Major industrial accidents still occur. Recent research suggests that to improve industrial safety we must design work systems that better support operators as they seek to control unexpected and unprecedented situations. A novel human factors technique called SAfER—Strategies Analysis for Enhancing Resilience—has been developed to help practitioners identify the range of strategies that human operators might use to manage expected, unexpected, and unprecedented situations. SAfER also helps practitioners identify design changes that should promote the selection of successful control strategies, as well as design changes that should prevent or tolerate the selection of any potential unsuccessful control strategies. Tests revealed that participants found SAfER to be a useful method capable of helping them identify novel insights and identify design changes that could help operators as they control systems across different operating situations. In future work, the usability of the SAfER method and software will be improved, and they will be tested in further industrial contexts.
BullemerP. T.NimmoI. (1994). Understanding and supporting abnormal situation management in industrial process control environments: A new approach to training. In IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. Humans, information and technology (Vol. 1, pp. 391-396). New York, NY: IEEE.
6.
CacciabueP. C. (2000). Human factors impact on risk analysis of complex systems. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 71(1-3), 101-116.
7.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. doi:10.2307/249008
8.
DekkerS. W.HollnagelE. (2006, November). Resilience engineering: New direction for measuring and maintaining safety in complex systems (Second progress report). Lund, Sweden: Lund University, School of Aviation.
9.
EmbreyD. (1986, April). SHERPA: A systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Paper presented at the International Meeting on Advances in Nuclear Power Systems, Knoxville, TN.
10.
FlachJ. M.JacquesP. F.PatrickD. L.AmelinkM.Van PaassenM. M.MulderM. (2003). A search for meaning: A case study of the approach-to-landing. In HollnagelE. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 171-191). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
11.
FreseM.HofmannD. A. (2011). A new look at errors: On errors, error prevention, and error management in organizations. In HofmannD. A.FreseM. (Eds.), Errors in organizations (pp. 317-326). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
GrahamB.ReillyW. K.BeineckeF.BoeschD. F.GarciaT. D.MurrayC. A.UlmerF. (2011). Deep water: The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling: Report to the president. Washington, DC: National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.
13.
HassallM. E.SandersonP. M. (2012). A formative approach to the strategies analysis phase of cognitive work analysis. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2012.725781
HollnagelE. (2009). The four cornerstones of resilience engineering. In NemethC.HollnagelE.DekkerS. (Eds.), Resilience engineering perspectives. Vol. 2: Preparation and restoration (pp. 117-134). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
16.
HollnagelE. (2011). Prologue: The scope of resilience engineering. In HollnagelE.ParièsJ.WoodsD. D.WreathallJ. (Eds.), Resilience engineering in practice: A guidebook (pp. xxix-xxxix). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
HollnagelE.ParièsJ.WoodsD. D.WreathallJ. (Eds.). (2011). Resilience engineering in practice: A guidebook. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
19.
HSE. (1999). Reducing error and influencing behaviour. Surrey, UK: Author.
20.
KletzT. A. (2009). What went wrong? Case histories of process plant disasters and how they could have been avoided. Burlington, MA: Gulf.
21.
LevesonN. G. (2011). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
LinternG. (2010). A comparison of the decision ladder and the recognition-primed decision model. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(4), 304-327.
23.
McDermottR. E.MikulakR. J.BeauregardM. R.EbooksC. (2009). The basics of FMEA. New York, NY: CRC Press.
24.
McKelveyT. C. (1988). How to improve the effectiveness of hazard and operability analysis. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 37(2), 167-170. doi:10.1109/24.3737
25.
NaikarN. (2013). Work domain analysis: Concepts, guidelines, and cases. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
26.
NaikarN.MoylanA.PearceB. (2006). Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: Concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(4), 371-394.
PlanitzB.SandersonP. M.FreemanC.XiaoT.BoteaA.Beltran OrihuelaC. (2012). Testing the prospective evaluation of a new health information system. In Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association 2012 annual symposium (pp. 734-743). Bethesda, MD: American Medical Informatics Association.
29.
RasmussenJ.PejtersenA. M.GoodsteinL. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York, NY: John Wiley.
30.
RasmussenJ.SvedungI. (2000). Proactive risk management in a dynamic society. Karlstad, Sweden: Risk & Environmental Department, Swedish Rescue Services Agency.
31.
ReasonJ. T. (2008). The human contribution: Unsafe acts, accidents and heroic recoveries. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
32.
SandersonP. M.XiaoT.FreemanC.BroxhamW. (2012). Envisioning healthcare work: Models for prospective evaluation of new systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (pp. 779-784). New York, NY: ACM.
33.
ShorrockS. T. (2002). The two-fold path to human error analysis: TRACEr lite retrospection and prediction. Safety Systems, 11(3). Retrieved from https://www.hf.faa.gov/hftools/Shorrock-SCS.pdf
34.
ShorrockS. T.KirwanB. (2002). Development and application of a human error identification tool for air traffic control. Applied Ergonomics, 33(4), 319-336.
35.
StantonN. A.HarrisD.SalmonP. M.DemagalskiJ. M.MarshallA.YoungM. S.. . . WaldmanT. (2006). Predicting design induced pilot error using HET (human error template)—A new formal human error identification method for flight decks. Aeronautical Journal, 110(1104), 107-115.
36.
StantonN. A.SalmonP. M.WalkerG. H.BaberC.JenkinsD. P. (2005). Human factors methods: A practical guide for engineering and design. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
37.
StringfellowM. V. (2010). Accident analysis and hazard analysis for human and organizational factors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
38.
TsakonasG.PapatheodorouC. (2006). Analysing and evaluating usefulness and usability in electronic information services. Journal of Information Science, 32(5), 400-419. doi:10.1177/0165551506065934
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. (2009). Investigation report—Sugar dust explosion and fire—Imperial Sugar Company, Port Wentworth Georgia, February 7, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.csb.gov/investigations/completed-investigations/
41.
VenkatasubramanianV. (2010, October). Systemic risks management in complex process plants: Challenges, opportunities, and emerging trends. Paper presented at the Conference on Control and Fault-Tolerant Systems, Nice, France.
42.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
WestrumR. (2006). A typology of resilience situations. In HollnagelE.WoodsD.LevesonN. (Eds.), Resilience engineering concepts and precepts (pp. 55-65). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
44.
WheelerB. (2011). Understanding Fukushima. Power Engineering, 115(8), 12.
45.
WilliamsJ. (1986, April). HEART—A proposed method for assessing and reducing human error. Paper presented at the 9th Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium, Bradford, UK.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
