Scribd
Upload
82 views1 page

Identifying Human Error Potential

This document discusses several methods for identifying and predicting human error, including: 1) The Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP) method developed by Swain and Guttman, which identifies error modes and factors that influence error probabilities. 2) The Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART) method, developed by Jeremy Williams, which takes a similar approach to THERP. 3) An "action error" method developed for a sodium methylate plant project, aimed at identifying all potential human errors to design interlocks. This method was later validated through a comparative study and plant operation tracking.

Uploaded by

Robert Montoya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views1 page

Identifying Human Error Potential

This document discusses several methods for identifying and predicting human error, including: 1) The Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP) method developed by Swain and Guttman, which identifies error modes and factors that influence error probabilities. 2) The Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART) method, developed by Jeremy Williams, which takes a similar approach to THERP. 3) An "action error" method developed for a sodium methylate plant project, aimed at identifying all potential human errors to design interlocks. This method was later validated through a comparative study and plant operation tracking.

Uploaded by

Robert Montoya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

18

Identifying Human
Error Potential

Analysis of operator error has developed gradually over some 40 years, starting with
basic ergonomic studies during the 1950s, aimed at determining just what kind of
errors operators could make. A tradition grew up around the study of aircraft control
which involves determining the limitations of persons in directly controlling a system. This work tends to be mathematical and experimental.
One of the first collections of human error probability was that of Munger et al.
[1]. Swain and Guttman, in the 1960s and early 1970s, developed a model of human
error which included the concepts of error-prone situations [2], error recovery and
performance-shaping factors.
Swain and Guttman also developed the Technique for Human Error Rate
Prediction (THERP) method for predicting human error frequency. This involves
identifying a range of 20 different types of error modes, i.e. the external forms of
the errors, and a range of performance-shaping factors which would influence the
error probabilities by multiplying tabulated baseline error probabilities by values of
the performance-shaping factors and by error-recovery factors. The values of probabilities in this method were based on detailed observation, especially observation of
various production lines. This method is still one of the most successful in predicting
human error probabilities (see Ref. [3]).
Swain and Guttmans work is used today mostly for the THERP method which is
still widely used in risk assessment. In fact, the background information on human
performance in production and operations is, in my opinion, even more valuable, in
that it provides concepts and illustrations which go well beyond the THERP method.
A more recent and more comprehensive approach to prediction which is similar
in formulation to that of THERP is Jeremy Williamss Human Error Assessment and
Reduction Technique (HEART) [4].
Both THERP and HEART are described in detail, with examples and validation
studies, by Kirwan in Ref. [3]. Kirwan also provides a table of human error probabilities based on observations in nuclear plant and in simulator experiments.
The origin of the method described below was a project aimed at identifying all
the potentials for human errors in order to design an interlock system after an explosion in a sodium methylate plant [5] in an effort to develop a method which would
be practical, yet still made use of the ideas in the SRK model [6]. The method was
validated qualitatively in a major comparative study in 1978 to 1980 [7]. It has taken
a further 30 years to amass sufficient data to allow a quantitative validation.
The qualitative validation of the action error method was carried out by applying it, along with the HAZOP study, fault tree analysis and precommissioning audit
methods, to a urethane/methane/water distillation unit, then building and operating
the plant, with a period of tracking of 2 years. In all, three incidents and near misses
203

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy