Two Decades On Human Reliability Analysis

Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107969
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anucene
Review
Two decades on human reliability analysis: A bibliometric analysis and

literature review
Lin-Xiu Hou a, Ran Liu a, Hu-Chen Liu b,⇑,1, Shan Jiang a
a
School of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, PR China
b
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, PR China
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Human reliability analysis (HRA) is a systematic technique to assess human systematic risk, and has been
Received 21 February 2020 widely used in various industries for enhancing the safety and reliability of complex socio-technical sys-
Received in revised form 19 October 2020 tems. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the literature on this topic. This
Accepted 20 October 2020
article aims to provide academics and practitioners with a bibliometric overview and visualization of the
Available online 9 November 2020
HRA field. For doing so, 271 publications derived from the Web of Science and published from 2009 to
2020 were analyzed by the CiteSpace regarding cooperation network, co-citation network, and keyword
Keywords:
co-occurrence network. The cooperation network analysis indicates that the most productive authors in
Human reliability analysis
Probabilistic safety assessment
the HRA area are Jinkyun Park, Wondea Jun and Yochan Kim from the Korea Atomic Energy Research
Performance shaping factor Institute, and the selected publications mainly from South Korea, USA, and China. By the co-citation net-
Human error probability work analysis, the core journals are identified as Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Safety Science,
Bibliometric analysis and Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries; the influential authors are Alan D Swain, Erik
Literature review Hollnagel, and Barry A Kirwan; and the emerging research trends are determined as ‘‘decision making”,
‘‘humane performance data”, ‘‘dependence assessment”, and ‘‘ratio magnitude estimation”. The keyword
co-occurrence network analysis shows that the research hotspots in the HRA domain are ‘‘CREAM”,
‘‘quantification”, and ‘‘performance”. Based on these trends and blind spots in the literature, potential
future research directions are also suggested. The results provide valuable information for scholars to
grasp the current situations, hotspots, and future development trends of the HRA area.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Research methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Results and discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Publication trend in the HRA field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Cooperation network analysis in the HRA field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2.1. Author cooperation network analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2.2. Institution cooperation network analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Country cooperation network analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Co-citation analysis in the HRA field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Journal co-citation analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Author co-citation analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.3. Document co-citation analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Keyword co-occurrence analysis in the HRA field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Suggestions for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, PR China.
E-mail address: huchenliu@tongji.edu.cn (H.-C. Liu).
1
ORCID: 0000-0003-4566-2107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107969
0306-4549/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Lin-Xiu Hou, R. Liu, Hu-Chen Liu et al. Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107969
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgments . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction body of academic literature within a given research area (Yang

et al., 2020). Consequently, this paper aims to systematically
Human reliability analysis (HRA) is a systematic approach to review the HRA literature on the basis of bibliometric analysis. In
identify, quantify, and reduce the human errors of human–ma- this review, a total of 271 papers published in international jour-
chine systems. It has been performed as a vital part of probabilistic nals from 2009 to 2020 were identified from the database of
risk assessment that considers all possible accident scenarios to Web of Science (WOS). We analyze the scientific articles with
probabilistically evaluate the overall safety of a system. Human respect to cooperation network, co-citation network, and keyword
reliability is defined as the probability of successful performance co-occurrence network. The main objectives of this paper are to
of a task and human errors are the human behaviors that fall out- determine (1) the tendency in terms of the number of publications
side the tolerance scope of a system where a person operates on HRA, (2) the most productive and influential authors, institu-
(Porthin et al., 2020). Normally, five stages are included in an tions, and countries, and their cooperation relationships, (3) the
HRA process: problem definition or analysis scope specification, most impactful journals, articles, and authors based on their cita-
task modelling, human error analysis, human error quantification, tions and co-citations, and (4) the hot research topics and their
and error management recommendation (Sujan et al., 2020). Since trends in the research domain of HRA. In addition, the research
the advent of the first HRA method, i.e., technique for human error gaps, challenges, and future research directions are discussed
rate prediction (THERP) (Swain and Guttman, 1983), a lot of HRA based on the analysis of previous studies.
tools have been proposed for general use or for specific applica- The remaining part of this article is organized as follows: In
tions, which include human error assessment and reduction tech- Section 2, the research methodology and the review process of this
nique (HEART) (Williams, 1988), cognitive reliability and error study are introduced. In Section 3, the results of bibliometric anal-
analysis methods (CREAM) (Hollnagel, 1998), standardized plant ysis are presented with the consideration of the listed research
analysis risk human reliability analysis (SPAR-H) (Gertman et al., aims. Section 4 discusses the blind spots missed by HRA research-
2005), Phoenix (Ekanem et al., 2016), and Petro-HRA (Laumann ers and provides suggestions for the future work. Finally, Section 5
and Rasmussen, 2016). Over the past two decades, HRA has been summarizes and concludes this paper.
used as a systematic technique to mitigate the risk associated with
human errors in the operation of complex systems, and has been 2. Research methodology
applied to a variety of industries, including the nuclear (Kančev,
2020; Kang and Seong, 2020; Park et al., 2019b), petroleum The scientific publications used in this study were retrieved
(Abílio Ramos et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2020), healthcare (Liu from the WOS database. The WOS was selected because it is a com-
et al., 2018; Pandya et al., 2020), and other safety–critical indus- monly accepted database of abstracts and references from high-
tries (Ung, 2019; Wang et al., 2020). quality and impactful scientific papers (Gaviria-Marin et al.,
To date, some literature reviews in relation to the HAR have 2019; Gil et al., 2020; Shukla et al., 2019), and offers the ability
been conducted from different perspectives. For example, Porthin to export bibliographic meta-data for use in the commonly used
et al. (2020) reviewed current knowledge about the effect of digital bibliometric software. To ensure the quality of data, only peer-
nuclear power plant (NPP) control rooms on human reliability and reviewed journal articles are considered in this study, excluding
system safety. Tao et al. (2020) carried out a bibliometric analysis textbooks, doctoral dissertations, letters, and conference proceed-
of the human reliability researches published between 1984 and ings. To ensure the comprehensiveness of the search results, the
2018. Alvarenga and Frutuoso e Melo (2019) reviewed the cogni- keywords of ‘‘human reliability analysis”, ‘‘human error probabil-
tive basis for HRA, and Pan et al. (2017) investigated the cognitive ity”, ‘‘human error analysis”, ‘‘probabilistic risk assessment”, ‘‘de-
models applied in HRA methods. Rasmussen et al. (2015) analyzed pendence assessment”, and ‘‘HRA data collection” are utilized for
different elements included in the task complexity as performance literature search in the ‘‘article titles, abstracts, and keywords”.
shaping factor (PSF) through a thematic analysis. (Mkrtchyan et al., In addition, the period of time limitation for the literature search
2015) surveyed the use of Bayesian belief network in HRA and is from 2009 to 2020, and the language of publication was limited
pointed out their different features. In Alvarenga et al. (2014), a to English. The search was conducted in May 2020, and a total of
critical evaluation of the methods for evaluating organizational 1945 documents were initially obtained from the WOS database.
factors in HRA was made. In French et al. (2011), a critical review After deleting duplicate records, 1742 different records were
of the HRA models was performed for managers to manage com- remained for further analysis. This study only focuses the
plex systems safely. For comparing and evaluating HRA methods, researches which applied HRA for reliability analysis and planning.
Boring et al. (2010) reviewed the past benchmarking studies in Finally, 271 papers were considered within the scope of this
the areas of psychology and risk assessment. Besides, a review of research after title, abstract and full-text screening. The search pro-
advances in the HRA of post-initiator errors of commission (EOCs), cess and the steps to obtain the final dataset is shown in Fig. 1.
consisting of EOC identification and quantification, has been car- In order to realize the quantitative analysis and visualization of
ried out and presented in Reer (2008a), Reer (2008b). the retrieved literature, CiteSpace was used in this study to per-
Although the above review studies provide valuable insights form the bibliometric analysis. The software is a visualization tool
and research directions on HRA, there is a lack of a comprehensive to detect and visualize the distribution features of a certain field
bibliometric analysis of the literature on this topic. Compared to (Chen, 2006), and has been widely used in many areas to identify
standard literature reviews, the bibliometric analysis is an effective emerging developments regarding trends and dynamics in scien-
way to obtain high-level insights in the characteristics of a large tific literature (Cong and Shi, 2019; He et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2017).
2
being basically the same (on average 12 articles per year). In

2013, the number of publications increased to 20 articles, and for
the following years the publication maintained an average of 20
articles till 2016. The last period showed the greatest increase,
starting from 2017 with 31 articles published, and the number of
publications reached a peak of 49 in 2019. Note that only five
months are considered in this study, and thus the publication
quantity is 29 in 2020. With the rapid development of technologies
and devices in systems, the contribution of human factors to sys-
tem failures is becoming more salient. Therefore, it is predicted
that the field of HRA will attract growing attention from research
communities and the number of articles will continue to increase
in the next decade.
3.2. Cooperation network analysis in the HRA field
In this section, the cooperation networks of authors, institu-

tions, and countries are analyzed to obtain observed features of
evolution in the HRA field and find productive authors, influential
institutions and leading countries.
3.2.1. Author cooperation network analysis

