Citation

Boring RL. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2014; 58(1): 563-567.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/1541931214581119

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In the probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) used in the nuclear industry, human failure events (HFEs) are determined as a subset of hardware failures, namely those hardware failures that could be triggered by human action or inaction. This approach is top-down, starting with hardware faults and deducing human contributions to those faults. Elsewhere, more traditionally human factors driven approaches would tend to look at opportunities for human errors first in a task analysis and then identify which of those errors is risk significant. The intersection of top-down and bottom-up approaches to defining HFEs has not been carefully studied. Ideally, both approaches should arrive at the same set of HFEs. This question is crucial, however, as human reliability analysis (HRA) methods are generalized to new domains like oil and gas. The HFEs used in nuclear PRAs tend to be top-down--defined as a subset of the PRA--whereas the HFEs used in petroleum quantitative risk assessments (QRAs) often tend to be bottom-up--derived from a task analysis conducted by human factors experts. The marriage of these approaches is necessary in order to ensure that HRA methods developed for top-down HFEs are also sufficient for bottom-up applications.

Language: en