Matrix Approach to Analysis of Human Errors and their Prevention by Quality Engineering and Managerial Tools

We apply well-known quality engineering matrix techniques such as quality function deployment; Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch (TRIZ); and failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis for characterizing, mapping, and preventing human error (or, at least, reducing damage caused by errors). Human errors (‘WHATs’, in the language of quality function deployment) are classified according to 10 characteristics, while 20 typical types (or protective layers)—‘HOWs’—in quality assurance systems are proposed for preventing/stopping/minimizing to some extent damage caused by the error. During the analysis of a specific system, any error is estimated according to its likelihood and severity, and every protective layer receives a score according to its effectiveness in preventing errors. Synergy or antagonism between protective layers may also be taken into account when calculating the effectiveness. The approach facilitates evaluation and comparison of the effectiveness of different quality assurance systems dealing with human errors. The authors emphasize the need to create a ‘recipe book’ based on a historical database, which will enable, after characterizing the potential human errors according to the 10 criteria mentioned earlier, application of the optimal prevention efforts. The proposed approach is illustrated by an example of product delivery errors analysis. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  J. Baron.  Normative Models of Judgment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[2]  Shuki Dror,et al.  HOUSE OF SECURITY: A STRUCTURED SYSTEM DESIGN & ANALYSIS APPROACH , 2012 .

[3]  Xin Huang,et al.  An Experimental Method Study of User Error Classification in Human-computer Interface , 2013, J. Softw..

[4]  Miryam Barad,et al.  House of Strategy (HOS): from strategic objectives to competitve priorities , 2006 .

[5]  Jie Yang,et al.  Integration TRIZ with problem-solving tools: a literature review from 1995 to 2006 , 2006 .

[6]  Shuki Dror,et al.  Effectiveness of a Product Quality Classifier , 2007 .

[7]  Jan M. Myszewski.  Management responsibility for human errors , 2012 .

[8]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  Prioritisation of engineering characteristics in QFD in the case of customer requirements orderings , 2015 .

[9]  Ming-Lu Wu,et al.  Quality function deployment: A literature review , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Ilya Kuselman,et al.  House-of-security approach to measurement in analytical chemistry: quantification of human error using expert judgments , 2013, Accreditation and Quality Assurance.

[11]  Peter A. Wieringa,et al.  PREHEP: human error probability based process unit selection , 2001, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst..

[12]  Ilya Kuselman,et al.  Scenarios of human errors and their quantification in multi-residue analysis of pesticides in fruits and vegetables , 2014, Accreditation and Quality Assurance.

[13]  Glenn H. Mazur,et al.  The leading edge in QFD: past, present and future , 2003 .

[14]  Ilya Kuselman,et al.  Human errors and reliability of test results in analytical chemistry , 2013, Accreditation and Quality Assurance.

[15]  Christophe Kolski,et al.  Design of a human-error-tolerant interface using fuzzy logic , 2000 .

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  The simulation heuristic , 1982 .

[17]  Sidney Dekker,et al.  The Field Guide to Understanding 'Human Error' , 2014 .

[18]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Coping with Human Errors through System Design: Implications for Ecological Interface Design , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[19]  A. D. Swain,et al.  Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report , 1983 .