Dealing With Human Error
Contents |
influence the C-suite How ERM can help risk managers to support the C-suite Why a firm knowledge of risk tolerance can be the human error science risk manager’s compass Top 3 strategies for navigating the soft insurance
Human Error Synonym
market Mars’ risk manager discusses risk management strategies How a risk-based premium allocation methodology improves risk financing human error examples Are you ready to manage people risks of the future? Risk management strategy in Formula 1 Why more risk managers are using alternative risk transfer solutions How the
Human Error Prevention
Bloodhound Project manages risks at 1,000 miles per hour Deterring unethical employee behaviour How data analytics can help to identify health care solutions How Mars manages its insurance programmes Why risk managers and insurers must keep pace with the changing cyber risk environment How new capital is reshaping the (re)insurance sector Previous Issues Issue 01 / October human error chemistry 2012 Issue 02 / April 2013 Issue 03 / October 2013 Issue 04 / April 2014 Issue 05 / January 2015 Issue 06 / April 2015 Issue 07 / October 2015 Search WillisWire Contact Author Issue 03 / October 2013 Minimising human errors in the workplace At a glance Human error contributes to more than nine out of ten workplace accidents Developing the right internal culture is critical in reducing the risk of accidents Identifying risks and managing feedback plays key role in risk reduction Companies should regularly monitor their employees’ behaviour before incidents turn into serious accidents, cultivate an awareness culture among their workforce, and identify potential sources of error among their supply chain and contractors More than nine out of ten workplace accidents are the result of human error. Disasters as diverse as the explosion of the Deep Water Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico, the Copiapó mining accident in Chile and the Spanish train derailment near Santiago de Compostela all stem from mistake
iTunes or Google Play,or view within your browser. More information here Failure and Recovery PDF December 6, 2004Volume 2, issue 8 Coping with Human Error Errors Happen. How to Deal.
Human Error Quotes
Aaron B. Brown, IBM Research Human operator error is one of the most
Human Error In Aviation
insidious sources of failure and data loss in today's IT environments. In early 2001, Microsoft suffered a nearly 24-hour outage in human error percentage its Web properties as a result of a human error made while configuring a name resolution system. Later that year, an hour of trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange was disrupted because of a technician's http://resilience.willis.com/articles/2013/09/23/human-errors-workplace/ mistake while testing a development system. More recently, human error has been blamed for outages in instant messaging networks, for security and privacy breaches, and for banking system failures. Although these scenarios are not as spectacularly catastrophic as their analogues in other engineering disciplines--the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear plant or the grounding of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker, for example--their societal consequences can be nearly as severe, causing financial http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1036497 uncertainty, disruption to communication, and corporate instability. It is therefore critical that the designers, architects, implementers, and operators of today's IT infrastructures be aware of the human error problem and build in mechanisms for tolerating and coping with the errors that will inevitably occur. This article discusses some of the options available for embedding "coping skills" into an IT system. THE INEVITABILITY OF HUMAN ERROR Human error happens for many reasons, but in the end it almost always comes down to a mismatch between a human operator's mental model of the IT environment and the environment's actual state. Sometimes this confusion arises from poorly designed status feedback mechanisms, such as the perplexing error messages that Paul Maglio and Eser Kandogan discuss elsewhere in this issue (see "Error Messages: What's the Problem?" on page 50), but other times the mismatch simply arises from a lack of experience on the operator's part, or worse, to quirks of human cognitive processing that can obstinately steer even an experienced operator toward the wrong conclusion.1 Regardless of the source, however, psychology tells us that mental-model mismatches, and thus human error, are inevitable in the rapidly changing environments characteristic of IT systems. Particularly disconcerting is that people, with their unique capacity for (often-u
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP As technology advances, human error in manufacturing becomes more and more visible every day. Human error is http://learnaboutgmp.com/the-top-7-how-to-reduce-manufacturing-human-error/ 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 human error 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 dealing with human 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