Fig. 3 presents the author cooperation network of the HRA pub-
Fig. 1. Retrieval process of this study. lications, where the thicknesses of links reflect the cooperation
intensity of two authors and the color reflects the year that they
were firstly co-authored. As can be seen, the authors who pub-
3. Results and discussions lished at least three papers on the topic can be segmented into
eight major research groups. For example, Vinh N Dang has
3.1. Publication trend in the HRA field authored with Huafei Liao, Andreas Bye, John Forester, Erasmia Lois
and Yung Hsien Chang for three times in 2009 in the collaborative
Fig. 2 illustrates the frequency distribution of the selected 271 network #1. For the collaborative network #3, Jinkyun Park has
articles in line with the publication year. It can be seen that the authored with Wondea Jung for 13 times since 2009, with Yochan
number of annually published HRA researches has overall steadily Kim for 13 times since 2012, and with Jaewhan Kim for seven times
increased since 2009. Moreover, the researches on HRA can be since 2009. In addition, we can find that some authors in the net-
roughly divided into three stages. The starting period from 2009 work are not connected to each other and the communication
to 2012 was quite stable, with the annual number of publications among the formed research groups is weak.
Fig. 2. Distribution of papers by publication year.
3
Fig. 3. Author cooperation network in the HRA area.
Next, a detailed analysis on the representative research groups soft control. Park et al. (2016b) proposed a framework to estimate
in Fig. 3 is presented. The group #1 has published five research task opportunities in terms of off-normal tasks from the opera-
articles from 2009 to 2020. Kyriakidis et al. (2018) presented a gen- tional experience of NPPs. Based on this framework, Park et al.
eric framework for developing a standardized list of PSFs that could (2018) further calculated the nominal HEPs from investigation
be used across sectors to describe the immediate and latent factors reports that reflect the operation experience of NPPs. Third, Ham
that affect human performance. In Liao et al. (2019a), Liao et al. and Park (2020) applied a big data analysis technique to collect
(2019b), Liao et al. (2019c), the international HRA empirical study HRA data from event investigation reports based on the Safety-II
and the US HRA empirical study were analyzed to develop an concept. Jung et al. (2009) summarized the process and results of
empirically-based understanding of the performance, strengths, human event repository based on the simulator data on a steam
and weaknesses of HRA methods by comparing HRA method pre- generator tube rupture (SGTR) scenario. Jung et al. (2020) reported
dictions against actual operator performance in simulated accident a framework, named as human reliability data extraction (HuREX),
scenarios on NPP simulators. Pandya et al. (2020) developed a for the HRA data collection in NPPs. Kim et al. (2017b) presented a
quantification framework of HRA method based on expert judg- scheme to classify the erroneous behaviors identified by the
ment aggregation and applied it to the radiotherapy domain. HuREX framework for HEP estimations. In addition, Lee et al.
The group #3 has published 50 articles since 2009, and Jinkyun (2011) proposed a CREAM-based communication error analysis
Park and Wondea Jung contributed the most. In a nutshell, there method to analyze the communication errors in NPPs. Jang et al.
existed three research teams in this group, which were chaired (2016) suggested an HRA framework to evaluate soft control exe-
by Jinkyun Park, Jooyoung Park, and Katrina M Groth, respectively. cution error in advanced MCRs. Park et al. (2016a) used a process
The first research team published 34 articles and they paid more mining technique to characterize the work process of MCR crews.
attention to PSF (i.e., performance influencing factor) analysis, Park et al. (2015) put forward a conceptual framework to deter-
human error probability (HEP) estimation, HRA data collection, mine the response time data of human operators working in the
and HRA method. First, Kim et al. (2016) analyzed and identified MCR of NPPs under a seismic event.
the main drivers affecting the performance of human operators The second research team published five papers, which mainly
during-low power and shutdown operation in NPPs. Kim et al. investigated the factors impacting HRA. Park et al. (2017) studied
(2017a) adopted a profiling technique to determine the weights the relationships between PSFs and operator performances in the
of PSFs when performing HRA during low power and shutdown digital MCR by using an NPP simulator. Park et al. (2019a) per-
operations. Kim et al. (2015) proposed a statistical methodology formed a comparison of the quantification aspects of four
using a logistic regression and stepwise variable selection to esti- typically-used HRA methods in NPPs. Park et al. (2019b) developed
mate the effects of PSFs on HEPs of soft controls. Kim and Park an approach for the analysis of the human and organizational fac-
(2019) proposed an analysis based on the Bayesian logistic regres- tors in a multi-unit HRA based on SPAR-H, and Arigi et al. (2019)
sion to estimate the multipliers of PSFs on HEPs. Kim et al. (2017c) identified the human and organizational factors for the multi-
proposed a practical framework to quantitatively measure the unit probabilistic risk assessment of NPPs based on literature
levels of socio-psychological PSFs using human error data. Second, review. Park et al. (2020) investigated the inter-relationships
Lee et al. (2013) suggested an evaluation framework for quantify- between PSFs for HRA in NPPs based on correlation and factor anal-
ing the HEPs during soft control operations. Cho et al. (2020) sug- yses and treated them by a context-based approach.
gested a method for the estimation of HEPs using Monte Carlo The third research team published nine articles, which manly
thermal–hydraulic simulation. Jang et al. (2013) investigated the focused on improving HRA with Bayesian networks or developing
basic HEPs for advanced main control room (MCR) operation using advanced HRA methods. For example, Groth and Mosleh (2012)
4
suggested a methodology to develop a data-informed Bayesian come from South Korea; others come from Turkey, USA, Switzer-
network of PSFs using multiple sources of HRA data. Groth and land, and Canada, respectively.
Swiler (2013) built a Bayesian network version of the SPAR-H
method for bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA prac- 3.2.2. Institution cooperation network analysis
tice. Groth et al. (2014) provided a Bayesian methodology to The institution cooperation network of the retrieved HRA pub-
enhance the scientific basis of HRA by incorporate simulator data lications is shown in Fig. 4, where the size of nodes reflects the
into the estimation of HEPs, and Zwirglmaier et al. (2017) proposed number of articles, the connection between nodes reflects cooper-
an approach to enhance the scientific basis of HRA by capturing ation relationship, and the thickness of connections reflects the
causal paths with Bayesian network models. In addition, Pandya cooperation strength. The threshold for the number of publications
et al. (2018) presented a methodology to develop the generic task was set at three, with a total of 31 institutions meeting the thresh-
type-PSF structure for the external beam radiotherapy domain. old. As shown in the figure, Korea Atom Energy Research Institute
Groth et al. (2019) defined a hybrid algorithm for developing cog- is the centrality with the most collaborative publications; Paul
nitively based third generation HRA methods using multisource Scherrer Institute, Korea Advanced Institute of Science Technology,
data, causal models, and cognitive science. Podofillini et al. and Chosun University have cooperated with it. Furthermore, the
(2010) proposed a method based on fuzzy expert system for the Paul Scherrer Institute from Switzerland has cross-regional cooper-
dependence assessment in HRA that can capture the rules used ation with Polytechnic University of Milan, Sandia National Labora-
by experts to assess dependence levels. tory, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Sandia
Table 1 lists the most productive authors in the HRA field based National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and Nanyang
on the total number of publications. In this table, the authors are Technological University. Korea Atom Energy Research Institute,
divided into three categories according to the number of publica- Paul Scherrer Institute, and Korea Advanced Institute of Science
tions, i.e., ‘‘A (20 or more publications)”, ‘‘B (10 or more publica- Technology are three institutions with the largest number of
tions and less than 20), and ‘‘C (5 or more publications and less publications.
than 10)”. The most prolific author is Jinkyun Park, who published Table 2 summarizes the most prolific institutions based on the
24 articles in the HRA field, followed by Wondea Jun and Yochan- number of published papers on HRA. These institutions con-
Kim with 17 and 10 publications, respectively. They are the most tributed 143 articles accounting for 52.8% of the total publications.
important scholars who promote communication between schol- Further, the institutions are divided into three categories according
ars in the HRA field. In addition, eight of the 14 productive authors to the number of publications, i.e., ‘‘A (20 or more publications)”,
Table 1
Top 14 productive authors on the topic of HRA.
Ranking Publication Author Institution Country

A 24 Jinkyun Park Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute South Korea
B 17 Wondea Jung Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute South Korea
B 10 Yochan Kim Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute South Korea
C 9 Jaewhan Kim Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute South Korea
C 8 Emre Akyuz Istanbul Technical University Turkey
C 8 Poong Hyun Seong Korea Advanced Institute of Science Technology South Korea
C 8 Ali Mosleh University of California USA
C 7 Vinh N Dang Paul Scherrer Institute Switzerland
C 6 Faisal Khan Memorial University of Newfoundland Canada
C 5 Ar Ryum Kim Korea Advanced Institute of Science Technology South Korea
C 5 Inseok Jang Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute South Korea
C 5 Luca Podofillini Paul Scherrer Institute Switzerland
C 5 Seung Jun Lee Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology South Korea
C 5 Sankaran Mahadevan Vanderbilt University USA
Fig. 4. Institution cooperation network in the HRA field.
5
Table 2
Top 16 productive institutions of the HRA field.
Ranking Institution Publication Country

