(3.237.178.91) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/07 14:29
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:林庭懌
研究生(外文):Lin, Ting-Yi
論文名稱:人為因素分析與歸類系統 失誤識別輔助系統之開發
論文名稱(外文):Apply Human Factor Analysis and Classification System to Accident Investigation System
指導教授:張堅琦
指導教授(外文):Chang, Chien-Chi
口試委員:紀佳芬蕭育霖
口試委員(外文):Chi, Chia-FenHsiao, Yu-Lin
口試日期:2018-05-31
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:工業工程與工程管理學系所
學門:工程學門
學類:工業工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2018
畢業學年度:106
語文別:中文
論文頁數:98
中文關鍵詞:工安意外人為因素分析與歸類系統
外文關鍵詞:Industrial accidentsHuman Factor Analysis and Classification SystemHFACS
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:156
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
工安意外是台灣勞工致死率高的原因之一,降低工安意外的發生一直是學者以及管理階層努力的目標。近年來工安意外頻傳,相關人員往往在事發後才相互檢討責任歸屬,然而在指標性嚴重的事件發生後,類似的案件極可能再度發生。此類情況可能的原因是工安人員未確實檢測潛在的意外風險因子,意即大多數工安的工安調查僅能發現表層的肇因,或是大多歸因於操作者本身的不注意。許多研究指出,工安意外的發生絕不只是檢討操作者個人的作業流程,一個意外的發生通常是與數個環繞事件的風險因子如操作者、技術環境、監督者與高層決策者有關。對於隱性的潛在風險因子,目前最有效益的分析為人為因素分析與歸類系統(HFACS),然而此分析工具的使用者大多侷限於了解理論的人因專家學者們,而學者依照掌握之資料做事後分析時可能因為資訊不足而產生偏差。最適合做工安意外分析的應是第一線的作業人員,因此本研究希望能夠消弭產學之間的隔閡,藉由輔助系統快速引導工安人員應用HFACS在第一線對於工安意外發生的原因進行深入分析。參與者選擇的答案將與研究人員的建議參考選項做比較而得出得分。數據分析將使用變異數分析與組內相關係數分析數據之內部一致性,進而探討兩種不同輔助介面對於使用者的輔助績效。研究結果彙整所得的資料亦將可提供國內產業界提升工業安全的建議方向與使用HFACS架構分析工安意外的參考建議。本研究結果可普及人為因素分析與歸類系統可行性,提供台灣工業產業新型態的工安意外分析方式並有效探究工安意外隱性之潛在風險因子,進而提升工業安全。
Industrial accident is one of the major reason leading to workplace fatalities in Taiwan, and reducing the occurrence of industrial accidents has always been the objective for researchers and upper level management. The frequency of industrial accidents has risen for recent decades, and related personnel would usually examine the duties and responsibilities only after the accidents. However, this might potentially lead to the re-occurrence of the similar accidents. Such scenario is likely resulted from the ignorance that the safety rated personnel do not consider the latent risky factors; that is to say, most of the later investigations of industrial accidents merely reveal the explicit forms of causation or contribute the accidents to the inattention of workers. Several researches have suggested that the reviews of industrial accidents should focus on not only the operating procedures of workers but some other risk factors such as technical environment, supervisors and upper level management. Presently, one of the most effective tool to address the latent risky factors is the Human Factor Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). However, the usage of this analytical tool is usually limited to only the experts familiar with relevant theories, and in some real case with insufficient information in hand, experts might mishandle the situations and give out wrong evaluation. Generally speaking, frontline workers are the best candidates to perform this analysis, so the purpose of this paper was to reduce the barriers between industry and academia by introducing the handy system for safety related personnel to analyze the causes of accidents based on the principles of HFACS. The options chosen by the participants were compared to the reference provided by the researchers, and the resulting credits were marked. Analysis of variance and reliability examination were used in data analysis.
The corresponding effectiveness of the two assistant interfaces was also evaluated. The results of this research can facilitate the usability of HFACS and therefore offer a revolutionary type of analysis methods to examine the latent risky factors in accidents, leading to enhancement of industrial safety.
第一章 緒論 8
1.1 研究背景與動機 8
1.2 研究目的 9
1.3 研究範圍與限制 11
1.4 研究流程 12
第二章 文獻回顧 14
2.1 工安意外探討分析 14
2.1.1 骨牌理論 15
2.1.2 多重因果理論 15
2.2 人為因素失誤模型 16
2.2.1 SHELL 模型 16
2.2.2 起司模型 16
2.2.3 人為因素分析與歸類系統 17
第三章 研究方法 25
3.1 研究架構與假說 26
3.2 研究流程 27
3.2.1 介面開發 27
3.2.2 研究參與者 32
3.2.3 實驗流程 32
3.3 資料整理與分析 35
第四章 結果 38
4.1 兩版本輔助系統分析之結果比較 38
4.1.1 正確率差異 38
4.1.2 時間差異 41
4.1.3 主觀負荷程度差異 42
4.1.4 一致性分析 44
4.2 研究假設驗證 45
第五章 討論 46
5.1 兩版本輔助系統之分析比較 46
5.2 基於HFACS架構對於4案例之分析 51
5.2.1 案例一 51
5.2.2 案例二 54
5.2.3 案例三 57
5.2.4 案例四 60
5.2.5 小結 63
5.3 研究限制 66
第六章 結論與建議 67
6.1 研究結論與貢獻 67
6.2 後續研究方向 68
誌謝 68
參考文獻 69
附錄一、HFACS風險因子之定義 (輔助系統Type II) 72
附錄二、HFACS系統的說明文檔 78
附錄三、NASA-TLX主觀負荷量表 80
附錄四、工安意外案例練習題1 (自屋頂洞墜落) 81
附錄五、工安意外案例練習題2 (非該工地人員而從高樓墜落而死) 84
附錄六、工安意外正式分析案例1 (冷卻攪拌機清潔作業) 86
附錄七、工安意外正式分析案例2 (夾捲致死意外) 89
附錄八、工安意外正式分析案例3 (鋼筋倒塌壓傷頭部致死) 92
附錄九、工安意外正式分析案例4 (如廁氨氣中毒) 94
附錄十、基於HFACS架構進行事故分析的參考建議 97
勞動部勞動及職業安全衛生研究所─鋼鐵業安全衛生危害風險與控制技術手冊(2014)

