Human error assessment and reduction technique

Last updated February 24, 2023

Human error assessment and reduction technique (HEART) is a technique used in the field of human reliability assessment (HRA), for the purposes of evaluating the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA: error identification, error quantification, and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications: first-generation techniques and second generation techniques. First generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of 'fits/doesn't fit' in the matching of the error situation in context with related error identification and quantification and second generation techniques are more theory based in their assessment and quantification of errors. HRA techniques have been used in a range of industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation, and business sectors. Each technique has varying uses within different disciplines.

HEART method is based upon the principle that every time a task is performed there is a possibility of failure and that the probability of this is affected by one or more Error Producing Conditions (EPCs) – for instance: distraction, tiredness, cramped conditions etc. – to varying degrees. Factors which have a significant effect on performance are of greatest interest. These conditions can then be applied to a "best-case-scenario" estimate of the failure probability under ideal conditions to then obtain a final error chance. This figure assists in communication of error chances with the wider risk analysis or safety case. By forcing consideration of the EPCs potentially affecting a given procedure, HEART also has the indirect effect of providing a range of suggestions as to how the reliability may therefore be improved (from an ergonomic standpoint) and hence minimising risk.

Background

HEART was developed by Williams in 1986.^[1] It is a first generation HRA technique, yet it is dissimilar to many of its contemporaries in that it remains to be widely used throughout the UK. The method essentially takes into consideration all factors which may negatively affect performance of a task in which human reliability is considered to be dependent, and each of these factors is then independently quantified to obtain an overall Human Error Probability (HEP), the collective product of the factors.

HEART methodology

1. The first stage of the process is to identify the full range of sub-tasks that a system operator would be required to complete within a given task.

2. Once this task description has been constructed a nominal human unreliability score for the particular task is then determined, usually by consulting local experts. Based around this calculated point, a 5th – 95th percentile confidence range is established.

3. The EPCs, which are apparent in the given situation and highly probable to have a negative effect on the outcome, are then considered and the extent to which each EPC applies to the task in question is discussed and agreed, again with local experts. As an EPC should never be considered beneficial to a task, it is calculated using the following formula:

Calculated Effect = ((Max Effect – 1) × Proportion of Effect) + 1

4. A final estimate of the HEP is then calculated, in determination of which the identified EPC's play a large part.

Only those EPC's which show much evidence with regards to their affect in the contextual situation should be used by the assessor.^[2]

Worked example

Context

A reliability engineer has the task of assessing the probability of a plant operator failing to carry out the task of isolating a plant bypass route as required by procedure. However, the operator is fairly inexperienced in fulfilling this task and therefore typically does not follow the correct procedure; the individual is therefore unaware of the hazards created when the task is carried out

Assumptions

There are various assumptions that should be considered in the context of the situation:

the operator is working a shift in which he is in his 7th hour.
there is talk circulating the plant that it is due to close down
it is possible for the operator's work to be checked at any time
local management aim to keep the plant open despite a desperate need for re-vamping and maintenance work; if the plant is closed down for a short period, if the problems are unattended, there is a risk that it may remain closed permanently.

Method

A representation of this situation using the HEART methodology would be done as follows:

From the relevant tables it can be established that the type of task in this situation is of the type (F) which is defined as 'Restore or shift a system to original or new state following procedures, with some checking'. This task type has the proposed nominal human unreliability value of 0.003.

Other factors to be included in the calculation are provided in the table below:

Factor	Total HEART Effect	Assessed Proportion of Effect	Assessed Effect
Inexperience	x3	0.4	(3.0-1) x 0.4 + 1 =1.8
Opposite technique	x6	1.0	(6.0-1) x 1.0 + 1 =6.0
Risk Misperception	x4	0.8	(4.0-1) x 0.8 + 1 =3.4
Conflict of Objectives	x2.5	0.8	(2.5-1) x 0.8 + 1 =2.2
Low Morale	x1.2	0.6	(1.2-1) x 0.6 + 1 =1.12

Result

The final calculation for the normal likelihood of failure can therefore be formulated as:

