Academic
Publications
Risk, Human Error, and System Resilience: Fundamental Ideas

Risk, Human Error, and System Resilience: Fundamental Ideas,10.1518/001872008X250773,Human Factors,Thomas B. Sheridan

Risk, Human Error, and System Resilience: Fundamental Ideas   (Citations: 11)
BibTex | RIS | RefWorks Download
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.
Journal: Human Factors - HUM FACTORS , vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 418-426, 2008
Cumulative Annual
View Publication
The following links allow you to view full publications. These links are maintained by other sources not affiliated with Microsoft Academic Search.
    • ...By having both positive and negative roles, anxiety functions as a bifurcation variable, as do other aspects of resilience or coping behaviour (Hancock and Warm 1989, Sheridan 2008, Pincus and Metten 2010, Guastello 2011)...

    Stephen J. Guastelloet al. Catastrophe models for cognitive workload and fatigue

    • ...According to Sheridan (2008), the standard remedies for human error are: design of the system so it is simple and easy to use; training; active warnings that anticipate a system state that will likely lead to error; restriction of operator exposure to opportunities for error...

    Daniel P. Jenkinset al. What could they have been thinking? How sociotechnical system design i...

    • ...By having both positive and negative roles, anxiety functions as a bifurcation variable, as do other aspects of resilience or coping behaviour (Hancock and Warm 1989, Sheridan 2008, Pincus and Metten 2010, Guastello 2011)...

    Stephen J. Guastelloet al. Catastrophe models for cognitive workload and fatigue

    • ...Sheridan (2008) stated that errors are actions that fail to meet some implicit or explicit criterion, but implied that even such a general definition was unsatisfactory...

    John R. Fedotaet al. Neuroergonomics and human error

    • ...Obviously, the field is very young still, but it has attracted considerable attention already (e.g., [12-13]) and is being heralded as a major new way of thinking about safety...
    • ...Sheridan [13] explains resilience in terms of how each engineered system has safety buffers—over-engineering of sorts—that make the system robust in the face of challenges to the system...

    Ronald L. Boringet al. A resilience-reliability crosswalk

Sort by: