Understanding Human Error And Accident Causation Theories

1. Briefly describe the motivating theories used from homework #3. If the theories have changed due to feedback on homework #3 or #4, list the new theories and justify their relationship. If the task analysis has changed due to feedback on homework #4, include the new tasks analysis.

2. Develop a comprehensive list of unsafe acts for each task categorized by Reason’s Error Classification. Make note of errors that may fit into multiple categories. Typically, there are many ways that an error can manifest for a specific task. Therefore, more than one unsafe act is expected to be identified for each task in many cases. The bounds of the unsafe act identification should be guided by the selected theories. 

3. Develop a list of PSFs linked to the unsafe acts and tasks. Place the PSFs into categories. The Social, Personal, Organizational, and Technological categories presented in class can be used, or you may develop other categories to better fit your problem context.

4. Justify the selection of unsafe acts and PSFs and why they are appropriate to model your problem. 

5. Include a table to summarize and link the HRA components to the task analysis from homework #4.

Types of Accident Causation Theories

There are theories that explain accident causation by humans which in other terms they mean human error. Some of them are as follows; human factors theory, accident incident theory and systems theory (Redmond, 2011). All these theories seek to explain facts about accident causation.  They are related in that at the end, it’s all about matters that humans have control of (Peter & Rob, 2013). Systems are set up by humans if at any point they cause an accident; the blame goes back to errors made by human beings.

Human error can be classified into two that is intentional and unintentional. Intentional errors are things that human beings ignore to do yet they are parts of preventing accidents, unintentional are things that just happen by mistake the accident occurred as an error but not out of negligence (Orr & Hester, 2012). There are four types unsafe acts that may result to accidents .the four categories are human error, negligent conduct, reckless conduct and violation.     

Ignoring safety procedures is one of the human errors; it happens when someone is aware of the precautions and the procedures to avoid accidents but just ignores and goes ahead without observing such procedures (Corte, Cavedon & Milanese, 2015). People are supposed to follow policies and not to make their own decision. Mental destruction from work can lead to accident causation, it could be that someone has so much in mind making him or her absent minded, the focus is pulled and the procedures are not followed which result to a casualty at the end(Liu & Li, 2014). This kind of error is not intentional and just happens because of the situations one is under.  Another thing is the failure to plan work before starting. Sometimes people are in a hurry to begin an activity without planning on how to go about and the end an accident happens due to lack of pre-planning.  If someone takes shortcuts, the probability of messing up is very high. When carrying out a task and all a person thinks is how to finish it as fast as possible, they opt for shortcuts which have been observed to be so costly at the end.       

Overconfidence is the attitude of thinking that you are too perfect to make a mistake. Even if someone has been in the industry for a long time say a pilot, they should always take precautions just as they did on the first way. The too much confidence in a person can lead to improper procedures (Talbot, Fagerlind & Morris, 2013).One is not supposed to start a task with incomplete instructions on how to go about it. Sometimes, overconfidence could be as a result of someone being praised in the place of work too much. It is advisable to appreciate the efforts of workers but be careful enough not to make the person overconfident. There must be full instructions that should be well understood before starting a task. Poor housekeeping contributes to accident causation as a human error. A house should be well kept and arranged such that there is no danger around when working      

