Ergonomics and human error

Chapter 23 Ergonomics and human error (C. Mackay and M. C. Whittington) 462... 

One of the most noticeable ergonomic deficiencies in both control rooms was the number of panels that had to be scanned and monitored during the scenarios, and the number of rapid actions required at opposite ends of the control room. The need for virtually simultaneous actions and movements would have been discovered and resolved in the design stage had a task analysis and human error analysis been carried out on an emergency operation. 

Allied to Deming s view is the work of Alphonse Chapanis, who was prominent in the field of ergonomics and human factors engineering. Representative of Chapanis writings is The Error-Provocative Situation, a chapter in The Measurement of Safety Performance, by William E. Tarrants (Tarrants, p. 119). 

Alphonse Chapanis is exceptionally well known in ergonomics and human factors engineering circles, and his writings on avoiding the design of work that is error-provocative are often cited. These are excerpts from his chapter titled The Error-Provocative Situation, which is in the book The Measurement of Safety Performance ... 

Another researcher and often published author whose work has influenced this author s view of incident causation is Dr. Alphonse Chapanis. He was exceptionally well known in ergonomics and human factors engineering circles. His work is often quoted, particularly on the benefits of considering the capabilities and limitations of workers as systems are designed. Chapanis was strong on designing to avoid error-provocative work methods. 

Fedota J. Parasuraman R. 2010. Neuroergonomics and human error, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11 5, 402421. 

Kirwan, B.. 1992., Human Error Identification in Human Reliability Assessment, A Ergonomics, 23, pp 299-318 and pp 371-381. 

The second perspective to be considered in this chapter is the human factors engineering (or ergonomics) approach (HFE/E). This approach, described in Section 2.5, emphasizes the mismatch between human capabilities and system demands as being the main source of human error. From this perspective, the primary remedy is to ensure that the design of the system takes into account the physical and mental characteristics of the human. This includes consideration of factors such as ... 

The intention of this chapter has been to provide an overview of analytical methods for predicting and reducing human error in CPI tasks. The data collection methods and ergonomics checklists are useful in generating operational data about the characteristics of the task, the skills and experience required, and the interaction between the worker and the task. Task analysis methods organize these data into a coherent description or representation of the objectives and work methods required to carry out the task. This task description is subsequently utilized in human error analysis methods to examine the possible errors that can occur during a task. 

Kirwan, B. (1990). Human Error Analysis. In J. R. Wilson E. N. Corlett (Eds.). Evaluation of Human Work, a Practical Ergonomics Methodology. Washington, DC Taylor and Francis. 

Park KS. 1997. Human error. In Salvendy G (ed), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, p. 150. New York Wiley- Interscience. 

The project Human Error in the Process Industry within the Ergonomics Section of the Technology Work Department at the Graduate School of Industrial Engineering and Management Science was started in 1985. In order to get acquainted with the world of chemical process control two exploratory investigations were carried out in the first two years at Dutch chemical companies. This led to the development of a prototype classification model of system failure (see Chapter 5 for the most recent version). 

It is fundamental for assessing human error in systems analyses to identify and describe the human acts with importance for the event sequence under analysis (qualitative assessment). This corresponds to the task analyses, which are characteristic of ergonomic studies. Firstly, the important actions, the moment in time at which they are required and the time period available for their execution have to be determined. Furthermore, the requirements for the action, the information necessary, respectively available, the possibilities of correction in case of omission or faulty execution must be estabhshed. Additionally, other factors of important influence on human reliabihty such as the state of knowledge on the process in question, ergonomically favourable or disadvantageous layout of the workplace, the tools or the environment are identihed. On the basis of this task analysis reliability data (normally failure probabilities on demand) are assigned to the tasks identified. They stem from existing data collections (cf. Table 9.21). 

Brueley, M. E., Ergonomics and Error Who Is Responsible , Proceedings of the First Symposium on Human Factors in Medical Devices, 1989, pp. 6-10. 

Laura, L., Human Error in Patient Controlled Analgesia Incident Reports and Experimental Evaluation, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Conference, Vol. 2,1998, pp. 1043-1047. 

Woods, D. D., Johannesen, L., Cook, R. I., and Sarter, N. Behind Human Error Cognitine System, Computers, and Hindsight. Dayton, Ohio Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1994. 

---