How Explicit Are the Barriers to Failure in Safety Arguments?

Smith, Shamus P.; Harrison, Michael D.; Schupp, Bastiaan A.

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30138-7_27

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, some authors purpose other barrier classifications and introduce the notion of sociotechnical barrier [5]: a combination of technical, human, and organizational means that prevents or protect against an unwanted consequence. The classification is not so important.…”

Section: Barriers and Human Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Behaviour Analysis of Barrier Deviations Using a Benefit‐Cost‐Deficit Model

Polet

Vanderhaegen

Millot

2009

Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Benefit-Cost-Deficit (BCD) model is proposed for analyzing such intentional human errors as barrier removal, the deliberate nonrespect of the rules and instructions governing use of a given system. The proposed BCD model attempts to explain and predict barrier removal in terms of the benefits, costs, and potential deficits associated with this human behaviour. The results of an experimental study conducted on a railway simulator (TRANSPAL) are used to illustrate the advantages of the BCD model. In this study, human operators were faced with barriers that they could choose to deactivate, or not. Their decisions were analyzed in an attempt to explain and predict their choices. The analysis highlights that operators make their decisions using a balance between several criteria. Though barriers are safety-related elements, the decision to remove them is not guided only by the safety criterion; it is also motivated by such criteria as productivity, workload, and quality. Results of prediction supported by the BCD demonstrate the predictability of barrier violation

show abstract

Section: Barriers and Human Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Behaviour Analysis of Barrier Deviations Using a Benefit‐Cost‐Deficit Model

Polet

Vanderhaegen

Millot

2009

Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Making this use of barriers explicit within the structure of the argument can be helpful in analysing and assessing how the barriers are implemented in the actual system (or a previous version of the system), and whether there are any potentially weak spots, such as single barriers for high-risk hazards, or independent barriers for which operational feedback provides evidence of common failure behaviour. This develops previous work that began to establish an agenda for assessing the use of barriers in dependability arguments [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Qualitative analysis of dependability argument structure

Sujan

Smith

Harrison

Structure for Dependability: Computer-Based Systems From an Interdisciplinary Perspective

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification

Nair

Vara

Sabetzadeh³

et al. 2014

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Context: Critical systems in domains such as aviation, railway, and automotive are often subject to a formal process of safety certification. The goal of this process is to ensure that these systems will operate safely without posing undue risks to the user, the public, or the environment. Safety is typically ensured via complying with safety standards. Demonstrating compliance to these standards involves providing evidence to show that the safety criteria of the standards are met. Objective:In order to cope with the complexity of large critical systems and subsequently the plethora of evidence information required for achieving compliance, safety professionals need in-depth knowledge to assist them in classifying different types of evidence, and in structuring and assessing the evidence. This paper is a step towards developing such a body of knowledge that is derived from a largescale empirically rigorous literature review. Method:We use a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) as the basis for our work. The SLR builds on 218 peer-reviewed studies, selected through a multi-stage process, from 4,963 studies published between 1990 and 2012. Results:We develop a taxonomy that classifies the information and artefacts considered as evidence for safety. We review the existing techniques for safety evidence structuring and assessment, and further study the relevant challenges that have been the target of investigation in the academic literature. We analyse commonalities in the results among different application domains and discuss implications of the results for both research and practice. Conclusion:The paper is, to our knowledge, the largest existing study on the topic of safety evidence. The results are particularly relevant to practitioners seeking a better grasp on evidence requirements as well as to researchers in the area of system safety. As a major finding of the review, the results strongly suggest the need for more practitioner-oriented and industry-driven empirical studies in the area of safety certification.

show abstract

How Explicit Are the Barriers to Failure in Safety Arguments?

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Human Behaviour Analysis of Barrier Deviations Using a Benefit‐Cost‐Deficit Model

Human Behaviour Analysis of Barrier Deviations Using a Benefit‐Cost‐Deficit Model

Qualitative analysis of dependability argument structure

An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About