Human factors (HF) and human reliability analysis (HRA) are often treated as two distinct disciplines. The former is seen under the purview of experimental psychology, while the latter is linked to an engineering approach for risk assessment. Despite this seeming separation, there exists significant overlap between these approaches, and it may be argued that the two disciplines are, in fact, more integrated than dissimilar. This paper explores the historical origins of the perceived differences between HF and HRA, discusses the seemingly disparate data end products of HF and HRA, and proposes a research framework in which the complementary nature of HF and HRA is fully realized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoringR. L. (2007). Meeting human reliability requirement through human factors design, testing, and modeling. In AvenT.VinnemJ. E.Risk, Reliability and Societal Safety, Volume 1: Specialisation Topics. Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2007) (pp. 3–8). London: Taylor & Francis.
2.
BoringR. L.DudenhoefferD. D.HallbertB. P.GoreB. F. (2006A). Virtual power plant control room and crew modeling using MIDAS. Joint Halden Reactor Project and CSNI Special Experts Group on Human and Organisational Factors Workshop on Future Control Station Designs and Human Perfromance Issues in Nuclear Power Plants, Paper 5.3 (pp. 1–5).
3.
BoringR. L.TranT. Q.GertmanD. I.RagsdaleA. S. (2006B). A human reliability based usability evaluation method for safety-critical software. Fifth International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Controls, and Human Machine Interface Technology, 1275–1279.
4.
ChapanisA. (1959). Research Techniques in Human Engineering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
5.
DangV. N.ByeA.LoisE.ForesterJ.KolaczkowskiA. M.BraarudP. ø. (2007). An empirical study of HRA methods - Overall design and issues. Official Proceedings of the Joint 8th IEEE Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants and the 13th Annual Workshop on Human Performance / Root Cause / Trending / Operating Experience/Self Assessment.
6.
DawsonM. R. W. (1998). Understanding Cogntiive Science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
7.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
HallbertB.BoringR.GertmanD.DudenhoefferD.WhaleyA.MarbleJ.JoeJ. (2006). Human Event Repository and Analysis (HERA) System: Overview, NUREG/CR-6903, Volume 1. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10.
HirschbergS. (2004). CSNI Technical Opinion Papers No. 4, Human Reliability Analysis in Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants. OECD NEA No. 5068.
11.
KadakA. C.MatsuoT. (2007). The nuclear industry's transition to risk-informed regulation and operation in the United States. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 92, 609–618.
12.
MeisterD. (1999). The History of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA). (2005). Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems, NPR 8705.2A. Washington, DC: NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance.
14.
O'HaraJ. M.HigginsJ. C.PersenskyJ. J.LewisP. M.BongarraJ. P. (2004). Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model, NUREG-0711, Rev. 2. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15.
RoscoeS. N. (1997). The Adolescence of Aviation Psychology. Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
16.
SwainA. D. (1963). A Method for Performing a Human Factors Reliability Analysis, Monograph SCR-686. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories.
17.
SwainA. D.GuttmanH. E. (1983). Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, NUREG/CR-1278. Washington, DC: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
18.
TranT. Q.BoringR. L.JoeJ. C.GriffithC. D. (2007). Extracting and converting quantitative data into human error probabilities. Official Proceedings of the Joint 8th IEEE Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants and the 13th Annual Workshop on Human Performance / Root Cause / Trending / Operating Experience/Self Assessment, 164–169.
19.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1975). Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
