Checking errors checklists

Skill-based Errors manual variability strong but wrong action sequences Train for physical and manipulative skills (repeated practice and feedback) Checklists setting out starting and finishing activities and checks Layout and labeling of controls and process lines Distinguish tetween plant areas with similar appearance but different functions Provide feedback... 

Close tanker valve Independent check on action. Use checklist Ensure operator is aware of consequences of failure Valve position indicator would reduce probability of error... 

When alerted to a control problem, the first step should be to carefully inspect the analytical method, equipment, reagents, and specimens. Does everything look, feel, smell, and sound correct An inspection may seem to be a very qualitative and subjective technique, but it can be exceedingly useful when performed with checklists developed for specific analytical methods. This inspection should include a review of records documenting changes that occur with the instrument and reagents. Brief instrument function checks are often performed to verify proper system performance and to separate chemical and instrumental sources of errors. An experienced analyst can often spot the problem by making this kind of inspection, whereas inexperienced analysts will be aided by formal checklists. 

Inspections are similar to reviews in principle, but the focus is on the scrutiny of a specific document. There must be one or more other documents against which it can be checked. A design document would, for example, need a specification with which it should be compatible. Inspections are associated with M. E. Fagan, who developed the approach at IBM. He drew particular attention to the conditions needed to make inspections effective. For instance, the defect detection rate was found to fall off if more than about 120 lines of a document was reviewed in 1 hr or the review took longer than 2 hr. Inspections can thus be very time-consuming, but Fagan was able to produce evidence that, despite this, the use of inspections could be massively cost-effective. Both reviews and inspections can be made more effective by the use of checklists of the most probable errors that are likely to occur in each type of software product. 

Furthermore, each error was subjected to specific coding of the mechanisms by which errors were detected by the observed crews. Eight categories of error detection mechanism were utilized within this coding fiamewoik, namely 1) Aircraft Warning System 2) Aircraft Status or Performance 3) Cross Check (Monitoring Other) 4) Scan (Monitoring Self) 5) Checklist 6) External Person 7) None (Not Detected) and 8) Undeterminable. 

Human error The proof test procedures should be designed in such a manner that it would minimize human error. For this, a checklist including tick boxes and cross-checking for critical steps could be helpful. Many structure the tests in a way so that errors that could be introduced are revealed by subsequent test steps [17]. 

Confidence-BuUding Techniques There are many ways in which errors can creep into blackbody data. Checklist 10.2 provides a repertoire of ways to check for such errors while acquiring and reducing data Checklist 9.3 is a similar list for the evaluation and troubleshooting of test sets. We wanted to provide independent lists applicable to two specific situations, but the nature of the problems overlap so much that one should really review both lists if a problem is not quickly resolved. 

---