Assessment of Human Factor Performance Using Bayesian Inference and Inherent Safety

Abstract:

Simply attributing incidents to human error is not adequate; human factors aspects should be investigated such that lessons are learnt and the true root causes are established in order to prevent recurrence. Whilst many petroleum and allied industry businesses have investigated and analyzed incidents – whether with major hazards or occupational injuries potential – human factors aspects are rarely addressed sufficiently. Therefore, this paper presents a hybrid methodology that combines a conventional Swiss Cheese model with Bayesian inference to predict the failure probability of human factors. An inherent safety concept associated with human factor is proposed and utilized as preventive measures to overcome the identified root causes. This approach is then applied to offshore safety assessment study. As a result, the failure probability of human factor can be monitored with time and the best preventive measure can be prioritized once human performance is degraded. It is proven that the approach has the ability to act as predictive tool that provides early warnings toward human deficiency. A preventive measure can then be taken to enhance the overall human performance and ultimately to reduce the likelihood of major incidents.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 845)
• Pages: 658-662
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.845.658
• Online since: December 2013
• Authors: Nor Diana A. Wahab, Risza Rusli*, Azmi Mohd Shariff, Azizul Buang, N. A. Wahab
• Keywords: Bayesian Inference, Human Factor, Inherent Safety, Swiss Cheese Model

References

[1] Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Reducing error and influencing behaviour, HSG48, HSE Books (1999).

[2] W. Bridges, and R. Tew, Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM), Prepared for Presentation at American Institute of Chemical Engineers 2010 Spring Meeting, 6th Global Congress on Process Safety and the 44th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium, Texas (2010).

[3] J. Reason, Human error, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1990).

[4] J. Ren, I. Jenkinson, J. Wang, D.L. Xu, and J.B. Yang, A methodology to model causal relationships on offshore safety assessment focusing on human and organizational factors, Journal of Safety Research, 39 (2008) 87-100.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.09.009

[5] Kletz, T. A., Cheaper, safer plants, or wealth and safety at work. Rugby: Institution of Chemical Engineers (1984).

[6] S. Ferson, Bayesian methods in risk assessment, New York (2005).

[7] A.N. Paralikas and A.I. Lygeros, A Multi-Criteria and Fuzzy Logic Based Methodology for the Relative Ranking of the Fire Hazard of Chemical Substances and Installations. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 83(B2) (2005) 122–134.

DOI: 10.1205/psep.04236

[8] Z. Ma, L. Sylla, D. Xiong, and X. Zhang, Fuzzy Ranking Methodology for Risk Assessment of Potential Pollution Accidents in Chemical Plants. 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (iCBBE) (2010) 1-4.

DOI: 10.1109/icbbe.2010.5518075

[9] G. Zheng, N. Zhu, Z. Tian, Y. Chen, and B. Sun, Application of a Trapezoidal Fuzzy AHP Method for Work Safety Evaluation and Early Warning Rating of Hot and Humid Environments. Safety Science, 50 (2012) 228-239.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.08.042

[10] J. Ren, J. Wang, I. Jenkinson, D.L. Xu, and J.B. Yang, A Bayesian network approach for offshore risk analysis through linguistic variables, China Ocean Engineering - An International Journal 21, no. 3 (2007) 371-388.

[11] J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, Vol. 17 (1985) 407-409.

[12] T.Y. Hsieh, S.T. Lu, and G.H. Tzeng, Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 (2004) 573-584.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002