Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 13, Issue 3 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2025)
Iran J Ergon 2025, 13(3): 235-248 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nikray A R, Vesali Naseh M R, Mohammadi A. An Analytical Perspective on Human Reliability Assessment and Human Error Risk Studies (2010–2023): Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence and Lights-Out Manufacturing. Iran J Ergon 2025; 13 (3) :235-248
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-1099-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-1099-en.html
1- Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Arak University, Arak, Iran
2- Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran & Department of Chemical Engineering, Safety and Protection Research Center (SPRC), University of Qom, Qom, Iran ,mohammadi.a@qom.ac.ir
2- Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran & Department of Chemical Engineering, Safety and Protection Research Center (SPRC), University of Qom, Qom, Iran ,
Abstract: (2914 Views)
Objectives: As industrial systems become increasingly complex and technologically advanced, the human role in ensuring safety and efficiency remains indispensable. This study aimed to present a comprehensive review of Human Reliability Assessment research published between 2010 and 2023. It compares human reliability assessment (HRA) methodologies with emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and lights-out manufacturing, identifies existing research gaps, and analyzes the analytical techniques employed and the industrial sectors addressed.
Methods: A systematic search of major scientific databases using domain-specific keywords yielded over 230 publications. After removing duplicate studies, 180 articles were selected for detailed analysis. Each article was evaluated based on methodology, industrial application, country, institutional affiliation, and publishing outlet.
Results: The results indicated that the most frequently applied approaches in HRA research were the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach (SHERPA), cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM), and fuzzy mathematics. The United States, China, and South Korea emerged as leading contributors to this field. The findings revealed that neither qualitative nor quantitative methods alone are sufficient to fulfill the three core objectives of HRA: error identification, probability estimation, and control design. Therefore, a hybrid approach was recommended by integrating SHERPA and Tecnica Empirica Stima Errori Operatori (TESEO). SHERPA provides comprehensive coverage of error identification and the design of effective control measures, while TESEO facilitates rapid, conservative probability estimation. These methods provided a practical and efficient framework for achieving HRA objectives within operational constraints. Additionally, ten key research gaps were identified.
Conclusion: The SHERPA–TESEO hybrid framework presents a viable strategy for achieving the core goals of HRA. Nonetheless, a shift from static to dynamic and data-driven models is necessary in the context of intelligent environments and operator-free production. Recommended developments include revising SHERPA’s cognitive task classifications, recalibrating TESEO's adjustment factors, and integrating real-time data with human–artificial intelligence (AI) interaction. These advancements are expected to significantly enhance real-time prediction of human error risks and support timely intervention strategies.
Methods: A systematic search of major scientific databases using domain-specific keywords yielded over 230 publications. After removing duplicate studies, 180 articles were selected for detailed analysis. Each article was evaluated based on methodology, industrial application, country, institutional affiliation, and publishing outlet.
Results: The results indicated that the most frequently applied approaches in HRA research were the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach (SHERPA), cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM), and fuzzy mathematics. The United States, China, and South Korea emerged as leading contributors to this field. The findings revealed that neither qualitative nor quantitative methods alone are sufficient to fulfill the three core objectives of HRA: error identification, probability estimation, and control design. Therefore, a hybrid approach was recommended by integrating SHERPA and Tecnica Empirica Stima Errori Operatori (TESEO). SHERPA provides comprehensive coverage of error identification and the design of effective control measures, while TESEO facilitates rapid, conservative probability estimation. These methods provided a practical and efficient framework for achieving HRA objectives within operational constraints. Additionally, ten key research gaps were identified.
