Intellectual structure and evolution trend of human error and human reliability in complex industrial systems

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.12.0509

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to effectively control and reduce human error and improve human reliability in complex industrial systems, 581 related articles and their 15 722 references were collected from the Web of Science (WOS) database, and the main research teams, knowledge bases and frontier hotspots were explored by using the methods of authors' cooperative network, document co-citation and burst detection. The results show that the contributors mainly come from Korea, China and America, and mainly focus on industrial fields such as nuclear power, navigation and aviation. Human error and human reliability research have experienced the knowledge evolution from qualitative research (e.g., "emergency operating procedures" and "variability of procedure progression") to quantitative research (e.g., "simulation data" and HRA). Moreover, the research frontier and hot topics are mainly related to the “dependence assessment” and the “human error data”. Through further in-depth analysis, it is found that human error research mainly analyzed the human error mechanism under the human-machine interaction, and the improvement of the HRA method, identification of performance influencing factors and the human error probability assessment are included in the HRA research.

Key words: complex industrial system, human error, human reliability analysis(HRA), intelligentization, CiteSpace

ZHANG Yan, CHEN Xingbang, LI Ming, WU Song, TONG Ruipeng. Intellectual structure and evolution trend of human error and human reliability in complex industrial systems[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(12): 46-52.

Figures/Tables 5

Fig.1

Tab.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

References 35

[1]	READ G J M, SHORROCK S, WALKER G H, et al. State of science: evolving perspectives on'human error'[J]. Ergonomics, 2021, 64(9): 1091-1114. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2021.1953615
[2]	孙林辉, 贾元瑞, 王明扬, 等. 工业系统监控作业中的人因失误研究综述[J]. 包装工程, 2022, 43(4): 27-35.
	SUN Linhui, JIA Yuanrui, WANG Mingyang, et al. Human errors in industrial systems monitoring operations[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2022, 43(4): 27-35.
[3]	TAO Jing, QIU Dongyang, YANG Fuqiang, et al. A bibliometric analysis of human reliability research[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 260: DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121041. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121041
[4]	HOU Linxiu, LIU Ran, LIU Huchen, et al. Two decades on human reliability analysis: a bibliometric analysis and literature review[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2021, 151: DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107969. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107969
[5]	PATRIARCA R, RAMOS M, PALTRINIERI N, et al. Human reliability analysis: exploring the intellectual structure of a research field[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, 203: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107102. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107102
[6]	张红璐, 王春源, 胡愚. 人因可靠性研究进展可视化分析[J]. 人类工效学, 2021, 27(4): 66-72.
[7]	ALVARENGA M A B, FRUTUOSO E MELO P F. A review of the cognitive basis for human reliability analysis[J]. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2019, 117: DOI: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.103050. doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.103050
[8]	CHEN Chaomei, IBEKWE-SANJUAN F, HOU Jianhua. The Structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a multiple-perspective cocitation analysis[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(7): 1386-1409. doi: 10.1002/asi.21309
[9]	CHANG Y J, BLEY D, CRISCIONE L, et al. The SACADA database for human reliability and human performance[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2014, 125: 117-133. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.07.014
[10]	GROTH K M, SWILER L P. Bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA practice: a Bayesian network version of SPAR-H[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2013, 115: 33-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.015
[11]	MKRTCHYAN L, PODOFILLINI L, DANG V N. Bayesian belief networks for human reliability analysis: a review of applications and gaps[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2015, 139: 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.02.006
[12]	王锋. 从人机分离到人机融合:人工智能影响下的人机关系演进[J]. 学海, 2021(2): 84-89.
	WANG Feng. From man-machine separation to man-machine integration: the evoluation of the human-machine relationship undef the influence of artificial intelligence[J]. Academia Bimestris, 2021(2): 84-89.
[13]	李鹏程, 陈国华, 张力, 等. 核电厂操纵员人因失误影响因素分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(7): 42-47. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.07.008
	LI Pengcheng, CHEN Guohua, ZHANG Li, et al. Analysis of influencing factors triggering operator' s error in nuclear power plants[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(7): 42-47. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.07.008
[14]	GOLESTANI N, ABBASSI R, GARANIYA V, et al. Human reliability assessment for complex physical operations in harsh operating conditions[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020, 140: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.04.026
[15]	WU Zekun, PAN Xing, ZHAO Xianheng, et al. The task demands-resources method: a new approach to human reliability analysis from a psychological perspective[J]. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2019, 35(4): 1200-1218. doi: 10.1002/qre.2453
[16]	牛莉霞, 刘洁, 李乃文. 人因失误驱动力SBM跨层次模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(12): 43-51. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.12.007
	NIU Lixia, LIU Jie, LI Naiwen. Study on SBM cross level model of human error driving force[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(12):43-51. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.12.007
[17]	邹树梁, 黄斌海, 李书帆. 海上浮动核电站人员认知可靠性模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(1): 1-6. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.01.001
	ZOU Shuliang, HUANG Binhai, LI Shufan. Human cognitive reliability model of marine floating nuclear power plants[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(1):1-6. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.01.001
[18]	WICKENS C D, HELTON W S, HOLLANDS J G. Engineering psychology and human performance[M]. New York: Routledge, 2021:26-69.
[19]	RASMUSSEN J. Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models[J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics, 1983, SMC-13(3): 257-266.
[20]	CHANG Y H J, MOSLEH A. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents:part 1: overview of the IDAC model[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2007, 92(8): 997-1013. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.05.014
[21]	FERREIRA W D, ARMELLINI F, DE SANTA-EULALIA L A. Simulation in industry 4.0: a state-of-the-art review[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2020, 149: DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2020.106868. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2020.106868
[22]	SWAIN A D, GUTTMANN H E. Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. final report[R]. Sandia National Laboratories, 1983.
[23]	WILLIAMS J C. HEART: a proposed method for assessing and reducing human error[C]. Proceedings in 9^st Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium, 1986: 1-13.
[24]	HOLLNAGEL E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM)[M]. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, 1998: 151-189.
[25]	GERTMAN D, BLACKMAN H, MARBLE J, et al. The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method[R]. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2005.
[26]	BORING R L, DUDENHOEFFER D D, HALLBERT B P, et al. Modeling human reliability analysis using MIDAS[R]. Idaho National Laboratory (INL), 2006.
[27]	EKANEM N J, MOSLEH A, SHEN S H. Phoenix-a model-based human reliability analysis methodology:qualitative analysis procedure[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2016, 145: 301-315. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.009
[28]	RAMOS M A, DROGUETT E L, MOSLEH A, et al. A human reliability analysis methodology for oil refineries and petrochemical plants operation: Phoenix-PRO qualitative framework[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, 193: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106672. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106672
[29]	BYE A, LAUMANN K, TAYLOR C, et al. The Petro-HRA guideline[R]. Institute for Energy Technology, 2017.
[30]	JUNG W, PARK J, KIM Y, et al. HuREX-a framework of HRA data collection from simulators in nuclear power plants[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, 194: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.07.036. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.07.036
[31]	GROTH K M, MOSLEH A. A data-informed PIF hierarchy for model-based human reliability analysis[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2012, 108: 154-174. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2012.08.006
[32]	KANG S, SEONG P H. Performance shaping factor taxonomy for human reliability analysis on mitigating nuclear power plant accidents caused by extreme external hazards[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2020, 145: DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107533. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107533
[33]	JANG I, KIM Y, PARK J. Investigating the effect of task complexity on the occurrence of human errors observed in a nuclear power plant full-scope simulator[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2021, 214: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107704. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107704
[34]	PAGLIONI V P, GROTH K M. Dependency definitions for quantitative human reliability analysis[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2022, 220: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.108274. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.108274
[35]	CHOI M K, LEE S M, HA J S, et al. Development of an EEG-based workload measurement method in nuclear power plants[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2018, 111: 595-607. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2017.08.032