0.003 x 1.8 x 6.0 x 3.4 x 2.2 x 1.12 = 0.27

Advantages

HEART is very quick and straightforward to use and also has a small demand for resource usage ^[3]
The technique provides the user with useful suggestions as to how to reduce the occurrence of errors^[4]
It provides ready linkage between Ergonomics and Process Design, with reliability improvement measures being a direct conclusion which can be drawn from the assessment procedure.
It allows cost benefit analyses to be conducted
It is highly flexible and applicable in a wide range of areas which contributes to the popularity of its use ^[3]

Disadvantages

The main criticism of the HEART technique is that the EPC data has never been fully released and it is therefore not possible to fully review the validity of Williams EPC data base. Kirwan has done some empirical validation on HEART and found that it had "a reasonable level of accuracy" but was not necessarily better or worse than the other techniques in the study.^[5]^[6]^[7] Further theoretical validation is thus required.^[2]
HEART relies to a high extent on expert opinion, first in the point probabilities of human error, and also in the assessed proportion of EPC effect. The final HEPs are therefore sensitive to both optimistic and pessimistic assessors
The interdependence of EPCs is not modelled in this methodology, with the HEPs being multiplied directly. This assumption of independence does not necessarily hold in a real situation.^[2]

Related Research Articles

Failure mode and effects analysis is the process of reviewing as many components, assemblies, and subsystems as possible to identify potential failure modes in a system and their causes and effects. For each component, the failure modes and their resulting effects on the rest of the system are recorded in a specific FMEA worksheet. There are numerous variations of such worksheets. An FMEA can be a qualitative analysis, but may be put on a quantitative basis when mathematical failure rate models are combined with a statistical failure mode ratio database. It was one of the first highly structured, systematic techniques for failure analysis. It was developed by reliability engineers in the late 1950s to study problems that might arise from malfunctions of military systems. An FMEA is often the first step of a system reliability study.

Neville A. Stanton is a British Professor of Human Factors and Ergonomics at the University of Southampton. Prof Stanton is a Chartered Engineer (C.Eng), Chartered Psychologist (C.Psychol) and Chartered Ergonomist (C.ErgHF). He has written and edited over forty books and over three hundred peer-reviewed journal papers on applications of the subject. Stanton is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society, a Fellow of The Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors and a member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology. He has been published in academic journals including Nature. He has also helped organisations design new human-machine interfaces, such as the Adaptive Cruise Control system for Jaguar Cars.

Task analysis is a fundamental tool of human factors engineering. It entails analyzing how a task is accomplished, including a detailed description of both manual and mental activities, task and element durations, task frequency, task allocation, task complexity, environmental conditions, necessary clothing and equipment, and any other unique factors involved in or required for one or more people to perform a given task.

Human reliability is related to the field of human factors and ergonomics, and refers to the reliability of humans in fields including manufacturing, medicine and nuclear power. Human performance can be affected by many factors such as age, state of mind, physical health, attitude, emotions, propensity for certain common mistakes, errors and cognitive biases, etc.

Reliability engineering is a sub-discipline of systems engineering that emphasizes the ability of equipment to function without failure. Reliability describes the ability of a system or component to function under stated conditions for a specified period of time. Reliability is closely related to availability, which is typically described as the ability of a component or system to function at a specified moment or interval of time.

Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is a systematic and comprehensive methodology to evaluate risks associated with a complex engineered technological entity or the effects of stressors on the environment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Safety culture</span> Attitude, beliefs, perceptions and values that employees share in relation to risks in the workplace

Safety culture is the collection of the beliefs, perceptions and values that employees share in relation to risks within an organization, such as a workplace or community. Safety culture is a part of organizational culture, and has been described in a variety of ways; notably the National Academies of Science and the Association of Land Grant and Public Universities have published summaries on this topic in 2014 and 2016.

Situational awareness or situation awareness (SA), knowing what is going on around you, is critical for good decision making in many environments. It is formally defined as:

“the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future”.

