A model-based human reliability analysis methodology (phoenix method)

Title of Document: A MODEL-BASED HUMAN RELIABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (PHOENIX METHOD) Nsimah Joseph Ekanem, Ph.D., 2013 Directed By: Professor Ali Mosleh, Department of Mechanical Engineering Despite the advances made so far in developing human reliability analysis (HRA) methods, many issues still exist. Most notable are; the lack of an explicit causal model that incorporates relevant psychological and cognitive theories in its core human performance model, inability to explicitly model interdependencies between human failure events (HFEs) and influencing factors on human performance, lack of consistency, traceability and reproducibility in HRA analysis. These issues amongst others have contributed to the variability in results seen in the application of different HRA methods and even in cases where the same method is applied by different analysts. In an attempt to address these issues, a framework for a model-based HRA methodology has been recently proposed which incorporates strong elements of current HRA good practices, leverages lessons learned from empirical studies and the best features of existing and emerging HRA methods. This research completely develops this methodology which is aimed at enabling a more credible, consistent, and accurate qualitative and quantitative HRA analysis. The complete qualitative analysis procedure (including a hierarchical performance influencing factor set) and a causal model using Bayesian Belief network (BBN) have been developed to explicitly model the influence and dependencies among HFEs and the different factors that influence human performance. This model has the flexibility to be modified for interfacing with existing methods like Standard-Plant-Analysis-Risk-HRA-method. Also, the quantitative analysis procedure has been developed, incorporating a methodology for a cause-based explicit treatment of dependencies among HFEs, which has not been adequately addressed by any other HRA method. As part of this research, information has been gathered from sources (including other HRA methods, NPP operating experience, expert estimates), analyzed and aggregated to provide estimates for the model parameters needed for quantification. While the specific instance of this HRA method is used in nuclear power plants, the methodology itself is generic and can be applied in other environments. A MODEL-BASED HUMAN RELIABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (PHOENIX METHOD)

[1]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive reliability and error analysis method : CREAM , 1998 .

[2]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  The Assessment of Probability Distributions from Expert Opinions with an Application to Seismic Fragility Curves , 1986 .

[3]  Laura Painton Swiler,et al.  Bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA practice: A Bayesian network version of SPAR-H , 2013, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[4]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[5]  Katrina M. Groth,et al.  A DATA-INFORMED MODEL OF PERFORMANCE SHAPING FACTORS FOR USE IN HUMAN RELIABILITY ANALYSIS , 2009 .

[6]  Ken Manktelow,et al.  Reasoning and Thinking , 1999 .

[7]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  A Model-Based Approach to HRA: Qualitative Analysis Methodology , 2012 .

[8]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Human Reliability Analysis: Context and Control , 1994 .

[9]  Balbir S. Dhillon.  Human Reliability and Error in Transportation Systems , 2007 .

[10]  Emilie M. Roth,et al.  The SACADA database for human reliability and human performance , 2014, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[11]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  Nuclear Action Reliability Assessment (NARA): A Data-Based HRA Tool , 2005 .

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[13]  David R. Cox.  Gauss and the Arithmetic-Geometric mean , 1985 .

[14]  B. Kirwan,et al.  SLIM-MAUD: an approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgment. Volume I. Overview of SLIM-MAUD , 1984 .

[15]  J. C. Higgins,et al.  Human Factors Considerations with Respect to Emerging Technology in Nuclear Power Plants , 2008 .

[16]  A. D. Swain.  Accident Sequence Evaluation Program: Human reliability analysis procedure , 1987 .

[17]  Norman Crolee Dalkey,et al.  An experimental study of group opinion , 1969 .

[18]  Ramaratnam R Bishu,et al.  On assessing operator response time in human reliability analysis (HRA) using a possibilistic fuzzy regression model , 1996 .

[19]  James Reason,et al.  Human Error , 1990 .

[20]  M. K. Comer,et al.  Generating human reliability estimates using expert judgment. Volume 2. Appendices. [PWR; BWR] , 1984 .

[21]  Ed M. Dougherty,et al.  Is human failure a stochastic process , 1997 .

[22]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Model-based human reliability analysis: prospects and requirements , 2004, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[23]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  A methodology for modeling operator errors of commission in probabilistic risk assessment , 1994 .

[24]  A Mosleh,et al.  Human failure event dependency modeling and quantification: A Bayesian network approach , 2013 .

[25]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Hybrid causal methodology and software platform for probabilistic risk assessment and safety monitoring of socio-technical systems , 2010, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[26]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  A procedure for the analysis of errors of commission in a Probabilistic Safety Assessment of a nuclear power plant at full power , 1995 .

[27]  J. Pearl.  Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[28]  Stacey M. L. Hendrickson,et al.  Bridging Human Reliability Analysis and Psychology, Part 2: A Cognitive Framework to Support HRA , 2012 .