作者	机构	国家	发文量	排序
PARK	韩国原子能研究院	韩国	45	A
JUNG	韩国原子能研究院	韩国	36	A
SEONG	韩国科学技术院	韩国	22	B
ZHANG Li	南华大学、湖南工学院	中国	19	B
KIM	韩国原子能研究院	韩国	18	B
KIM	韩国原子能研究院	韩国	17	B
KHAN	纽芬兰纪念大学	加大拿	16	B
MOSLEH	加州大学洛杉矶分校	美国	14	B
DANG	保罗谢勒研究所	瑞士	12	C
AKYUZ	伊斯坦布尔理工大学	土耳其	11	C
CELIK	伊斯坦布尔理工大学	土耳其	9	C
KIM	韩国原子能研究院	韩国	9	C
KIM	朝鲜大学	韩国	8	C
LEE	韩国原子能研究院	韩国	7	C
WANG Jin	利物浦约翰摩尔斯大学	英国	7	C
LI Zhizhong	清华大学	中国	7	C
CHANG	美国核管理委员会	美国	7	C

时间	类别	代表性方法	主要应用领域
20世纪60年代 —80年代后期	基于任务	人失误率预测技术^[22]	核电、航海
20世纪60年代 —80年代后期	基于任务	人失误评价和减少技术^[23]	核电、航空、铁路、石化、航海
20世纪90年代 —21世纪初	基于认知	认知可靠性和失误分析方法^[24]	航天、石化、核电、高铁、航海、航空
	基于认知	标准化的设备分析风险HRA^[25]	核电、石油、航海
	基于仿真	IDAC模型^[20]	核电、航海、航空、电力
	基于仿真	人机一体化设计和分析系统^[26]	航空、航天
2010— 2022年	基于模型	Phoenix方法^[27]	核电
		Phoenix-石油炼化作业(Phoenix-Petroleum Refining Operations, Phoenix-PRO)方法^[28]	石油
		Petro-HRA^[29]	石油