4.7 Article

Bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA practice: A Bayesian network version of SPAR-H

Journal

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY
Volume 115, Issue -, Pages 33-42

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.015

Keywords

Human reliability analysis (HRA); Bayesian network (BN); SPAR-H; Causality; Context uncertainty

Funding

  1. Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at Sandia National Laboratories
  2. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-AC04-94AL85000]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The shortcomings of Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) have been a topic of discussion for over two decades. Repeated attempts to address these limitations have resulted in over 50 HRA methods, and the HRA research community continues to develop new methods. However, there remains a gap between the methods developed by HRA researchers and those actually used by HRA practitioners. Bayesian Networks (BNs) have become an increasingly popular part of the risk and reliability analysis framework over the past decade. BNs provide a framework for addressing many of the shortcomings of HRA from a researcher perspective and from a practitioner perspective. Several research groups have developed advanced HRA methods based on BNs, but none of these methods has been adopted by HRA practitioners in the U.S. nuclear power industry or at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In this paper we bridge the gap between HRA research and HRA practice by building a BN version of the widely used SPAR-H method. We demonstrate how the SPAR-H BN can be used by HRA practitioners, and we also demonstrate how it can be modified to incorporate data and information from research to advance HRA practice. The SPAR-H BN can be used as a starting point for translating HRA research efforts and advances in scientific understanding into real, timely benefits for HRA practitioners. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available