Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Human-error-based design of barriers and analysis of their uses

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper discusses on the concept of human errors when operators use barriers or when barriers have to be designed to decrease risks associated with human behaviours. It gives taxonomies of barriers and of their uses and develops the concept of the human-error-based design of barriers to control human errors. Human error assessment methods are then proposed regarding three dimensions: retrospective analysis methods, prospective analysis methods and on-line analysis methods. A new methodology including these dimensions is proposed to take into account several uses of barriers: normal uses, unintentional erroneous uses, intentional diverted uses and uses of new barriers. In order to achieve the identification of these barrier uses, this approach is based on the comparison between the prescriptive and predictive behaviours for a prospective analysis or between prescriptive and real behaviours for a retrospective analysis to define new barriers or to redesign the existing ones. A management of the learning process of such barrier uses is integrated in order to make this design or redesign processes possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Amalberti R (2001) The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Saf Sci 37(2–3):109–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciabue PC (1998) Modelling and simulation of human behaviour in system control. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacciabue PC (2005) Human error risk management methodology for safety audit of a large railway organisation. Appl Ergon 36:709–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cépin M (2008) DEPEND-HRA a method for consideration of dependency in human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:1452–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaali-Djelassi A, Vanderhaegen F, Cacciabue PC, Cassani M (2007) Barrier removal prediction based on a new approach—application to a degraded train speed procedure. Proceedings of the 26th European annual conference on human decision making and manual control, 20–22 June 2007, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Chignell M, Hancock P (1985) Knowledge-based load levelling and task allocation in human-machine systems. Proc Annu Conf Man Control 21:9.1–9.11

    Google Scholar 

  • De Keyser V (2001) Incident report system. In: Amalberti R, Fuchs C, Gilbert C (eds) Around risk assessment: a pluridisciplinary question. Publications de la MSH-ALPES, Grenoble, pp 41–71

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waard D (1996) The measurement of drivers’ mental workload. Ph.D. thesis. University of Groningen, Traffic Research Centre, Haren

  • Embrey DE, Humphreys PC, Rosa EA, Kirwan B, Rea K (1984) SLIM-MAUD: an approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgment. Report NUREG/CR-3518, BNL-NUREG-51716. Department of Nuclear Energy, Brookhaven National Lab, Upton, NY

  • Foot R, Doniol-Shaw G (2008) Questions raised on the design of the “dead-man” device installed on trams. Cogn Technol Work 10:41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote G, Weichbrodt JC, Günter H, Zala-Mezö E, Künzle B (2009) Coordination on high-risk organizations: the need for flexible routines. Cogn Technol Work 11:17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart SG, Stavelang LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method CREAM. Amsterdam, Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (1999) Accident and barriers. 7th European conference on cognitive science approaches to process control. Villeneuve d’Ascq, France, pp 175–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2004) Barriers and accident prevention. Ashgate Publishung Limited, Hampshare

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2008) Safety + Barriers = Safety? Saf Sci 46:221–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac A, Shorrock ST, Kirwan B (2002) Human error in European air traffic management: the HERA project. Reliab Eng Saf Syst 75:257–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C (1999) Why human error modelling has failed to help system development. Interact Comput 11:517–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jouglet D, Piechowiak S, Vanderhaegen F (2003) A shared workspace to support man-machine reasoning: application to cooperative distant diagnosis. Cogn Technol Work 5:127–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan FI, Amyotte PR, DiMattia DG (2006) HEPI: a new tool for human error probability calculation for offshore operation. Saf Sci 44:313–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan B (1997) Validation of human reliability assessment techniques: part2—validation results. Saf Sci 27:43–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macwan A, Mosleh A (1994) A methodology for modelling operators errors of commission in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 45:139–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millot P, Vanderhaegen F (2008) Toward cooperative and human error-tolerant systems. Proceedings of the 17th IFAC World Congress, 6-11 June 2008, Seoul, Korea

