An important part of the application of sociotechnical systems theory (STS) is the development of methods, tools and techniques to assess human factors and ergonomics workplace requirements. We focus in this paper on describing and evaluating current STS methods for workplace safety, as well as outlining a set of six case studies covering the application of these methods to a range of safety contexts. We also describe an evaluation of the methods in terms of ratings of their ability to address a set of theoretical and practical questions (e.g. the degree to which methods capture static/dynamic aspects of tasks and interactions between system levels). The outcomes from the evaluation highlight a set of gaps relating to the coverage and applicability of current methods for STS and safety (e.g. coverage of external influences on system functioning; method usability). The final sections of the paper describe a set of future challenges, as well as some practical suggestions for tackling these.

Practitioner Summary: We provide an up-to-date review of STS methods, a set of case studies illustrating their use and an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses. The paper concludes with a ‘roadmap’ for future work.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00140139.2015.1015622

Defining the methodological challenges and opportunities for an effective science of sociotechnical systems and safety

A data-informed PIF hierarchy for model-based Human Reliability Analysis

Bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA practice: A Bayesian network version of SPAR-H

The Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) method has proved to be a reliable, easy-to-use method for human reliability analysis. Calculation of human error probability (HEP) rates is especially straightforward, starting with pre-defined nominal error rates for cognitive vs. action oriented tasks, and incorporating performance shaping factor (PSF) multipliers upon those nominal error rates. SPAR-H uses eight PSFs with multipliers typically corresponding to nominal, degraded, and severely degraded human performance for individual PSFs. Additionally, some PSFs feature multipliers to reflect enhanced performance. Although SPAR-H enjoys widespread use among industry and regulators, current source documents on SPAR-H such as NUREG/CR-6883 do not provide a clear account of the origin of these multipliers. The present paper redresses this shortcoming and documents the historic development of the SPAR-H PSF multipliers, from the initial use of nominal error rates, to the selection of the eight PSFs, to the mapping of multipliers to available data sources such as a Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP). Where error rates were not readily derived from THERP and other sources, expert judgment was used to extrapolate appropriate values. In documenting key background information on the multipliers, this paper provides a much needed cross-reference for human reliability practitioners and researchers of SPAR-H to validate analyses and research findings.

/pdf/the-origins-of-the-spar-h-method-s-performance-shaping-2sdvp38v9v.pdf

The origins of the SPAR-H method’s performance shaping factor multipliers

A fuzzy set-based approach for modeling dependence among human errors

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc926335/m2/1/high_res_d/974398.pdf

Issues in Benchmarking Human Reliability Analysis Methods: A Literature Review

Expert elicitation approach for performing ATHEANA quantification

https://www.cardioportal.ro/files/pdf/20080519141422IMP%20use%20of%20empirical%20data%20sources%20in%20HRA.pdf

The use of empirical data sources in HRA

........................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... xii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... xiii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................... xviiv 1. OVERALL STUDY DESIGN ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Overview of the study design ............................................................................. 1-1 1.2.1 Phases of the Empirical Study ............................................................. 1-2 1.3 Study design – ................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1 Study Organization, Participants, and Roles ........................................ 1-3 1.3.2 The HRA Information Packgage .......................................................... 1-3 1.3.2.1 Interaction of HRA and accident sequence modeling ............ 1-4 1.3.2.2 Reporting HRA analyses and predicted outcomes ................ 1-4 1.3.3 Comparison methods and procedures ................................................. 1-4 2. SIMULATION DESIGN AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ....................................... 2-1 2.

International HRA Empirical Study - Phase 2 Report Results from Comparing HRA Method Predictions to Simulator Data from SGTR Scenarios

With the expectation that PRA will continue to be used in the commercial nuclear industry in assessing current operating risks, in estimating changes in risk as a result of temporary and permanent plant changes, and as an adjunct to the design process of newer generation plants, it is important that practitioners perform human reliability analysis (HRA) in accordance with good practices and that reviewers recognize the implementation of good practices (or failure to do so) in these analyses. Documents such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications provide requirements for performing a good HRA. However, the requirements do not provide implementation guidance, i.e., they are not as “tutorial” as is necessary to support HRA analysts. This paper provides examples of “good practices” for a HRA as they should be implemented within a broader probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). It also discusses the consideration of “errors of commission” (EOCs) that is not explicitly addressed in the ASME Standard. The good HRA practice guidance focuses on identifying the attributes of a good HRA regardless of the specific methods or tools that are used and does not endorse the use of any particular method.

Erasmia Lois

Papers

Issues in Benchmarking Human Reliability Analysis Methods: A Literature Review

Expert elicitation approach for performing ATHEANA quantification

The use of empirical data sources in HRA

International HRA Empirical Study - Phase 2 Report Results from Comparing HRA Method Predictions to Simulator Data from SGTR Scenarios

Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Good Practices