Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제45권2호
  • /
  • Pages.151-164
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

MEASURING THE INFLUENCE OF TASK COMPLEXITY ON HUMAN ERROR PROBABILITY: AN EMPIRICAL EVALUATION

  • Podofillini, Luca (Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI)) ;
  • Park, Jinkyun (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI)) ;
  • Dang, Vinh N. (Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI))
  • 투고 : 2013.03.12
  • 발행 : 2013.04.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

A key input for the assessment of Human Error Probabilities (HEPs) with Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) methods is the evaluation of the factors influencing the human performance (often referred to as Performance Shaping Factors, PSFs). In general, the definition of these factors and the supporting guidance are such that their evaluation involves significant subjectivity. This affects the repeatability of HRA results as well as the collection of HRA data for model construction and verification. In this context, the present paper considers the TAsk COMplexity (TACOM) measure, developed by one of the authors to quantify the complexity of procedure-guided tasks (by the operating crew of nuclear power plants in emergency situations), and evaluates its use to represent (objectively and quantitatively) task complexity issues relevant to HRA methods. In particular, TACOM scores are calculated for five Human Failure Events (HFEs) for which empirical evidence on the HEPs (albeit with large uncertainty) and influencing factors are available - from the International HRA Empirical Study. The empirical evaluation has shown promising results. The TACOM score increases as the empirical HEP of the selected HFEs increases. Except for one case, TACOM scores are well distinguished if related to different difficulty categories (e.g., "easy" vs. "somewhat difficult"), while values corresponding to tasks within the same category are very close. Despite some important limitations related to the small number of HFEs investigated and the large uncertainty in their HEPs, this paper presents one of few attempts to empirically study the effect of a performance shaping factor on the human error probability. This type of study is important to enhance the empirical basis of HRA methods, to make sure that 1) the definitions of the PSFs cover the influences important for HRA (i.e., influencing the error probability), and 2) the quantitative relationships among PSFs and error probability are adequately represented.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. E. Lois, V.N.Dang, J. Forester, H. Broberg, S. Massaiu, M. Hildebrandt,P. O. Braarud, G. Parry, J. Julius, R. Boring, I. Männisto, A. Bye, "International HRA empirical study - Description of Overall Approach and Pilot Phase Results from Comparing HRA Methods to Simulator Performance Data", NUREG/IA-2016, Vol. 1, Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009 (also issued as HWR- 844, OECD Halden Reactor Project Work Report, Halden, Norway, 2008).
  2. A. Bye, E. Lois, V. N. Dang, G. Parry, J. Forester, S. Massaiu, R. Boring, P. O. Braarud, H. Broberg, J. Julius, I. Mannisto, P. Nelson, "International HRA empirical study - Results from Comparing HRA Method Predictions to Simulator Data from SGTR Scenarios", NUREG/IA-2016, Vol. 2, Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2011 (also issued as HWR-915 OECD Halden Reactor Project Work Report, Halden, Norway, 2010).
  3. J. Marble, L. Huafei, M. Presley, J. Forester, A. Bye, V.N. Dang, E. Lois. "Results and Insights Derived from the Intra- Method Comparisons of the US HRA Empirical Study", Proc. 11th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management / European Safety and Reliability 2012 (PSAM11/ESREL 2012), Helsinki, Finland, June 25-29, 2012.
  4. "HRA data and recommended actions to support the collection and exchange of HRA data", NEA/CSNI/R(2008)9, CSNI WGRisk Report, Nuclear Energy Agency / Committee on the safety of nuclear installations, 2008.
  5. A. Mosleh, Y.H. Chang. "Model-based human reliability analysis: prospects and requirements", Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 83(2), pp. 241-25 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2003.09.014
  6. K.M. Groth, A. Mosleh. "Deriving causal Bayesian networks from human reliability analysis data: A methodology and example model", Journal of Risk and Reliability, vol. 226(4), pp. 361-379 (2012).
  7. J. Park, "Scrutinizing inter-relations between performance influencing factors and the performance of human operators pertaining to the emergency tasks of nuclear power plants - an explanatory study", Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 38 pp. 2521-2532 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2011.07.006
  8. B. Kirwan. "Validation of human reliability assessment techniques: Part 1 - Validation issues", Safety Science, vol. 27(1), pp. 25-41 (2007).
  9. B. Kirwan. "Validation of human reliability assessment techniques: Part 2 - Validation results", Safety Science, 27(1), pp. 43-75 (2007).
  10. W. Preischl, M. Hellmich. "Human error probabilities from operational experience of German nuclear power plants", Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol.109, pp. 150- 159 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.08.004
  11. R.L. Boring, S.M.L. Hendrickson, J.A. Forester, T.Q. Tran, E. Lois. "Issues in benchmarking human reliability analysis methods: A literature review", Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 95(6), pp. 591-605 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.02.002
  12. J. Park, The complexity of proceduralized tasks, Springer- Verlag, London, 2009.
  13. D. Gertman, H. Blackman, J. Marble, J. Byers, L. Haney, C. Smith. "The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method", NUREG/CR-6883. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2005.
  14. J. Park and W. Jung. "A study on the validity of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants - comparing with a subjective workload", IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 53, pp. 2962-2970 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.882149
  15. J. Park and W. Jung. "The appropriateness of TACOM for a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants - a comparison with OPAS scores", Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 34, pp. 670-678 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2007.01.007
  16. P. Carvalho. "Ergonomic field studies in a nuclear power plant control room", Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 48, pp. 51-69 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2005.04.001
  17. C. M. Harvey and R. J. Koubek, "Cognitive, social, and environmental attributes of distributed engineering collaboration: A review and proposed model of collaboration", Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, vol. 10, pp. 369-393 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6564(200023)10:4<369::AID-HFM2>3.0.CO;2-Y
  18. D. J. Campbell. "Task complexity: a review and analysis", Academy of Management Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 40-52 (1988).
  19. J. A. Jacko and G. Salvendy. "Hierarchical menu design: breath, depth and task complexity", Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 82, pp. 1187-1201 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.82.3c.1187
  20. J. Park, W. Jung and J. Ko. "Investigating the appropriateness of the TACOM measure - application to the complexity of proceduralized tasks for high speed train drivers", Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 42, no. 1., pp. 115-124 (2009).

피인용 문헌

  1. Dependence Assessment in Human Reliability Analysis Using Evidence Theory and AHP vol.35, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12347
  2. Impact of Human, workplace and indoor environmental risk factors on operator’s reliability in control rooms pp.1549-7860, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1501659
  3. The task demands-resources method: A new approach to human reliability analysis from a psychological perspective pp.07488017, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.2453