Human Reliability analysis

oluwafemi45

ReportSections_SAVExample.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Human Reliability analysis

FINAL REPORT SECTIONS

Week 2

Final Report

 The report should be written similar to a grant proposal to a major funding agency

 Reviewers of the proposal are not expected to be HRA experts or domain experts. Therefore, don’t assume any knowledge.

 i.e., a high level executive at an organization

 Consider this report being handed over to your boss to justify performing a HRA on a particularly high risk activity

 Why should I care about this problem?

 What is HRA?

 Why should I care about HRA?

 Hasn’t this already been done before?

 How exactly does this work?

 Will it improve something?

 What are the required resources?

Introduction

Section 1

Final Report Sections

 Section 1: Introduction (2pts)

 Problem Statement – what is the human error, why is it important, and why hasn’t someone found a solution previously?

 Relevance to HRA – why is HRA an appropriate tool to study this problem?

 Project Focus – what aspect of the problem will you focus on?

 Project Goals – what do you hope to gain from this HRA?

 Additional Notes:

 Refer to HW#2 justification

 Include support to justify importance for the problem AND focus

High Level Topic

 Lack of knowledge of recycling rules

Topic Focus

 Topic : When, how and why do

recycling errors occur?

◼ Human-System and Human-Artifact

◼ Specific focus on remembering and

applying information on product

categories (training and existing

knowledge)

◼ Theoretical Focus

◼ Low Level Cognition (memory)

Literature Review

Section 2

Final Report Sections

 Section 2: Literature Review (3 pts)

 Overview of 1st and 2nd Generation methods

◼ Detail of each method is not necessary

◼ Provide background for the field of HRA

 Prior methodological and domain specific work – Discuss advantages and disadvantages (limitations) of prior work.

◼ Prior work (not necessarily HRA) in your application domain (aerospace, healthcare, defense, etc.) to address the problem.

◼ Prior work (not necessarily HRA) to address your problem in other application domains. This should include general work to address problems associated with your theoretical focus in other domains.

Final Report Sections

 Section 2: Literature Review (3 pts)

 Additional Notes

◼ Prior work in the domain should cover any attempts to explore your focus of human

failure outside of HRA.

◼ Expect that an HRA has not been performed previously for your application. Therefore,

stating that fact is not sufficient to address this report requirement

◼ For example, if you’re studying cognitive load in maintenance environment, maybe physical

maintenance slips have been studied before in this domain but not from the perspective of

sensory processing

◼ Prior work in other application domains.

◼ For example, if you’re studying cognitive load in maintenance environments, maybe that has

not been addressed previously, but it has been addressed in other domains (driving, etc.)

Literature Review Recycling Example

 Prior methodological and domain specific work – Discuss advantages and disadvantages (limitations) of prior work.

 Prior work (not necessarily HRA) in your application domain (aerospace, healthcare, defense, etc.) to address the problem. ◼ No prior HRAs in recycling decisions, but…

◼ Research in perception of recycling social benefits and impact on behavior

◼ Research in effectiveness of green education programs on recycling decisions

 Prior work (not necessarily HRA) to address your problem in other application domains. This should include general work to address problems associated with your theoretical focus in other domains. ◼ General research in the area of training performance and memory retrieval based on

training format

◼ General research in the area of training validity for multiple attribute decision making

Theoretical Focus

Section 3

Final Report Sections

 Section 3: Theoretical Focus (4 pts)

 Theory development

◼ Provide background on each theory. Link theories to the scope of the problem focus. Adhere to HW#3 requirements.

 Theory Interaction

◼ Describe the interaction between theories.

 Additional Notes

◼ HW #3. Update if there were major theoretical changes

◼ Similar to the grading of HW #3, points will be deducted if you do not show you have an understanding of the theory beyond the lecture bullet points.

◼ Cite scholarly literature

Recycling Example

Topic Focus Further Developed

 Topic : When, how and why do

recycling errors occur?

◼ Human-System and Human-Artifact

◼ Specific focus on remembering and

applying information on product

categories (training and existing

knowledge)

◼ Theories

◼ Long term memory processing (foundation)

◼ Similarity matching

◼ Frequency effect

◼ Recency effect

Recycling Example

Topic Focus Further Developed

Encoding

• STM – Primarily visual

• LTM - Primarily semantic (meaning), but also visual and acoustic

Storage

• STM - Sequential storage

• LTM – Stored using association

Retrieval

• STM – Sequential retrieval

• LTM – Retrieval using association

input output

Final Report Sections

 Section 4: HRA Components (6 pts)

 Task Analysis - Adhere to HW#4 requirements. ◼ Develop a cognitive task analysis and justify the content and formatting (hierarchical, procedural,

both).

◼ Provide a textual or diagrammatic representation of the process driven by the theoretical foundation.

◼ Justify the formatting, flow, taxonomy verbs, and cognitive theoretical scope of the task analysis.

 Unsafe Acts - Adhere to HW #5 requirements. ◼ Develop a comprehensive list of unsafe acts for your problem categorized by Reason’s Error

Classification. The unsafe acts should be linked to each task.

◼ Justify the selection of the UAs and the link to the theoretical focus.

 PSFs - Adhere to HW #5 requirements. ◼ Develop a list of PSFs linked to the unsafe acts. Describe each PSF and justify the link to each UA.

 Summary Table - Adhere to HW #5 requirements.

Final Report Sections

 Section 4: HRA Components (6 pts)

 Additional Notes

◼ HW #4 and #5 integration. Update if there were major changes. Address HW

requirements for any updates.

◼ Written justification is the most important piece of this section

Recycling Example

Task Analysis

 Actions take place predominantly on

Bloom’s taxonomy lower levels

 Knowledge – Remember info

 Comprehension – Understand info

 Application – Use of rules to apply info

Recycling Example

Task Analysis

Start 1. Encode the

meaning of

product rules

Comprehension

2. Store

product rules

Knowledge

3. Retrieve

product rules

Knowledge

4. Apply rules

Application

End

Recycling Example

Task Analysis

1. Encode the meaning

of product rules Expansion of Task 1

Comprehension

1.2 Associate

characteristics with

rules

Comprehension

1.1 Identify

product

characteristics

Comprehension

Recycling Example

Task Analysis

3. Retrieve product rules Expansion of Task 3

Knowledge

3.2 Associate

existing rules with

current

characteristics

Comprehension

3.1 Recall

instances of

characteristics

Comprehension

3.1.1 Recall frequency of prior characteristics

3.1.2 Recall similarity of prior characteristics with

current characteristics

Plan 3.1: Do 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in any order

Recycling Example

Task Analysis

4. Apply rules Expansion of Task 4

4.1 Choose disposal category

4.2 Choose disposal technique

Plan 4: Do 4.1 and 4.2 in

any order

Application

Unsafe Acts

 Develop a comprehensive list of unsafe acts for your problem

categorized by Reason’s Error Classification. The unsafe acts

should be linked to each task.

 Justify the selection of the UAs and the link to the theoretical

focus.

Recycling Example

Unsafe Acts

 1.1 Identify product characteristics

 Recycler does not have prior experience– RBM

 Not identifiable through sensory input - RBM

 1. 2 Associate characteristics with rules

 Recycler did not receive appropriate training - RBM

 Recycler does not remember training - SBM

Recycling Example

Unsafe Acts

 3.1.1 Recall frequency of prior characteristics

 Product categories are disproportionally represented in memory – SBM

 Events that occurred in distant memory are forgotten - SBM

 3.1.2 Recall similarity of prior characteristics with current characteristics

 Recycler is unable to link similar characteristics because materials have changed over time – RBM

 Similarity matching is confused by product categories with several types of materials – RBM

 3.2 Associate existing rules with current characteristics

 Regulations have changed and the rules are no longer valid - RBM

 The rules are still valid, but are applied to the wrong product category - RBM

 The rules have been incorrectly formed - RBM

Recycling Example

Unsafe Acts

 4.1 Choose disposal category

 A disposal option is not available- RBM

 A new disposal category is presented that confused the recycler - RBM

 4.2 Choose disposal technique

 Recycler does not know how to implement disposal category–

KBM/RBM

 Recycler knows how to implement the disposal category but does

not have the necessary tools - RBM

PSFs

 Develop a list of PSFs linked to the unsafe acts. Describe each PSF and

justify the link to each UA.

 Notes:

 Each UA should have a PSF

 PSFs overlap for each UA is expected, but too much repetition is indicative of PSFs that are

too high level

Recycling Example

PSFs

Task Unsafe Act PSF

1.1 Identify product characteristics Recycler does not have prior

experience– RBM

• Level of experience with

recyclable products

Not identifiable through sensory

input - RBM

• Level of product cleanliness

• Salience of product material

characteristics

• Product size

1.2 Associate characteristic with

rules

Recycler did not receive

appropriate training - RBM

• Level of access to training

• Quality of training

Recycler does not remember

training - SBM

• Level of access to training

• Quality of training

• Experience applying training

Recycling Example

PSFs

Task Unsafe Act PSF

3.1.1 Recall frequency of prior

characteristics

Product categories are

disproportionally represented in

memory – SBM

• Product use variability

Events that occurred in distant

memory are forgotten - SBM

• Recency of product recycling

experience

• Frequency of product recycling

experience

3.1.2 Recall similarity of prior

characteristics with current

characteristics

Recycler is unable to link similar

characteristics because materials

have changed over time – RBM

• Recency of product recycling

experience

• Level of product dynamic

characteristics

Similarity matching is confused by

product categories with several

types of materials – RBM

• Product use variability

• Product category variability

Final Report Sections

 Section 5: HRA Method Selection (8 pts)

 Method Selection Questions

◼ Detail answers to each method selection question and discuss how each

question is linked to HRA components identified in Section 4.

◼ Based on the method selection questions, do existing methods meet the

modeling needs of your problem? If not, discuss missing criteria.

Final Report Sections

 Section 5: HRA Method Selection (8 pts)

 HRA Method Overview ◼ Justification for Adapting and/or Combining Methods: If all criteria were not met during

HRA method selection, discuss how you will adapt or combine HRA methods.

◼ Justification for Use of Existing Method: If you use an existing method that has not been modified for your project (all criteria met), you must justify why the method is adequate in its current state to solve the problem.

◼ Implementation Overview: For both adapted and non-adapted (existing) HRA methods, provide detail on how to implement each step of your method. ◼ Walk through the entire process (detailed methodological guideline for implementation by a

practitioner)

 Additional Notes

◼ Discuss inclusion/exclusion of each method based on overlapping coverage

◼ You must demonstrate written knowledge of the method in full detail

Method Selection

 Are generic or context/operator-specific tasks required?

 Are generic or context/operator-specific PSFs required?

 What types of PSFs are required (theoretical levels)?

 Is a screening method required?

 What type of HEP source is appropriate (analysis or method)?

 Is current data available (type, source)? Describe the data.

 If not available, provide detail on the data collection approach that will be used to collect new data.

 Are task and PSF dependencies necessary?

 Is consideration of error recovery a necessary component?

 Do uncertainty bounds need to be estimated?

 What knowledge level is required for HRA implementation?

 Has this method been validated for the context in question?

 Is a software implementation tool available?

Are generic or context/operator-specific tasks

required?

Method Task Decomposition PSF List (number)

Coverage

1: Physical

2: Cognitive

3: Organizational

THERP Nuclear operation specific tasks 3+ 1 and 3

NARA 14 generic tasks 18 1, 2, and 3

SPAR-H Diagnosis, Action 8 1, 2, and 3

ASEP Diagnosis, Action

Based on THERP

1(limited),

2(limited),

3(limited)

CREAM 15 generic tasks (task types) 9 1, 2, and 3

Are generic or context/operator-specific tasks

required?

 Determine if your tasks are specific or generic (generalizable)

 If they are generic, then try to match them with existing tasks in the

generic model

 If they don’t match completely, then method modifications will have to be

made. You must describe those modifications qualitatively and quantitatively

 If they are specific, then….

