David Slater
The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), (Hollnagel 2012).has become an influential framework for modelling complex socio-technical systems. Its ability to account for variability, emergent properties, and non-linear interactions makes it a powerful alternative to linear causal analysis in safety and systems engineering. However, despite its conceptual strength and flexibility, the method remains underutilized in practice. This paper outlines the core barriers to its broader adoption and proposes the development of a standardized reporting tool to support practitioners in applying FRAM more consistently and effectively.
From Theory to Practice: The Persistent Gap
FRAM is unusual among systems analysis tools in that it accommodates both qualitative and quantitative paradigms. As Sujan et al. (2023) explain, the method can be employed from a realist perspective, producing computational models capable of simulating and evaluating functional variability with some degree of objectivity. Alternatively, it can be used phenomenologically, allowing analysts to craft reflexive, narrative-based accounts of how system functions interact to produce outcomes. These dual interpretations make FRAM remarkably versatile—but they may also contribute to its uneven application.
This epistemological ambivalence plays into what Underwood and Waterson (2013) identified as a research–practice gap in systemic accident analysis (SAA). Despite evidence of the advantages offered by systemic approaches like FRAM, they are rarely used routinely in operational settings. As the authors note, “evidence within the scientific literature indicates that systemic analysis models and methods are not being widely used in practice.” This implies not only limited awareness but also a lack of support tools that bridge the conceptual elegance of FRAM with the practical constraints of real-world application.