[29]  Mario Hellmich,et al.  Human error probabilities from operational experience of German nuclear power plants , 2013, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[30]  James T. Reason,et al.  Managing the risks of organizational accidents , 1997 .

[31]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 1: Overview of the IDAC Model , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[32]  Ola Svenson,et al.  Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making , 1993 .

[33]  Barnes,et al.  The Human Performance Evaluation Process: A Resource for Reviewing the Identification and Resolution of Human Performance Problems , 2002 .

[34]  Laurence Rognin,et al.  Human communication, mutual awareness and system dependability. Lessons learnt from air-traffic control field studies , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[35]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Fusion, Propagation, and Structuring in Belief Networks , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[36]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Simulation of cognition: applications , 1995 .

[37]  Rebecca Lawton,et al.  Not working to rule: Understanding procedural violations at work , 1998 .

[38]  T. B. Malone,et al.  Human factors evaluation of control room design and operator performance at Three Mile Island-2 , 1980 .

[39]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems - networks of plausible inference , 1991, Morgan Kaufmann series in representation and reasoning.

[40]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  A data-informed PIF hierarchy for model-based Human Reliability Analysis , 2012, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[41]  Stephen G. Green,et al.  Leadership self‐efficacy and managers' motivation for leading change , 2002 .

[42]  A W Gaillard,et al.  Comparing the concepts of mental load and stress. , 1993, Ergonomics.

[43]  Robert E. Ornstein.  The Roots of the Self: Unraveling the Mystery of Who We Are , 1995 .

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

[45]  Gerald W. Lewis.  Critical Incident Stress And Trauma In The Workplace: Recognition... Response... Recovery , 1994 .

[46]  K. W. Hess,et al.  Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Volume Five , 2003 .

[47]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  Nuclear Action Reliability Assessment (Nara), Further Development of a Data-Based Hra Tool , 2008 .

[48]  Stacey M. L. Hendrickson,et al.  A Mid-Layer Model for Human Reliability Analysis: Understanding the Cognitive Causes of Human Failure Events , 2010 .

[49]  Joseph P. Martino,et al.  Technological forecasting for decision making , 1983 .

[50]  Kunihide Sasou,et al.  Modeling of a team's decision-making process , 1996 .

[51]  Finn V. Jensen,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs , 2001, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[52]  Valerie L. Shalin,et al.  Theoretical and pragmatic influences on task analysis methods , 2000 .

[53]  Marek J. Druzdzel,et al.  Elicitation of Probabilities for Belief Networks: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Information , 1995, UAI.

[54]  John F. Lemmer,et al.  Recursive noisy OR - a rule for estimating complex probabilistic interactions , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[55]  C R Paris,et al.  Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis , 2000, Ergonomics.

[56]  Karol G. Ross,et al.  Macrocognition , 2003, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[57]  Gary Herrin,et al.  A guide to practical human reliability assessment , 1996 .

[58]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[59]  Y. Changa,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents . Part 2 : IDAC performance influencing factors model , 2007 .

[60]  A. Mosleh,et al.  A Model-Based Human Reliability Analysis Methodology , 2012 .

[61]  Paul D. Reynolds,et al.  The small group , 1981 .

[62]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  Development and application of a human error identification tool for air traffic control. , 2002, Applied ergonomics.

[63]  Board on Human-Systems Integration.  Workload Transition: Implications for Individual and Team Performance , 1993 .

[64]  Marek J. Druzdzel,et al.  Learning Bayesian network parameters from small data sets: application of Noisy-OR gates , 2001, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[65]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[66]  Stacey M. L. Hendrickson,et al.  Bridging Human Reliability Analysis and Psychology, Part 1: The Psychological Literature Review for the IDHEAS Method , 2012 .

[67]  E. Salas,et al.  Reflections on shared cognition , 2001 .

[68]  M. Paradies,et al.  Development of the NRC`s Human Performance Investigation Process (HPIP). Volume 1, Summary , 1993 .

[69]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks , 2012 .

[70]  Carol Smidts,et al.  The IDA cognitive model for the analysis of nuclear power plant operator response under accident conditions. Part I: problem solving and decision making model , 1997 .

[71]  B. Mullen,et al.  The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. , 1994 .

[72]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  The development of a nuclear chemical plant human reliability management approach: HRMS and JHEDI☆ , 1997 .

[73]  Anders L. Madsen,et al.  Bayesian networks and influence diagrams , 2007 .

[74]  S Salminen,et al.  Human errors in fatal and serious occupational accidents in Finland. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[75]  Chengdong Wang.  Hybrid Causal Logic Methodology for Risk Assessment , 2007 .

[76]  T. Bedford,et al.  Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods , 2001 .

[77]  J.C. Williams,et al.  A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance , 1988, Conference Record for 1988 IEEE Fourth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants,.

[78]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Procedure for the analysis of errors of commission during non-power modes of nuclear power plant operation , 1996 .

[79]  Max Henrion,et al.  Some Practical Issues in Constructing Belief Networks , 1987, UAI.