Human reliability assessment (HRA) in maintenance of production process: a case study

  • Mojgan Aalipour
  • Yonas Zewdu Ayele
  • Abbas Barabadi
Case Study

Abstract

Human reliability makes a considerable contribution to the maintenance performance, safety, and cost-efficiency of any production process. To improve human reliability, the causes of human errors should be identified and the probability of human errors should be quantified. Analysis of human error is very case-specific; the context of the field should be taken into account. The aim of this study is to identify the causes of human errors and improve human reliability in maintenance activities in the cable manufacturing industry. The central thrust of this paper is to employ the three most common HRA techniques—human error assessment and reduction technique, standardized plant analysis risk-human reliability, and Bayesian network—for estimating human error probabilities and then to check the consistency of the results obtained. The case study results demonstrated that the main causes of human error during maintenance activities are time pressure, lack of experience, and poor procedure. Moreover, the probabilities of human error, obtained by employing the three techniques, are similar and consistent.

Keywords

Human error Human reliability Performance shaping factors HEART SPAR-H Bayesian network 

References

  1. AgenaRisk (2015) Agena—Bayesian network and simulation software for risk analysis and decision support. http://www.agenarisk.com/
  2. Akyuz E, Celik M (2015) Computer-based human reliability analysis onboard ships. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 195:1823–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apostolakis G (1985) On the assessment of human error rates using operational experience. Reliab Eng 12:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayele YZ, Barabady J, Droguett EL (2015) Risk assessment of Arctic drilling waste management operations based on Bayesian Networks. Safety and Reliability of Complex Engineered Systems: ESREL 2015. CRC Press, Zurich, pp 1907–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baraldi P, Conti M, Librizzi M, Zio E, Podofillini L, Dang V (2009) A Bayesian network model for dependence assessment in human reliability analysis. In: Proceedings of the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL, 2009, pp 223–230Google Scholar
  6. Bell J, Holroyd J (2009) Review of human reliability assessment methods. Health and Safety Laboratory, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertolini M (2007) Assessment of human reliability factors: a fuzzy cognitive maps approach. Int J Ind Ergon 37:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boring RL, Gertman DI (2005) Advancing usability evaluation through human reliability analysis. In: Proceedings of HCI international 2005Google Scholar
  9. Brooker P (2011) Experts, Bayesian Belief Networks, rare events and aviation risk estimates. Saf Sci 49:1142–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calixto E (2012) Gas and oil reliability engineering: modeling and analysis. Gulf Professional Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Castillia F, Giardina M (2013) Analysis of operator human errors in hydrogen refuelling stations: comparison between human rate assessment techniques. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:1166–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Čepin M (2008) DEPEND-HRA—a method for consideration of dependency in human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:1452–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davoudian K, Wu J-S, Apostolakis G (1994) Incorporating organizational factors into risk assessment through the analysis of work processes. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 45:85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Felice F, Petrillo A, Carlomusto A, Ramondo A (2012) Human reliability analysis: a review of the state of the art. IRACST Int J Res Manag Technol (IJRMT)Google Scholar
  15. De Galizia A, Duval C, Serdet E, Weber P, Simon C, Lung B (2015) Advanced investigation of HRA methods for probabilistic assessment of human barriers efficiency in complex systems for a given organisational and environmental context. In: International topical meeting on probabilistic safety assessment and analysis, PSA 2015Google Scholar
  16. Deacon T, Amyotte P, Khan F, Mackinnon S (2013) A framework for human error analysis of offshore evacuations. Saf Sci 51:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhillon B (1989) Human errors: a review. Microelectron Reliab 29:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Embrey D, Kontogiannis T, Green M (1994) Guidelines for reducing human error in process operations. Centre for Chemical Process Safety, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Fonseca RA, Alvim ACM, Frutuoso E, Melo PFF, Alvarenga MAB (2013) A THERP/ATHEANA analysis of the latent operator error in leaving EFW valves closed in the TMI-2 accident. Sci Technol Nucl Install. doi: 10.1155/2013/787196
