Team factors

Decisions at the tactical level, that is, the specifics of the group design and mechanics are usually easier to make and are negotiated with team members. This includes matters of size and composition/ membership, work area coverage or tasks, and coordination mechanisms. For many teams, the optimal size is difficult to determine. In fact, a variety of factors may affect team size. Obviously the primary factor is the size and scope of a required project or set of tasks. However, several other factors can influence team size (it should be noted that all factors are not necessarily applicable to aU types of teams). Factors affecting team size include ... 

Addressing the risks posed by human error presents challenges to traditional approaches to safety risk management. Many of the challenges arise because of the very nature of human error (e.g. the nature of the task, conditions of operation, human frailties such as emotions or fatigue, team factors such as supervision, etc.), which has numerous causes and can therefore be difficult to fully understand, predict, model or prevent. 

Team Factors Verbal communication Written communication Supervision and seeking help Team leadership... 

The team-based PSF category has anon-trivial correlation with several other PSF categories. There are multiple explanations for this behavior. Team factors are likely to be correlated with the person-based factors because a team is composed of individuals, and therefore the individual characteristics of the team members affect the team. For example while communication is categorized as team-based, each member has a unique inherent personal communication style, and these styles combine together to form the team-based commrmication. However, we can state that by definition the communication must occur between two or more people, so while the inherent characteristics of each person do play a role, there cannot be communication without multiple individuals, i.e. ateam. It follows logically that there is a correlation between team-based and stressor factors because personal characteristics influence both elements. 

What were the personal or team factors affecting human performance in this situ-... 

What were the contribiitmg hictors What was the woric environment like at the time of this situation What were the personal or team factors affecting human performance in this situation (such as inattention, perceptions, judgments, decisions, communication, coordination) Was there a breakdown in a safety defense Please include what you believe really caused the problem. 

The relationship between supervisors and their subordinates plays a key role in the performance of teams. Factors such as communication with the supervisor, trust in the supervisor, and the behaviors that the supervisor exhibits have all been found to influence subordinates performance in some way or another. 

There was considerable variation in the tools in terms of the extent to which they addressed different areas of the STAMINA model however, all tools had a primary focus on the task, with the exception of ATHEANA which had a majority of elements focused on the organization. Environmental factors were also not widely accounted for, despite being a key influencer on task performance, and often under the control of the organization. Team factors also failed to play a major role in many of the tools. 

Team related factors was the smallest group, with only nine PSFs appearing across all five tools and SPAR-H did not contain any team factors. Quality of communications was the most common team factor, featuring in three of the tools. There was no agreement between the tools across the remaining six factors classified as team related. These covered actions by others, team structure, group identifications (THERP), crew collaboration (HEART), and supervision (ATHEANA). 

Are global technology networks and collaborations fostered Are individual objectives supporting the plan Is individual work organized Are teams adequately chartered Are individual motivation factors understood and acted upon Are researchers becoming active learners ... 

Once management has made a commitment to the program and goals have been set, a program task force is established. The selection of a team leader will be dependent upon many factors including their ability to effec tively interface with both the assessment team and management staff. 

You should consider obtaining internal and external quality assurance reviews of the study (to ferret out errors in modeling, data, etc.). Independent peer reviews of the QRA results can be helpful by presenting alternate viewpoints, and you should include outside experts (either consultants or personnel from another plant) on the QRA review panel. You should also set up a mechanism wherein disputes between QRA team members (e.g., technical arguments about safety issues) can be voiced and reconciled. All of these factors play an essential role in producing a defendable, high-quality QRA. Once the QRA is complete, you must formally document your response to the project team s final report and any recommendations it contains. 

The comparison with experiment can be made at several levels. The first, and most common, is in the comparison of derived quantities that are not directly measurable, for example, a set of average crystal coordinates or a diffusion constant. A comparison at this level is convenient in that the quantities involved describe directly the structure and dynamics of the system. However, the obtainment of these quantities, from experiment and/or simulation, may require approximation and model-dependent data analysis. For example, to obtain experimentally a set of average crystallographic coordinates, a physical model to interpret an electron density map must be imposed. To avoid these problems the comparison can be made at the level of the measured quantities themselves, such as diffraction intensities or dynamic structure factors. A comparison at this level still involves some approximation. For example, background corrections have to made in the experimental data reduction. However, fewer approximations are necessary for the structure and dynamics of the sample itself, and comparison with experiment is normally more direct. This approach requires a little more work on the part of the computer simulation team, because methods for calculating experimental intensities from simulation configurations must be developed. The comparisons made here are of experimentally measurable quantities. 

