Citation

Comperatore CA, Ng PK, Carvalhais AB. Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon. 2015; 10(1): 174-193.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/1557234X15575521

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In this chapter, we explore the need to develop specific guidance, tailored to consumers of fatigue risk management systems, outlining how to verify that program elements effectively control the incidence of operator fatigue. We advance the notion that without independent proof of efficacy, consumers are left to assume that program implementation and sustainment costs actually yield the desired results. Lacking this information perpetuates losses associated with fatigue-related performance degradation, health issues, and mishaps. Inspection and verification protocols require objective evidence, beyond surveys, to demonstrate that fatigue management program elements control the incidence of operator fatigue in the workplace. Scientific and technological advances facilitate the evaluation of fatigue management programs and the use of objective techniques to test circadian rhythm stability and alertness. However, consumers are yet to incorporate these test protocols and technological advances in their safety management system assurance infrastructure. The prevailing assumption has been that scientific tests and methodologies are beyond the reach of the consumer and fall in the purview of scientists and fatigue management professionals. We propose the use of the design basis plan in safety management systems as the assurance infrastructure to associate program inspection elements, fatigue leading indicators, and specific standards with compulsory review and approval activities. These assurance activities not only provide objective means to identify fatigue management program elements that fail to control the incidence of operator fatigue but also enable consumers to proactively implement necessary modifications.


Keywords: Driver distraction;

Language: en