liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 5 of 5
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Fujita, Yushi
    et al.
    Technova Inc..
    Hollnagel, Erik
    Linköping University, The Institute of Technology. Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, CSELAB - Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory.
    Failures without errors: Quantification of context in HRA2004In: Reliability Engineering & System Safety, ISSN 0951-8320, E-ISSN 1879-0836, Vol. 83, no 2, p. 145-151Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    PSA-cum-human reliability analysis (HRA) has traditionally used individual human actions, hence individual 'human errors', as a meaningful unit of analysis. This is inconsistent with the current understanding of accidents, which points out that the notion of 'human error' is ill defined and that adverse events more often are the due to the working conditions than to people. Several HRA approaches, such as ATHEANA and CREAM have recognised this conflict and proposed ways to deal with it. This paper describes an improvement of the basic screening method in CREAM, whereby a rating of the performance conditions can be used to calculate a Mean Failure Rate directly without invoking the notion of human error.

  • 2.
    Hollnagel, Erik
    Linköping University, The Institute of Technology. Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, CSELAB - Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory.
    Looking for errors of omission and commission or The Hunting of the Snark revisited2000In: Reliability Engineering & System Safety, ISSN 0951-8320, E-ISSN 1879-0836, Vol. 68, no 2, p. 135-145Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Since the early 1990s, considerable effort has been spent to understand what is meant by an `error of commission' (EOC), to complement the traditional notion of an `error of omission' (EOO). This paper argues that the EOO-EOC dyad, as an artefact of the PSA event tree, is insufficient for human reliability analysis (HRA) for several reasons: (1) EOO-EOC fail to distinguish between manifestation and cause, (2) EOO-EOC refer to classes of incorrect actions rather than to specific instances: (3) there is no unique way of classifying an event using EOO-EOC, (4) the set of error modes that cannot reasonably be classified as EOO is too diverse to fit into any single category of its own. Since the use of EOO-EOC leads to serious problems for HRA. an alternative is required. This can be found in the concept of error modes, which has a long history in risk analysis. A specific system for error mode prediction was tested in a simulator experiment. The analysis of the results showed that error modes could be qualitatively predicted with sufficient accuracy (68% correct) to propose this method as a way to determine how operator actions can fail in PSA-cum-HRA. Although this still leaves the thorny issue of quantification, a consistent prediction of error modes provides a better starting point for determining probabilities than the EOO-EOC dyad. It also opens a possibility for quantification methods where the influence of the common performance conditions is prior to and more important than individual failure rates.

  • 3.
    Kim, Man Cheol
    et al.
    Nuclear and Quantum Engineering Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.
    Seong, Poong Hyun
    Nuclear and Quantum Engineering Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.
    Hollnagel, Erik
    Linköping University, The Institute of Technology. Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, CSELAB - Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory.
    A probabilistic approach for determining the control mode in CREAM2006In: Reliability Engineering & System Safety, ISSN 0951-8320, E-ISSN 1879-0836, Vol. 91, no 2, p. 191-199Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Lundberg, Jonas
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Science and Technology, Media and Information Technology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Johansson, Björn
    Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, Human-Centered systems. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Resilience is not a silver bullet - Harnessing resilience as core values and resource contexts in a double adaptive process2019In: Reliability Engineering & System Safety, ISSN 0951-8320, E-ISSN 1879-0836, Vol. 188, p. 110-117Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper addresses one of the paradoxes of the resilience perspective: if we admit that we cannot foresee what kind of disturbance that we have to cope with, it will also be difficult to decide on what to invest in to improve resilience and safety. With this challenge in mind, three previously published case studies were re-analysed using the Systemic Resilience Model. The Systemic Resilience Model describes systems in terms of events, resilience functions, and strategies of stability or flexibility. It was observed that that the object of resilience shifts under pressure. Further, it was found that the notion of system goals in the Systemic Resilience Model should be replaced with the notion of core values, which can shift along a core value ladder. Our contribution is an increased understanding of the of what and against what of resilience. It was concluded that resilience is a double adaptive process - both as an entity coping with the unexpected or unplanned, and as a phenomenon that shifts along a ladder of core values during pressure regarding both fundamental objectives, functions, structure and system boundaries. This knowledge can be used to improve the implementation of resilience in socio-technical systems.

  • 5.
    Lundberg, Jonas
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Science and Technology, Media and Information Technology. Linköping University, The Institute of Technology.
    Johansson, Björn JE
    Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, Human-Centered systems. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Systemic resilience model2015In: Reliability Engineering & System Safety, ISSN 0951-8320, E-ISSN 1879-0836, ISSN 0951-8320, Vol. 141, p. 22-32Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    It has been realized that resilience as a concept involves several contradictory definitions, both for instance resilience as agile adjustment and as robust resistance to situations. Our analysis of resilience concepts and models suggest that beyond simplistic definitions, it is possible to draw up a systemic resilience model (SyRes) that maintains these opposing characteristics without contradiction. We outline six functions in a systemic model, drawing primarily on resilience engineering, and disaster response: anticipation, monitoring, response, recovery, learning, and self-monitoring. The model consists of four areas: Event-based constraints, Functional Dependencies, Adaptive Capacity and Strategy. The paper describes dependencies between constraints, functions and strategies. We argue that models such as SyRes should be useful both for envisioning new resilience methods and metrics, as well as for engineering and evaluating resilient systems.

1 - 5 of 5
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf