HUMAN RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT IN CONTEXT

Abstract

Human reliability assessment (HRA) is conducted on the unspoken premise that ‘human error’ is a meaningful concept and that it can be associated with individual actions. The basis for this assumption it found in the origin of HRA, as a necessary extension of PSA to account for the impact of failures emanating from human actions. Although it was natural to model HRA on PSA, a large number of studies have shown that the premises are wrong, specifically that human and technological functions cannot be decomposed in the same manner. The general experience from accident studies also indicates that action failures are a function of the context, and that it is the variability of the context rather than the ‘human error probability’ that is the much sought for signal. Accepting this will have significant consequences for the way in which HRA, and ultimately also PSA, should be pursued.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 96 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.