Human-based checks are widely used to manage risk in safety-critical activities and often underpin important assumptions within safety cases. However, there is growing evidence that their effectiveness may be overstated. Research funded by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), together with recent Energy Institute guidance on quantitative human reliability analysis, has raised questions about whether so-called "independent" checks are truly independent and whether they provide the level of risk reduction often assumed.
In practice, those performing and checking a task frequently rely on the same procedures, equipment and information, while being exposed to the same operational pressures and performance-influencing factors. As a result, the checker may be vulnerable to many of the same conditions that contributed to the original error. In addition, checking activities may be incomplete, stop after the first error is identified, or not be carried out at all.
This webinar will explore the current evidence on the effectiveness of operational checks, the implications for risk assessment and safety cases, and the wider role of human performance and decision-making in the management of safety-critical work.
The webinar will feature Beatrix Duff and Apoorva Amirapu from the School of Psychology at the University of Aberdeen, who are undertaking ONR-funded PhD research into Efficacy of Operational Checks and Understanding Operational Decision-Making in Nuclear Safety respectively. They will discuss their ongoing research and emerging findings. They will be joined by James Hayton, Principal Human Factors Consultant at the Keil Centre, who will share practical insights drawn from his work in high-hazard industries and previous experience in aviation.
Contact details
Amy-Jane Lewis: [email protected], 207467144