Dirsmith MW. An institutional perspective on the
rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category.
Administrative Science Quarterly 1988;33(4):56287.
[22] Canvar B. Disaster on the horizon: high stakes, high risks, and the
story behind the deepwater well blowout. Chelsea Green
Publishing; 2010.
251
[23] Dutton JE. The processing of crisis and non-crisis strategic issues.
Journal of Management Studies 1986;3(4):50117.
[24] Fink SL, Beak J, Taddeo K. Organizational crisis and change. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science 1971;7(1):1537.
[25] Fischhoff B. Individual behavior in organizational crises. Organization Environment 1989;3(3):17789.
[26] Fountain H, Wald Matthew L. BP says leak may be closer to a solution. on-line. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/
13/us/13spill.html; 2010.
[27] Fruedenburg W, Gramling R. Blowout in the Gulf: the bp oil spill
disaster and the future of energy in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press; 2010.
[28] Greening DW, Johnson RA. Do managers and strategies matter?
a study in crisis. Journal of Management Studies 1996;33(1):2552.
[29] Gruca TS, Nath D. Regulatory change, constraints on adaptation and
organizational failure: an empirical analysis of acute care hospitals.
Strategic Management Journal 1994;15(5):34563.
[30] Hall DT, Manseld R. Organizational and individual response to
external stress. Administrative Science Quarterly 1971;16(4):53347.
[32] Hedberg A, Hedberg BLT. Responding to crisis. Journal of Business
Administration 1978;9(1):11137.
[33] Hermann C. Some consequences of crisis which limit the viability of
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 1963;8(1):6182.
[34] Holland J. Blowout, Plain sight- bp Deepwater Horizon cover up in
the Gulf. Create Space Publishing; 2010.
[35] Gold R, Casselman B, Chazan G. Leaking oil well lacked safeguard
device (April 28, 2010) downloaded from. Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487044235045752
12031417936798.html; 2010.
[36] Grace RD, Cudd B, Carden RS, Shursen JL. Blowout and well control
handbook. New York: Elsevier Publishing; 2003.
[37] Janis I. Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton-Mifin; 1972.
[38] Jas P, Skelcher C. Performance decline and turnaround in public
organizations: a theoretical and empirical analysis. British Journal of
Management 2005;16(3):195210.
[39] Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX. The social amplication and attenuation of risk. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 1996;54(1):95105.
[40] Kemeny J. Report of the Presidents commission on the accident at
Three Mile Island. Washington, DC: USGPO; 1980.
[41] Kim DJ. Falls from grace and lessons from failure: Daewoo and
Medison. Long Range Planning 2007;40(45):44664.
[42] Knapp P. Can social theory escape from history? Views of history in
social science. History and Theory, 23;1:3452.
[43] Knefel AM, Bryant C. Workplace as combat zone: reconceptualizing
occupational and organizational violence. Deviant Behavior 2004;
25(6):579601.
[44] Knight L. Network learning: exploring learning by interorganizational networks. Human Relations 2002;55(4):42754.
[45] Landau M, Stout R. To manage is not to control: or the folly of type II
errors. Public Administration Review 1979;2(39):14856.
[46] LaPorte T, Consolini PM. Working in practice but not in theory:
theoretical challenges of high reliability organizations. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 1991;1(1):3449.
[47] Lehner P, Deans B. In: Deep water: the anatomy of a disaster, the fate of
the gulf, and ending our oil addiction. Experiment Publishing; 2010.
[48] McKelvey B. Avoiding complexity catastrophe in co-evolutionary
pockets: strategies for rugged landscapes. Organization Science
1999;10(3):294321.
[49] Maltrud M, Peacock S, Visbeck M. "On the possible long-term fate of
oil released in the Deepwater Horizon incident,". Environmental
Research Letters 2010;5(3):17.
[50] Mellahi K, Wilkinson A. Organizational failure: a critique of recent
research and a proposed integrative framework. International
Journal of Management Review 2004;5-6(1):2141.
[51] Milburn TW, Schuler RS, Watman KH. Organizational crisis. Part I:
denition and conceptualization. Human Relations 1983;36(12):
114160.
[52] National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. 2011
Final Report, January, 2011.
[54] Perrow C. Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies.
New York: Basic Books; 1984.
[55] Perrow C. Accidents in high risk systems. Technology Studies 1994;
1(1):119.
[56] Peterson RS, Owens PD, Tetlock PE, Fan ET, Martorana P. Group
dynamics in top management teams: groupthink, vigilance, and
alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1998;73(2/3):272
305.
252
[66] Simms R, Keenan JP. Predictors of external whistleblowing: organizational and intrapersonal variables. Journal of Business Ethics
1998;17(4):41121.
[67] Transocean. "Transoceans ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig
Deepwater Horizon drills worlds deepest oil and gas well". Press,
Sept. 2, 2009. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/IDeepwaterHorizon-i-Drills-Worlds-Deepest-Oil-and-Gas-Well-419C151.html.
Retrieved December 22, 2010.
[68] Wicks D. Institutionalized mindsets of invulnerability: differentiated institutional elds and the antecedents of organizational crisis.
Organization Studies 2001;22(4):65992.
[69] Vaughan D. The Challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture,
and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
[70] Vaughan D. The dark side of organizations: mistake, misconduct,
and disaster. Annual Review of Sociology 1999;25:271305.
[71] Wada K. Riser drilling technology and mud water drilling technology. Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
(JAMSTEC), http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/newsletter/vol5/
vol5_2.html; 2008. Downloaded December 11, 2010.
[72] Weick KE. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann
Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 1993;38(3):62852.