Applying a new human factor tool in the nuclear energy industry

Teperi, Anna‐Maria; Puro, Vuokko; Ratilainen, Henriikka

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.013

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The technological and procedural contribution dominated the conceptions of the interviewees, and human performance was not the focus. Kirwan (2003) and Teperi et al (2017a) found similar conceptual domination in the nuclear industry, Teperi (2012) also in air traffic management, and Hollnagel (2009) in the health care sector, despite the fact that safety frameworks have been shifting from technical analysis to aspects such as HF, safety culture and system analysis already for some time (Hollnagel et al 2006;Hollnagel, 2014;Hale and Hovden 1998).…”

Section: Conceptions Of Safety Culture In Maritime Organisationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It is obvious, that openness and the participation of the operative personnel should be increased, to determine indicators of "work-as-done" and local knowledge, which is highlighted in the Safety-II perspective. Evidence-based, practical examples of how this is implemented with participative methods have been described in several workplace interventions (see for example Teperi and Leppänen (2011) in air traffic control, Teperi et al (2017a) in nuclear industry and Teperi et al (2017b); in maritime). As safety meetings with seafarers' representation are demanded by MLC (2006), one way in which to proceed would be for administration, HR and/or occupational health and safety officers (presumably with the help of external HF experts) to arrange roundtable discussions together with operative personnel instead of strict auditing meetings with the aim of checking compliance.…”

Section: Prerequisites For Improving Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing artefacts of maritime safety culture—current state and prerequisites for improvement

Teperi

Lappalainen

Puro

et al. 2018

WMU J Marit Affairs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementing safety management (ISM Code) aims to promote a good safety culture in the maritime industry. However, although this has improved safety, it has also paradoxically increased bureaucracy and overlooked operative personnel. At the same time, safety science has undergone a paradigm shift from Safety-I, which is traditional and error based, to Safety-II, which focuses on the potential of the human element. To determine whether Safety-I is dominant in the prevailing culture, or whether any Safety-II ideas are emerging, we studied the current thinking and the prerequisites for improving maritime safety culture and safety management. We interviewed 17 operative employees and 12 safety and unit managers (n = 29), both individually and in groups, in eight Finnish maritime organisations representing the maritime system (shipping companies, authorities, vessel traffic service, association). We also analysed 21 inspection documents to capture practical safety defects. To the employees, safety culture meant openness and well-functioning, safe work. However, this was not always the case in practice. Safety management procedures were portrayed as mainly technical/ authority focused, and as neglecting the human element, such as the participation of operative personnel in safety improvements. We also found several factors that support improving maritime safety culture. The ISM code seems to have supported traditional methods of safety management (Safety-I), but not the creation of a positive safety culture, which the Safety-II paradigm has highlighted. System-wide safety improvement, participation of the operative personnel and open sharing of safety data were the areas in need of development. These were already being created in and among maritime organisations. To improve maritime safety culture in a concrete way and to achieve Safety-II in practice, we need a new focus and competence. Policy, procedures, and practical tools and models should use the human element as potential.

show abstract

Section: Conceptions Of Safety Culture In Maritime Organisationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Prerequisites For Improving Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing artefacts of maritime safety culture—current state and prerequisites for improvement

Teperi

Lappalainen

Puro

et al. 2018

WMU J Marit Affairs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Risks in nuclear power plants have attracted the attention of many researchers because of large scale devastating disasters such as the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 and the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident in 2011. Scholars have examined risk in nuclear power plants from multiple angles, including construction risks (Wang et al 2011), risks of refueling leakage (Rohrer and Nierode 1996), and risks in systems operation (Smith 1998;Le Bot 2004;Carvalho et al 2008;Jou et al 2011;Lee et al 2012;Anuar and Kim 2014;Teperi et al 2017). Risks in systems operation are further divided into components outage, initiating events (Smith 1998), human error-especially individual psychological error (Le Bot 2004), as well as human factors in human-system interfaces (Carvalho et al 2008;Anuar and Kim 2014), in reporting and analyzing operational events (Teperi et al 2017), and in the main control room (Jou et al 2011;Lee et al 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is still relatively little research on the production efficiency and the effects of human factors production on thermal power plants. Given that assessing risks and the sources of risk in plants cannot be independent from understanding the operating procedures of the plant (Orme and Venturini 2011), thermal power plants, with fewer automated control systems and fewer hazards, offer a different context from nuclear power plants, which so far have been more commonly the focus of research on human factors (e.g., Vaurio 2009;Jou et al 2011;Teperi et al 2017). Crucial inputs into production procedures, with negative and positive effects on production risks and sources of output variability (Tiedemann and Latacz-Lohmann 2013), and corresponding management approaches need to be examined.…”

Section: Managing Human Factors In Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with production risks of a technical nature, human factors in production risk are more uncontrollable because of individuals' unique personalities and ideas. Researchers have identified the influence of human factors on production in modern agriculture (Vollmer et al 2017), in manufacturing (e.g., Govindaraju et al 2001;Bevilacqua and Ciarapica 2018), and in the nuclear power industry (e.g., Le Bot 2004;Carvalho et al 2008;Vaurio 2009;Teperi et al 2017). Studies have shown that human factors are a potential source of risk regardless of the level of process and production automation in an industry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Production risk caused by human factors: a multiple case study of thermal power plants

Diao

Ghorbani

2018

Front. Bus. Res. China

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Thermal power plants are very popular in China. However, there has not been proportional research attention paid to production risk in these plants and human impact on production due to their importance in electricity generation. This study investigates production risks caused by human factors in thermal power plants and management methods to address identified human factors. Case description: Eighteen semi-structured interviews with front-line, middle and senior managers from four thermal power plants in China were carried out in this cross-sectional inductive study. Fault tree analysis and causal network analysis are used. Discussion and evaluation: We identify a range of production risks and human factors potentially influencing production in both negative and positive ways. We also recognize the most effective and practical relevant management methods to deal with identified human factors. Conclusion: By investigating production risk caused by human factors through the whole production process, this study emphasizes working attitude, safety consciousness, creativity and awareness of environmental protection as essential human factors potentially influencing production risks in thermal power plants. Through our analysis, by linking human factors to different types of production risk and supplying corresponding management methods to address these human factors, we offer practical human resource management approaches in the production management of thermal power plants.

show abstract

Applying human factors in the nuclear industry—people as a presence of positive capacity for improving safety

Teperi

2021

Human Factors in the Nuclear Industry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applying a new human factor tool in the nuclear energy industry

Cited by 22 publications

References 36 publications

Assessing artefacts of maritime safety culture—current state and prerequisites for improvement

Assessing artefacts of maritime safety culture—current state and prerequisites for improvement

Production risk caused by human factors: a multiple case study of thermal power plants

Applying human factors in the nuclear industry—people as a presence of positive capacity for improving safety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About