A hazard analysis is used as the first step in a process used to assess risk. The result of a hazard analysis is the identification of different types of hazards. A hazard is a potential condition and exists or not. It may, in single existence or in combination with other hazards and conditions, become an actual Functional Failure or Accident (Mishap). The way this exactly happens in one particular sequence is called a scenario. This scenario has a probability of occurrence. Often a system has many potential failure scenarios. It also is assigned a classification, based on the worst case severity of the end condition. Risk is the combination of probability and severity. Preliminary risk levels can be provided in the hazard analysis. The validation, more precise prediction (verification) and acceptance of risk is determined in the risk assessment (analysis). The main goal of both is to provide the best selection of means of controlling or eliminating the risk. The term is used in several engineering specialties, including avionics, chemical process safety, safety engineering, reliability engineering and food safety.

Absolute probability judgement is a technique used in the field of human reliability assessment (HRA), for the purposes of evaluating the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA; error identification, error quantification and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications; first generation techniques and second generation techniques. First generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of 'fits/doesn't fit' in the matching of the error situation in context with related error identification and quantification and second generation techniques are more theory based in their assessment and quantification of errors. 'HRA techniques have been utilised in a range of industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation and business sector; each technique has varying uses within different disciplines.

Human Cognitive Reliability Correlation (HCR) is a technique used in the field of Human reliability Assessment (HRA), for the purposes of evaluating the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA; error identification, error quantification and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications; first generation techniques and second generation techniques. First generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of ‘fits/doesn’t fit’ in the matching of the error situation in context with related error identification and quantification and second generation techniques are more theory based in their assessment and quantification of errors. HRA techniques have been utilised in a range of industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation and business sector; each technique has varying uses within different disciplines.

Tecnica Empirica Stima Errori Operatori (TESEO) is a technique in the field of Human reliability Assessment (HRA), that evaluates the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA; error identification, error quantification and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications; first generation techniques and second generation techniques. First generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of ‘fits/doesn’t fit’ in the matching of the error situation in context with related error identification and quantification and second generation techniques are more theory based in their assessment and quantification of errors. ‘HRA techniques have been utilised in a range of industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation and business sector; each technique has varying uses within different disciplines.

The technique for human error-rate prediction (THERP) is a technique used in the field of human reliability assessment (HRA), for the purposes of evaluating the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA: error identification, error quantification and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications: first-generation techniques and second-generation techniques. First-generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of ‘fits/doesn’t fit’ in matching an error situation in context with related error identification and quantification. Second generation techniques are more theory-based in their assessment and quantification of errors. ‘HRA techniques have been utilised for various applications in a range of disciplines and industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation and business.

Success Likelihood Index Method (SLIM) is a technique used in the field of Human reliability Assessment (HRA), for the purposes of evaluating the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA; error identification, error quantification and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications; first generation techniques and second generation techniques. First generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of ‘fits/doesn’t fit’ in the matching of the error situation in context with related error identification and quantification and second generation techniques are more theory based in their assessment and quantification of errors. ‘HRA techniques have been utilised in a range of industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation and business sector; each technique has varying uses within different disciplines.

Influence Diagrams Approach (IDA) is a technique used in the field of Human reliability Assessment (HRA), for the purposes of evaluating the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA; error identification, error quantification and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications; first generation techniques and second generation techniques. First generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of ‘fits/doesn’t fit’ in the matching of the error situation in context with related error identification and quantification and second generation techniques are more theory based in their assessment and quantification of errors. ‘HRA techniques have been utilised in a range of industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation and business sector; each technique has varying uses within different disciplines.

A Technique for Human Event Analysis (ATHEANA) is a technique used in the field of human reliability assessment (HRA). The purpose of ATHEANA is to evaluate the probability of human error while performing a specific task. From such analyses, preventative measures can then be taken to reduce human errors within a system and therefore lead to improvements in the overall level of safety.

Human factors are the physical or cognitive properties of individuals, or social behavior which is specific to humans, and influence functioning of technological systems as well as human-environment equilibria. The safety of underwater diving operations can be improved by reducing the frequency of human error and the consequences when it does occur. Human error can be defined as an individual's deviation from acceptable or desirable practice which culminates in undesirable or unexpected results.

