Skip to main content

Alternate Approaches to Human Reliability Analysis

  • Chapter
Book cover Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Analysis

Part of the book series: Advances in Risk Analysis ((AIRA,volume 2))

Abstract

Three feasible ways of performing a Human Reliability analysis are compared in terms of their goals, assumptions, methodology, advantages, disadvantages, and the extent to which each method has been validated. Theoretical and pragmatic criticisms of HR are examined and answered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. D. Swain and H. R. Guttmann, Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, NUREG/CR-1278, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (October 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  2. B. J. Bell, Human reliability analysis: a case study, Proceedings, Workshop on Low-Probability/High-Consequence Risk Analysis (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. Meister, Comparative Analysis of Human Reliability Models, L0074-1U7, Bunker-Ramo Corporation, Westlake Village, California (November 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Meister, A critical review of human performance reliability predictive methods, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, R-22(3), 116–123 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. S. J. Munger, R. W. Smith, and D. Payne, An Index of Electronic Equipment Operability: Data Store, AIR-C43-1/62-RP(1), American Institute for Research, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (January 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. I. Siegel and J. J. Wolf, Man-Machine Simulation Models: Performance and Psychological Interactions, Wiley, New York (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  7. U.S. Department of the Navy, Human Reliability Prediction System User’s Manual, Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. (December 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. W. Pew, S. Baron, C. E. Feehrer, and D. C. Miller, Critical Review and Analysis of Performance Models Applicable to Man-Machine Systems Evaluation, AFOSR TR-77-0520, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Massachusetts (March 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. E. Embrey, Human Reliability in Complex Systems: An Overview, NCSR.R10, National Center of System Reliability, Warrington, England (July 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Meister, Human Reliability, In: Human Factors Review (F. A. Muckler, ed.), Human Factor Society, Santa Monica, California (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  11. U.S. Air Force, Human Engineering Design Criteria for Aerospace Systems and Equipment, Part I. Aerospace System Ground Equipment, Military Standard 803A-1 (January 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. I. Siegel and P. J. Cosentino, Application and Validation of a Model for Crew Simulation, Applied Psychological Services, Wayne, Pennsylvania (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. I. Siegel and P. J. Federman, Prediction of Human Reliability. Part I: Development and Test of a Human Reliability Predictive Technique for Application in Electronic Maintainability, Contract N63369-71-C-0014, Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. I. Siegel and W. Miehle, Extension of a Prior Personnel Subsystem Reliability Determination Technique, Applied Psychological Services, Wayne, Pennsylvania (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. I. Siegel and W. Miehle, Maintenance Personnel Subsystem Reliability Prediction for the Hindsight System, Applied Psychological Services, Wayne, Pennsylvania (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. I. Siegel, J. J. Wolf, and M. R. Lautman, A Model for Predicting Integrated Man-Machine System Reliability, Applied Psychological Services, Wayne, Pennsylvania (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. I. Siegel, J. J. Wolf, and M. R. Lautman, A family of models for measuring human reliability, Proceedings, 1975 Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Washington, D.C., 110-115 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Meister, Criteria for development of a human reliability methodology, in: Proceedings of the U.S. Navy Human Reliability Workshop, July 22–23, 1970 (J. P. Jenkins, ed.), NAVSHIPS 0967-412-4010, Naval Ship Systems Command, Washington, D.C. (February 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  19. W. B. Askren and T. L. Regulinski, Mathematical Modeling of Human Performance Errors for Reliability Analysis of Systems, AMRL-TR-68-93, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (January 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  20. W. B. Askren and T. L. Regulinski, Quantifying Human Performance Reliability, AFHRL-TE-71-22, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Brooks AFB, Texas (June 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  21. D. Hebb, Drives and the C. N. S. (Conceptual Nervous System), Psychological Review, 62, 243–254 (1955).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. I. A. Irwin, J. J. Levitz, and A. M. Freed, Human Reliability in the Performance of Maintenance, LRP 317/TDR-63-218, Aerojet General Corporation, Sacramento, California (May 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. A. Goldbeck and J. D. Charlet, Task Parameters for Predicting Panel Layout Design and Operator Performance, WDL-TR-5480, Philco-Ford Corporation, Palo Alto, California (June 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. A. Goldbeck and J. D. Charlet, Prediction of Operator Work Station Performance, WDL-TR-7071, Aeroneutronic Ford Corporation, Palo Alto, California (November 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. D. Swain, A note on the accuracy of predictions using THERP, Human Factors Bulletin, 25, 4, 1–2 (April 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  26. T. L. Regulinski, Quantification of human performance reliability research method rationale, In: Proceedings of U.S. Navy Human Reliability Workshop, July 22–23, 1970 (J. P. Jenkins, ed.), Washington, D.C., NAVSHIPS 0967-412-4010, Naval Ship Systems Command, Washington, D.C. (February 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. A. Adams, Issues in human reliability, Human Factors, 24, 1–10 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  28. D. E. Embrey, A new approach to the evaluation and quantification of human reliability in systems assessment, Proceedings, Third National Reliability Conference-Reliability 81, Birmingham, England, 5B/1/1-5B/1/12 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. E. Embrey, The Use of Performance Shaping Factors and Quantified Expert Judgment in the Evaluation of Human Reliability: An Initial Appraisal, HR-BNL-2, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York (September 1981).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meister, D. (1984). Alternate Approaches to Human Reliability Analysis. In: Waller, R.A., Covello, V.T. (eds) Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Analysis. Advances in Risk Analysis, vol 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1818-8_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1818-8_20

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-1820-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-1818-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics