Option 1
Option 1
The human factor analysis and classification system (HFACS), classifies and identifies the various causes of human accidents. It also provides tools such that the same accident is not further repeated along with highlighting the training needs and prevention of the similar kinds of accidents. This assignment highlights the application of HFACS to a life event, along with an in-depth analysis of the usability of HFACS, the value in the investigation as well as its usefulness in the prevention of the similar kinds of accidents. A recommendation based on the HFACS has been provided along with highlighting certain limitations of the HFACS tool.
The life event that has been highlighted in the previous part of the assignment focuses on the risks that are faced in a workplace. The various risks in a workplace includes the height risk, risks of being exposed to chemicals, shocks from outdated electrical gadgets as well as risks of being locked out (Chauvin et al. 2013). These are major threats to the employees of any workplace. Accidents that arise from these risks might cause cognitive harm or physical harm to the employees, along with imparting mental trauma to the employees. One such incident took place in a construction site. An employee had fallen from a three storied under construction building, and suffered from fatal injuries. The employee was not equipped with fall protection and had a fatal accident (D?jus and Antuchevi?ien? 2013). The employee had suffered from fractured rib and broken right leg injury. Moreover, the fatal fall from that height also caused severe head injury (Diller et al. 2014). With such a traumatised incident, the entire workforce was shocked and terrified. They felt that their security was at stake, and hence they were diverted from their duty of diligent working (Dul et al. 2012).
HFACS could be applied to the accident that has occurred in the workplace such that the same accident or the similar kind of accident is not repeated again (D?jus and Antuchevi?ien? 2013). This has a key role to play, since the causes of the accident could be identified and the prevention of such accidents could also be done, using the HFACS (Ergai et al. 2016). The HFACS framework is essential in identifying the human errors at four levels. These are essential to be identified, such that prevention of the similar kinds of accidents could be mitigated. The four levels are as follows:
- Unsafe acts of the operators:The first level in the HFACS framework is the Unsafe Acts level. This level is divided into two categories. These are: Violations and Errors.
Errors: Errors refer to the unintentional behaviours that might have caused the accident (D?jus and Antuchevi?ien? 2013).
Errors could be further categorised as skill-based errors, decision errors as well as the perceptual errors (Hollaway and Johnson 2014).
Skill based error: This error occurs if there is any error in the operations and the execution of various skills. This kind of error occurs if adequate priority is not given to a particular task or if the checklist itself is erroneous (Konieczny et al. 2014).
Decision error: This kind of error occurs, if there is error in the decision being taken, along with the violation of the safety rules, while decision making (Omole and Walker 2015).
Application of HFACS to life events
Perceptual error: If the basic perception of the regulatory body of any organization is faulty, then, the operations and decision making takes place of faulty information. Thus, perceptual error occurs (Hollaway and Johnson 2014).
Violations: Violation refers to the non-compliance with the rules and regulations that have been set by a business organization, to be followed in a workplace. Violation could be categorized as Routine violation and exceptional violation (Omole and Walker 2015). Routine violation is defined as the habit of violation as a part of the regular operation of the business organization. exceptional violations are defined as the violation of the rules and regulations that might take place in case of exceptional situation (Hollaway and Johnson 2014).
In the mentioned case of accident, skill based error occurred as the basic requirement of the skill was not followed. Moreover, it is also a case of routine violation, since the safety measures of working at a height was violated at a regular basis (Hollaway and Johnson 2014). The employee as well as the business organization is at fault since the organization did not maintain the safety measures and the employee, who was working at the construction site of the three storied building did not use the safety equipments (D?jus and Antuchevi?ien? 2013).
- Preconditions of the unsafe acts: This is the second level of the HFACS framework. The preconditions for the Unsafe Acts are divided into three categories. These are as follows:
- Environmental factors: The environmental factors include the technological factors as well as the physical factors that has a significant impact on the practices of the business organization (Hollaway and Johnson 2014). The physical environment highlights the factors that affect the operational setting as well as the environment for successful working (Omole and Walker 2015). The weather and the altitude has a key role to play, in the preconditions of the unsafe acts (D?jus and Antuchevi?ien? 2013). The technological environments refer to the use of the appropriate automation and the use of technology that are best suitable for the organization (Hollaway and Johnson 2014). Lack of effective automation results in failure of the safety assurance in the business organization (D?jus and Antuchevi?ien? 2013). In case of the above mentioned accident, automation of the activities at a height could have prevented the occurrence of the accident.
- Condition of the operators: The adverse mental state, adverse physiological state as well as mental and physical limitation are included in the conditions of the operators (Hollaway and Johnson 2014). If the employees are not in proper mental state, or in good physiological state, then they are unable to perform well, thus increasing the chances of occurrence of accidents.
- Personnel factors: The management of human resources have a key role to play, in ensuring that workplace accidents do not occur frequently. These include lack of efficient communication, along with planning and coordination of the various operations (Omole and Walker 2015). The personal readiness is also an essential factor. The adherence to the organizational policies and refraining from alcoholism could reduce the chances of accidents (Hollaway and Johnson 2014).
- Unsafe supervision: The third level of the HFACS is the unsafe supervision level. The various categories of the unsafe supervision are as follows:
- Inadequate supervision: The role of a supervisor is to ensure that the staffs are working diligently, and are aligned towards the right track of work (Hollaway and Johnson 2014). However, if the supervision is done ineffectively, then the employees will be misguided and they will not succeed in fulfilling the organizational goals (Liu et al. 2015).
- Planning inappropriate operation: These refer to the operations that are only suitable during the emergency or adverse situations only. The planning of these particular operations are suitable only if there is any emergency situation (Omole and Walker 2015).
- Failing to correct the known problem: In these kind of situations, the deficiencies are known to the supervisor, yet they are ignored by the supervisors (Hollaway and Johnson 2014). Thus, the supervisors, gives rise to the possibility of accidents to occur, as they do not correct the known problems.
- Supervisory violation: This refers to the situation where the supervisors violate the existing rules and regulations. This might increase the chances of unnecessary hazards to occur (Madigan, Golightly and Madders 2016).
- Influence of the organization: This level is divided into three categories. These are:
- Resource management: This refers to the decision making process in the organizational level and the effective management of the various decisions and resources (Omole and Walker 2015).
Organizational climate: This refers to the working culture of the organization, the structure, policies as well as the culture in the business organization. These play a key role in the prevention of accidents or increasing the likelihood of occurrence (Hollaway and Johnson 2014).
Operational process: These are referred to as the organizational rules that are followed in the organization within the business organization.
The above-mentioned accident could have been mitigated if the operational process was followed effectively (Omole and Walker 2015). The business organization should have implemented the safety measures such that the employees working at a height could be made safe. Moreover, the employee himself should have ensured his own safety (Mosaly et al. 2014). The negligence in the safety of the employee resulted in such a fatal accident where the employee has fractured ribs, broken leg and severe head injury.
- Critique of HFACS
- Usability of HFACS
The HFACS has a lot of utility and could be used as an alternative to the root cause analysis. The root cause analysis could be effective in case of finding out the actual cause of any accident that has occurred in any business organization. As an alternative to the root cause analysis, the HFACS could be used effectively, to find out the actual cause of any accident (Hollaway and Johnson 2014). Moreover, using the HFACS framework, the investigation of the accidents could be done. This is better than the root cause analysis as the root cause analysis method lacks standardization, unlike the HFACS framework, which is a standardized framework. The root cause of the accidents, along with an in-depth analysis of the people who are responsible for the accidents are found out using this method. Moreover, an in-depth analysis of the accident using the HFACS tools ensures that the similar kind of accidents will not take place in future (Omole and Walker 2015). The HFACS provides a framework and guides the investigation process, identifying where exactly the issue occurred. If the issue of negligence occur in the organization, then the company would be liable for the occurrence of the accident. However, if the investigation highlights that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the employee or violation of the rules and regulations, then the company does not remain liable to implement the safety measures. Thus, the HFACS has a special significance and is much more effective than the root cause analysis.
- Value in the investigation of the human factor issues
Errors
The occurrence of any accident might be caused due to uncontrolled factors or by human factors, which could be controlled and improved. The HFACS has a special significance and value in the investigation of the human factors (Omole and Walker 2015). It identifies all possible factors that involves human beings and investigates the possible reason for the occurrence of the accidents. The human factors could be negligence of the employees or failure to abide by the rules and regulations of the organization (Zhan, Zheng and Zhao, 2017). Thus, human factors are correctly identified by the HFACS. This identification is essential in order to understand and eliminate the factors that might be potential reasons for occurrence of accidents. The human factors need to be identified correctly. If the human factor is found to be negligence, then the employees will be imposed with penalty. However, if it is found that the supervisors are at fault, then the necessary punishment has to be given, along with the assurance that such cases of negligence does not occur (Olsen and Williamson 2017).
- Usefulness with regards to learning from the present event
From the perspective of usefulness with regards to learning, the HFACS has a key significance. The investigation report of the HFACS could be used as learning experience. The employees, the supervisors as well as the management have to learn from the previous experience (Omole and Walker 2015). In case of the accident that had occurred in the construction site, the other employees will be able to learn from the accident and ensure that safety measures will be taken in future. Moreover, if it is found that the management itself is at fault, the employees could force the management to take the adequate security measures in order to ensure the safety of the employees. The lack of effective supervision could also be mitigated, and special care for the assurance of safety will be implemented in the business organization.
It might be recommended that the validity of the HFACS should be tested before it is implemented in the business organization. The validity of the tools could be tested using the parameters such as comprehensiveness, diagnosticity as well as reliability of the result. The comprehensiveness determines whether the framework is able to identify all the human factors and the significant information that has a key role to play in accident that has occurred. The property of diagnosticity highlights the ability to show the relationship among the errors that have occurred along with the trends and its causes. Another recommendation is to test the reliability of the results that are obtained from the HFACS tool. The results obtained needs to be consistent enough, to be able to determine the significant causes of the accident that has occurred. Some of the limitations include the lack of a common platform for work. The HFACS tool might not be suitable to analyse the main causes of accidents in every organization. Moreover, the lack of test for the reliability and comprehensiveness might reduce the effectiveness of the HFACS tool. Another limitation includes that the same tool might not be applicable in all industries, thus retrieving a result that cannot be relied on. The limitation also includes an accident might be purely an accident without any lack of supervision or without violation of the rules. However, even with adequate safety measures, accidents could occur thus making the use of the HFACS tool ineffective.
Skill based error
Conclusion
This assignment highlights the importance of human factor analysis and classification system (HFACS) in accidents caused in workplace. The assignment highlights an accident in a workplace where the worker had been working at a height of a three storied building and fell down with fracture at his ribs, broken leg as well as head injury. The fatality of the accident had traumatised all the employees. The use of HFACS tools helps in identifying the potential causes of the accident. It is essential to determine, whether the accident is caused by negligence of the employee or the negligence of the supervisor or lack of safety measures by the business organization itself. The HFACS helps in learning from one particular incident, such that similar accidents could be avoided. Few recommendations include the use of safety measures in the business organization, along with the supervision such that safe workplace could be ensured. The workplace safety has a key role to play in any business organization and it is essential for the achievement of sincere work from the employees. Moreover, one of the basic needs for motivating the employees is the assurance of safety. Thus, HFACS has a key role to play in indentifying the causes of accidents, along with taking adequate prevention.
References
Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J.P. and Langard, B., 2013. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, pp.26-37.
D?jus, T. and Antuchevi?ien?, J., 2013. Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(5), pp.728-737.
Diller, T., Helmrich, G., Dunning, S., Cox, S., Buchanan, A. and Shappell, S., 2014. The human factors analysis classification system (HFACS) applied to health care. American Journal of Medical Quality, 29(3), pp.181-190.
Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S., Wilson, J.R. and van der Doelen, B., 2012. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), pp.377-395.
Ergai, A., Cohen, T., Sharp, J., Wiegmann, D., Gramopadhye, A. and Shappell, S., 2016. Assessment of the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS): intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Safety science, 82, pp.393-398.
Hollaway, D.M.A. and Johnson, J.D., 2014. Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS): Investigatory Tool for Human Factors in Offshore Operational Safety. In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
Konieczny, K.M., Seager, L., Scott, J., Colbert, S., Dale, T. and Brennan, P.A., 2014. Experience of head and neck theatre staff and attitudes to human factors using an aviation-based analysis and classification system—a pilot survey. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 52(1), pp.38-42.
Liu, K.H., Chen, Y.L. and Chang, C.C., 2015. Applying the human factors analysis and classification system for human errors and injuries in the iron and steel industry. In Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA (Vol. 9, p. 14).
Madigan, R., Golightly, D. and Madders, R., 2016. Application of Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) to UK rail safety of the line incidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 97, pp.122-131.
Mosaly, P.R., Mazur, L., Miller, S.M., Eblan, M.J., Falchook, A., Goldin, G.H. and Marks, L.B., 2014. Assessing the applicability and reliability of the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) to the analysis of good catches in radiation oncology. International Journal of Radiation Oncology• Biology• Physics, 90(1), pp.S750-S751.
Omole, H. and Walker, G., 2015. Offshore Transport Accident Analysis Using HFACS. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, pp.1264-1272.
Olsen, N. and Williamson, A., 2017. Application of classification principles to improve the reliability of incident classification systems: a test case using HFACS-ADF. Applied ergonomics, 63, pp.31-40.
Zhan, Q., Zheng, W. and Zhao, B., 2017. A hybrid human and organizational analysis method for railway accidents based on HFACS-Railway Accidents (HFACS-RAs). Safety science, 91, pp.232-250.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
