Human Error Causal Factors in the Work Place


The text that follows is owned by the site above referred.

Here is only a small part of the article, for more please follow the link


Ben Marguglio’s picture

An understanding of human error causal factors is important for design and root cause analysis

Human error is behavior that is wholly expected to achieve a desired result (in accordance with some standard) but that does not. A causal factor is anything that yields an occurrence resulting in an undesired effect or anything that exacerbates the level of severity of the undesired effect.

Why is it important to understand human error causal factors? The answer is twofold.

First, a good design (either the design of a process or hardware item) is created, in large part, with an understanding of:

  1. Any potential undesired effects in operating or maintaining the process or in manufacturing, transporting, storing or using the hardware item
  2. The human errors and their causal factors that can activate these undesired effects.

With this understanding, the intent is to design such as to eliminate the potential for the undesired effects, or when that can’t be done, to establish appropriate barriers for the:

  1. Prevention of any error that could activate the undesired effect
  2. Timely detection of the error
  3. Mitigation of the undesired effect.

Of course, the resources applied to any such barriers are appropriate to the level of significance of the undesired effect.

Second, without an understanding of human error causal factors, there is a greater potential for root cause analyses to be truncated at the point at which only the things that need correction are identified, rather than analyzing further to the point of identifying the behaviors that need correction as well. For example, a correction may be made to a specific integrated maintenance and inspection plan (a thing) or corrections may be made to a set of such plans (things) that have the same or similar offending characteristics, but such a correction or corrections will not prevent newly prepared plans from having the same or similar offending characteristics. Improvement in new plans can come about only with improvement in the behavior of the planners.

The table, below, provides a taxonomy of universally applicable human error causal factors. This taxonomy was devised from my review of hundreds, if not thousands of problem reports, incident reports, non-conformance reports, condition reports, and the like, as well as my participation in or review of many of the root cause analyses resulting from these reports.

I want to stress that these causal factors may or may not be root causes but, certainly, are closer to root causes than “things.”

Marguglio’s Taxonomy of Human Error Causal Factors


Knowledge-based—Error based on the absence of knowledge of the requirement, expectation, or need.
Cognition-based—Error based on the absence of ability to process the knowledge necessary to fulfill the requirement, expectation, or need.

Value-based—Error based on the absence of willingness to accept the requirement, expectation, or need.

Reflexive-based—Error based on the absence of ability to immediately respond to a stimulus.
Error-Inducing Condition-based—Error based on the absence of ability to counteract the error-inducing condition.
Skill-based—Error based on the absence of manual dexterity.
Lapse-based—Error based on the absence of attention.

A knowledge-based error may occur when one has not received the information, either because it wasn’t transmitted or got lost or garbled in its transmission or receipt.

A cognition-based error may occur when one does not properly process the information that one has received—does not properly memorize it, understand it, apply it, or in jobs requiring higher cognitive abilities, does not properly analyze it, synthesize it, or evaluate it.

There’s a significant difference between not having the information (knowledge-based) and not having the ability to process the information (cognition-based).

A cognition-based error is derived from the work of Benjamin Bloom (1913–1999), an educational psychologist who, in 1956, published a taxonomy describing the six levels of cognition that apply to learning (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals).

  • Memorization—(Bloom called it “knowledge) is the most basic, first cognitive level. It is the ability to remember terminology, definitions, facts, ideas, materials, patterns, sequences, methodologies, principles, etc.
  • Comprehension—The ability to understand the things listed in the first level of cognition, including tables, diagrams and other forms of communication that combine words and graphics.
  • Application—In job-related situations, it is the ability to use the information and understandings acquired at the memorization and comprehension levels.
  • Analysis or diagnosis—The ability to break-down information into its constituent parts; recognize the organizational and systemic relationships of the parts; and identify actual and potential part non-conformances, anomalies, and improvement opportunities.
  • Synthesis—The ability to put parts together such as to show a pattern or structure that was not evident previously, identify the data that support conclusions, and identify data that are appropriate to examine further in order to form new solutions or methods.
  • Evaluation—The highest and sixth cognitive level. It is the ability to make judgments regarding significance, value or worth, usually by using appropriate criteria or standards to estimate accuracy, effectiveness, economic benefits, etc.

Higher levels of cognition are needed to prevent errors. Higher levels of cognition also are needed to identify the existence and nature of problems arising from errors. There are two exceptions: The existence and nature of a problem may be so obvious as to be regarded as “low hanging fruit,” so to speak. And a problem may be “self-revealing” (i.e., the problem may be one that already has resulted in an occurrence for which the undesired effect has been experienced). For example, a component that is required to provide an output of 120 volts ±5 percent, during functional test may provide an output of only 100 volts. The existence of the problem has revealed itself. However, much higher levels of cognition are required to determine the nature of the problem. Is it a design deficiency and, if so, specifically what kind of design deficiency, and why did it exist? Is it a manufacturing nonconformance and, if so, what kind of a manufacturing nonconformance, and why did it exist?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s