  20. Groth KM, Swiler LP (2013) Bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA practice: a Bayesian network version of SPAR-H. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 115:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elsevier Science Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim MC, Seong PH, Hollnagel E (2006) A probabilistic approach for determining the control mode in CREAM. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirwan B (1992) Human error identification in human reliability assessment. Part 2: detailed comparison of techniques. Appl Ergon 23:371–381MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirwan B (1994) A guide to practical human reliability assessment. CRC Press, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirwan B (1996) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques—THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part 1—technique descriptions and validation issues. Appl Ergon 27:359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirwan B (1997) The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques—THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part iii—practical aspects of the usage of the techniques. Appl Ergon 28:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK (1992) A guide to task analysis: the task analysis working group. CRC Press, United KingdomCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Konstandinidou M, Nivollianitoi Z, Kiranoudis C, Markatos N (2006) A fuzzy modeling application of CREAM methodology for human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:706–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korb KB, Nicholson AE (2010) Bayesian artificial intelligence. CRC Press, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee C-J, Lee KJ (2006) Application of Bayesian network to the probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear waste disposal. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:515–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyons M, Adams S, Woloshynowych M, Vincent C (2004) Human reliability analysis in healthcare: a review of techniques. Int J Risk Saf Med 16:223–237Google Scholar
  32. Mannan S (2012) Lees’ loss prevention in the process industries: Hazard identification, assessment and control. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Marquez D, Neil M, Fenton N (2010) Improved reliability modeling using Bayesian networks and dynamic discretization. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:412–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLeod RW (2015) Designing for human reliability: human factors engineering in the oil, gas, and process industries. Gulf Professional Publishing, Waltham, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyer MA, Booker JM (2001) Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: a practical guide, SIAM edition. American Statistical Association and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 3600 University City Science Center, Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Mihajlovic V, Petkovic M (2001) Dynamic Bayesian networks: a state of the art. University of Twente, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  37. Moieni P, Spurgin A, Singh A (1994) Advances in human reliability analysis methodology. Part I: frameworks, models and data. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 44:27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Noroozi A, Khakzad N, Khan F, Mackinnon S, Abbassi R (2013) The role of human error in risk analysis: application to pre-and post-maintenance procedures of process facilities. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 119:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Park KS (1987) Fuzzy apportionment of system reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 36:129–132CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Park KS, Jung KT (1996) Considering performance shaping factors in situation-specific human error probabilities. Int J Ind Ergon 18:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Podofillini L, Dang V, Zio E, Baraldi P, Librizzi M (2010) Using expert models in human reliability analysis—a dependence assessment method based on fuzzy logic. Risk Anal 30:1277–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raouf A, Duffuaa S, Ben-Daya M, Dhillon B, Liu Y (2006) Human error in maintenance: a review. J Qual Maint Eng 12:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh S, Kumar R (2015) Evaluation of human error probability of disc brake unit assembly and wheel set maintenance of railway bogie. Procedia Manuf 3:3041–3048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swain AD (1990) Human reliability analysis: need, status, trends and limitations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 29:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report. Sandia National Labs, AlbuquerqueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor-Adams S, Kirwan B (1997) Human reliability data requirements. Disaster Prev Manag Int J 6:318–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trucco P, Cagno E, Ruggeri F, Grande O (2008) A Bayesian Belief Network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: a case study in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:845–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Watson I (1985) Review of human factors in reliability and risk assessment. IChemE Symposium Series No. Assess Control of Major Hazards 93:323–337Google Scholar
  49. Weber P, Medina-Oliva G, Simon C, Iung B (2012) Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Eng Appl Artif Intell 25:671–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams J (1988) A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance. Human Factors and Power Plants, 1988. In: IEEE fourth conference on Conference record for 1988. IEEE, pp 436–450Google Scholar
  51. Williamson J (2004) Bayesian nets and causality: philosophical and computational foundations. Oxford University Press, UKCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Zio E, Baraldi P, Librizzi M, Podofillini L, Dang VN (2009) A fuzzy set-based approach for modeling dependence among human errors. Fuzzy Set Syst 160:1947–1964MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mojgan Aalipour
    • 1
  • Yonas Zewdu Ayele
    • 2
  • Abbas Barabadi
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Operation and Maintenance EngineeringLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Engineering and SafetyUiT The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations