Quantification of human error in maintenance using graph theory and matrix approach

Assessment of human error in maintenance requires identification of the contributing factors that lead to human error(s). These factors are called human error inducing factors (HEIFs), which take into consideration both the active and latent error contributing aspects related to man, machine and environment. A systems approach of the Graph Theory is applied in this paper for quantifying human error in maintenance activities that models the identified factors and their interactions/interrelationships in terms of human error digraph. The nodes in the digraph represent the HEIFs and the edges represent their interrelationships. The digraph is converted into an equivalent matrix and an expression based on this is developed, which is characteristic of the human error in maintenance. This expression is used to evaluate a human error index by substituting the numerical value of the factors and their interrelations. The index is a measure of the human error potential involved in the maintenance of systems. A higher value of index indicates that the error likelihood is more for the associated tasks, and more efforts are required to make the system less prone to human error. The proposed methodology is illustrated using a case study. The approach is anticipated to play a significant role in identifying sources of human errors and predicting their impact; and will help to integrate human factors during design stage with the objective of reducing human error in maintenance. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Ann Williamson,et al.  Associations between Errors and Contributing Factors in Aircraft Maintenance , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[2]  D Walter,et al.  Competency-based on-the-job training for aviation maintenance and inspection--a human factors approach. , 2000, International journal of industrial ergonomics.

[3]  Wan Chul Yoon,et al.  The training effects of principle knowledge on fault diagnosis performance: Research Articles , 2007 .

[4]  D A Wiegmann,et al.  Human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents: application of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification system (HFACS). , 2001, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[5]  Scott A. Shappell,et al.  The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System : HFACS : final report. , 2000 .

[6]  D. C. Hendershot Lessons from Human Error Incidents in Process Plants , 2006 .

[7]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  Charles Perrow,et al.  Normal accident at three Mile Island , 1981 .

[9]  J. Reason,et al.  Modelling the basic error tendencies of human operators , 1988 .

[10]  T M Wu,et al.  Maintenance error reduction strategies in nuclear power plants, using root cause analysis. , 1989, Applied ergonomics.

[11]  Scott A. Shappell,et al.  A Human Error Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) , 2001 .

[12]  Sheue-Ling Hwang,et al.  Evaluation and prediction of on-line maintenance workload in nuclear power plants , 2009 .

[13]  Chang Hyun Chung,et al.  Analysis of human error and organizational deficiency in events considering risk significance , 2004 .

[14]  Tom Kontogiannis,et al.  A proactive approach to human error detection and identification in aviation and air traffic control , 2009 .

[15]  Pia Oedewald,et al.  Assessing the maintenance unit of a nuclear power plant -- identifying the cultural conceptions concerning the maintenance work and the maintenance organization , 2006 .

[16]  H. Matsuyama,et al.  Fault diagnosis method using a signed digraph for multiple origins of failures - evaluation of the diagnosis accuracy - , 2006, 2006 IEEE Conference on Computer Aided Control System Design, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control.

[17]  Alan Hobbs Latent Failures in the Hangar: Uncovering Organizational Deficiencies in Maintenance Operations , 2004 .

[18]  Pia Oedewald,et al.  Measuring maintenance culture and maintenance core task with CULTURE-questionnaire––a case study in the power industry , 2004 .

[19]  Jaewhan Kim,et al.  Characteristics of test and maintenance human errors leading to unplanned reactor trips in nuclear power plants , 2009 .

[20]  M. F. Wani,et al.  Development of maintainability index for mechanical systems , 1999 .

[21]  M. Paté-Cornell Learning from the Piper Alpha Accident: A Postmortem Analysis of Technical and Organizational Factors , 1993 .

[22]  Wan Chul Yoon,et al.  The training effects of principle knowledge on fault diagnosis performance , 2007 .

[23]  Ioannis A. Papazoglou,et al.  On the quantification of the effects of organizational and management factors in chemical installations , 1999 .

[24]  Balbir S. Dhillon Human errors: A review , 1989 .

[25]  H. Ryser,et al.  Matrix factorizations of determinants and permanents , 1966 .

[26]  Katharina Löwe,et al.  Increasing Human Reliability in the Chemical Process Industry Using Human Factors Techniques , 2006 .

[27]  Rachael Gordon,et al.  The contribution of human factors to accidents in the offshore oil industry , 1998 .

[28]  Takashi Toriizuka,et al.  Application of performance shaping factor (PSF) for work improvement in industrial plant maintenance tasks , 2001 .

[29]  Prasad V. Prabhu,et al.  A review of human error in aviation maintenance and inspection , 2000 .

[30]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Human errors. a taxonomy for describing human malfunction in industrial installations , 1982 .

[31]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  A graph-theoretic approach to conceptual design with functional perspectives , 2000, Comput. Aided Des..