  • Park KS, Lee J (2008) A new method for estimating human error probabilities: AHP-SLIM. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:578–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Wieringa PA (2002) Theory of safety-related violations of system barriers. Cogn Technol Work 4:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Amalberti R (2003) Modelling border-line tolerated conditions of use (BTCUs) and associated risks. Saf Sci 41:111–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Millot P (2009) Human behaviour analysis of barrier deviation using the benefit-cost-deficit model. Advances in human-computer interaction. Available on http://downloads.indawi.com/journals/ahci/2009/642929.pdf

  • Popieul JC, Simon P, Loslever P (2002) Using failure detection and diagnosis methods to detect dangerous evolution of the driver behaviour. Control Eng Pract 10:577–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reer B (2008) Review of advanced in human reliability analysis of errors of commission—part 2: EOC quantification. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:1105–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid GB, Nygren TE (1988) The subjective workload assessment technique: a scaling procedure for measuring metal workload. Adv Psychol 52:185–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear plant applications. Nuclear regulatory commission, NUREG/CR-1278, Washington DC

  • Vanderhaegen F (1999a) Toward a model of unreliability to study error prevention supports. Interact Comput 11:575–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (1999b) Multilevel allocation modes—allocator control policies to share tasks between human and computer. Syst Anal Modell Simul 35:191–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (1999c) APRECIH: a human unreliability analysis method—application to railway system. Control Eng Pract 7:1395–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2001) A non-probabilistic prospective and retrospective human reliability analysis method–application to railway system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2003) Analyse et contrôle de l’erreur humaine (Analysis and control of human error). Lavoisier—Hermès Science Publications, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2004) The benefit-cost-deficit (BCD) model for human analysis and control. Proceedings of the 9th IFAC/IFORS/IEA symposium on analysis, design, and evaluation of human-machine systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 7–9 Sept 2004

  • Vanderhaegen F, Petersen J (2007) Barriers at work. Proceedings of the 10th IFAC/IFIP/IFORSD/IEA symposium on analysis, design, and evaluation of human-machine systems

  • Vanderhaegen F, Crévits I, Debernard S, Millot P (1994) Human-machine cooperation: toward an activity regulation assistance for different air traffic control levels. Int J Hum Comput Interact 6(1):65–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Jouglet D, Piechowiak S (2004) Human-reliability analysis of diagnosis support cooperative redundancy. IEEE Trans Reliab 53(4):458–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Chalmé S, Anceaux F, Millot P (2006) Principles of cooperation and competition—application to car driver behavior analysis. Cogn Technol Work 8(3):183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Ziéba S, Polet P (2008) A reinforced iterative formalism to learn from human errors and uncertainty. Eng Appl Artif Intell 22:654–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner EL, Curry RE, Faustina ML (1984) Vigilance and task load: in search of the inverted U. Hum Factors 26(2):215–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Millo P (2004) Artificial neural network for violation analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 84(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zieba S, Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Debernard S (2009) Resilience of a human-robot system using adjustable autonomy and human-robot collaborative control. Int J Adapt Innov Syst 1(1):13–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zio E, Baraldi P, Librizzi M, Podofillini L, Dang VN (2009) A fuzzy set-based approach for modelling dependence among human errors. Fuzzy Sets Syst 160:1947–1964

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present research work has been supported by the International Campus on Safety and Intermodality in Transportation the European Community, the Délégation Régionale à la Recherche et à la Technologie, the Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, the Région Nord Pas de Calais and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the Scientific Research Group on Supervisory, Safety and Security of Complex Systems, the European Research Group on Human-Machine Systems in Transportation: the authors gratefully acknowledge the support of these institutions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lille Nord de France, 59000, Lille, France

    F. Vanderhaegen

  2. UVHC, LAMIH, 59313, Valenciennes, France

    F. Vanderhaegen

  3. CNRS, UMR 8530, 59313, Valenciennes, France

    F. Vanderhaegen

Authors
  1. F. Vanderhaegen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Vanderhaegen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vanderhaegen, F. Human-error-based design of barriers and analysis of their uses. Cogn Tech Work 12, 133–142 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-010-0146-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-010-0146-3

Keywords