 Select a method that accepts specific tasks (SPAR-H)

 OR modify generic method tasks to be more specific

◼ Again, you must describe how this would be done qualitatively and quantitatively

Recycling Example

Method Selection

 Methods under consideration (specific tasks)

 SPAR-H

◼ Allows the task descriptions and cognitive detail to be retained in an unmodified

form

 CREAM

◼ Can be linked to the high level cognitive categories identified in Bloom’s taxonomy

◼ Identify, Associate and Choose are represented

◼ Recall (lowest level of Bloom’s taxonomy) is not directly represented

◼ Could be included as part of Identify (low level CREAM task)

◼ OR could be added as a NEW category that will be empirically defined

Definitions of CREAM Cognitive Activities

Cognitive

Activity

General Definition

Co-ordinate Bring system states and/or control configurations into the specific relation required to carry out a task or task

step. Allocate or select resources in preparation for a task/job, calibrate equipment, etc.

Communicate Pass on or receive person-to-person information needed for system operation by either verbal, electronic or

mechanical means. Communication is an essential part of management

Compare

(Associate)

Examine the qualities of two or more entities (measurements) with the aim of discovering similarities or

differences. The comparison may require calculation.

Diagnosis Recognize or determine the nature or cause of a condition by means of reasoning about signs or symptoms

or by the performance of appropriate tests. “Diagnosis” is more thorough than “identify”.

Evaluate Appraise or assess an actual or hypothetical situation, based on available information without requiring

special operations. Related terms are “inspect” and “check”.

Execute

(Choose)

Perform a previously specified action or plan. Execution comprises actions such as open/close, start/stop,

fill/drain, etc.

Identify

(Identify)

Establish the identity of a plant state or sub-system (component) state. This may involve specific operations to

retrieve information and investigate details. “Identify” is more thorough than “evaluate”.

Definitions of CREAM Cognitive Activities

Cognitive

Activity

General Definition

Maintain Sustain a specific operational state. (This is different from maintenance that is generally an off-line activity)

Monitor Keep track of system states over time, or follow the development of a set of parameters

Observe Look for or read specific measurement values of system indications.

Plan Formulate or organize a set of actions by which a goal will be successfully achieved. Plan may be short-term

or long-term.

Record Write down or log system events, measurements, etc.

Regulate Alter speed or direction of a control (system) in order to attain a goal. Adjust or position components or

subsystems to reach a target state.

Scan Quick or speedy review of displays or other information source(s) to obtain a general impression of the state

of a system/sub-system.

Verify Confirm the correctness of a system condition or measurement, either by inspection or test. This also includes

the feedback from prior operations.

Are generic or context/operator-specific PSFs

required?

Method Task Decomposition PSF List (number)

Coverage

1: Physical

2: Cognitive

3: Organizational

THERP Nuclear operation specific tasks 3+ 1 and 3

NARA 14 generic tasks 18 1, 2, and 3

SPAR-H Diagnosis, Action 8 1, 2, and 3

ASEP Diagnosis, Action

Based on THERP

1(limited),

2(limited),

3(limited)

CREAM 15 generic tasks (task types) 9 1, 2, and 3

Are generic or context/operator-specific PSFs

required?

 First, determine if your PSFs are specific or if they are generic

(generalizable)

 If they are generic, then map then onto the generic method PSFs

 Justify the mapping

 If there are any missing generic factors, discuss how this will be handled (i.e.,

added into the method)

 If they are specific, and you chose to map them onto generic PSFs,

then you must justify why this is appropriate and why you are not

loosing critical context-specific information

Are generic or context/operator-specific PSFs

required?

 Context-Specific PSFs  Level of experience with recyclable products  Level of product cleanliness  Salience of product material characteristics  Product size  Level of access to training  Quality of training  Experience applying training  Recency of product recycling experience  Frequency of product recycling experience  Level of product dynamic characteristics  Product use variability  Product category variability

 SPAR-H PSFs

 Available time

 Stress/stressors

 Complexity

 Experience/training

 Procedures

 Ergonomics/HMI

 Fitness for Duty

 Work Processes

vs.

Are generic or context/operator-specific PSFs

required?

