Generic Error Modeling System
Contents |
Jump to: navigation, searchHERE Article Information Category: Human Performance Modelling Content source: SKYbrary Content control: SKYbrary Description The Generic Error-Modelling System (GEMS) integrates, within the same framework,
Skill Based Error Example
the different error mechanisms (slips, lapses and mistakes) and the three gems framework and error types levels of performance (Skill, Rule, Knowledge (SRK)). The integration of these two dimensions allows us to: Gain a
Generic Error Modeling System Wikipedia
deeper understanding the nature of mistakes: Indeed, we can distinguish between rule-based mistakes and knowledge-based mistakes Appreciate the details of the differences among error types Appreciate how errors can be generic error modelling system psychology considered the "other side of the coin" of those cognitive processes that allow us to act quickly or find creative solutions. Anticipate when, and in what conditions, a certain type of error may occur. GEMS and errors Errors can occur at each level of performance: skill-based (SB): slips and lapses usually errors of inattention or misplaced attention rule-based (RB): mistakes what are the universal factors of accidents? usually a result of picking an inappropriate rule caused by misconstrued view of state, over-zealous pattern matching, frequency gambling, deficient rules knowledge-based (KB): mistakes due to incomplete/inaccurate understanding of system, confirmation bias, overconfidence, cognitive strain, ... Errors can result from operating at wrong level: humans are reluctant to move from a RB to KB level even if rules aren’t working Related Articles Human Error Types Generic Error-Modelling System (GEMS) Heinrich Pyramid Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) ICAO SHELL Model James Reason HF Model LMQ HF Model PEAR Model Retrieved from "http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php?title=Generic_Error-Modelling_System_(GEMS)&oldid=116992" Categories: Human Performance ModellingOperational Issues Page Discussion View source History TEST Log in Navigation Home page Operational issues Human performance Enhancing safety Safety regulations Accidents and incidents Aircraft Types Airport Directory Toolkits Bookshelf Publications information About SKYbrary Contact us Help Glossary Promotion Tools What links here Related changes Special pages Printable version Permanent link Page information Browse properties This page was last modified on 25 May 2016, at 18:18. This page has been accessed 14,040 times. Licence agreement and Code of conduct About SKYbrary
and in what ways human beings are prone to mistakes, slips and lapses? In this blogpost I offer some brief - but I hope enticing - speculations on this possibility. At the outset it
Skill-based Slip Definition
is worth emphasizing that there are some real difficulties with linking error psychology with microsystem approach to quality improvement includes moral decision-making. One obvious point of dis-analogy between ethics and error is that one cannot deliberately make mistakes. Not real mistakes. One
What Are The Classifications Of Reason’s Gems For Error Types?
can fake it, of course, but the very practice of faking it implies that - from the point of view of the actor - what is happening is not at all a mistake, but something deliberately http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Generic_Error-Modelling_System_(GEMS) chosen. But it seems to be a part of everyday experience that one can deliberately choose to do the wrong thing. However, the most significant dis-analogy between moral psychology and error psychology is that in most studies of the psychology of error, there is no question whatever about what counts as an error. In laboratory studies the test-subjects are asked questions where there are plainly right and wrong answers - or rational and http://hughbreakey.blogspot.com/2012/10/ooops-ethics-and-psychology-of-error.html irrational responses. Equally, in studies of major accidents, the presence of errors is pretty much unequivocal - if there is a meltdown at a nuclear reactor, or if the ferry sinks after crashing - then it is clear that something has gone wrong somewhere. In ethical decision-making, on the other hand, whether ajudgementor an action is ‘in error' - if this is supposed to mean ‘morally wrongful' - is often very much in dispute. So someone who judges that euthanasia is wrong, say, cannot be subject to the same error analysis as some who contributes to a nuclear disaster. At least, not without begging some very serious questions. The way I aim to proceed is to think about those cases where the person themselves comes to believe they made a moral mistake. The rough idea is that a person can behave in a particular way, perhaps thoughtlessly or perhaps after much consideration, but later decide that they got it wrong. Maybe this laterjudgementoccurs when they are lying in bed at night and their conscience starts to bite. Maybe it happens when they see the fallout of their action and the harm it caused others. Maybe it happens when someone does the same act back to them, and they suddenly realise what it looks like from the receivi
Grounding Reader Profiles Management Toolbox Regulatory Update Tailgate Safety Topics Education iPi Online Learning. About iPi Online Learning Course Catalog View a Course Sample OSHA Update Bundle Login to Your Purchased Courses iPi Plus Subscriber Login iP Utility Safety http://incident-prevention.com/ip-articles/human-performance Conference Frontline Utility Leadership Customized Training On-Site Training Certification Conference Register for Conference Products Advertise Jobs Contact Incident Prevention Magazine Navigation Home Categories Tags Bloggers Subscribe to blog Subscribe via RSS Font size: + – Subscribe to this blog post Print Bookmark Human Performance Thursday, 02 October 2008 Jeff Clark, CUSP September-October 2008 14582 Hits 0 Comments The Generic Error Modeling System (GEMS) has developed a framework for understanding generic error error types and designing error prevention strategies. During just about every conference at which I speak at least one person asks, “Okay, what is this human performance stuff?” I typically answer by making an analogy to behavior-based safety programs that are directed at observing and changing the behaviors of workers to produce a safer work environment and to reduce injuries. I like to say that Human Performance is generic error modeling behavior-based safety on steroids, because it looks not only at the individual’s behaviors and actions, but also at the organization’s.The study and practice of Human Performance is relatively new. The study of errors from a psychological standpoint began long ago, but those studies were conducted from an academic standpoint designed to classify errors into cognitive and non-cognitive categories. They had little practical application.In the early 1970s, Dr. James Reason began looking at errors both from an academic and practical standpoint. He utilized the research conducted by his peers and predecessors to develop a framework to understand error types and, once understood, to design error prevention strategies. The framework that he developed is named the Generic Error Modeling System (GEMS).In a speech to a group from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators, Jeff Lyash, President and CEO of Progress Energy Florida, bridged the gap from the application of human performance principles at nuclear power plants to the transmission and distribution organizations within those companies. He asked the group if line and substation work was hazardous and contained risks, and followed by asking if an error could result in significant adverse consequences that were unforgiving in nature. The crowd responded affirmatively.Lyash was following Dr. Reason’s pr
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Mon, 17 Oct 2016 05:39:06 GMT by s_wx1131 (squid/3.5.20)