A Korea Atom Energy Research Institute 39 Korea
B Paul Scherrer Institute 14 Switzerland
B Korea Advanced Institute of Science 12 Korea
Technology
C Memorial University of 8 Canada
Newfoundland
C Sandia National Laboratory 8 USA
C University of Maryland 7 USA
C Idaho National Laboratory 6 USA
C Istanbul Technical University 6 Turkey
C Vanderbilt University 6 USA
C Polytechnic University of Milan 6 Italy
C Chosun University 6 Korea
C Beihang University 5 China
C Southwest University 5 China
C Norwegian University of Science and 5 Norway
Technology
C The Ohio State University 5 USA
C Bursa Technical University 5 Turkey
‘‘B (10 or more publications and less than 20), and ‘‘C (5 or more
Fig. 6. Distribution of articles with respect to continents.
publications and less than 10)”. It can be observed that the Korea
Atom Energy Research Institute (39 articles) is the most productive
institution, followed by Paul Scherrer Institute (14 articles), and in terms of the number of publications, and it is followed by South
Korea Advanced Institute of Science Technology (12 articles). Korea (49 articles) and USA (48 articles). This shows that these
Among the 16 institutions, three are from Korea with a total of three countries are the main research forces of the HRA field.
57 articles, five from USA with 32 papers, and two from Turkey Fig. 6 further presents the distribution of publications on the
with a total of 11 articles. Although only one institution is from basis of continents. As it is seen from the figure, more than 77%
Switzerland, the Paul Scherrer Institute has the second largest of the included publications are derived from Europe and Asia,
number of publications. Besides, 11 institutions are universities and Asia with 158 articles is ranked as the first based on the num-
in the 16 productive institutions. Hence, universities are of key ber of articles.
importance to drive and direct HRA researches.
3.3. Co-citation analysis in the HRA field
3.2.3. Country cooperation network analysis
Fig. 5 shows the country cooperation network in the HRA field, Co-citation refers to the presence of two or more journals,
where the size of nodes represents the amount of published arti- authors, and documents in the list of references for the third doc-
cles, the line between them reflects cooperation relationship, and ument (Osareh, 1996). Co-citation networks can be analyzed to
the thickness of the links reflects the level of cooperation between explore the structure of science in certain aspects, including jour-
countries. In this figure, the countries published more than 10 arti- nals, authors, and documents.
cles on the topic are displayed. As can be seen, there are strong col-
laborations between South Korea and Switzerland, Switzerland
3.3.1. Journal co-citation analysis
and USA, England and Brazil. That is, these countries played a par-
Fig. 7 shows the journal co-citation network in the HRA field,
ticularly important role in linking cross-country cooperation in the
where the size of nodes indicates the number of journal citations,
HRA field. Furthermore, China with 60 articles is ranked as the first
and the line between them indicates the co-citation frequency
between journals. As can be observed, the most cited journals are
Reliability Engineering & System Safety (238 citations), Safety
Science (149 citations), and Journal of Loss Prevention in the Pro-
cess Industries (102 citations). All the 10 most significant journals
on HRA are listed in Table 3. In terms of the link number, Journal of
Loss Prevention in the Process Industries (17 links) has the most
citation with others in the HRA area, followed by Annals of Nuclear
Energy (15 links), Reliability Engineering & System Safety (14
links), and Safety Science (13 links).
3.3.2. Author co-citation analysis

Fig. 8 shows the author co-citation network in the HRA field,
where the size of nodes reflects the quantity of author’s citations,
the link between them reflects co-citation relationship between
authors, the color reflects the year that the authors were firstly
co-cited, and the thicknesses of different links stand for the times
of two authors being co-cited. As shown in Fig. 8, Alan D Swain
from the Sandia National Laboratory is the most highly cited
author, who recievd 145 citations and focused on the research of
Fig. 5. Country cooperation network in the HRA field. PSFs (Swain, 1982). Erik Hollnagel from the Linköping University
6
Fig. 7. Journal co-citation network in the HRA field.
Table 3
The 10 most significant journals on HRA.
Ranking Journal Citation Impact factor Publication

1 Reliability Engineering & System Safety 238 5.040 75
2 Safety Science 149 4.105 42
3 Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 102 2.795 9
4 Annals of Nuclear Energy 94 1.378 29
5 Applied Ergonomics 75 3.145 1
6 Risk Analysis 75 3.137 6
7 Nuclear Engineering and Technology 52 1.846 7
8 Human Factors 51 3.165 2
9 Nuclear Engineering and Design 49 1.620 6
10 Fuzzy Sets and Systems 37 3.305 2
Fig. 8. Author co-citation network in the HRA field.
7
Table 4 cussed the scenario authoring, characterization, and debriefing

Top 10 cited authors in the HRA field. application (SACADA) data taxonomy, the theoretical foundation,
Ranking Author Citation Institution the prospective data to be generated from the SACADA raw data
1 Alan D Swain 145 Sandia National Laboratory to inform human reliability and human performance. Yang et al.
2 Erik Hollnagel 136 Linköping University (2013) proposed a modified CREAM to facilitate human reliability
3 Barry A Kirwan 114 Eurocontrol Experimental quantification in marine engineering by incorporating fuzzy evi-
Centre dential reasoning and Bayesian inference logic. Groth and Swiler
4 David I Gertman 83 Idaho National Laboratory
5 James Reason 63 University of Manchester
(2013) bridged the gap between HRA research and HRA practice
6 Janet C Williams 62 Det Norske Veritas by building a Bayesian network version of the SPAR-H method.
7 Katrina M Groth 57 University of Maryland Furthermore, Fig. 10 is the timeline view of document clusters,
8 Ronald Laurids 57 Idaho National Laboratory which shows that 440 references of the selected documents can be
Boring
clustered into eight clusters in the HRA area. The horizontal line
9 Jooyoung Park 55 Chosun University
10 Bruce P Hallbert 48 Idaho National Laboratory represents changes over time of the research hotspots, and the size
of the circle refers to the hot degree in a certain period.
As we can see, three clusters are formed by the researches
around 2007, i.e., #2 expert elicitation, #5 performance influencing
and Barry A Kirwan from the Eurocontrol Experimental Centre
factors, and #6 organizational factors. Each of the three clusters
come in second and third positions, and they received 136 and
shows only few citation tree-rings, which implies that they have
114 citations, respectively. Erik Hollnagel focused on the reliability
not received much attention in the literature. As far as the cluster
of cognition (Hollnagel, 1991, 1996), and Barry A Kirwan special-
#2, a method was developed by Čepin (2008) to consider the
ized in the validation of the HRA techniques THERP, HEART and
dependencies between human actions, which integrates the fea-
JHEDI (Kirwan, 1996, 1997; Kirwan et al., 1997). The 10 most cited
tures of existing methods and the experience from a full scope
authors also include David I Gertman, James Reason, and Janet C
plant simulator. Marseguerra et al. (2007) proposed a systematic
Williams (cf. Table 4). In terms of the link number, Erik Hollnagel
procedure for computing probabilities of operator action failure
(20 links) has co-citated with others most in the HRA area, fol-
in the CREAM. For the cluster #5, scholars discussed how to collect
lowed by Katrina M (19 links) and Groth David I Gertman (18
human performance data under the influence of various PSFs. For
links).
example, each individual operator’s behaviors were simulated
through a cognitive model under the influence of explicitly mod-
3.3.3. Document co-citation analysis
eled PSFs (Chang and Mosleh, 2007b). The information, decision,
Fig. 9 displays the document co-citation network of the HRA
and action in crew context (IDAC) model was described by Chang
researches. Every node represents a publication and the size of
and Mosleh (2007c) for HRA. Regarding the cluster #6, Chang
nodes denotes the number of citations a reference has been
and Mosleh (2007b) identified the IDAC set of PSFs, providing their
received. The links between nodes represent co-citation relation
definitions and causal organization in the form of a modular influ-
between two documents, and the color reflects the year that the
ence diagram. An integrated decision support system to aid opera-
documents were firstly co-cited. The documents with at least 10
tor cognitive processes was proposed by Lee and Seong (2007) for
co-citations are visible in the figure. It can be found that the top
advanced MCRs of future NPPs. Chang and Mosleh (2007a) devel-
three co-cited articles were published by Chang et al. (2014),
oped a model to probabilistically predict the responses of the con-
Yang et al. (2013), and Groth and Swiler (2013), which received
trol room operating crew in NPPs during an accident.
26, 23, and 21 co-citations, respectively. Chang et al. (2014) dis-
Fig. 9. Document co-citation network in the HRA field.
8
Fig. 10. Timeline view of document clusters in the HRA field.
Between 2010 and 2015, four areas have attracted a lot of atten- AHP method for dependence assessment among human errors.
tion from researchers, which include #0 decision-making, #1 Guo et al. (2017) adopted evidence credibility decay model to
human performance data, #3 dependence assessment, and #4 assess the dependence between tasks in HRA. Zheng and Deng
Dempster-Shafer evidence theory. First, the cluster #0 began to (2018) used an evidential network approach extended by belief
appear in 2007 and had drawn plenty of interest in 2013. Many rules and uncertainty measures to handle dependence in HRA.
researches attempted to use decision-making methods for HRA in Podofillini et al. (2010) presented a methodology for dependence
this area. Yang et al. (2013) proposed a modified CREAM to facili- assessment in HRA that captures the rules used by experts to
tate human reliability quantification in the marine engineering assess dependence levels and incorporates this knowledge into a
by incorporating fuzzy evidential reasoning and Bayesian inference software tool. Liu et al. (2018) developed a large group dependence
logic. Akyuz and Celik (2015b) provided a methodological exten- assessment model based on interval 2-tuple linguistic variables
sion through the integration of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and cluster analysis method to manage the dependence in HRA.
technique into HEART approach to systematically predict human Deng and Jiang, 2018 presented a framework for dependence
error for designated tasks and ascertain the desired safety control assessment on the basis of belief rules and uncertainty measures.
level in crude oil tanker ships. Castiglia and Giardina (2013) mod- Fourth, the cluster #4 had drawn plenty of interest from 2009 to
ified the HEART method based on fuzzy set concept to evaluate the 2017. Many computational methods based on Dempster-Shafer
probability of erroneous actions. Akyuz and Celik, 2016 proposed a evidence theory have been proposed to handle the dependence
human reliability assessment approach by combining interval in HRA. For example, Chen et al. (2017) proposed an evidential
type-2 fuzzy sets with HEART to enhance safety levels in the mar- AHP-based dependence assessment methodology to handle the
ine and off-shore industries. dependence in HRA. A computational model was proposed by Su
Second, it is noteworthy that the cluster #1 had drawn plenty of et al. (2015) by using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory and AHP
interest in 2012. Reliable human performance data is an essential method to handle the dependence in HRA. Guo et al. (2017) sug-
factor affecting HRA quality. Hence, many researchers have devel- gested a computational model based on Dempster-Shafer evidence
oped technical underpinnings that specify what and how HRA data theory and evidence credibility decay model to assess the depen-
can be collected. In Ali (2006), simulators were used to collect the dence between tasks in HRA.
competency data for quality training and assessment. A method From 2016 to now, except for the clusters (#0, #1, and #3) that
was introduced by Groth and Mosleh (2012) for integrating multi- are constantly being concerned, another one major cluster is #7
ple sources of empirical data and validated theoretical models to ratio magnitude estimation. These four areas may be potential
improve both qualitative and quantitative HRA applications. research topics in the near future. With regard to the cluster #7,
Groth and Swiler (2013) built a Bayesian network version of the HRA relies on expert judgments to generate reliability data. As an
SPAR-H method and demonstrated how it can be used to incorpo- expert judgment technique, ratio magnitude estimation can be
rate data and information from research to advance HRA practice. used to verify the reliability data obtained from experts. For exam-
Chang et al. (2014) collected operator performance information by ple, two expert judgment techniques (absolute probability judg-
the SACADA tool for its implementation in the NPPs’ operator ment and ratio magnitude estimation) were applied by Liu et al.
training program. A data collection approach was presented by (2020) to update the PSF multiplier design in the SPAR-H method.
Musharraf et al. (2014) in order to create a virtual environment Kim et al. (2018) collected the HRA data including human reliabil-
to simplify Bayesian network model of offshore emergency ity data and contextual data, and estimated the quantitative rela-
evacuation. tions between PSFs and HEPs for the purpose of generating
Third, it is noteworthy that the cluster #3 had received more empirical evidence.
and attention since 2009. Dependence analysis is an evaluation
of the impact of an operator’s failure to perform a task on the fail- 3.4. Keyword co-occurrence analysis in the HRA field
ure probabilities of subsequent tasks. It is an HRA task strongly
based on analysts’ judgments. Su et al. (2015) put forward a com- Fig. 11 shows the keyword co-occurrence network analysis of
putational model based on Dempster-Shafer evidence theory and HRA articles. From this figure, we can see that ‘‘CREAM”, ‘‘quantifi-
9
Fig. 11. Keyword co-occurrence analysis of the HRA field.
cation”, ‘‘performance”, ‘‘probability”, ‘‘Risk”, ‘‘HEART”, ‘‘Bayesian 4. Suggestions for future research
network”, ‘‘accident”, ‘‘performance shaping factor”, and ‘‘risk
assessment” are the keywords taking over notable positions. More- HRA is significantly important for enhancing the safety and reli-
over, ‘‘CREAM”, ‘‘HEART”, and ‘‘THERP” are HRA methods; ‘‘Baye- ability of different complex systems, including design, manufactur-
sian network”, and ‘‘Bayesian belief network” are the techniques ing, operation, and maintenance. Although breakthroughs have
employed to expand the scientific basis and traceability of HRA. been made in the research of HRA, many problems have still not
The ‘‘CREAM”, ‘‘quantification” and ‘‘performance” can be consid- been fully solved, and some new problems are needed to be
ered as three important research hotspots. The classifications with addressed. Based on the literature survey of HRA articles, we sum-
these research hotspots and the related articles are presented in marize the following possible directions for future research:
Table 5.
For the CREAM method, we here further analyze its application (1) The fundamental issue in reference to HRA is the lack of
fields based on the related 30 articles. Fig. 12 provides the applica- objective data and lower level information of human perfor-
tion field distribution of the CREAM method. As we can see, the mance that can be collected from a real event. First, in future
CREAM method has been mainly utilized in the energy and chem- research, it is suggested to use more or new system monitor-
ical industry, the maritime industry, and the transportation ing equipment, such as sensors and cameras, to collect mul-
industry. tiple source HRA data in a more efficient and effective way.
Table 5
Classifications with research hotspots.
Research Classification Article

