Advertisement

An Overview on Human Error Analysis and Reliability Assessment

  • Fabio De FeliceEmail author
  • Antonella Petrillo
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

There is a continuous debate about the proper role of man and machine in complex operational frameworks. Formal human analyses and risk management techniques are becoming more important part to manage the relationship between human factors and accident analyses. There are different types of Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) models. HRA methods differ in their characteristics but a common feature in all methods is the definition of the human error probability (HEP). The aim of this chapter is not to cover all of the possible HRA approaches and above not from a mathematical point of view but conceptual one. In fact, no one approach can answer all of the separate issues that can arise in human reliability. The utility of a particular approach is a function of a number of components, not just the absolute value of a method. Expert judgment is an integral part of HRA to capture information about human actions. Definitively, the aim of this chapter is twofold. It tries to respond to these questions: What is HRA? and What are the main features of the most well-known HRA methods?

Keywords

HRA HEP Performance shaping factors Methods Errors 

References

  1. Adhikari S, Bayley C, Bedford T, Busby JS, Cliffe A, Devgun G, Eid M, French S, Keshvala R, Pollard S, Soane E, Tracy D, Wu S (2008) Human reliability analysis: a review and critique. Manchester Business School, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  2. Baber C, Stanton NA (2002) Task analysis for error identification: theory, method and validation. Theor Issues in Ergon Sci 3(2):212–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barriere M, Bley D, Cooper S, Forester J, Kolaczkowski A, Luckas W, Parry G, Ramey-Smith A, Thompson C, Whitehead D, Wreathall J (2000) NUREG-1624: technical basis and implementation guidelines for a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA). US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell J, Holroyd J (2009) Review of human reliability assessment method. Health and Safety Laboratory, BuxtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bello GC, Columbari C (1980) The human factors in risk analyses of process plants: the control room operator model, TESEO. Reliab Eng 1:3–14Google Scholar
  6. Boring RL (2007) Dynamic human reliability analysis: benefits and challenges of simulating human performance. Risk Reliab Soc Saf 2:1043–1049Google Scholar
  7. De Felice F, Petrillo A, Carlomusto A, Ramondo A (2012) Human reliability analysis: a review of the state of the art. IRACST–Int J Res Manag Technol (IJRMT) 2(1)Google Scholar
  8. De Felice F, Petrillo A, Carlomusto A, Romano U (2013) Modelling application for cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Int J Eng Technol 5(5):4450–4464Google Scholar
  9. Di Pasquale V, Iannone R, Miranda S, Riemma S (2013) An overview of human reliability analysis techniques in manufacturing operations. In: Schiraldi M (ed) Operations management. InTechGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Pasquale V, Miranda S, Iannone R, Riemma S (2015) A simulator for human error probability analysis (SHERPA). Reliab Eng Syst Saf 139:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dougherty E (1990) Human reliability analysis—where shouldst thou turn? Reliab Eng Syst Saf 29(3):283–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Embrey DE, Humphreys P, Rosa EA, Kirwan B, Rea KS (1984) An approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgement (NUREG/CR-3518). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Forester J, Bley D, Cooper S, Lois E, Siu N, Kolaczkowski A, Wreathall J (2004) Expert elicitation approach for performing ATHEANA quantification. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 83(2):207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forester J, Ramey-Smith A, Bley D, Kolaczkowski A, Cooper S, Wreathall J, (1998) SAND--98-1928C: discussion of comments from a peer review of a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA). Sandia LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  15. French S, Bedford T, Pollard SJT, Soane E (2011) Human reliability analysis: a critique and review for managers. Saf Sci 49(6):753–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gertman D, Blackman H, Marble J, Byers J, Smith C (2005) The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method. US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  17. Hannaman GW, Spurgin AJ (1984) Systematic human action reliability procedure (SHARP) (No. EPRI-NP-3583). NUS Corporation, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Hannaman GW, Spurgin AJ, Lukic YD (1984) Human cognitive reliability model for PRA analysis. Draft Report NUS-4531, EPRI Project RP2170-3. Electric Power and Research Institute, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Hollnagel E (1993) Human reliability analysis: context and control. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method: CREAM. Elsevier Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollnagel E (2000) Looking for errors of omission and commission or the hunting of the Snark revisited. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 68:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hollnagel E (2005) Human reliability assessment in context. Nucl Eng Technol 37(2):159–166Google Scholar
  23. Humphreys PC (1995) Human reliability assessor’s guide. Human Factors in Reliability Group, SRD AssociationGoogle Scholar
  24. IEEE (1997) Guide for incorporating human action reliability analysis for nuclear power generating systems. IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirwan B (1994) Practical guide to human reliability assessment. Taylor and Francis, CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirwan B (1996) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques—THERP, HEART, JHEDI: Part I—technique descriptions and validation issues. Appl Ergon 27(6):359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, knowledge; signals, signs and symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-13(3):257–266Google Scholar
  28. Senders JW, Moray N, Smiley A (1985) Modeling operator cognitive interactions in nuclear power plant safety evaluation. Report prepared for the Atomic Energy Control Board. Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. Swain AD, Guttman HE (1983) Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. NUAREG CR-1278.NRC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method (2005) NUREG/CR-6883, INL/EXT-05-00509. Idaho National Laboratory, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Trucco P, Leva MC (2007) A probabilistic cognitive simulator for HRA studies (PROCOS). Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92(8):1117–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Watson IA (1985) Review of human factors in reliability and risk assessment. The assessment and control of major hazards. pp 323–337Google Scholar
  33. Wreatall J (1982) Operator action trees. An approach to quantifying operator error probability during accident sequences, NUS-4159. NUS Corporation, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Cassino and Southern LazioCassinoItaly
  2. 2.University of Napoli “Parthenope”NapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations