Human performance and system safety: Alternative perspectives on safety assessment

Author:

Mumaw Randall J.1,Roth Emilie M.2,Bier Vicki3,Bley Dennis4,Boring Ronald5,Hettinger Larry6

Affiliation:

1. San Jose State University, San Jose, CA

2. Roth Cognitive Engineering, Palo Alto, CA

3. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

4. Buttonwood Consulting, Inc., Albuquerque, NM

5. Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID

6. LJ Hettinger PhD, LLC, Harvard, MA

Abstract

Discussion Panel Abstract: The recent Boeing 737MAX accidents crystalized for the public the complexity of anticipating system and operator performance and developing a system design that prevents catastrophic outcomes. The operational situations, progression of flightcrew actions, and system behaviors that led to the two accidents had not been anticipated by the manufacturer or the regulator. These accidents were only the most recent examples of our failure to anticipate and manage operational complexities and operator performance. The art and science of human factors has yet to perfect risk assessment (or safety assessment) for complex systems. In the not-so-distant past, system risk assessment made estimates of human error probabilities (HEPs) for specific operational tasks, which were combined with estimated equipment failure rates to produce an overall risk estimate. Indeed, these Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) techniques have evolved over decades and are still being developed (e.g., IDHEAS-ECA, Xing et al., 2020), partly because they satisfy the need for a simple quantitative threshold that can be used by industry and regulators: if risk probability is too high, change the design or some other aspect of operations. Through the years, there have been critiques of the HRA approach (e.g., Hollnagel, 1998) that led to revisions, such as focusing on cognitive functions instead of operator tasks, but not to the basic quantitative risk-estimation approach. Other approaches to assessing risk/safety have wandered down other paths: attempting to capture system complexity from an operator’s perspective (Roth, Mumaw, Lewis, 1994; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2000), or better documenting the many ways in which system operators manage complexity daily to find ways to improve their capacity (Hollnagel, Woods, & Leveson, 2006). These approaches have used different measures than HEPs; e.g., measures of operator performance, measures of interface usability/design, measures of task complexity, and the analysis of system constraints. In this panel, we offer different perspectives on risk/safety assessment as it relates to operator performance in complex systems. Foundational to assessment is deciding the nature of safety and the role of operator performance. Another important question is, as you move away from simple quantitative measures, how do you establish safety thresholds? That is, what guidance can we give to industry and regulators regarding how to measure safety and how to decide that action is required on the basis of safety.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine,General Chemistry

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3