hotspots
CREAM Applications of CREAM (Akyuz and Celik, 2015; Chen et al., 2019; Kirytopoulos et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2017; Martins and Maturana,
2010; Pellegrino, 2011; Taga et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2017, 2018)
Modification of CREAM (Akyuz and Celik, 2015; Chen et al., 2018, 2019; Guo et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2011; Monferini et al., 2013; Nan
and Sansavini, 2016; Pan et al., 2019; Petrillo et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2012, 2020, Ung, 2015, 2019; Wu et al.,
2017; Xi et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2019; Zhang and Tan, 2018; Zhou et al., 2017; Zio et al.,
2009)
Quantification Quantification of HEPs (Akyuz et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2019b, 2018; Guo and Sun, 2020; Pan et al., 2019; Ramezani et al., 2020; Steijn
et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2017; Xi et al., 2017)
Quantification of human factors (Maturana and Martins, 2019; Myers, 2013; Noroozi et al., 2013)
Quantification of HRA methods (Pandya et al., 2020; Park et al., 2019a)
Quantification of organizational (Li et al., 2012; Pence et al., 2019)
influences
Weighting determination of PSFs (Kim et al., 2017a)
Weighting determination of error- (Akyuz et al., 2016)
producing conditions
Performance Human performance (Farcasiu and Prisecaru, 2014; Islam et al., 2018; Liao et al., b, c, 2019a; Nan and Sansavini, 2016)
Classification of PSFs (El-Ladan and Turan, 2012; Franciosi et al., 2019; Kyriakidis et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018a, 2018b; Rasmussen and
Laumann, 2020)
Analysis of PSFs (Chen et al., 2018; Griffith and Mahadevan, 2015; Groth and Mosleh, 2012; Kim et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2015;
Liu et al., 2017, 2020; Pandya et al., 2018; Park, 2011, 2014; Shirley et al., 2020)
Common performance condition (Wu et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2017)
10
(4) Since the introduction of the first HRA method, a number of