 CREAM PSFs (CPCs)  Adequacy of org

 Working conditions

 Adequacy of MMI and operational support

 Availability of procedures/plans

 Number of simultaneous goals

 Available times

 Time of day

 Adequacy of training and preparation

 Crew collaboration quality

vs.

Recycling Example

Method Selection

 Methods under consideration (specific PSFs)

 SPAR-H and CREAM

 No methods encompass the multiple PSF dimensions of the training and

product experience necessary

 Generic PSFs would compile all training PSFs into one and all experience

PSFs into one

◼ Significant replication, no HEP differentiation for each task

Recycling Example

Method Selection

 Is a screening method required?

 NO

 While the number of PSFs is high, the number of tasks is low

 Screening methods do not account for the specific PSFs and might exclude a

tasks that should be analyzed further

What type of HEP source is appropriate?

 If you selected to use existing generic tasks, then the source is the

method

 If you selected to use your specific tasks and/or specific PSFs, then you

must collect new data and the source will be drawn from analysis

 OR it could be a combination of both

 Generic tasks integrated with specific PSFs

 Specific tasks integrated with generic PSFs

 Step 3: Identify

associated

human functions

x x x

Recycling Example

Method Selection

 Is current data available?

 NO

 Use CREAM Generic Task HEP values

 Empirically collect data for PSFs

 Are task and PSF dependencies necessary?

 Yes-tasks are serial

 Yes-PSFs maybe correlated

◼ This has to be statistically explored in the empirical data collection

Recycling Example

Method Selection

 Do uncertainty bounds need to be estimated?

 Yes – reliability of predictions is important for this scenario

 What knowledge level is required for HRA implementation?

 Moderate training is required for CREAM implementation

◼ In-house Human Factors expert or consulting firm would suffice

 Higher training levels requires for PSF empirical quantification

◼ In-house Human Factors expert with field training or consulting firm

Recycling Example

Method Selection

 Has this method been validated for the context in question?

 NO

 Is a software implementation tool available?

 YES

 However, the CREAM navigator tool requires the use of existing PSFs which

will not be used in this case

Final Report Sections

 Section 5: HRA Method Selection (8 pts)

 PSF Quantification - This can be discussed as part of the HRA method overview or discussed in its own section. ◼ Strategy Overview and Justification: Describe your data collection strategy. Provide an overview of

how new and/or existing data will be collected and integrated in the selected HRA method. ◼ Discuss why you have chosen this particular data collection approach instead of others.

◼ PSF Quantification Table: Include a table or bulleted list to detail how you plan to quantify each PSF identified in the HRA component integration.

◼ If existing data produced by a HRA method or derived from a database will be used instead of creating new data, this must be explicitly stated with a justification of why the existing data is contextually relevant for your problem focus.

◼ If new data will be collected, address study planning (population, recruitment, etc.). This is only required if you will not solely use data produced by the method or an existing database.

 Additional Notes ◼ Each PSF must include a detailed individual plan for data collection through one of the data collection

methods discussed in lecture.

◼ This section is required, even if you are using data produced by the method. You must still detail how each PSF will be quantified.

Data Collection

 You must detail the following:

1. Type of data collection (existing data, new data, static, longitudinal)

2. Type of variables (objective vs. subjective)

3. Type of subject (inclusion/exclusion criteria and stratification)

4. Type of subject recruitment (large vs. small recruitment network)

5. Number of subjects (power analysis or estimation)

6. Time requirement (collection, subject providing data, data input)

7. Cost of data collection (manpower, subject compensation, data access fees)

8. Risks (subject’s emotional, financial, health risks, risks to the data collection)

Only

new data

Recycling Example

Data Collection

 Field Data Collection (PSFs)

 Controlled field environment (i.e., organization with recycling program)

 Employees of organization will be covertly observed through video monitoring

◼ Video will capture errors for each participant

◼ Recycling will be filtered through a shoot with a trash analyst on the receiving end recording accuracy, material properties, cleanliness, and size

◼ After recycling activity is complete, a survey will be provided to quantify the PSFs associated with recycling experience

