Suggested improvements to the definitions of Standardized Plant Analysis of Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) performance shaping factors, their levels and multipliers and the nominal tasks

This paper discusses the definitions and content of eight performance shaping factors (PSFs) used in Standardized Plant Analysis of Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) and their levels and multipliers. Definitions of nominal tasks are also discussed. The discussion is based on a review of liter...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Reliability engineering & system safety 2016-01, Vol.145, p.287-300
Hauptverfasser: Laumann, Karin, Rasmussen, Martin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This paper discusses the definitions and content of eight performance shaping factors (PSFs) used in Standardized Plant Analysis of Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) and their levels and multipliers. Definitions of nominal tasks are also discussed. The discussion is based on a review of literature on PSFs, interviews with consultants who have carried out SPAR-H analysis in the petroleum industry and an evaluation of human reliability analysis reports based on SPAR-H analysis. We concluded that SPAR-H definitions and descriptions of the PSFs are unclear and overlap too much, making it difficult for the analyst to choose between them and select the appropriate level. This reduces inter-rater reliability and thus the consistency of SPAR-H analyses. New definitions of the PSFs, levels and multipliers are suggested with the aim to develop more specific definitions of the PSFs in order to increase the inter-rater reliability of SPAR-H. Another aim was to construct more varied and more nuanced levels and multipliers to improve the capacity of SPAR-H analysis to capture the degree of difficulty faced by operators in different scenarios. We also suggest that only one of two nominal SPAR-H tasks should be retained owing to the difficulty in distinguishing between them. •The SPAR-H guidelines should be revised.•Descriptions of the PSFs should be improved.•New definitions should reduce overlap between the PSFs.•The multipliers are based on an “old” method and should be revised.•Some PSF levels and multipliers in SPAR-H are not logical.
ISSN:0951-8320
1879-0836
DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.022