Classification of Human Error

Performance shaping factors are often used to define  why errors are made by human beings , they are also known as performance influencing factors and performance adjustment factors. To know the probability of human error, it can be calculated basing on the performance shaping factors in place. In other terms, human reliability depends on the performance shaping factors to prevent or not prevent human errors. There are a number of performances shaping factors and in this case, the main is accident causation in aircrafts (Talbot, Fagerlind & Morris, 2013). PSFs can exist in four types that are, context independent and context dependent. Context independent refers to those factors that cannot be influenced by the time scale of the event for example training of workers by an institution this refers to the factors that can be influenced by time and depend on the context or situation an example is the environment. These factors can be categorized in many ways depending on the situation and the organization in study. One of the many classifications of PSFs is that it can be categorized into personal, social, organizational, technological, and environmental performance shaping factors. Personal factors are matters that are within the individual and cannot be changed by the situation such as the ability to carry out several tasks at a time. Given any changes in situation, such a value will just remain with the individual; it’s something permanent and only depends on how the person can cope with different environments. Social factors influence the interrelationship between human beings and how they interact with each other. The size of the group is an example such that depending on the number of people within a given area or organization matters and also the leadership present in a place. Organizational factors directly relate to the systems under which human beings are that is the place of work for example rules and regulations governing the organization. A worker has to follow each and every law provided to enable smooth running and a healthy relationship between the employers and workers. Environmental factors are related to the setting, position and situation of the task for example level of destruction. This is environmental as it depends with the place where the person is placed to carry out a certain task and vary with changing situations. In Human Reliability analysis, psfss are used to find out the causes of action. For example when one sees an egg, it will probably bring a chick into existence, now in a critical way, which one causes the other one? Is it the chick that will cause the egg or the egg causing the chick? The factors include training of workers, adapting safety culture, making sure that the activities are well managed, providing safety procedures, making sure that all tools are in a good condition, making sure that the hardware and software are all in a good condition, paying attention, inspection of machines ,familiarizing with a activities, seeking for knowledge, experience and skills among others. These can be put into categories namely personal/organizational/social and technological (Corte, Cavedon & Milanese, 2015). The personal are the things that an individual or a team has to apply when working while technical are matters to do with tools of operation. The table below shows categories of unsafe and performance shaping factors.

Unsafe Acts That May Result in Accidents

Say a child is walking and is in the company of other children, this child will play but the performance shaping factors will depend on both the qualities within him or her and the sociological. If the child has the ability to multi task, that is a persona PSF. Nothing can change about that no matter what, that is something within an individual and remain constant at all time so this child will be able to walk and play at the same time. Another personal PSF in this case is the ability to interact or the level of interaction. It matters as this will determine if this child shall be able to interact and get on well with the group and end up playing together. The size of the group also matters; this is a sociological PSF and can vary from time to time. The size will determine if this child is going to get in and if the child perceives that danger is less severe in larger groups, probably the child will go for it. During an act, one can be able or try to predict chance of death or a serious injury and Performance Shaping Factors are the ones that will help avoid such risks or measure the probability level. However, the actual risk can be more than the perceived risk. One can underestimate the possibility of a risk resulting from a kind of unsafe acts.  It will depend with the individual’s analytical ability .the person shall be able to analyze the risk as per the level of knowledge he or she has over the matter or past experience. In an organizational context, it will depend on the accuracy of data taken on the particular issue at hand. Technological performance shaping factors will also come in that the machines used to collect data will determine the accuracy and experimental actions.

(Talbot, Fagerlind & Morris, 2013)

The chosen unsafe acts and performance shaping factors are relevant to the problem at hand which accident causation in aircrafts is (Corte, Cavedon & Milanese, 2015).. Accidents happen due to intended errors or unintentional as categorized above. The solutions given to these accident causing factors are also in accordance to the human errors made for example, the problem with taking short cuts can be solved by managing activities in the airports and strips (Talbot, Fagerlind & Morris, 2013). If all activities are monitored and followed strictly, workers will not choose to take shortcuts hence prevention of human error which results to casualties.

Corte, Cavedon & Milanese, 2015).

References

Corte, S., Cavedon, V., & Milanese, C. (2015). Differential effects of main error correction versus secondary error correction on motor pattern of running. Human Movement Science, 44, 182-191. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.09.002

Liu, P., & Li, Z. (2014). Human Error Data Collection and Comparison with Predictions by SPAR-H. Risk Analysis, 34(9), 1706-1719. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12199

Orr, C., & Hester, R. (2012). Error-related anterior cingulate cortex activity and the prediction of conscious error awareness. Frontiers In Human Neuroscience, 6. Http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00177

Peter, E., & Rob, H. (2013). The role of error awareness in post-error adaptive behaviour. Frontiers In Human Neuroscience, 7. Http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/conf.fnhum.2013.212.00160

Redmond, O. (2011). Psychophysiological precursors of error awareness: pupil diameter and alpha power predict conscious error detection. Frontiers In Human Neuroscience, 5. Http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/conf.fnhum.2011.207.00257

Talbot, R., Fagerlind, H., & Morris, A. (2013). Exploring inattention and distraction in the safetynet Accident Causation Database. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 60, 445-455. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.03.03