Conclusion: The SHERPA–TESEO hybrid framework presents a viable strategy for achieving the core goals of HRA. Nonetheless, a shift from static to dynamic and data-driven models is necessary in the context of intelligent environments and operator-free production. Recommended developments include revising SHERPA’s cognitive task classifications, recalibrating TESEO's adjustment factors, and integrating real-time data with human–artificial intelligence (AI) interaction. These advancements are expected to significantly enhance real-time prediction of human error risks and support timely intervention strategies.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence, Human error, Hybrid framework, Human reliability, Lights-out manufacturing
Type of Study: Systematic Review |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2025/08/4 | Accepted: 2025/10/17 | ePublished: 2025/12/21
Received: 2025/08/4 | Accepted: 2025/10/17 | ePublished: 2025/12/21
References
1. Habibi EA, Gharib SA, Mohammadfam I, Rismanchian M. Human error assessment and management among Isfahan oil refinery control room operators by SHERPA technique. J Health Syst Res. 2012;7(4):391-400. [Link]
2. Hayadokht S, Jozi SA, Mirzaebrahimtehrani M. Human health risk analysis in the health, safety, and environment using EFMEA & SHERPA integrated methods (case study: car seat production company). J Environ Dev. 2018;3(61):49-60. [Link]
3. Ramezanifar S, Ramezanifar E, Khadiv E, Salehi Sahlabadi A, Eskandari D. Namdari M. Applying the HEART technique to identify and assess the human error in the central railway traffic control room. J Health Safety Work. 2022;12(3):595-616. [Link]
4. Nikray AR, Vesali Naseh MR, Mohammadi A. Evaluation of reliability studies and human error risk analysis worldwide (2010-2023 time frame). 18th National Congress of Chemical Engineering of Iran, Tabriz, Iran. [Link]
5. Di Pasquale V, Miranda S, Iannone R. Riemma S. A simulator for human error probability analysis (SHERPA). Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2015;139:17-32. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.02.003]
6. Li Y, Zhu L. Risk analysis of human error in interaction design by using a hybrid approach based on FMEA, SHERPA, and fuzzy TOPSIS. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2020;36(5):1657-1677. [DOI: 10.1002/qre.2652]
7. Chen S, Zhang L, Zhang L. A human reliability analysis methodology based on an extended Phoenix method for severe accidents in nuclear power plants: Qualitative analysis framework. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2021;214:107750. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107750]
8. Catelani M, Ciani L, Guidi G, Patrizi G. An enhanced SHERPA (E-SHERPA) method for human reliability analysis in railway engineering. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2021;215:107866 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107866]
9. Habibzadeh, H. Investigation and evaluation of human errors in controlling the solid fuel production process in an industry using the C-REAM method. J Standard Qual Manag. 2013;3(3):72-81. [Link]
10. Afshari D, Jafarzadeh Z, Mousavian asl Z, Jahani F. Identification and evaluation of human errors using human factor analysis and classification system based on fuzzy hierarchy theory: a case study in the cement industry. Occup Med. 2019;11(1):42-58. [DOI: 10.18502/tkj.v11i1.1777]
11. Borgheipour H, Monazami Tehrani G, Eskandari D, Golmohammadi MR, Mohammadfam I. Assessment of human error probability in emergency evacuation using HEPI method in offshore industry. J Occup Hyg Eng. 2018;5(2):28-38. [DOI: 10.21859/johe.5.2.28]
12. Ghavam M.A, Mazloumi A, Hosseini M.R. Identification and evaluation of human error in operation of electrical installations of Tehran Province Electricity Distribution Company using SHERPA technique. J Health Safety Work. 2019;9(4):363-380. [Link]
13. Akyuz E, Celik M, Akgun I, Cicek K. Prediction of human error probabilities in a critical marine engineering operation on-board chemical tanker ship: The case of ship bunkering. Saf Sci. 2018;110:102-109. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.08.002]
14. Nikray AR, Vesali Naseh MR, Mohammadi A. Identification and classification of human errors in occupational accidents in Japan based on the Koltz approach. Eighth International Conference on Safety and Health. Tehran, Iran. [Link]
15. Mohamadfam I, Nikoumaram H, Yousefi H, Pirhadi M. Assessment and management of human errors in emergency situations by HEPI method (case study: a Manufacturing industry). JSMJ. 2012;4(4):47-57. [Link]
