A critique of recent models for human error rate assessment

Abstract

Abstract This paper critically reviews two groups of models for assessing human error rates under accident conditions. The first group, which includes the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) handbook model and the human cognitive reliability (HCR) model, considers as fundamental the time that is available to the operators to act. The second group, which is presented by the success likelihood index methodology-multiattribute utility decomposition (SLIM-MAUD) model, relies on ratings of the human actions with respect to certain qualitative factors and the subsequent derivation of error rates. These models are evaluated with respect to two criteria: the treatment of uncertainties and the internal coherence of the models. In other words, this evaluation focuses primarily on normative aspects of these models. The principal findings are as follows: (1) Both of the time-related models provide human error rates as a function of the available time for action and the prevailing conditions. However, the HCR model ignores the important issue of state-of-knowledge uncertainties, dealing exclusively with stochastic uncertainty, whereas the model presented in the NRC handbook handles both types of uncertainty. (2) SLIM-MAUD provides a highly structured approach for the derivation of human error rates under given conditions. However, the treatment of the weights and ratings in this model is internally inconsistent.