research achievements have been made in qualitative and
quantitative HRA models. But the suitability of existing
HRA methods in the digital environment is often questioned
(Li et al., 2018b; Shirley et al., 2020). On the other hand, the
traditional HRA methods have many disadvantages for the
practical HRA (Abrishami et al., 2020; Ramos et al., 2020).
As the development of various computer and control tech-
nologies, the control of many high-risk systems has been
gradually digitized. As a result, new human reliability prob-
lems may emerge because of a series of new changes in the
cognitive processes, behavioral patterns, and error mecha-
nisms of operators. To address this situation, future research
should be directed towards developing advanced HRA mod-
els to conduct HRA of operators in the digital system but also
avoids disadvantages of the classic methods.
(5) The literature review shows that some multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM) methods, which include AHP
(Petruni et al., 2019), analytic network process (ANP) (De
Ambroggi and Trucco, 2011), and multi-objective optimiza-
tion by ratio analysis plus full multiplicative form (MULTI-
Fig. 12. Application field distribution of the CREAM method. MOOR) (Yazdi, 2020), have been used for HRA technique
selection, human error assessment, and intervention action
ranking. In the future, more researches should be conducted
to apply other new MCDM methods such as the best-worst
Second, more advanced (big data or small data) analytical method (Rezaei, 2015), the alternative queuing method
techniques and digital platforms should be developed in (Gou et al., 2016), the multi-attributive border approxima-
the future to analyze the massive amount but poor quality tion area comparison (MABAC) (Pamučar et al., 2018), and
HRA data in a real-time way (Ham and Park, 2020; Jung the measurement of alternatives and ranking according to
et al., 2020). Also, systematic experts’ judgments (expert compromise solution (MARCOS) (Stević et al., 2020) to solve
elicitation or expert estimation) can be used to generate the decision-making problems in HRA.
HRA data if collecting positivistic empirical data is challenge (6) Different HRA methods have different advantages and draw-
(Laumann and Skogstad, 2020). backs. The existing studies did not make sufficient compar-
(2) Many tasks in the HRA (e.g., assigning values for PSFs and isons among various HRA methods. As a result, it is
assessing HEPs) heavily relies on expert judgments to gener- difficult for the practitioners to select a suitable HRA model
ate reliability data. In many situations, the opinions of in real applications. Therefore, in future research, it is neces-
experts are often vague, uncertain, or even incomplete, sary to conduct a detailed comparative study to adequately
because of time pressure, lack of knowledge, and their lim- evaluate and compare the advantages and disadvantages of
ited expertise related to the problem domain (Liu et al., different HRA methods to aid practitioners and scholars in
2018; Yang et al., 2019). Therefore, it is promising to use var- selecting the most suitable one for a given application. Also,
ious uncertainty theories, such as Pythagorean fuzzy sets to combine the superiorities of different HRA approaches,
(Yager and Abbasov, 2013), probabilistic linguistic term sets future research is suggested to propose an integrated frame-
(Gou and Xu, 2016), and cloud model theory (Li et al., 2009), work by using multiple HRA methods.
to effectively manipulate the uncertainties from expert (7) The emerging technologies have large room for improve-
judgements, and put forward a traceable and defendable ment regarding the field of HRA. So, another possible direc-
method to characterize experts’ experience and knowledge tion for future work would be to employ techniques such as
for HRA. Further, experts may have different experience artificial intelligence tools to address the HRA problems. For
and backgrounds, and thus conflict opinions are unavoidable instance, deep learning algorithms (Lecun et al., 2015) can
in the HRA process. Hence, as another direction for future be employed to learn the dependence levels of human fail-
studies, consensus methods (Ureña et al., 2019; Zhang ure events from the evaluation data of experts on each pair
et al., 2020) are suggested to be adopted to improve group of sequent tasks. The methods for the estimation of HEPs can
consistency and lead to efficiency improvement in HRA. be empowered by neural networks (Liu et al., 2017) to con-
(3) PSFs are the factors that may affect human performance in sider fluctuations in the assessment of human errors in the
HRA. Currently, a lot of PSFs have been proposed to highlight way changes occur in human brain. Moreover, the develop-
human error contributors and to adjust basic HEPs. How- ment of computer aided tools to execute the HRA algorithms
ever, there is not a standard set of PSFs used among HRA given in the literature is certainly an important direction in
methods, nor is there a framework available to compare order that HRA can be easily realized by practitioners to
the PSFs used in various methods. Thus, future research manage large-scale complex systems efficiently.
should develop a qualitative evaluation framework to collect
and analyze the frequently used PSFs in the literature. More- To balance, HRA technology needs to be improved as a whole to
over, practitioners constantly suffered a problem for select- handle the dynamic and changeable application environment and
ing proper PISs for a specific HRA problem among a the complex system monitoring issues. Considering the advantages
diversified set of factors (Liu et al., 2017). Therefore, it is very and potential application of HRA in safety–critical domains, we
necessary to introduce a method to help determine a limited believe the number of articles on HRA will grow rapidly in the
number of key PSFs considering their inter-relationships and coming years to assess human contribution to systemic risk and
the dependency between the states of them in the future. improve the reliability management level of complex systems.
11
5. Conclusions operation: Phoenix-PRO qualitative framework. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 193,
106672.
Abrishami, S., Khakzad, N., Hosseini, S.M., van Gelder, P., 2020. BN-SLIM: A Bayesian
The HRA, as a way to analyze and reduce human errors of com- Network methodology for human reliability assessment based on success
plex systems and processes, has attracted extensive attention of likelihood index method (SLIM). Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 193, 106647.
Akyuz, E., Celik, M., 2015a. Application of CREAM human reliability model to cargo
academics and practitioners. Correspondingly, a great number of
loading process of LPG tankers. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 34, 39–48.
researches have been conducted in the area of HRA during the past Akyuz, E., Celik, M., 2015b. A methodological extension to human reliability
decades. In this article, we provided a holistic review of the HRA analysis for cargo tank cleaning operation on board chemical tanker ships. Saf.
Sci. 75, 146–155.
papers published between 2009 and 2020 using statistical and bib-
Akyuz, E., Celik, M., Akgun, I., Cicek, K., 2018. Prediction of human error probabilities
liometric analysis methods. A total of 271 journal articles were in a critical marine engineering operation on-board chemical tanker ship: The
retrieved from the WoS database and used in the bibliometric anal- case of ship bunkering. Saf. Sci. 110, 102–109.
ysis. The article publication trend indicated the researches on HRA Akyuz, E., Celik, M., Cebi, S., 2016. A phase of comprehensive research to determine
marine-specific EPC values in human error assessment and reduction
steadily increased from 2009 to 2020. Via the cooperation network technique. Saf. Sci. 87, 63–75.
analysis, we find that Jinkyun Park, Wondea Jun, and YochanKim Akyuz, E., Celik, E., 2016. A modified human reliability analysis for cargo operation
from the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute are the most pro- in single point mooring (SPM) off-shore units. Appl. Ocean Res. 58, 11–20.
Ali, A., 2006. Simulator instructor - STCW requirements and reality. Pomorstvo 20
lific authors. The Korea Atom Energy Research Institute is the cen- (2), 23–32.
trality with the most collaborative publications, followed by the Alvarenga, M.A.B., Frutuoso e Melo, P.F, 2019. A review of the cognitive basis for
Paul Scherrer Institute from Switzerland, and the Korea Advanced human reliability analysis. Prog. Nucl. Energy 117, 103050.
Alvarenga, M.A.B., Melo, Frutuoso E, P.F., Fonseca, R.A, 2014. A critical review of
Institute of Science Technology. Furthermore, South Korea, USA methods and models for evaluating organizational factors in human reliability
and China contribute to a great many HRA publications and play analysis. Prog. Nucl. Energy 75, 25–41.
pivotal roles to connect the cross-country cooperation in the field. Arigi, A.M., Kim, G., Park, J., Kim, J., 2019. Human and organizational factors for
multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment: Identification and characterization
The co-citation network analysis showed that Reliability Engi-
for the Korean case. Nuclear Engineering and Technology 51 (1), 104–115.
neering & System Safety, Safety Science, and Journal of Loss Boring, R.L., Hendrickson, S.M.L., Forester, J.A., Tran, T.Q., Lois, E., 2010. Issues in
Prevention in the Process Industries are the most significant jour- benchmarking human reliability analysis methods: A literature review. Reliab.
Eng. Syst. Saf. 95 (6), 591–605.
nals on HRA. According to the number of citations, Alan D Swain
Castiglia, F., Giardina, M., 2013. Analysis of operator human errors in hydrogen
from the Sandia National Laboratory, Erik Hollnagel from the Mac- refuelling stations: Comparison between human rate assessment techniques.
quarie University and Barry A Kirwan from the Eurocontrol Exper- Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38 (2), 1166–1176.
imental Centre are the highly cited authors in the HRA area. The Čepin, M., 2008. DEPEND-HRA-A method for consideration of dependency in human
reliability analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93 (10), 1452–1460.
top three co-cited articles are those published by Chang et al. Chang, Y.H.J., Mosleh, A., 2007a. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic
(2014), Yang et al. (2013), and Groth and Swiler (2013). The docu- simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents - Part 1:
ment cluster analysis displayed that ‘‘decision making”, ‘‘humane Overview of the IDAC Model. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92, 997–1013.
Chang, Y.H.J., Mosleh, A., 2007b. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic
performance data”, ‘‘dependence assessment”, and ‘‘ratio magni- simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents - Part 2:
tude estimation” are the main research topics in the near future. IDAC performance influencing factors model. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92 (8), 1014–
The keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed that ‘‘CREAM”, 1040.
Chang, Y.H.J., Mosleh, A., 2007c. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic
‘‘quantification” and ‘‘performance” are three important research simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents - Part 5:
hotspots. The CREAM is a second generation HRA technique that Dynamic probabilistic simulation of the IDAC model. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92
enables qualitative opinions from experts to be converted into (8), 1076–1101.
Chang, Y.J., Bley, D., Criscione, L., Kirwan, B., Mosleh, A., Madary, T., Nowell, R.,
quantitative human failure analysis results. In the literature, many
Richards, R., Roth, E.M., Sieben, S., Zoulis, A., 2014. The SACADA database for
papers focused on the application and modification of the CREAM human reliability and human performance. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 125, 117–133.
method. There is an increasing trend in applying the THERP, Chen, C., 2006. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and
transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 57
SPAR-H and EPRI methods for HRA as well as providing HEPs to
(3), 359–377.
PRA model. Besides, the mainstream researches have shifted to Chen, D.K., Fan, Y., Li, W.H., Wang, Y.H., Zhang, S., 2019a. Human reliability
quantify HEPs and address the impact of human performance on prediction in deep-sea sampling process of the manned submersible. Saf. Sci.
system risk over the past decades. In summary, this article pro- 112, 1–8.
Chen, D.K., Fan, Y., Ye, C., Zhang, S., 2019b. Human reliability analysis for manned
vides theoretical and practical guidance for researchers and practi- submersible diving process based on CREAM and Bayesian network. Qual.
tioners who are interested in the HRA field to capture the current Reliab. Eng. Int. 35 (7), 2261–2277.
research hotspots and potential research directions. Chen, J.Y., Zhou, D., Lyu, C., Zhu, X., 2018. A method of human reliability analysis and
quantification for space missions based on a Bayesian network and the
cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 34 (5),
Declaration of Competing Interest 912–927.
Chen, L.Y., Zhou, X.Y., Xiao, F.Y., Deng, Y., Mahadevan, S., 2017. Evidential analytic
hierarchy process dependence assessment methodology in human reliability
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- analysis. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 49 (1), 123–133.
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared Cho, J., Kim, Y., Kim, J., Park, J., Kim, D.S., 2020. Realistic estimation of human error
to influence the work reported in this paper. probability through Monte Carlo thermal-hydraulic simulation. Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Saf. 193, 13.
Cong, W., Shi, L., 2019. Heterogeneity of industrial development and evolution of
Acknowledgments cleaner production: Bibliometric analysis based on JCLP. J. Cleaner Prod. 212,
822–836.
De Ambroggi, M., Trucco, P., 2011. Modelling and assessment of dependent
The authors are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for performance shaping factors through analytic network process. Reliab. Eng.
their insightful and constructive comments and suggestions, which Syst. Saf. 96 (7), 849–860.
Deng, X.Y., Jiang, W., 2018. Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis
are very helpful in improving the quality of the paper. This work
using an evidential network approach extended by belief rules and uncertainty
was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of measures. Ann. Nucl. Energy 117, 183–193.
China (Nos. 61773250 and 71671125 ) and the Fundamental Ekanem, N.J., Mosleh, A., Shen, S.H., 2016. Phoenix – A model-based human
Research Funds for the Central Universities. reliability analysis methodology: qualitative analysis procedure. Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Saf. 145, 301–315.
El-Ladan, S.B., Turan, O., 2012. Human reliability analysis - Taxonomy and praxes of
References human entropy boundary conditions for marine and offshore applications.
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 98 (1), 43–54.
Farcasiu, M., Prisecaru, I., 2014. MMOSA - A new approach of the human and
Abílio Ramos, M., López Droguett, E., Mosleh, A., Moura, D.C., M, 2020. A human
organizational factor analysis in PSA. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 123, 91–98.
reliability analysis methodology for oil refineries and petrochemical plants
12
Franciosi, C., Di Pasquale, D., Iannone, R., Miranda, S., 2019. A taxonomy of Kim, Y., Park, J., 2019. Incorporating prior knowledge with simulation data to
performance shaping factors for human reliability analysis in industrial estimate PSF multipliers using Bayesian logistic regression. Reliab. Eng. Syst.
maintenance. J. Ind. Eng. Manage. 12 (1), 115–132. Saf. 189, 210–217.
French, S., Bedford, T., Pollard, S.J.T., Soane, E., 2011. Human reliability analysis: A Kim, Y., Park, J., Jung, W., 2017b. A classification scheme of erroneous behaviors for
critique and review for managers. Saf. Sci. 49 (6), 753–763. human error probability estimations based on simulator data. Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J.M., Baier-Fuentes, H., 2019. Knowledge management: A Saf. 163, 1–13.
global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Kim, Y., Park, J., Jung, W., 2017c. A quantitative measure of fitness for duty and work
Change 140, 194–220. processes for human reliability analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 167, 595–601.
Gertman, D., Blackman, H., Marble, J., Byers, J., Smith, C., 2005. The SPAR-H human Kim, Y., Park, J., Jung, W., Choi, S.Y., Kim, S., 2018. Estimating the quantitative
reliability analysis method. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 230, 35. relation between PSFs and HEPs from full-scope simulator data. Reliab. Eng.
Gil, M., Wróbel, K., Montewka, J., Goerlandt, F., 2020. A bibliometric analysis and Syst. Saf. 173, 12–22.
systematic review of shipboard decision support systems for accident Kim, Y., Park, J., Jung, W., Jang, I., Seong, P.H., 2015. A statistical approach to
prevention. Saf. Sci. 128, 104717. estimating effects of performance shaping factors on human error probabilities
Gou, X., Xu, Z., 2016. Novel basic operational laws for linguistic terms, hesitant of soft controls. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 142, 378–387.
fuzzy linguistic term sets and probabilistic linguistic term sets. Inf. Sci. 372, Kirwan, B., 1996. The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques
407–427. THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part 1 - Technique descriptions and validation issues.
Gou, X., Xu, Z., Liao, H., 2016. Alternative queuing method for multiple criteria Appl. Ergon. 27 (6), 359–373.
decision making with hybrid fuzzy and ranking information. Inf. Sci. 357, 144– Kirwan, B., 1997. The validation of three human reliability Quantification
160. techniques THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part III - practical aspects of the usage
Griffith, C.D., Mahadevan, S., 2015. Human reliability under sleep deprivation: of the techniques. Appl. Ergon. 28 (1), 27–39.
Derivation of performance shaping factor multipliers from empirical data. Kirwan, B., Kennedy, R., Taylor-Adams, S., Lambert, B., 1997. The validation of three
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 144, 23–34. human reliability quantification techniques THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part II -
Groth, K.M., Mosleh, A., 2012. Deriving causal Bayesian networks from human results of validation exercise. Appl. Ergon. 28 (1), 17–25.
reliability analysis data: a methodology and example model. Proc. Inst. Mech. Kirytopoulos, K., Konstandinidou, M., Nivolianitou, Z., Kazaras, K., 2014. Embedding
Eng. Part O-J. Risk Reliab. 226, 361–379. the human factor in road tunnel risk analysis. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 92 (4),
Groth, K.M., Smith, C.L., Swiler, L.P., 2014. A Bayesian method for using simulator 329–337.
data to enhance human error probabilities assigned by existing HRA methods. Kumar, A.M., Rajakarunakaran, S., Prabhu, V.A., 2017. Application of fuzzy HEART
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 128, 32–40. and expert elicitation for quantifying human error probabilities in LPG
Groth, K.M., Smith, R., Moradi, R., 2019. A hybrid algorithm for developing third refuelling station. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 48, 186–198.
generation HRA methods using simulator data, causal models, and cognitive Kumar, V.N.A., Gandhi, M.S., Gandhi, O.P., 2015. Identification and assessment of
science. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 191, 106507. factors influencing human reliability in maintenance using fuzzy cognitive
Groth, K.M., Swiler, L.P., 2013. Bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA maps. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 31 (2), 169–181.
practice: A Bayesian network version of SPAR-H. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 115, 33– Kyriakidis, M., Kant, V., Amir, S., Dang, V.N., 2018. Understanding human
42. performance in sociotechnical systems - Steps towards a generic framework.
Guo, X.F., Zhou, Y.H., Qian, J., Deng, Y., 2017. Using evidence credibility decay model Saf. Sci. 107, 202–215.
for dependence assessment in human reliability analysis. Ann. Nucl. Energy Laumann, K., Skogstad, M.R., 2020. Challenge to collect empirical data for human
100, 107–118. reliability analysis-illustrated by the difficulties in collecting empirical data on
Guo, Y.D., Sun, Y.C., 2020. Flight safety assessment based on an integrated human the performance-shaping factor complexity. Asce-Asme J. Risk Uncertainty Eng.
reliability quantification approach. PLoS ONE 15, (4) 231391. Syst. Part B-Mech. Eng. 6 (1), 11013.
Guo, Y.D., Sun, Y.C., Yang, X.F., Wang, Z.P., 2019. Flight safety assessment based on a Laumann, K., Rasmussen, M., 2016. Suggested improvements to the definitions of
modified human reliability quantification method. Int. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2019, standardized plant analysis of risk-human reliability analysis (SPAR-H)
2812173. performance shaping factors, their levels and multipliers and the nominal
Ham, D.H., Park, J., 2020. Use of a big data analysis technique for extracting HRA tasks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145, 287–300.
data from event investigation reports based on the Safety-II concept. Reliab. Lecun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521 (7553), 436–444.
