Suggested improvements to the definitions of Standardized Plant Analysis of Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) performance shaping factors, their levels and multipliers and the nominal tasks

This paper discusses the definitions and content of eight performance shaping factors (PSFs) used in Standardized Plant Analysis of Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) and their levels and multipliers. Definitions of nominal tasks are also discussed. The discussion is based on a review of literature on PSFs, interviews with consultants who have carried out SPAR-H analysis in the petroleum industry and an evaluation of human reliability analysis reports based on SPAR-H analysis. We concluded that SPAR-H definitions and descriptions of the PSFs are unclear and overlap too much, making it difficult for the analyst to choose between them and select the appropriate level. This reduces inter-rater reliability and thus the consistency of SPAR-H analyses. New definitions of the PSFs, levels and multipliers are suggested with the aim to develop more specific definitions of the PSFs in order to increase the inter-rater reliability of SPAR-H. Another aim was to construct more varied and more nuanced levels and multipliers to improve the capacity of SPAR-H analysis to capture the degree of difficulty faced by operators in different scenarios. We also suggest that only one of two nominal SPAR-H tasks should be retained owing to the difficulty in distinguishing between them.

[1]  Oliver Sträter,et al.  Evaluation of New Developments in Cognitive Error Modeling and Quantification: Time Reliability Correlation , 1996 .

[2]  Frank W Guldenmund,et al.  (Mis)understanding Safety Culture and Its Relationship to Safety Management , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  Icek Ajzen,et al.  From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior , 1985 .

[4]  R. L. Brune,et al.  Peer-review study of the draft handbook for human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear-power-plant applications, NUREG/CR-1278 , 1983 .

[5]  Craig Johnson,et al.  Development of Quantitative Specifications for Simulating the Stress Environment , 1992 .

[6]  S Folkard,et al.  Rest breaks and accident risk , 2003, The Lancet.

[7]  J. Hunter,et al.  Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance , 1984 .

[8]  Ronald L. Boring How Many Performance Shaping Factors are Necessary for Human Reliability Analysis , 2010 .

[9]  The origins of the SPAR-H method’s performance shaping factor multipliers , 2007, 2007 IEEE 8th Human Factors and Power Plants and HPRCT 13th Annual Meeting.

[10]  Winston Bennett,et al.  Factors That Influence Skill Decay and Retention: A Quantitative Review and Analysis , 1998 .

[11]  P. Hancock,et al.  Noise effects on human performance: a meta-analytic synthesis. , 2011, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  The Science of Training and Development in Organizations , 2012, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

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

[14]  June J. Pilcher,et al.  Effects of hot and cold temperature exposure on performance: a meta-analytic review , 2002, Ergonomics.

[15]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  John A. Forester,et al.  Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Method Evaluation Based on the Good Practices in NUREG-17921 (PSAM-0415) , 2006 .

[17]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

[18]  John M. O'Hara,et al.  Computer-Based Procedure Systems: Technical Basis and Human Factors Review Guidance , 2000 .

[19]  Colin Summerhayes,et al.  Deep Water – The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling , 2011 .

[20]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Automatic and controlled processing revisited. , 1984, Psychological review.

[21]  Mark S. Teachout,et al.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK EXPERIENCE AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A CONCEPTUAL AND META‐ANALYTIC REVIEW , 1995 .

[22]  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,.

[23]  Ann Williamson,et al.  The link between fatigue and safety. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[24]  James L. Szalma,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Performance Response Under Thermal Stressors , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[25]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

[26]  Dana E. Sims,et al.  Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork? , 2005 .

[27]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[28]  Ronald L. Boring,et al.  SPAR-H Step-by-Step Guidance , 2011 .

[29]  Simon Folkard,et al.  Modeling the impact of the components of long work hours on injuries and "accidents". , 2006, American journal of industrial medicine.

[30]  Karin Laumann,et al.  Task complexity as a performance shaping factor: A review and recommendations in Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) adaption , 2015 .

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

[32]  Wondea Jung,et al.  A taxonomy of performance influencing factors for human reliability analysis of emergency tasks , 2003 .