Determining Human Error Global Causes in a Petrochemical Control Room with a Cognitive Analytical Approach-CREAM
AbstractControl room is the heart of each system in which even a minor error can result in irrecoverable consequences. The purpose of this study was to determine the Probable Control Modes (PCMs) and Cognitive Failure Probability (CFP), and also build a Cognitive Demands Profile (CDP) in a petrochemical control room, using Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis technique (CREAM). First, tasks of Boardman (B.M), Shift Control (S.C), and Head Control (H.C) in control room were analyzed, applying hierarchical task analysis. Following, PCM, CFP and CDP were determined for the analyzed tasks. According the results, control modes for the tasks of B.M and S.C were determined as opportunistic; while for H.C tasks it was obtained as tactical. Of the all error types, execution failure (48.57%), interpretation failure (18.57%), planning failure (15.71%), and observation failure (17.15%) were identified. The most important CDPs were communicated, monitor, execute, plan, diagnose, evaluate, co-ordinate, verity, record, and scan. Based on the findings, number of simultaneous goals, time of day and adequacy of training and experience in the study field were the Common Performance Conditions that led to reduction of performance reliability. These factors contributed to the opportunistic control mode. In order to prevent or reduce cognitive errors in the control room, we need to know the exact type of cognitive activities, and develop a comprehensive program to increase the knowledge and skills for performing the cognitive activities.
Kariuki S, Löwe K (2007) Integrating human factors into process hazard analysis Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92:1764-1773
Mallett J (2001) Human error J Am Coll Surg 193:230doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(01)00984-X
Meshkati N (1991) Integration of workstation, job, and team structure design in complex human-machine systems: A framework Ínt J Ind Ergonom 7:111-122.
Stanton N et al. (2009) Predicting Pilot Error On The Flight Deck: A Comparison Of Multiple Method and Multiple Analyst Sensitivity Appl Ergon 40:464-471
Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford
Kim IS (2000) Applicability of HRA to Support Advanced MMI Design Review KNS 32:88-98.
Reer B (2008) Review of advances in human reliability analysis of errors of commission—Part 2: EOC quantification Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:1105-1122.
Seong PH (2009) Reliability and risk issues in large scale safety-critical digital control systems. Springer London
He X, Wang Y, Shen Z, Huang X (2008) A simplified CREAM prospective quantification process and its application Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:298-306.
Konstandinidou M, Nivolianitou Z, Kiranoudis C, Markatos N (2006) A fuzzy modeling application of CREAM methodology for human reliability analysis Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:706-716.
Stanton NA, Walker GH (2013) Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. Ashgate Publishing Ltd Surrey
Wilpert B, Miller R, Wahlström B (1999) Report on Needs and Methods. Citeseer,
Ziarane M (2011) Assessment of Human Errors in an Industrial Petrochemical Control Room using the CREAM Method with a Cognitive Ergonomics Approach Journal of School of Public Health and Institute of Public Health Research 8.
Kogi K, Ohta T (1975) Incidence of near accidental drowsing in locomotive driving during a period of rotation Journal of Human Ergology 4:65-76.
Lane R, Stanton NA, Harrison D (2006) Applying hierarchical task analysis to medication administration errors Appl Ergon 37:669-679.
Wikstrand G (1999) Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis-Applying CREAM to "Kollision Eksjö - Nässjö, 1996-10-08".
Kubota R, Kiyokawa K, Arazoe M, Ito H, Iijima Y, Matsushima H, Shimokawa H (2001) Analysis of organisation-committed human error by extended CREAM Cognition, Technology & Work 3:67-81.
Shepherd A (2001) Hierarchial task analysis. CRC Press.