Cover Image
QR Code

Risk, human error, and system resilience: fundamental ideas.

Objective: I review and critique basic ideas of both traditional error/risk analysis and the newer and contrasting paradigm of resilience engineering.Background: Analysis of human error has matured and been applied over the past 50 years by human factors engineers, whereas the resilience engineering...

Full description

Published in:Human Factors Vol. 50; no. 3; pp. 418 - 427
Main Authors: Sheridan TB, Sheridan, Thomas B
Format: research Journal Article
Published: Sage Publications Inc. Jun2008
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105380490&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 105380490
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00187208
        HMF
      jtl: Human Factors
      issn: 00187208
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2008
      vid: 50
      iid: 3
      pid: 344
      pub: Sage Publications Inc.
      place: Thousand Oaks, California
    artinfo:
      ui:
        105380490
        105380490
        NLM18689048
        2010331746
        10.1518/001872008x250773
        NLM18689048
        105380490
      ppf: 418
      ppct: 9
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Risk, human error, and system resilience: fundamental ideas.
      aug:
        au:
          Sheridan TB
          Sheridan, Thomas B
        affil: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
      sug:
        subj:
          Ergonomics
          Industry
          Safety
          Causal Attribution
          Risk Assessment
          Human
      ab: Objective: I review and critique basic ideas of both traditional error/risk analysis and the newer and contrasting paradigm of resilience engineering.Background: Analysis of human error has matured and been applied over the past 50 years by human factors engineers, whereas the resilience engineering paradigm is relatively new.Method: Fundamental ideas and examples of human factors applications of each approach are presented and contrasted.Results: Probabilistic risk analysis provides mathematical rigor in generalizing on past error events to identify system vulnerabilities, but prediction is problematical because (a) error definition is arbitrary, and thus it is difficult to infer valid probabilities of human error to input to quantitative models, and (b) future accident conditions are likely to be quite different from those of past accidents. The new resilience engineering paradigm, in contrast, is oriented toward organizational process and is concerned with anticipating, mitigating, and preparing for graceful recovery from future events.Conclusion: Resilience engineering complements traditional error analysis but has yet to provide useful quantification and operational methods.Application: A best safety strategy is to use both approaches.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N