◼ Survey can also be used to quantify HEP specifically for RECALL tasks

◼ Not appropriately captured in CREAM

 Expert Elicitation

 Training assessment and trash analysis

Recycling Example

PSFs Task Unsafe Act PSF Data Collection

1.1 Identify

product

characteristics

Recycler does not

have prior

experience– RBM

• Level of experience with

recyclable products

• Survey measure

Not identifiable

through sensory

input - RBM

• Level of product cleanliness

• Salience of product material

characteristics

• Product size

• Expert elicitation likert

scale (experts are trash

analysts)

1.2 Associate

characteristic with

rules

Recycler did not

receive

appropriate

training - RBM

• Level of access to training

• Quality of training

• Expert elicitation likert

scale (experts are recycling

program admins)

Recycler does not

remember training

- SBM

• Level of access to training

• Quality of training

• Experience applying training

• Training access/quailty-

Expert elicitation (program

admins)

• Training experience –

participant survey

Recycling Example

Data Collection

 Empirical Study Planning

 Types of variables

◼ Objective data: expert elicitation for trash analysis

◼ Subjective data: participant surveys and expert elicitation of recycling program

 Type of subject

◼ Anyone over the age of 18

◼ Inclusion: employment in organization

◼ No stratification

 Type of subject recruitment (small recruitment network)

◼ Participants (recyclers) will be consented after recycling to participate in the survey

◼ Experts will be recruited from within the organization

Recycling Example

Data Collection

 Empirical Study Planning

 Number of subjects

◼ 5x the number of prognostic variables (PSFs=12)

◼ At least 60 subjects targeted for enrollment

 Type of data collection

◼ Create new data

◼ Static data

 Time requirements

◼ Data collection may take 2-3 days based on the size of the organization and the volume of individuals visiting the covertly monitored recycling station

◼ Data input can be reduced by having participants input survey questions in a tablet for automatic processing

Recycling Example

Data Collection

 Empirical Study Planning

 Cost

◼ Since this is an internal organizational initiative, participants will not be

compensated

◼ Data collectors (trash analysts) may require additional compensation if janitorial

support within the organization is not used

◼ A consulting firm may need to be hired to implement the empirical study protocol

and integrate data into CREAM

◼ Largest cost

Recycling Example

Data Collection

 Risks

 Social stigmas associated with being caught not properly recycling

◼ May not accurately respond to surveys

 Recycling program admins may not accurately report on the quality and

accessibility of their program

◼ Bias can be reduced by bringing in an outside evaluator

 Consulting firm costs may be excessive

 There may be difficulty linking video surveillance to trash analyst results

Final Report Sections

 Section 6: Risk Mitigation (5 pts)

 Risk Prioritization

◼ Describe how the output of the HRA method (HEP) will quantitatively inform structured risk mitigation strategies. How will the most important risks be identified and prioritized?

 Risk Mitigation Strategy

◼ What risk mitigation strategies are appropriate (control, persuade, etc.)? Provide in tabular or bulleted form. Include a risk mitigation strategy for each identified unsafe act.

 Discuss how the risk mitigation strategies will differ based on the assigned PSFs for each task. How will you target different strategies based on the characteristics of the human population?

Final Report Sections

 Section 6: Risk Mitigation (5 pts)

 Additional Notes

◼ Consider how decision makers will use the information generated by the method

◼ Points will be deducted for lack of detail in the risk mitigation plans and direct

connection to each tabular line (PSFs and UAs)

◼ Points will be deducted if a heterogeneous target population is treated as

homogeneous

Risk Mitigation

 Notes:

 If a task has multiple UAs, then there will be multiple mitigation strategies for that task

◼ A strategy must be developed for each identified UA

◼ Overlap is expected but too much overlap in indicative of a strategy that lacks detail

 Address mitigation considerations using the questions below for each identified strategy

◼ Mitigation feasibility

◼ Can the risk be mitigated?

◼ Availability of time, financial, equipment and personnel resources

◼ How much will risk mitigation cost?

◼ The human safety and financial consequences of un-mitigated risk leading to human error

◼ How much will human error cost?

◼ The potential for unmitigated recovery from an unsafe act

◼ Will the risk resolve itself?

