Can Technology Eliminate Human Error
Contents |
institution loginHelpJournalsBooksRegisterJournalsBooksRegisterSign inHelpcloseSign in using your ScienceDirect credentialsUsernamePasswordRemember meForgotten username or password?Sign in via your institutionOpenAthens loginOther institution login Purchase Loading... Export You have
A Technical Examination Which Eliminates Possible Human Errors
selected 1 citation for export. Help Direct export Save to a technical examination which eliminates human errors hcl Mendeley Save to RefWorks Export file Format RIS (for EndNote, ReferenceManager, ProCite) BibTeX Text Content
Doer Checker Process
Citation Only Citation and Abstract Export Advanced search Close This document does not have an outline. JavaScript is disabled on your browser. Please enable JavaScript human error assessment and reduction technique to use all the features on this page. Process Safety and Environmental Protection Volume 84, Issue 3, May 2006, Pages 171-173 Human Factors and Management
Can Technology Eliminate Human Error? Author links open the overlay panel. Numbers correspond to the affiliation list which can be exposed by using the show more how to reduce human error in the workplace link. Opens overlay A.G. Foord, Opens overlay W.G. Gulland ⁎, bill.gulland@4-sightconsulting.co.uk 4-sight Consulting, Harpenden, UK Received 31 August 2005, Accepted 1 February 2006, Available online 14 February 2008 Show more Choose an option to locate/access this article: Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution. Check access Purchase Sign in using your ScienceDirect credentials Username: Password: Remember me Not Registered? Forgotten username or password? OpenAthens login Login via your institution Other institution login doi:10.1205/psep.05208 Get rights and content This paper argues that it would not be possible to design technological systems to eliminate all human errors during operation because people are involved in: specifying, designing, implementing, installing, commissioning and maintaining systems as well as operating them. The paper illustrates this with examples of incidents caused by human error and concludes that, even if systems can operate without human intervention, there is still the possibility of huC Suite Technology Data Centre Security Software Services Applications and development Skills and Training Communications Business Enterprise
Human Error Reduction
SME Start-up Vendor Public sector Internet Whitepapers Search for: Home what is human error Can we ever eliminate the ‘human error' element of cyber security? Analysis 7 April 2016 People
Google Scholar
account for the vast majority of security incidents COMMENT Kevin Lonergan As organisations have become increasingly dependent on computer and data communication technology, the opportunity http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582006713234 for thieves has grown. Couple that with the lack of national boundaries in cyberspace and the relatively low probability of being caught and the risk/reward ratio makes cybercrime much more attractive than taking a sawn-off shotgun into a bank. The 'attack surface' grows all the time.By 2020, it is estimated http://www.information-age.com/can-we-ever-eliminate-human-error-element-cyber-security-123461225/ there will be 4 billion people onlineand the Internet of Things will be up and running, interconnecting26 billion internet enabled devicesand thereby allowing a thief who can find an entry point to jump from device to device. There is also no sign of this growth of complexity ever stopping, so the opportunities for cyber-thieves will only increase. Organisations are getting better at protecting themselves. Software updates are usually implemented quickly or automatically now, so vulnerabilities are blocked before the attacker can exploit them. Vulnerabilities usually occur because different modules within a large software system are written by multiple coders, with differing habits. No matter how well specified and tested the modules are, there will always be slight variations in the way things work because each person does things slightly differently. It is these small differences the thief is looking for. > See also: Back to basics: how to get a
the field of human reliability assessment (HRA), for the purposes of evaluating the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_error_assessment_and_reduction_technique within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of http://learnaboutgmp.com/the-top-7-how-to-reduce-manufacturing-human-error/ safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA; error identification, error quantification and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications; first generation techniques and second generation techniques. First generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of ‘fits/doesn’t fit’ human error in the matching of the error situation in context with related error identification and quantification and second generation techniques are more theory based in their assessment and quantification of errors. ‘HRA techniques have been utilised in a range of industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation and business sector; each technique has varying uses within different disciplines. HEART method is based upon the principle that every time a task is performed there is a a technical examination possibility of failure and that the probability of this is affected by one or more Error Producing Conditions (EPCs) – for instance: distraction, tiredness, cramped conditions etc. – to varying degrees. Factors which have a significant effect on performance are of greatest interest. These conditions can then be applied to a “best-case-scenario” estimate of the failure probability under ideal conditions to then obtain a final error chance. This figure assists in communication of error chances with the wider risk analysis or safety case. By forcing consideration of the EPCs potentially affecting a given procedure, HEART also has the indirect effect of providing a range of suggestions as to how the reliability may therefore be improved (from an ergonomic standpoint) and hence minimising risk. Contents 1 Background 2 HEART methodology 3 Worked example 3.1 Context 3.2 Assumptions 3.3 Method 3.4 Result 4 Advantages 5 Disadvantages 6 References 7 External links Background[edit] HEART was developed by Williams in 1986.[1] It is a first generation HRA technique, yet it is dissimilar to many of its contemporaries in that it remains to be widely used throughout the UK. The method essentially takes into consideration all factors which may negatively affect performance of a task in which human reliability is considered to be dependent, and each of these factors is then i
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP As technology advances, human error in manufacturing becomes more and more visible every day. Human error is responsible for more than 80 percent of failures and defects. Sadly, little is known about the nature of these events mainly because the quest for answers ends where human error investigations should begin. This situation has become very evident to regulators and GMP enforcement agencies are being more critical of the approach, result, and effectiveness of corrective and preventive actions or CAPAs when dealing with human performance issues. In order to successfully achieve this goal, we have to understand how to improve the way we deal with these types of situations. Why Did It Happen? Usually the focus of error investigations relies on explaining what happened and who was involved. This is necessary to understand the problem. Nevertheless, this is not enough when it comes to addressing these kind of failures. Instead, we need to explain the reason why it happened. GMPs clearly state in CFR 211.22 that “[the quality control unit has]…the authority to review production records to assure that no errors have occurred or, if errors have occurred, that they have been fully investigated.” Let’s analyze this statement. If the FDA expects that errors be fully investigated, it is safe to assume that the term error is NOT a root cause. That’s why it needs to be fully investigated, hence determine the root cause of the human error. Related Content: Need a cGMP Refresher Course? People Are Human The reality is that people make mistakes because they can. Our systems allow humans to incorporate their natural unreliability into processes that should be protected by systems in organizations. The problem basically relies in the fact that most of the systems do not directly consider human error prevention as part of the design and human factors and capabilities are usually ignored when it comes to people. Human error is about explaining human behavior. Chemical engineers explain product behavior, mechanical engineers explain equipment behavior, industrial engineers explain process behavior, but who explains human behavior? Human Error is Complex