Potential Human Error Audits

While this does seem to be a comprehensive suite of risk control measures, the real reason for the problem emerged during a potential human error audit and safety management system review which was being rmdertaken at the mine - not one of the 150+ vehicles in the undergrotmd fleet at the mine was fitted with a speedometer. 

Similarly, the Potential Human Error Audit approach developed by Simpson and his colleagues in the UK (see, for example, Simpson, 1994) also resulted in clear improvements in safety culture without directly addressing the issue (this approach is covered in more detail in Chapter 9). 

One technique for the identification human error potential, the Potential Human Error Audit, has been developed in (and specifically for) the mining industry. This was developed initially in the UK tmder British Coal and Eiteopean Coal and Steel Community funding (see Simpson et al., 1994 and summarised in Simpson, 1994). The technique was also subsequently used in South African mining operations both under SIMRAC funding (see Simpson et al., 1996) and direct consultancy (see Simpson and Talbot, 1994). 

Before describing the Potential Human Error Audit and examples of its use, it should be emphasised that the same point that was raised earlier in relation to risk assessment - that the process is more important than the procedure - is equally valid here. 

The Potential Human Error Audit is but one example of many possible approaches which could be developed. The approach chosen should provide a systematic means of identifying the potential human error in existing operations, the ability to classify the error type, the ability to identify the predisposing factors (and, where appropriate, collate these into latent failures) and the ability to link error type to the best route to solution. If this is so, then the actual means by which these are achieved is less important. 

Potential Human Error Audit (PHEA) elements in undertaking a PHEA study ... 

There is elear evidence therefore that the Potential Human Error Audit approach, whether used in an interventionist or research role, can ... 

While the specific Potential Human Error Audit approach described above has clearly proven value, it should be emphasised again that in this circumstance the process is more important than the procedure and, as a result, there is little doubt that carefully developed alternative approaches which address the same issues in an equally systematic way would also be likely to generate similar benefits. 

In a two-year project, reported by Simpson (1994) and Fox (1992), the human error audit described in Section 3.2 was applied to two colliery haulage systems. The results of the first study will be presented here. In both systems, data collection focused on potential errors and the performanceshaping factors (PSFs) that can influence these errors. Data was collected by observation, discussion and measurement within the firamework of the broader man-machine systems and checklist of PSFs, taking some 30-40 shifts at each site. The whole haulage system from surface operations to delivery at the coal face was covered. 

Measures to reduce human error are often implemented at an existing plant, rather than during the design process. The decision to conduct an evaluation of the factors that can affect error potential at an existing plant may be taken for several reasons. If human errors are giving rise to unacceptable safety, quality or production problems, plant management, with the assistance of the workforce, may wish to carry out a general evaluahon or audit of the plant in order to identify the direct causes of these problems. 

Similarly, by systematically considering human error potential when assessing the effectiveness of current control measures (or evaluating the utility of new ones), additional control measures canbe put in place to ensure that all the measures taken can be reasonably assumed to be effective. This process should also then trigger issues to be checked in routine monitoring (both informal, such as supervisors keeping an eye on what is done and formal, for example, routine auditing). 

In subsequent sections the application of PIFs to various aspects of error reduction will be described. One of the most important of these applications is the use of comprehensive lists of PIFs as a means of auditing an existing plant to identify problem areas that will give rise to increased error potential. This is one aspect of the proactive approach to error reduction that forms a major theme of this book. This application of PIFs can be used by process workers as part of a participative error reduction program. This is an important feature of the human factors assessment methodology (HFAM) approach discussed in Section 2.7. 

---