IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v191y2019ics0951832018303685.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of HRA method predictions against operating crew performance: Part III: Conclusions and achievements

Author

Listed:
  • Liao, Huafei
  • Forester, John
  • Dang, Vinh N.
  • Bye, Andreas
  • Chang, Yung Hsien J.
  • Lois, Erasmia

Abstract

This is the last in a series of three papers documenting two large-scale human reliability analysis (HRA) empirical studies – the International HRA Empirical Study and the US HRA Empirical Study. The goal of the two studies was to develop an empirically-based understanding of the performance, strengths, and weaknesses of HRA methods by comparing HRA method predictions against actual operator performance in simulated accident scenarios on nuclear power plant (NPP) simulators. This paper first addresses areas where there is convergence between the two studies and where differences lie. Then it summarizes the combined insights and conclusions, including key findings on HRA in general through lessons learned about the HRA methods assessed in the studies and specific recommendations for improving guidance, practice and methods. Then it discusses the relevance and usefulness of simulator data for HRA in general. Finally, it presents the key achievements and overall conclusions of the two studies taken together.

Suggested Citation

  • Liao, Huafei & Forester, John & Dang, Vinh N. & Bye, Andreas & Chang, Yung Hsien J. & Lois, Erasmia, 2019. "Assessment of HRA method predictions against operating crew performance: Part III: Conclusions and achievements," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832018303685
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832018303685
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106511?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liao, Huafei & Groth, Katrina & Stevens-Adams, Susan, 2015. "Challenges in leveraging existing human performance data for quantifying the IDHEAS HRA method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 159-169.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paglioni, Vincent P. & Groth, Katrina M., 2022. "Dependency definitions for quantitative human reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    2. Park, Jinkyun, 2024. "A framework to determine the holistic multiplier of performance shaping factors in human reliability analysis – An explanatory study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    3. Kim, Yochan & Choi, Sun Yeong & Park, Jinkyun & Kim, Jaewhan, 2022. "Empirical study on human error probability of procedure-extraneous behaviors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    4. Greco, Salvatore F. & Podofillini, Luca & Dang, Vinh N., 2021. "A Bayesian model to treat within-category and crew-to-crew variability in simulator data for Human Reliability Analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    5. Zhao, Yunfei, 2022. "A Bayesian approach to comparing human reliability analysis methods using human performance data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    6. Podofillini, Luca & Reer, Bernhard & Dang, Vinh N., 2021. "Analysis of recent operational events involving inappropriate actions: influencing factors and root causes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    7. Garg, Vipul & Vinod, Gopika & Prasad, Mahendra & Chattopadhyay, J. & Smith, Curtis & Kant, Vivek, 2023. "Human reliability analysis studies from simulator experiments using Bayesian inference," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    8. Zheng, Xi & Bolton, Matthew L. & Daly, Christopher & Biltekoff, Elliot, 2020. "The development of a next-generation human reliability analysis: Systems analysis for formal pharmaceutical human reliability (SAFPHâ–ª)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    9. Kim, Yochan & Park, Jinkyun & Presley, Mary, 2021. "Selecting significant contextual factors and estimating their effects on operator reliability in computer-based control rooms," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Groth, Katrina M. & Smith, Reuel & Moradi, Ramin, 2019. "A hybrid algorithm for developing third generation HRA methods using simulator data, causal models, and cognitive science," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Park, Jooyoung & Boring, Ronald L. & Ulrich, Thomas A. & Lew, Roger & Lee, Sungheon & Park, Bumjun & Kim, Jonghyun, 2022. "A framework to collect human reliability analysis data for nuclear power plants using a simplified simulator and student operators," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    3. Ji, Changcheng & Gao, Fei & Liu, Wenjiang, 2024. "Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on cloud model and best-worst method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    4. Mkrtchyan, L. & Podofillini, L. & Dang, V.N., 2016. "Methods for building Conditional Probability Tables of Bayesian Belief Networks from limited judgment: An evaluation for Human Reliability Application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 93-112.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832018303685. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.