The factors that favour successful industrial innovation have been memorably analysed by a team at the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, in England (Rothwell et al. 1974). In this project (named SAPPHO) 43 pairs of attempted similar innovations one successful in each pair, one a commercial failure - were critically compared, in order to derive valid generalisations. One conclusion was The responsible individuals (i.e., technical innovator, business innovator, chief executive, and - especially - product champion) in the successful attempts are usually more senior and have greater authority than their counterparts who fail . 

In other words, our primary focus is on waste- and pollution-reduction opportunities if these could reduce energy consumption as well, all the better. If energy usage is a particularly prominent factor, then the team should recommend a separate energy audit. 

For inherently safer interactions of designs and procedures, include an operator trained in human factors on the design team. 

During the inherent safety review, at the design development stage, identify potential human factors/ergonomics issues that should be addressed by the design team. 

As noted in Step 13 of the inherent safety review at the design development stage, the team reviews the process to develop a list of potential ergonomics/human factors issues. This list provides input to the design team so that these issues can be addressed as the design progresses. 

At the next organizational level are factors directly causing error 1) job characteristics such o Complexity, time stress, noise, lighting, environment, or mental requirements, and 2) individual factors such as personality, and team performance. These, collectively, are called performance-influencing factors, or PIFs. 

Confidence limits for the conclusions cannot be expressed simply because of the complexity of hazard assessments. The estimation of uncertainties is itself a process subject to professional judgment. However, the team s estimates of probability are believed to be realistic, but may be pessimistic by a factor of perhaps two or three, but less than a factor of ten. Uncertainties also exist... 

A complicating factor was that the maintenance team originally intended to work only on the pump bearings. When team members found that they had to open up the pump, they told the process team, but no further checks of the isolations were carried out. 

In the course of assessing your company s current PSM status, you and your team have almost certainly gained a clear sense of which facilities pose the greatest risk, whether by virtue of inherent process hazards, human factors, management systems, or a combination. As you set priorities for implementation you should closely review information gleaned from the assessment tasks. In addition, you should try to validate or flesh out your impressions through some more quantitative analysis that can help to identify priority facilities. 

The pump had been awaiting repair for several days when a work permit was issued at 8 00 AM. on the day of the fire. The foreman who issued the permit should have checked, before doing so, that the pump suction and delivery valves were shut and the drain valve open. He claimed that he did so. Either his recollection was incorrect or, after he inspected the valves and before work started, someone closed the drain valve and opened the suction valve. When the valves were closed, there was no indication on them of why they were closed. A worker might have opened the suction valve and shut the drain valve so that the pump could be put on line quickly if required. A complicating factor was that the maintenance team originally intended to work only on the pump bearings. When they found that they had to open up the pump they told the process team, but no further checks of the isolations were carried out. 

A combination of on-the-job and off-the-job methods is usually the best solution in most types of training. The following factors should be examined in order to analyze the role of training in preventing human error. Team training will be considered in the social and organizational factors which follow in other sections. 

The various PIFs discussed so far provide a basis for the control of human error at the level of the individual. This section will consider various factors related to the performance of the team and the management practices related to safety. 

The human factors audit was part of a hazard analysis which was used to recommend the degree of automation required in blowdown situations. The results of the human factors audit were mainly in terms of major errors which could affect blowdown success likelihood, and causal factors such as procedures, training, control room design, team communications, and aspects of hardware equipment. The major emphasis of the study was on improving the human interaction with the blowdown system, whether manual or automatic. Two specific platform scenarios were investigated. One was a significant gas release in the molecular sieve module (MSM) on a relatively new platform, and the other a release in the separator module (SM) on an older generation platform. 

Management must modify the culture and develop human factors awareness in the hazard identification teams so that they will be capable of identifying the potential for human error. A good practice is to involve operators in the hazard identification team. 

---