Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Reliability as a Science—A Divergence on Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Risk Based Technologies

Abstract

Human reliability analysis is a discipline that focuses on understanding and assessing human behavior during its interactions with complex engineered systems. Central to the discipline are human reliability models and data collection efforts. This paper briefly reviews the state of the art in human reliability analysis and evaluates it against a set of criteria that can be established when it is viewed as a science.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

References

  1. Boring, R. L., Hendrickson, S. M., Forester, J. A., Tran, T. Q., & Lois, E. (2010). Issues in benchmarking human reliability analysis methods: A literature review. Reliability Engineering & System Safety., 95(6), 591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boring, R., Kelly, D., Smidts, C., Mosleh, A., & Dyre, B. (2012, June 25) Microworlds, simulators, and simulation: Framework for a benchmark of human reliability data sources. In Joint probabilistic safety assessment and management and european safety and reliability conference, 16B-Tu5-5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cacciabue, P. C., Decortis, F., Drozdowicz, B., Masson, M., & Nordvik, J. P. (1992). COSIMO: A cognitive simulation model of human decision making and behavior in accident management of complex plants. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22(5), 1058–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/understanding/. Retrieved September 2018.

  5. Chang, Y. H. J., & Mosleh, A. (2007). Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 1: Overview of the IDAC Model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 92(8), pp. 997–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chang, Y. J., Bley, D., Criscione, L., Kirwan, B., Mosleh, A., Madary, T., et al. (2014). The SACADA database for human reliability and human performance. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 125, 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Embrey, D. E., Humphreys, P., Rosa, E. A., Kirwan, B. & Rea, K. (1984). SLIM-MAUD: An approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgment. Volume II. Detailed analysis of the technical issues (No. NUREG/CR–3518-VOL. 2). Brookhaven National Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kurtoglu, T., Tumer, I. Y. & Jensen, D. C. (2010). A functional failure reasoning methodology for evaluation of conceptual system architectures. Research in Engineering Design, 21(4), 209–234.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lois, E., Dang, V. N., Forester, J., Broberg, H., Massaiu, S., Hildebrandt, M. et al. (2008). International HRA Empirical Study–Description of overall approach and first pilot results from comparing HRA methods to simulator data. Halden Work Report HWR-844, Rev, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mutha, C., Jensen, D., Tumer, I., & Smidts, C. (2013). An integrated multidomain functional failure and propagation analysis approach for safe system design. AI EDAM, 27(4), 317–347.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Poucet, A. (1988). Survey of methods used to assess human reliability in the human factors reliability benchmark exercise. Reliability Engineering & System Safety., 22(1–4), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111(2), 333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. & Booch, G. (2004). Unified modeling language reference manual (2nd ed.). Pearson Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Science Council. https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/. Retrieved in 2018.

  15. Shirley, R. B., Smidts, C., Li, M., & Gupta, A. (2015). Validating THERP: Assessing the scope of a full-scale validation of the technique for human error rate prediction. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 77, 194–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shirley, R. B. & Smidts, C. (2018). Bridging the simulator gap: Measuring motivational bias in digital nuclear power plant environments. Reliability Engineering & System Safety.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Smidts, C., Shen, S. H., & Mosleh, A. (1997). The IDA cognitive model for the analysis of nuclear power plant operator response under accident conditions. Part I: Problem solving and decision making model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 55(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Spurgin, A. J. (1990). Operator reliability experiments using power plant simulators, volume 1: executive summary. Electric Power Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Swain, A. D. & Guttmann, H. E., 1983. Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report (No. NUREG/CR-1278; SAND-80-0200). Albuquerque, NM (USA): Sandia National Labs.

    Google Scholar 

  20. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licensee Event Report (LER). https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/. Retrieved in 2018.

  21. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/understanding/. Retrieved in 2018.

  22. Woods, D. D., PopleJr, H. E., & Roth, E. M. (1992). Cognitive environment simulation: A tool for modeling intention formation for human reliability analysis. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 134(2–3), 371–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhao, Y. & Smidts, C. (2017, July). A dynamic mechanistic model of human response proposed for human reliability analysis. In International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (pp. 261–270). Springer, Cham.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge Yunfei Zhao for his comments on this document and for his editorial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nuclear Engineering Program, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

    C. Smidts

Authors
  1. C. Smidts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Smidts .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

    Prabhakar V. Varde

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Raghu V. Prakash

  3. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

    Narendra S. Joshi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Smidts, C. (2019). Human Reliability as a Science—A Divergence on Models. In: Varde, P., Prakash, R., Joshi, N. (eds) Risk Based Technologies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5796-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5796-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5795-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5796-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation