View in EDS

An inter-method comparison of four Human Reliability Assessment models.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An inter-method comparison of four Human Reliability Assessment models.
Authors: Setayesh, Azin1 Azin.setayesh@ryerson.ca, Di Pasquale, Valentina2 vdipasquale@unisa.it, Neumann, W. Patrick1 pneumann@ryerson.ca
Source: Applied Ergonomics. Jul2022, Vol. 102, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Subjects: Technological innovations, Microcomputer workstations (Computers), COVID-19 pandemic, Employees, Ergonomics, Experimental design, Research evaluation, Industries, Forecasting, Probability theory
Abstract: This paper presents a comparison of four common Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) models through a scoping literature review and sensitivity analysis. The scoping literature review identified 72 relevant studies which formed the basis of the comparison. Studies reported the four selected models have similarities in terms of the sector of origin, applied sectors, output calculation, and a lack of clear guidelines on Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) selection and risk level allocation. The studied models have differences in the number and type of PIF inputs and Human Error Probability (HEP) calculation procedures. The One Factor At a Time (OFAT) and "combined" sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the HRA models' responses to systematic risk level changes when each of 8 matching PIFs were systematically set to "high" and then "low" levels individually and simultaneously. The OFAT analysis showed coefficients of variation (CV) in HEP varying from 9% for skills/training up to 94% for work procedure when the PIFs are assigned to a "low" risk level individually. The combined analysis showed the median HEP value close to 97% and 1% when PIFs are assigned to" high" and "low" risk levels respectively. Although the selected HRA models were reported to be validated in high-risk domains there was no study found that validated these models in low-risk domains such as manual order picking, or manual assembly lines. The HRA models examined here are disconnected from specific system design elements which can inhibit design improvement efforts. The study outcome suggests the need for clear guidelines for PIFs selection and risk level allocation. Future research should address both the connection of error assessment to the design of the system and the features of new HRA models that affect its reliability and validity in a variety of industrial contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Applied Ergonomics is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:This paper presents a comparison of four common Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) models through a scoping literature review and sensitivity analysis. The scoping literature review identified 72 relevant studies which formed the basis of the comparison. Studies reported the four selected models have similarities in terms of the sector of origin, applied sectors, output calculation, and a lack of clear guidelines on Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) selection and risk level allocation. The studied models have differences in the number and type of PIF inputs and Human Error Probability (HEP) calculation procedures. The One Factor At a Time (OFAT) and "combined" sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the HRA models' responses to systematic risk level changes when each of 8 matching PIFs were systematically set to "high" and then "low" levels individually and simultaneously. The OFAT analysis showed coefficients of variation (CV) in HEP varying from 9% for skills/training up to 94% for work procedure when the PIFs are assigned to a "low" risk level individually. The combined analysis showed the median HEP value close to 97% and 1% when PIFs are assigned to" high" and "low" risk levels respectively. Although the selected HRA models were reported to be validated in high-risk domains there was no study found that validated these models in low-risk domains such as manual order picking, or manual assembly lines. The HRA models examined here are disconnected from specific system design elements which can inhibit design improvement efforts. The study outcome suggests the need for clear guidelines for PIFs selection and risk level allocation. Future research should address both the connection of error assessment to the design of the system and the features of new HRA models that affect its reliability and validity in a variety of industrial contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00036870
DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103750