|
|
|
|
Human Error |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Human error analysis or reliability engineering is a branch of human factors concerned with predicting and evaluating human error performance so as to improve overall system performance.
This category of tools groups together a variety of human error analytical techniques. Some tools (eg., FaultrEASE) support specific human error assessment methods (ie., Fault Trees); other tools are more generic. Some tools focus on error probabilities, whereas others are more qualitative and focus on cognitive factors.
|
|
|
Accident Sequence Evaluation Programme (ASEP) |
This tool is based on the Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (Swain and Guttman, 1983). ASEP comprises pre-accident screening with nominal human reliability analysis, and post-accident screening and nominal human reliability analysis facilities. ASEP provides a shorter route to human reliability analysis than THERP by requiring less training to use the tool, less expertise for screening estimates, and less time to complete the analysis.
Refs:
Swain, 1987; Kirwan, 1994
Related methods:
Human reliability assessment - Event trees
|
|
|
This is an interactive software program for editing and evaluating fault trees. It is designed to make fault tree construction and editing as easy as possible. The program has the ability to adjust the graphical display of the fault tree so as to fit all the symbols in the smallest area without overlapping, and without changing the connection logic of the tree.
Refs:
|
| |
 |
http://www.environment-risk.com/ |
|
|
Related methods:
Human reliability assessment - Fault trees
|
|
|
Generic Error Modelling System (GEMS) |
GEMS is an error classification model that is designed to provide insight as to why an operator may move between skill-based or automatic rule based behaviour and rule or knowledge-based diagnosis. Errors are categorised as slips/lapses (frequently skill-based errors) and mistakes (usually knowledge based errors). The result of GEMS is a taxonomy of error types that can be used to identify cognitive determinants in error sensitive environments. GEMS relies on the analyst either having insight to the tasks under scrutiny or the collaboration of a subject matter expert, and an appreciation of the psychological determinants of error.
Refs:
Reason, 1990
Related methods:
Human reliability assessment - Event trees, Fault trees
|
|
|
Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART) |
HEART is an error quantification process that is quick to use. The process defines a set of generic error probabilities for the types of tasks being examined and identifies the error producing conditions associated with them. For each of the error producing conditions the human error probability is multiplied by the error producing condition multiplier. The tool also provides some guidance on approaches towards error reduction.
Refs:
Kirwan, 1994, 1997; Williams, 1986.
Related methods:
Human reliability assessment - Event trees
|
|
|
Justification of Human Error Data Information (JHEDI) |
JHEDI is derived from the Human Reliability Management System (HMRS) and is a quick form of human reliability analysis that requires little training to apply. The tool consists of a scenario description, task analysis, human error identification, a quantification process, and performance shaping factors and assumptions. JEDHI is a moderate, flexible and auditable tool for use in human reliability analysis. Some expert knowledge of the system under scrutiny is required.
Refs:
Kirwan, 1994
Related methods:
Human reliability assessment - Event trees
|
|
|
Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) |
Boeing has invested decades of research in maintenance error. It has developed a widely used maintenance error decision aid (MEDA) which is an attempt to systematise evaluation of events, problems and potential problems by using a repeatable, structured evaluation program. The company has been encouraging its customers to employ the technique.
Refs:
Allen and Rankin, 1996
|
| |
|
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_03/m/m01/index.html |
|
|
Related methods:
Data analysis - Critical incident analysis
Human reliability assessment - Event trees
|
|
|
Procedural Event Analysis Tool (PEAT) |
PEAT is a structured, cognitively based analytic tool designed to help airline safety officers investigate and analyse serious incidents involving flight-crew procedural deviations. The objective of PEAT is to help airlines develop effective remedial measures to prevent the occurrence of future similar errors. The PEAT process relies on a non-punitive approach to identify key contributing factors to crew decisions. Using this process, the airline safety officer would be able to provide recommendations aimed at controlling the effect of contributing factors. PEAT includes database storage, analysis, and reporting capabilities.
Refs:
| |
|
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_990416b.html |
|
|
Related methods:
Data analysis - Critical incident analysis
|
|
|
TRACEr (Technique for the Retrospective Analysis of Cognitive Errors) |
TRACEr provides a human error identification technique specifically for use in the air traffic control domain. It builds on error models in other fields and integrates Wickens' (1992) model of information processing in ATC. TRACEr is represented in a series of decision flow diagrams. The method marks a shift away from knowledge based errors in other error analysis tools to better reflect the visual and auditory nature of ATM. It has proved successful in analysing errors in AIRPROX reports to derive measures for reducing errors and their adverse effects.
Refs:
Shorrock and Kirwan, 1999
Related methods:
Human reliability assessment - Hazard and operability analysis
|
|
|
|
| | |
