Abstract
The area of Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) has become increasingly important as both the nuclear industry and other high-technology industries have become conscious of the need for risk management and risk analysis. Techniques for performing and validating HRA should clearly be subjects of Human Factors Test and Evaluation attention. However, these issues have received less attention than they probably deserve from the Human Factors Society, despite the key contributions to the field of such HFS Test and Evaluation Group members as Dr. Alan Swain and Dr. David Meister.
Issues that should be of interest to the HFS membership were recently raised in a white paper, recently published in “Reliability Engineering and System Safety” as an editorial. This editorial, titled “HRA — Where Shouldst Thou Turn?”, was written by Mr. Ed Dougherty, an HRA practitioner. The editorial takes to task (“pillories”, might not be too strong a term) almost every major technique and method for HRA currently in use, including his own. In addition, he castigates the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission attitudes and philosophies toward HRA use. Due to the controversial nature of the editorial, the journal editor, Dr. Apostolaikis, provided an opportunity for response to some fifteen practitioners/theorists of those mentioned. Some of these responders included such HFS members as Alan Swain, David Woods, Barry Kantowitz, Thomas Ryan, and Jens Rasmussen. However, these responders had no chance to review each others responses, nor has Mr. Dougherty had any opportunity to respond to the responses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.