The comparative study of evaluating human error assessment and reduction technique and cognitive reliability and error analysis method techniques in the control room of the cement industry

Aims: The present study aimed to evaluate the assessment methods of human errors and compare the results of these techniques in order to introduce the precise method of human error assessment, and recognize the factors affecting the occurrence of these errors. Materials and Methods: This case study...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of environmental health engineering 2015-01, Vol.4 (1), p.14-14
Main Authors: Pouya, Amin, Habibi, Ehsanollah
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Case studies
Cement industry
cognitive reliability and error analysis method
Comparative analysis
Comparative studies
Error analysis
Human error
human error assessment and reduction technique
Methods
Nuclear energy
Nuclear power plants
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aims: The present study aimed to evaluate the assessment methods of human errors and compare the results of these techniques in order to introduce the precise method of human error assessment, and recognize the factors affecting the occurrence of these errors. Materials and Methods: This case study was done at three workstation control room of a cement industry in 2014. After determining the responsibilities and critical jobs by hierarchical task analysis, cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM) and human error assessment and reduction technique (HEART) were used in order to analyze the human errors. Results: The results showed that in the CREAM method, the highest probability of error occurrence is related to monitoring and control (operator) with a probability of 0.207, and that of in the HEART method, is related to control signs (operator) with a probability of 0.416. The number of errors detected by CREAM and HEART method were 85 and 80, respectively. Time and cost of applying the CREAM methods were 235 h and 1175($), while those in the HEART techniques were 215 h and 1075($). Conclusion: We concluded that the highest probability of calculated errors relates to "monitoring and control (operator)," "controlling warning signs (operators)," and "cooperation in solving the problem (supervisor)" for both techniques. By considering the time and cost factors, HEART has superiority, while CREAM is better due to its extensive evaluation and the number of detected errors.
ISSN:2277-9183
2277-9183
DOI:10.4103/2277-9183.157708