Eng. Syst. Saf. 194, 106232. Lee, S.J., Kim, J., Jung, W., 2013. Quantitative estimation of the human error
He, S., Zhu, D., Chen, Y., Liu, X., Chen, Y., Wang, X., 2020. Application and problems of probability during soft control operations. Ann. Nucl. Energy 57, 318–326.
emergy evaluation: A systemic review based on bibliometric and content Lee, S.J., Seong, P.H., 2007. Development of an integrated decision support system to
analysis methods. Ecol. Ind. 114, 106304. aid cognitive activities of operators. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 39 (6), 703–716.
Hollnagel, E., 1991. Cognitive ergonomics and the reliability of cognition. Travail Lee, S.M., Ha, J.S., Seong, P.H., 2011. CREAM-based communication error analysis
Humain 54 (4), 305–321. method (CEAM) for nuclear power plant operators’ communication. J. Loss Prev.
Hollnagel, E., 1996. Reliability analysis and operator modelling. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Process Ind. 24 (1), 90–97.
Saf. 52, 327–337. Li, D.Y., Liu, C.Y., Gan, W.Y., 2009. A new cognitive model: Cloud model. Int. J. Intell.
Hollnagel, E., 1998. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Elsevier Science, Syst. 24 (3), 357–375.
Oxford, UK. Li, J., Yu, M.H., Wang, H.W., 2018a. A taxonomy of performance shaping factors for
Islam, R., Khan, F., Abbassi, R., Garaniya, V., 2018. Human error assessment during shield tunnel construction. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manage. 25 (4), 574–596.
maintenance operations of marine systems - What are the effective Li, P.C., Zhang, L., Dai, L.C., Li, X.F., Jiang, Y., 2018b. A new organization-oriented
environmental factors? Saf. Sci. 107, 85–98. technique of human error analysis in digital NPPs: Model and classification
Jang, I., Kim, A.R., Al Harbi, M.A.S., Lee, S.J., Kang, H.G., Seong, P.H., 2013. An framework. Ann. Nucl. Energy 120, 48–61.
empirical study on the basic human error probabilities for NPP advanced main Li, P.C., Chen, G.H., Dai, L.C., Zhang, L., 2012. A fuzzy Bayesian network approach to
control room operation using soft control. Nucl. Eng. Des. 257, 79–87. improve the quantification of organizational influences in HRA frameworks. Saf.
Jang, I., Kim, A.R., Jung, W., Seong, P.H., 2016. Study on a new framework of human Sci. 50 (7), 1569–1583.
reliability analysis to evaluate soft control execution error in advanced MCRs of Liao, H.F., Forester, J., Dang, V.N., Bye, A., Chang, Y.H.J., Lois, E., 2019a. Assessment of
NPPs. Ann. Nucl. Energy 91, 92–104. HRA method predictions against operating crew performance: Part I: Study
Jin, Y., Ji, S., Li, X., Yu, J., 2017. A scientometric review of hotspots and emerging background, design and methodology. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 191, 106509.
trends in additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 28 (1), 18–38. Liao, H.F., Forester, J., Dang, V.N., Bye, A., Chang, Y.H.J., Lois, E., 2019b. Assessment of
Jung, W., Park, J., Kim, Y., Choi, S.Y., Kim, S., 2020. HuREX - A framework of HRA data HRA method predictions against operating crew performance: Part II: Overall
collection from simulators in nuclear power plants. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 194, simulator data, HRA method predictions, and intra-method comparisons.
106235. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 191, 106510.
Jung, W., Whaley, A.M., Hallbert, B.P., 2009. Human errors during the simulations of Liao, H.F., Forester, J., Dang, V.N., Bye, A., Chang, Y.H.J., Lois, E., 2019c. Assessment of
an SGTR scenario: Application of the HERA system. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 41 (10), HRA method predictions against operating crew performance: Part III:
1361–1374. Conclusions and achievements. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 191, 106511.
Kančev, D., 2020. A plant-specific HRA sensitivity analysis considering dynamic Liu, H.C., Li, Z., Zhang, J.Q., You, X.Y., 2018. A large group decision making approach
operator actions and accident management actions. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52, for dependence assessment in human reliability analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
1983–1989. 176, 135–144.
Kang, S., Seong, P.H., 2020. Performance shaping factor taxonomy for human Liu, P., Lyu, X., Qiu, Y.P., He, J.D., Tong, J.J., Zhao, J., Li, Z.Z., 2017a. Identifying key
reliability analysis on mitigating nuclear power plant accidents caused by performance shaping factors in digital main control rooms of nuclear power
extreme external hazards. Ann. Nucl. Energy 145, 107533. plants: A risk-based approach. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 167, 264–275.
Kim, A.R., Park, J., Kim, J.T., Kim, J., Seong, P.H., 2016. Study on the identification of Liu, W., Wang, Z., Liu, X., Zeng, N., Liu, Y., Alsaadi, F.E., 2017b. A survey of deep
main drivers affecting the performance of human operators during-low power neural network architectures and their applications. Neurocomputing 234, 11–
and shutdown operation. Ann. Nucl. Energy 92, 447–455. 26.
Kim, A.R., Park, J., Kim, Y., Kim, J., Seong, P.H., 2017a. Quantification of performance Liu, P., Qiu, Y.P., Hu, J.T., Tong, J.J., Zhao, J., Li, Z.Z., 2020. Expert judgments for
shaping factors (PSFs)’ weightings for human reliability analysis (HRA) of low performance shaping factors’ multiplier design in human reliability analysis.
power and shutdown (LPSD) operations. Ann. Nucl. Energy 101, 375–382. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 194, 106343.
13
Marseguerra, M., Zio, E., Librizzi, M., 2007. Human reliability analysis by fuzzy Petruni, A., Giagloglou, E., Douglas, E., Geng, J., Leva, M.C., Demichela, M., 2019.
CREAM. Risk Anal. 27 (1), 137–154. Applying analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to choose a human factors
Martins, M.R., Maturana, M.C., 2010. Human error contribution in collision and technique: Choosing the suitable human reliability analysis technique for the
grounding of oil tankers. Risk Anal. 30 (4), 674–698. automotive industry. Saf. Sci. 119, 229–239.
Maturana, M.C., Martins, M.R., 2019. Technique for early consideration of human Podofillini, L., Dang, V., Zio, E., Baraldi, P., Librizzi, M., 2010. Using expert models in
reliability: Applying a generic model in an oil tanker operation to study human reliability analysis-A dependence assessment method based on fuzzy
scenarios of collision. J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng.-Trans. Asme 141 (5), 51607. logic. Risk Anal. 30 (8), 1277–1297.
Mkrtchyan, L., Podofillini, L., Dang, V.N., 2015. Bayesian belief networks for human Porthin, M., Liinasuo, M., Kling, T., 2020. Effects of digitalization of nuclear power
reliability analysis: A review of applications and gaps. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 139, plant control rooms on human reliability analysis – A review. Reliab. Eng. Syst.
1–16. Saf. 194, 106415.
Monferini, A., Konstandinidou, M., Nivolianitou, Z., Weber, S., Kontogiannis, T., Ramezani, A., Nazari, T., Rabiee, A., Hadad, K., Faridafshin, M., 2020. Human error
Kafka, P., Kay, A.M., Leva, M.C., Demichela, M., 2013. A compound methodology probability quantification for NPP post-accident analysis using Cognitive-Based
to assess the impact of human and organizational factors impact on the risk THERP method. Prog. Nucl. Energy 123, 103281.
level of hazardous industrial plants. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 119, 280–289. Ramos, M.A., Droguett, E.L., Mosleh, A., Moura, M.D., 2020. A human reliability
Musharraf, M., Bradbury-Squires, D., Khan, F., Veitch, B., MacKinnon, S., Imtiaz, S., analysis methodology for oil refineries and petrochemical plants operation:
2014. A virtual experimental technique for data collection for a Bayesian Phoenix-PRO qualitative framework. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 193, 106672.
network approach to human reliability analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 132, 1–8. Rasmussen, M., Laumann, K., 2020. The evaluation of fatigue as a performance
Myers, P.M., 2013. Layer of protection analysis - Quantifying human performance in shaping factor in the Petro-HRA method. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 194, 106187.
initiating events and independent protection layers. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26 Rasmussen, M., Standal, M.I., Laumann, K., 2015. Task complexity as a performance
(3), 534–546. shaping factor: A review and recommendations in standardized plant analysis
Nan, C., Sansavini, G., 2016. Developing an agent-based hierarchical modeling risk-human reliability analysis (SPAR-H) adaption. Saf. Sci. 76, 228–238.
approach to assess human performance of infrastructure systems. Int. J. Ind. Reer, B., 2008a. Review of advances in human reliability analysis of errors of
Ergon. 53, 340–354. commission, Part 2: EOC quantification. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93 (8), 1105–
Noroozi, A., Khakzad, N., Khan, F., MacKinnon, S., Abbassi, R., 2013. The role of 1122.
human error in risk analysis: Application to pre- and post-maintenance Reer, B., 2008b. Review of advances in human reliability analysis of errors of
procedures of process facilities. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 119, 251–258. commission, Part 1: EOC identification. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93 (8), 1091–1104.
Osareh, F., 1996. Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: A review Rezaei, J., 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–
of literature II. Libri 46 (4), 217–225. 57.
Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., Zavadskas, E.K., 2018. Integration of interval rough AHP and Shirley, R.B., Smidts, C., Zhao, Y.F., 2020. Development of a quantitative Bayesian
interval rough MABAC methods for evaluating university web pages. Appl. Soft network mapping objective factors to subjective performance shaping factor
Comput. J. 67, 141–163. evaluations: An example using student operators in a digital nuclear power
Pan, X., Lin, Y., He, C., 2017. A review of cognitive models in human reliability plant simulator. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 194, 106416.
analysis. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 33 (7), 1299–1316. Shukla, A.K., Janmaijaya, M., Abraham, A., Muhuri, P.K., 2019. Engineering
Pan, X., Wang, H.X., Lin, Y., Liu, T., Wang, X.X., 2019. HEP quantification strategy applications of artificial intelligence: A bibliometric analysis of 30 years
based on modified CREAM. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 30 (4), 815–822. (1988–2018). Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 85, 517–532.
Pandya, D., Podofillini, L., Emert, F., Lomax, A.J., Dang, V.N., 2018. Developing the Steijn, W.M.P., Van Kampen, J.N., Van der Beek, D., Groeneweg, J., Van Gelder, P.,
