Advertisement

Human Factors Challenges in Disaster Management Scenario

  • Fabio De Felice
  • Antonella Petrillo
  • Federico ZomparelliEmail author
Chapter
  • 855 Downloads
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

The present chapter aims to propose a model to manage complexity during a disaster accident caused by human factors and errors. The model allows to evaluate the human error probability under critical conditions and stress conditions. A hybrid model based on Simulator for Human Error Probability Analysis (SHERPA) is proposed and analyzed. A specific area of application is investigated concerning the human behavior during an emergency situations in a petrochemical plant. Furthermore, the chapter proposes an innovative approaches for monitoring the human factors in industrial plant through KPIs indicators. The model is implemented in a real case study concerning a petrochemical company.

Keywords

Human factors emergency management SHERPA KPIs HRA 

References

  1. Carayon P (2006) Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Appl Ergon 37(4):525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Felice F, Petrillo A, Zomparelli F (2016a) A hybrid model for human error probability analysis. IFAC-ChaptersOnLine 49(12):1673–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Felice F, Petrillo A, Zomparelli F (2016b) Prioritising the safety management elements through ahp model and key performance indicators. 15th international conference on modeling and applied simulation, Sept 2016, CyprusGoogle Scholar
  4. De Koster RB, Stam D, Balk BM (2011) Accidents happen: the influence of safety-specific transformational leadership, safety consciousness, and hazard reducing systems on warehouse accidents. J Oper Manag 29(7):753–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Del-Rey-Chamorro FM, Roy R, van Wegen B, Steele A (2003) A framework to create key performance indicators for knowledge management solutions. J Knowl Manag 7(2):46–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DemingWE, Edwards DW (1982) Quality, productivity, and competitive position, vol 183. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for advanced engineering study, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Gertman D, Blackman H, Marble J, Byers J, Smith C (2005) The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method. US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  9. Grosse EH, Glock CH, Jaber MY, Neumann WP (2015) Incorporating human factors in order picking planning models: framework and research opportunities. Int J Prod Res 53(3):695–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Imam SF, Raza J, Ratnayake RC (2013) World Class Maintenance (WCM): measurable indicators creating opportunities for the Norwegian Oil and Gas industry. In 2013 I.E. international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, pp 1479–1483Google Scholar
  11. Jiménez M, Romero L, Domínguez M, del Mar Espinosa M (2015) 5S methodology implementation in the laboratories of an industrial engineering university school. Saf Sci 78:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim IS (2001) Human reliability analysis in the man machine interface design review. Ann Nucl Energy 28:1069–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim JW, Jung W (2003) A taxonomy of performance influencing factors for human reliability analysis of emergency tasks. J Loss Prev Process Ind 16(6):479–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirwan B (1996) The validation of three Human Reliability Quantification techniques—THERP, HEART and JHEDI: part 1—technique descriptions and validation issues. Appl Ergon 27(6):359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirwan B (1998) Human error identification techniques for risk assessment of high risk systems—part 1: review and evaluation of techniques. Appl Ergon 29(3):157–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konstandinidou M, Nivolianitou Z, Kiranoudis C, Markatos N (2006) A fuzzy modeling application of CREAM methodology for human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(6):706–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lo C, Pagell M, Fan D, Wiengarten F, Yeung A (2014) OHSAS 18001 certification and operating performance: the role of complexity and coupling. J Oper Manag 32:268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mendonca D, Beroggi GE, Wallace WA (2001) Decision support for improvisation during emergency response operations. Int J Emerg Manag 1(1):30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mosleh A, Chang YH (2004) Model-based human reliability analysis: prospects and requirements. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 83(2):241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neumann WP, Village J (2012) Ergonomics action research II: a framework for integrating HF into work system design. Ergonomics 55(10):1140–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Trucco P, Leva MC (2007) A probabilistic cognitive simualator for HRA studies (PROCOS). Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92(8):1117–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Turoff M, Chumer M, Van de Walle B, Yao X (2004) The design of a dynamic emergency response management information system (DERMIS). JITTA 5(4):1Google Scholar
  23. Weber A, Thomas IR (2005) Key performance indicators. Measuring and managing the maintenance function, Ivara, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. Woods DD, Roth EM, People EH (1987) Cognitive environment simulation: an artificial intelligence system for human performance assessment. Technical report NUREG-CR-4862, US Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio De Felice
    • 1
  • Antonella Petrillo
    • 1
  • Federico Zomparelli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.University of Cassino and Southern LazioCassinoItaly

Personalised recommendations