Dive safety is primarily a function of four factors: the environment, equipment, individual diver performance and dive team performance. The water is a harsh and alien environment which can impose severe physical and psychological stress on a diver. The remaining factors must be controlled and coordinated so the diver can overcome the stresses imposed by the underwater environment and work safely. Diving equipment is crucial because it provides life support to the diver, but the majority of dive accidents are caused by individual diver panic and an associated degradation of the individual diver's performance. - M.A. Blumenberg, 1996

Human factors and ergonomics is the application of psychological and physiological principles to the engineering and design of products, processes, and systems. Primary goals of human factors engineering are to reduce human error, increase productivity and system availability, and enhance safety, health and comfort with a specific focus on the interaction between the human and equipment.

Automation bias is the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems and to ignore contradictory information made without automation, even if it is correct. Automation bias stems from the social psychology literature that found a bias in human-human interaction that showed that people assign more positive evaluations to decisions made by humans than to a neutral object. The same type of positivity bias has been found for human-automation interaction, where the automated decisions are rated more positively than neutral. This has become a growing problem for decision making as intensive care units, nuclear power plants, and aircraft cockpits have increasingly integrated computerized system monitors and decision aids to mostly factor out possible human error. Errors of automation bias tend to occur when decision-making is dependent on computers or other automated aids and the human is in an observatory role but able to make decisions. Examples of automation bias range from urgent matters like flying a plane on automatic pilot to such mundane matters as the use of spell-checking programs.

Human performance modeling (HPM) is a method of quantifying human behavior, cognition, and processes. It is a tool used by human factors researchers and practitioners for both the analysis of human function and for the development of systems designed for optimal user experience and interaction. It is a complementary approach to other usability testing methods for evaluating the impact of interface features on operator performance.

References

↑ WILLIAMS, J.C. (1985) HEART – A proposed method for achieving high reliability in process operation by means of human factors engineering technology in Proceedings of a Symposium on the Achievement of Reliability in Operating Plant, Safety and Reliability Society (SaRS). NEC, Birmingham.
1 2 3 Kirwan, B. (1994) A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment. CPC Press.
1 2 Humphreys. P. (1995). Human Reliability Assessor's Guide. Human Reliability in Factor's Group.
↑ "FAA Human Factors Workbench Display Page". Archived from the original on 2009-05-10. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
↑ Kirwan, B. (1996) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques - THERP, HEART, JHEDI: Part I -- technique descriptions and validation issues. Applied Ergonomics. 27(6) 359-373.
↑ Kirwan, B. (1997) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques - THERP, HEART, JHEDI: Part II - Results of validation exercise. Applied Ergonomics. 28(1) 17-25.
↑ Kirwan, B. (1997) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques - THERP, HEART, JHEDI: Part III -- practical aspects of the usage of the techniques. Applied Ergonomics. 28(1) 27-39.

External links

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] WILLIAMS, J.C. (1985) HEART – A proposed method for achieving high reliability in process operation by means of human factors engineering technology in Proceedings of a Symposium on the Achievement of Reliability in Operating Plant, Safety and Reliability Society (SaRS). NEC, Birmingham.

[Kirwan-94-2] 1 2 3 Kirwan, B. (1994) A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment. CPC Press.

[Humphreys-95-3] 1 2 Humphreys. P. (1995). Human Reliability Assessor's Guide. Human Reliability in Factor's Group.

[4] "FAA Human Factors Workbench Display Page". Archived from the original on 2009-05-10. Retrieved 2008-08-27.

[Kirwan-96-5] Kirwan, B. (1996) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques - THERP, HEART, JHEDI: Part I -- technique descriptions and validation issues. Applied Ergonomics. 27(6) 359-373.

[Kirwan-97a-6] Kirwan, B. (1997) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques - THERP, HEART, JHEDI: Part II - Results of validation exercise. Applied Ergonomics. 28(1) 17-25.

[Kirwan-97b-7] Kirwan, B. (1997) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques - THERP, HEART, JHEDI: Part III -- practical aspects of the usage of the techniques. Applied Ergonomics. 28(1) 27-39.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]