Incorporating human factors into a simplified "bow-tie" approach for workplace risk assessment.

The aim of this paper is to provide a simple methodological tool for the incorporation of human factors in the process of risk assessment. This attempt takes place through a simplified quantification scheme including various affecting factors for intentional and unintentional human behavior in risky situations. This scheme is simple and autonomous and it can be applied in a “bow-tie” analysis. It produces numerical coefficients to adjust “nominal” estimated probabilities in order to take the impact of human factors into account. Although the whole approach lacks theoretical accuracy, it remains simple and proper for risk assessment in small scale workplaces. A simple example for the application of this tool is also presented.

[1]  N. Pidgeon.  Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk perception research , 1998 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[3]  Terje Aven,et al.  Perspectives on risk: review and discussion of the basis for establishing a unified and holistic approach , 2005, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[4]  Ann Willamson,et al.  Behavioural epidemiology as a tool for accident research , 1990 .

[5]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[6]  Michael J. Wright,et al.  Auditing — a European perspective , 1994 .

[7]  Scott Highhouse,et al.  Looking Closer at the Effects of Framing on Risky Choice: An Item Response Theory Analysis. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[8]  David C. Nagel,et al.  Human factors in aviation , 1988 .

[9]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[10]  Ioannis A. Papazoglou,et al.  Modeling accidents for prioritizing prevention , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[11]  Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck,et al.  The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[12]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive reliability and error analysis method , 1998 .

[13]  P. Comer.  11th Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium , 1990 .

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

[15]  Peter Hasle,et al.  Working in small enterprises - Is there a special risk? , 2007 .

[16]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[17]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights , 1990 .

[18]  Wang.  Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains , 1996, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[19]  Pietro Carlo Cacciabue,et al.  Human error risk management for engineering systems: a methodology for design, safety assessment, accident investigation and training , 2004, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

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

[21]  T. Baranowski,et al.  Beliefs as Motivational Influences at Stages in Behavior Change , 1992, International quarterly of community health education.

[22]  Ioannis A. Papazoglou,et al.  A logical model for quantification of occupational risk , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..