Garrett, J W and Teizer, J (2009) Human factors analysis classification system relating to human error awareness taxonomy in construction safety. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(8), pp. 754-763. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In several studies it is widely accepted that human error is the main reason for up to 80% of all incidents and accidents in complex high-risk systems that exist in the aviation, petrochemical, healthcare, construction, mining, and nuclear power industries. The construction industry, greatly impacted by accidents, is accountable for more than 1,000 fatalities in each of the past 14 years. The human factors analysis classification system (HFACS) is a general human error framework originally developed and tested as a tool for investigating and analyzing the human causes of accidents with applications to rail, air, and offshore environments. This paper introduces the concept of HFACS along with the framework of human error awareness training (HEAT) and their potential contribution to the construction industry. Based on the HEAT approach, this paper proposes a new error analysis educational and classification tool for safety within the construction industry. The primary difference between HFACS and HEAT is found in the structure, content, and presentation of the information allowing for higher effectiveness in incident investigation and safety education and training in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accidents; human factors; risk; safety; training |
| Index terms: | aviation, education and training, taxonomy, construction industry, fatalities, effectiveness, investigation, mining, nuclear power, human factor, construction safety |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, energy systems, data analysis and analytics, health risk and incident analysis, performance management, industry analysis, environmental health, occupational health and safety management, geotechnical engineering, professional education |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Education, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here