Risk Mitigation

• Inform

• Advise

• Build awareness

• Encourage

• Debunk myths and

misconceptions

• Set environmental

and physical context

• Design

• Engineer

• Availability

• Distribution

• Legislate

• Regulate

• Enforce

• Tax

• Require

• Set Standards

• Engage

• Motivate

• Create positive

attitude

• Put the issue on the

agenda

Control Educate

DesignPersuade

4 Risk Mitigation Categories

Recycling Example

Risk Mitigation

Task Unsafe Act PSF Risk Mitigation

1.1 Identify

product

characteristics

Recycler does not

have prior

experience– RBM

• Level of experience with

recyclable products

• Educate – include detailed

information on product

characteristics in training

materials

Not identifiable

through sensory

input - RBM

• Level of product cleanliness

• Salience of product

material characteristics

• Product size

• Educate – include tactile and

visual training to identify product

characteristics

1.2 Associate

characteristic

with rules

Recycler did not

receive

appropriate

training - RBM

• Level of access to training

• Quality of training

• Educate – provide several forms

of accessibility (web, onsite, etc.)

• Educate – evaluate quality

through user feedback

• Persuade/Control – provide

positive incentivizing to learn

rules through org programs

Recycling Example

Risk Mitigation

 Educate – include detailed information on product characteristics in training materials  Cost - minimal

 Consequences of unmitigated recovery – significant

 Potential for unmitigated recovery – not likely if there isn’t a reinforcement mechanism

 Educate – include tactile and visual training to identify product characteristics  Cost – moderate (may need to bring in outside experts to train)

 Consequences of unmitigated recovery – moderate

 Potential for unmitigated recovery – not likely if there isn’t a reinforcement mechanism

Final Report Sections

 Section 7: Discussion (3 pts)  Implementation Considerations

◼ How will the method be implemented in practice (policies, procedures, etc.)?

◼ Who will implement the method and what training will be provided?

◼ What is the amount of computational work and expertise required for the application?

◼ Stakeholder Acceptance ◼ How will stakeholder acceptance be addressed?

 Additional Notes  Place yourself in the shoes of a manager tasked with overseeing the HRA

implementation and justifying it’s practicality to stakeholders

Recycling Example

Discussion

 Implications and Stakeholder Acceptance

 Organizations with already existing recycling programs will be accepting of

the HRA (inclusion criteria)

◼ Organizations with aggressive state or federal green incentives

◼ Organizations with strong sustainability efforts

 Organizations must have an existing infrastructure for implementing changes

◼ Existing recycling program

◼ Existing funding structure to implement changes

Final Report Sections

 Section 7: Discussion (3 pts)

 HRA Limitations ◼ What are the limitations of the proposed theoretical scope (what’s not included)?

 What are the limitations of the HRA components and data collection approach (bias, comprehensiveness, etc.)?

 Discuss how you have reduced the impact of these limitations to the largest extent possible

 Additional Notes  Points will be deducted for relevant limitations introduced in class that are not discussed

here

Recycling Example

Discussion

 Limitations

 CREAM HEPs do not directly address the cognitive specificity of each tasks

◼ Some tasks are not directly addressed

 CREAM general HEPs may not directly apply to this specific recycling

situation

 Data subjectivity and bias is introduced by participants

◼ Recyclers and experts

Final Report Sections

 Section 5: Conclusion (4 pts)

 Contribution

◼ The knowledge from this project will improve human reliability in the selected application domain in the following ways…

 Future work

◼ Describe potential extensions of the proposed work.

 If you were to continue this project after class (i.e., move forward to data collection and method implementation), how would you proceed? What are your next immediate steps?

 Additional Notes

 Think beyond the narrow focus of your project

Recycling Example

Discussion

 Contribution

 Short term

◼ Extensive behavioral modeling of recycling errors

◼ Quantified contribution of human error to the organization’s sustainability efforts

 Long Term

◼ Reduction in recycling plant costs associated with recycling errors

◼ Reduction in organizational costs associated with recycling services

◼ If you know what your employees are recycling then you can align services to meet those