Task Analysis for Industrial Work Process from Aspects of Human Reliability and System Safety

Abstract

In the design, development, and manufacturing stage of industrial products, engineers usually focus on the problems caused by hardware or software, but pay less attention to problems caused by “human error,” which may significantly affect system reliability and safety. Although operating procedures are strictly followed, human error still may occur occasionally. Among the influencing factors, the inappropriate design of standard operation procedure (SOP) or standard assembly procedure (SAP) is an important and latent reason for unexpected results found during human operation. To reduce the error probability and error effects of these unexpected behaviors in the industrial work process, overall evaluation of SOP or SAP quality has become an essential task. The human error criticality analysis (HECA) method was developed to identify the potentially critical problems caused by human error in the human operation system. This method performs task analysis on the basis of operation procedure. For example, SOP, analyzes the human error probability (HEP) for each human operation step, and assesses its error effects to the whole system. The results of the analysis will show the interrelationship that exists between critical human tasks, critical human error modes, and human reliability information of the human operation system. To identify the robustness of the model, a case study of initiator assembly tasks was conducted. Results show that the HECA method is practicable in evaluating the operation procedure, and the information is valuable in identifying the means to upgrade human reliability and system safety for human tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.

    M. Ben-Daya and R. Abdul, “A Revised Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Model,” Int.J.Qual.Reliability Manage. 1343–47(1996).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    E. M. Dougherty and J. R. Fragola, Human Reliability Analy-sis: A System Engineering Approach With Nuclear Power Plant Applications(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    O. P. Gandhi and V. P. Agrawal, “FMEA—A Digraph and Matrix Approach,” Reliability Engi.System Safety 35147–158(1992).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    D. I. Gertman and H. S. Blackman, Human Reliability and Safety Analysis Data Handbook(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    W. Gilchrist, “Modeling Failure Modes and Effects Analysis,” Int.J.Qual.Reliability Manage. 10(5), 16–23(1993).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    R. K. Goyal, “FMEA—The Alternative Process Hazard Method,” Hydrocarbon Proc. 95–99(May 1993).

  7. 7.

    W. Hammer, Handbook of System and Product Safety(Pren-tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    L. N. Haney et al., Comparison and Application of Quantitative Human Reliability Analysis Methods for the Risk Methods Integration and Evaluation Program (RMIEP,) NUREG/CR-4835, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    E. J. Henley and H. Kumamoto, Reliability Engineering and Risk Assessment(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    D. Meister, “A Critical Review of Human Performance Relia-bility Predictive Methods,” IEEE Trans. Reliability R-22(3), 116–123(1973).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    MIL-HDBK-217F, Military Handbook—Reliability Prediction of Electronic EquipmentU.S. Department of Defense, Wash-ington D.C. (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    MIL-STD-1629A, Military Standard—Procedures for Per-forming a Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality AnalysisU.S. Department of Defense, Washington D.C. (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    MIL-STD-882C, Military Standard—System Safety Program Requirements” U.S. Department of Defense, Washington D.C. (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    E. W. Pickrel and T. A. Mcdonald “Quantification of Human Performance in Large, Complex System,” Hu.Factors647–662(1964).

  15. 15.

    R. E. Schafer, Rome Air Development Center (RADC) Non-electronic Reliability NotebookHughes Aircraft Fullerton, California (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    P. Shankara, “Improving Manufacturing Reliability in IC Package Assembly Using the FMEA Technique,” IEEE Trans.Components Hybrids Manufact.Technol. 14(3), 452–456(1991).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    A. D. Swain and H. E. Guttmann, Handbook of Human Relia-bility Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applica-tionsNUREG/CR-1278, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington D.C. (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    S. H. Teng & S. Y. Ho, “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis: An Integrated Approach for Product Design and Process Control,” Int.J.Qual.Reliability Manage. 13(5), 8–26 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    T. A. Trager, Jr., Case Study Report on Loss of Safety System Function EventsAEOD/C504, US Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington D.C. (1985).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yu, FJ., Hwang, SL. & Huang, YH. Task Analysis for Industrial Work Process from Aspects of Human Reliability and System Safety. Risk Anal 19, 401–415 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007044527558

Download citation

  • Human error
  • human reliability
  • system safety
  • task analysis
  • criticality analysis