Human Error Rate
Contents |
Wellness Worldwide Plant Wellness Way Explained Operational Excellence Enterprise
Human Error Rate In Data Entry
Asset Management Maintenance Management Business Process Improvement ISO 9001 human error probability table Quality System Lean Manufacturing Training See Online Training Courses Public and In-House Courses human error rate prediction Best Enterprise Asset Management Master Maintenance Management Maintenance Planning- Scheduling Improve Equipment Reliability Precision Maintenance Up-Skilling Introduce Lean Improvements Workforce Engineering Training
How To Calculate Human Error Percent
Free Articles Enterprise Asset Management Maintenance Management Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Maintenance Engineering Solutions Reliability Improvement Work Quality Assurance Precision Maintenance Lean Management Methods Team Building Tutorials Plant and Equipment Wellness Enterprise Asset Management Maintenance Management Reliability Engineering Business Process Improvement Maintenance Planning- Scheduling ISO
Acceptable Error Rate Six Sigma
9001 Quality System Lean Management Methods Free PWW Tutorial Videos FAQs Enterprise Asset Management Maintenance Management Maintenance Planning- Scheduling Maintenance Engineering Solutions Reliability Improvement Work Quality Assurance Precision Maintenance Lean Management Methods Team Building Online Store Maint Planning Online Training Maint Management Online Training Enterprise Asset Management PPT Maintenance Management PPT Reliability Engineering PPT Lean and Quality Management PPT Machinery Maintenance PPT Contact Us Lifetime-Reliability Solutions Navigation Home About Us LRS Mission and Values LRS Services and Consulting LRS Consultants Bios LRS Business JVs LRS Profit Share Jobs LRS Insight Newsletters LRS Conference PPTs Plant Wellness Videos Consulting LRS Services and Consulting Plant Wellness Worldwide Plant Wellness Way Explained Operational Excellence Enterprise Asset Management Maintenance Management Business Process Improvement ISO 9001 Quality System Lean Manufacturing Training See Online Training Courses Public and In-Ho
across studies. However only fairly simple actions are used in the denominator. The Klemmer and Snyder study shows that much lower error rates are possible--in this case typical data entry error rates for people whose job consisted almost entirely of data entry. The error rate
Human Error Statistics In Aviation
for more complex logic errors is about 5%, based primarily on data on other pages, especially the program development page. human error probability data Study Detail Error Rate Baddeley & Longman [1973] Entering mail codes. Errors after correction. Per mail code. 0.5% Chedru & Geschwind [1972] Grammatical errors per word 1.1% Dhillon [1986] Reading a http://www.lifetime-reliability.com/cms/tutorials/reliability-engineering/human_error_rate_table_insights/ gauge incorrectly. Per read. 0.5% Dremen and Berry [1995] Percentage error in security analysts' earnings forecasts for reporting earnings. 1980 / 1985 / 1990. That is, size of error rather than frequency of error. 30% 52% 65% Edmondson [1996] Errors per medication in hospital, based on data presented in the paper. Per dose. 1.6% Grudin [1983] Error rate per keystroke for six expert typists. Told not to http://panko.shidler.hawaii.edu/HumanErr/Basic.htm correct errors, although some did. Per keystroke. 1% Hotopf [1980] S sample (speech errors). Per word 0.2% Hotopf [1980] W sample (written exam). Per word 0.9% Hotopf [1980] 10 undergraduates write for 30 minutes, grammatical and spelling errors per word 1.6% Klemmer [1962] Keypunch machine operators, errors per character 0.02% to 0.06% Klemmer [1962] Bank machine operators, errors per check 0.03% Kukich [1992] Nonword spelling errors in uses of telecommunication devices for the deaf. 40,000 words (strings). Per string. 6% Mathias, MacKenzie & Buxton [1996] 10 touch typists averaging 58 words per minute. No error correction. In last session. Per keystroke. 4% Mattson & Baars [1992] Typing study with secretaries and clerks. Nonsense words. Per nonsense word. 7.4% Melchers & Harrington [1982] Students performing calculator tasks and table lookup tasks. Per multipart calculation. Per table lookup. Etc. 1%-2% Mitton [1987] Study of 170,016 errors in high-school essays, spelling errors. Per word. 2.4% Potter [1995] Errors in making entries in an aircraft flight management system. Per keystroke. Higher if heavy workload. 10.0% Rabbit [1990] Flash one of two letters on display screen. Subject hits one of two keys in response. After correction. Per choice. 0.6% Schoonard & Boies [1975] Line-o
from expected behavior. Under normal conditions, we can make between three to seven errors per hour. Under stressful, emergency, or unusual conditions, we can make an average of 11 errors per hour. But why do http://procedurenotfollowed.com/root-cause-human-error.html we make errors? Is it the individual’s fault? A recent presentation by the Idaho National Laboratory showed following: Latent organizational weaknesses include work processes, and, as the above shows, such work processes usually are behind human error. Why did the error occur? The procedure wasn’t followed. Why? Human error. Why was there human error? The work process needs improvement. Sometimes, human error proves just how good some workers are. At the beginning human error of a root cause analysis, it’s not uncommon to hear someone say: “Bob has been calibrating these instruments for 20 years and he just screwed up.” Though it may seem like finger-pointing, it’s actually the ultimate compliment, and the incident investigation facilitator should recognize it. Think about the math. Bob has performed this task twice a week, 100 times a year for 20 years. That’s 2,000 calibrations—and this is his first significant error? human error rate Error rates of just 1/1000 are considered exceptional, and Bob beat this by a long shot. Does this warrant a root cause analysis at all? It may, because incidents rarely if ever have just one cause. Are we absolutely sure that Bob’s mistake was the only reason the incident occurred? Dig deeper and you likely will find there’s more to the problem than Bob’s once-in-an-eon snafu. Beyond Blame If we stop at “Procedure Not Followed,” the usual response is to blame a person. Blame is easy and does not focus on the process. Let’s face it—“Procedure Not Followed” is a simple (albeit oversimplified) explanation of confusing and complex problems. It also requires little or no work from anyone in an organization except the person who made the mistake. How does this make the person feel? Not listened to, unappreciated and, eventually, apathetic, which isn’t good for anybody. The key to getting beyond the procedure-not-followed conundrum in a root cause analysis is obtaining detail, and it’s here where the Cause Mapping facilitator plays a key role. During the brief kickoff meeting that can start an incident investigation, the facilitator asks the group about its objective along with general questions about the incident. Expect different perspectives. Make sure everyone can see what is being written by using
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Tue, 18 Oct 2016 01:01:49 GMT by s_wx1094 (squid/3.5.20)