16. Nikray AR, Vesali Naseh MR, Mohammadi A. Assessing the contribution of human error to major industrial accidents. 18th National Congress of Chemical Engineering of Iran, Tabriz, Iran. [Link]
17. Sujan MA, Embrey D, Huang H. On the application of human reliability analysis in healthcare: opportunities and challenges. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2020;194:106189. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.06.017]
18. Di Bona G, Falcone D, Forcina A, Silvestri L. Systematic human reliability analysis (SHRA): a new approach to evaluate Human Error Probability (HEP) in a nuclear plant. Int J Math Eng Manag Sci. 2021;6(1):345-362. [DOI: 10.33889/ijmems.2021.6.1.022]
19. Pan X, Lin Y, He C. A review of cognitive models in human reliability analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2017; 33(7):1299-1316. [DOI: 10.1002/qre.2111]
20. Laidoune A, Rahal Gharbi M. Analysis testing of sociocultural factors influence on human reliability within sociotechnical systems: the Algerian oil companies. J Health Safety Work. 2016;7(3):194-200. [DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2015.12.005]
21. Di Pasquale V, Iannone R, Miranda, Riemma S. An overview of human reliability analysis techniques in manufacturing operations: operations management. In MM Schiraldi (ed.), Operations Management. Rijeka, Croatia; 2013. [DOI: 10.5772/55065]
22. Petrillo A, Falcone D, De Felice F, De Zomparelli F. Development of a risk analysis model to evaluate human error in industrial plants and in critical infrastructures. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;23:15-24. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.012]
23. Ghasemi M, Nasleseraji J, Hoseinabadi S, Zare M. Application of SHERPA to identify and prevent human errors in control units of petrochemical industry. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2013;19(2):203-209. [DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2013.11076979]
24. Rasmussen M, Laumann K. The evaluation of fatigue as a performance shaping factor in the Petro-HRA method. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2020;194:106187. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.06.015]
25. Mandal S, Singh K, Behera R.K, Sahu S.K, Raj N, Maiti J. Human error identification and risk prioritization in overhead crane operations using HTA, SHERPA, and fuzzy VIKOR method. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42(20):7195-7206. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.05.033]
26. Abílio Ramos M, López Droguett E, Mosleh A, Das Chagas Moura M. A human reliability analysis methodology for oil refineries and petrochemical plants operation: Phoenix-PRO qualitative framework. Reliability Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2020;193:106672. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106672]
27. Torres Y, Nadeau S, Landau K, Classification and quantification of human error in manufacturing: A case study in complex manual assembly. Appl. Sci. 2021;11(2):749-813. [DOI: 10.3390/app11020749]
28. Primasari IA, KomdanY. Analysis of human reliability on work casting operators using Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach (SHERPA). Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Optimization and Management in Industrial Applications (ICEOMIA 2022). 2022. ]Link[
29. Chandler FT, Chang YHJ, Mosleh A, Marble JL, Boring RL, Gertman DI. Human reliability analysis methods selection guidance for NASA. Washington D.C, NASA/OSMA Technical Report; 2006. [Link]
30. Sujan M, Pickup L, Kaya G.K, Earl L, McCulloch P. What kinds of insights do Safety-I and Safety-II approaches provide? A critical reflection on the use of SHERPA and FRAM in healthcare. Saf Sci. 2024;173:106450. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106450]
31. Alexander TM. A case-based human reliability assessment using HFACS for complex space operations. J Space Saf Eng. 2019;6(1):53-59. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jsse.2019.01.001]
32. Cassis D. Validation of the TESEO human reliability assessment technique for the analysis of aviation occurrences. Master’s Thesis. Milan: Politecnico University of Milan; 2017. [Link]
33. Anonymous. ISO 9001: 2015: Quality management systems–requirements. Switzerland, 2015. [Link]
34. Hou LX, Liu R, Chen Liu H, Jiang S. Two decades on human reliability analysis: A bibliometric analysis and literature review. Ann Nucl Energy. 2021;151:107969. [DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107969].
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