foundations of a cognition-based human reliability analysis model via mapping 2020. An integration of human factors into quantitative risk analysis using
task types and performance-influencing factors: Application to radiotherapy. Bayesian Belief Networks towards developing a ‘QRA plus’. Saf. Sci. 122, 104514.
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O-J. Risk Reliab. 232 (1), 3–37. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., Chatterjee, P., 2020. Sustainable supplier selection
Pandya, D., Podofillini, L., Emert, F., Lomax, A.J., Dang, V.N., Sansavini, G., 2020. in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of
Quantification of a human reliability analysis method for radiotherapy alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS).
applications based on expert judgment aggregation. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. Comput. Ind. Eng. 140, 106231.
194, 106489. Su, X.Y., Mahadevan, S., Xu, P.D., Deng, Y., 2015. Dependence Assessment in human
Park, J., 2011. Scrutinizing inter-relations between performance influencing factors reliability analysis using evidence theory and AHP. Risk Anal. 35 (7), 1296–
and the performance of human operators pertaining to the emergency tasks of 1316.
nuclear power plant - An explanatory study. Ann. Nucl. Energy 38 (11), 2521– Sujan, M.A., Embrey, D., Huang, H., 2020. On the application of human reliability
2532. analysis in healthcare: Opportunities and challenges. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 194,
Park, J., 2014. Investigating the TACOM measure as a general tool for quantifying the 106189.
complexity of procedure guided tasks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 129, 66–75. Sun, Y.H., Zhang, Q., Yuan, Z.M., Gao, Y., Ding, S.X., 2020. Quantitative analysis of
Park, J., Arigi, A.M., Kim, J., 2019a. A comparison of the quantification aspects of human error probability in high-speed railway dispatching tasks. IEEE Access 8,
human reliability analysis methods in nuclear power plants. Ann. Nucl. Energy 56253–56266.
133, 297–312. Sun, Z.Q., Li, Z.Y., Gong, E.L., Xie, H.W., 2012. Estimating human error probability
Park, J., Arigi, A.M., Kim, J., 2019b. Treatment of human and organizational factors using a modified CREAM. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 100, 28–32.
for multi-unit HRA: Application of SPAR-H method. Ann. Nucl. Energy 132, 656– Sun, Z.Q., Xie, H.W., Shi, X.J., Liu, F.Q., 2009. Engineering approach for human error
678. probability quantification. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 20 (5), 1144–1152.
Park, J., Jung, J.Y., Jung, W., 2016a. The use of a process mining technique to Swain, A., Guttman, H., 1983. Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis
characterize the work process of main control room crews: A feasibility study. on nuclear power plant applications. Sandia National Labs, Albuquerque, NM
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 154, 31–41. (USA).
Park, J., Jung, W., Kim, J., 2020. Inter-relationships between performance shaping Swain, A.D., 1982. Modelling of human performance in complex system with
factors for human reliability analysis of nuclear power plants. Nucl. Eng. emphasis on nuclear power plant operations and probabilistic risk assessment.
Technol. 52 (1), 87–100. Ergonomics 25 (6), 449.
Park, J., Kim, Y., Jung, W., 2016b. A framework to estimate task opportunities from Taga, H., Furuta, K., Kanno, T., 2012. Human reliability analysis of car drivers in
the operational experience of domestic nuclear power plants. Saf. Sci. 88, 146– urban intersections. Cogn. Technol. Work 14 (4), 365–377.
154. Tao, J., Qiu, D., Yang, F., Duan, Z., 2020. A bibliometric analysis of human reliability
Park, J., Kim, Y., Jung, W., 2018. Calculating nominal human error probabilities from research. J. Cleaner Prod. 260, 121041.
the operation experience of domestic nuclear power plants. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Taylor, C., Oie, S., Gould, K., 2020. Lessons learned from applying a new HRA method
Saf. 170, 215–225. for the petroleum industry. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 194, 106276.
Park, J., Kim, Y., Kim, J.H., Jung, W., Jang, S.C., 2015. Estimating the response times of Ung, S.T., 2015. A weighted CREAM model for maritime human reliability analysis.
human operators working in the main control room of nuclear power plants Saf. Sci. 72, 144–152.
based on the context of a seismic event - A case study. Ann. Nucl. Energy 85, 36– Ung, S.T., 2019. Evaluation of human error contribution to oil tanker collision using
46. fault tree analysis and modified fuzzy Bayesian network based CREAM. Ocean
Park, J., Lee, D., Jung, W., Kim, J., 2017. An experimental investigation on relationship Eng. 179, 159–172.
between PSFs and operator performances in the digital main control room. Ann. Ureña, R., Chiclana, F., Melançon, G., Herrera-Viedma, E., 2019. A social network
Nucl. Energy 101, 58–68. based approach for consensus achievement in multiperson decision making.
Pellegrino, O., 2011. Road context evaluated by means of fuzzy interval. Cogn. Information Fusion 47, 72–87.
Technol. Work 13 (1), 67–79. Wang, A.S., Luo, Y., Tu, G.Y., Liu, P., 2011. Quantitative evaluation of human-
Pence, J., Sakurahara, T., Zhu, X.F., Mohaghegh, Z., Ertem, M., Ostroff, C., Kee, E., 2019. reliability based on fuzzy-clonal Selection. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 60 (3), 517–527.
Data-theoretic methodology and computational platform to quantify Wang, N., Du, X., Zhang, M., Xu, C., Lu, X., 2020. An improved weighted fuzzy CREAM
organizational factors in socio-technical risk analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. model for quantifying human reliability in subway construction: Modeling,
185, 240–260. validation, and application. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 30, 248–265.
Petrillo, A., De Felice, F., Falcone, D., Silvestri, A., Zomparelli, F., 2017. A hybrid Williams, J.C., 1988. Data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to
probabilistic model for evaluating and simulating human error in industrial improve operational performance. In: IEEE Conference on Human Factors and
emergency conditions (HEIE). J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 17 (3), 462–476. Power Plants, pp. 436–450.
14
Wu, B., Yan, X.P., Wang, Y., Soares, C.G., 2017. An evidential reasoning-based CREAM Zhang, R.Y., Tan, H., 2018. An integrated human reliability based decision pool
to human reliability analysis in maritime accident process. Risk Anal. 37 (10), generating and decision making method for power supply system in LNG
1936–1957. terminal. Saf. Sci. 101, 86–97.
Xi, Y.T., Yang, Z.L., Fang, Q.G., Chen, W.J., Wang, J., 2017. A new hybrid approach to Zhang, S., He, W.P., Chen, D.K., Chu, J.J., Fan, H., 2019. A dynamic human reliability
human error probability quantification-applications in maritime operations. assessment approach for manned submersibles using PMV-CREAM. Int. J. Nav.
Ocean Eng. 138, 45–54. Archit. Ocean Eng. 11 (2), 782–795.
Yager, R.R., Abbasov, A.M., 2013. Pythagorean membership grades, complex Zheng, X.L., Deng, Y., 2018. Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis
numbers, and decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 28 (5), 436–452. based on evidence credibility decay model and IOWA operator. Ann. Nucl.
Yang, Y., Chen, G., Reniers, G., Goerlandt, F., 2020. A bibliometric analysis of process Energy 112, 673–684.
safety research in China: Understanding safety research progress as a basis for Zhou, Q.J., Wong, Y.D., Loh, H.S., Yuen, K.F., 2018. A fuzzy and Bayesian network
making China’s chemical industry more sustainable. J. Cleaner Prod. 263, CREAM model for human reliability analysis - The case of tanker shipping. Saf.
121433. Sci. 105, 149–157.
Yang, Z.L., Abujaafar, K.M., Qu, Z.H., Wang, J., Nazir, S., Wan, C.P., 2019. Use of Zhou, Q.J., Wong, Y.D., Xu, H., Thai, V.V., Loh, H.S., Yuen, K.F., 2017a. An enhanced
evidential reasoning for eliciting bayesian subjective probabilities in human CREAM with stakeholder-graded protocols for tanker shipping safety
reliability analysis: A maritime case. Ocean Eng. 186, 106095. application. Saf. Sci. 95, 140–147.
Yang, Z.L., Bonsall, S., Wall, A., Wang, J., Usman, M., 2013. A modified CREAM to Zhou, T.Q., Wu, C.Z., Zhang, J.Y., Zhang, D., 2017b. Incorporating CREAM and MCS
human reliability quantification in marine engineering. Ocean Eng. 58, 293– into fault tree analysis of LNG carrier spill accidents. Saf. Sci. 96, 183–191.
303. Zio, E., Baraldi, P., Librizzi, M., Podofillini, L., Dang, V.N., 2009. A fuzzy set-based
Yazdi, M., 2020. A perceptual computing-based method to prioritize intervention approach for modeling dependence among human errors. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 160
actions in the probabilistic risk assessment techniques. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 36 (13), 1947–1964.
(1), 187–213. Zwirglmaier, K., Straub, D., Groth, K.M., 2017. Capturing cognitive causal paths in
Zhang, H., Zhao, S., Kou, G., Li, C.-C., Dong, Y., Herrera, F., 2020. An overview on human reliability analysis with Bayesian network models. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
feedback mechanisms with minimum adjustment or cost in consensus reaching 158, 117–129.
in group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges. Inf. Fusion 60,
65–79.
15

Two Decades On Human Reliability Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Decades On Human Reliability Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Decades On Human Reliability Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107969

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Nuclear Energy

Two decades on human reliability analysis: A bibliometric analysis and

1. Introduction body of academic literature within a given research area (Yang

being basically the same (on average 12 articles per year). In

3.2. Cooperation network analysis in the HRA field

In this section, the cooperation networks of authors, institu-

3.2.1. Author cooperation network analysis

Fig. 2. Distribution of papers by publication year.

Fig. 3. Author cooperation network in the HRA area.

Ranking Publication Author Institution Country

Fig. 4. Institution cooperation network in the HRA field.

Ranking Institution Publication Country

3.3.2. Author co-citation analysis

Fig. 7. Journal co-citation network in the HRA field.

Ranking Journal Citation Impact factor Publication

Fig. 8. Author co-citation network in the HRA field.

Table 4 cussed the scenario authoring, characterization, and debriefing

Fig. 9. Document co-citation network in the HRA field.

Fig. 10. Timeline view of document clusters in the HRA field.

Fig. 11. Keyword co-occurrence analysis of the HRA field.

Research Classification Article

(4) Since the introduction of the first HRA method, a number of

You might also like