Boquet, A., Detwiler, C., & Shappell, S. (2004). A human factors analysis of US emergency medical transport accidents. Air Medical Journal, 23(5), 34.

Celik, M., & Cebi, S. (2009). Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(1), 66-75.

Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J. P., & Langard, B. (2013). Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 26-37.

Chen, S. T., Wall, A., Davies, P., Yang, Z., Wang, J., & Chou, Y. H. (2013). A Human and Organisational Factors (HOFs) analysis method for marine casualties using HFACS-Maritime Accidents (HFACS-MA). Safety science, 60, 105-114.

Davies, J. M., & Caird, J. K. Surgical Safety Checklist: A Redesign Using Human Factors Guidelines.

Degani, A., & Wiener, E. L. (1993). Cockpit checklists: Concepts, design, and use. Human Factors, 35(2), 345-359.

Dekker, S. W. (2002). Reconstructing human contributions to accidents: the new view on error and performance. Journal of Safety Research, 33(3), 371-385.

Diller, T., Helmrich, G., Dunning, S., Cox, S., Buchanan, A., & Shappell, S. (2014). The human factors analysis classification system (HFACS) applied to health care. American Journal of Medical Quality, 29(3), 181-190.

Edwards, E. (1973). Man and machine- systems for safety (man machine systems for flight safety, studying accidents, human factors in system design and implementation of personnel). Outlook on Safety, 21-36.


ElBardissi, A. W., Wiegmann, D. A., Dearani, J. A., Daly, R. C., & Sundt III, T. M. (2007). Application of the human factors analysis and classification system methodology to the cardiovascular surgery operating room. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 83(4), 1412-1419.

Ergai, A., Cohen, T., Sharp, J., Wiegmann, D., Gramopadhye, A., & Shappell, S. (2016). Assessment of the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS): Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Safety science, 82, 393-398.

Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139-183). North-Holland.

Heinrich, H. W. (1941). Industrial Accident Prevention. A Scientific Approach. Industrial Accident Prevention. A Scientific Approach., (Second Edition).

Heinrich, H. W., Petersen, D. C., Roos, N. R., & Hazlett, S. (1980). Industrial accident prevention: A safety management approach. McGraw-Hill Companies.

Hinze, J. (1997). Construction safety. Prentice Hall.

Kletz, T. A. (2001). Learning from accidents. Routledge.

Krulak, D. C. (2004). Human factors in maintenance: impact on aircraft mishap frequency and severity. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 75(5), 429-432.

Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151-160.

Milligan, F. J. (2007). Establishing a culture for patient safety–The role of education. Nurse Education Today, 27(2), 95-102.

Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. Elsevier.

Petersen, D. (1971). Techniques of safety management. McGraw-Hill Companies.

Ridley, J. (1986) Safety at work, 2nd Edition. London: Butterworth Ltd.

Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge university press.

Reinach, S., & Viale, A. (2006). Application of a human error framework to conduct train accident/incident investigations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(2), 396-406.

Salvendy, G. (2012). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. John Wiley & Sons.


Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (1997). A human error approach to accident investigation: The taxonomy of unsafe operations. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 269-291.

Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system--HFACS.

Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2001). Applying reason: The human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). Human Factors and Aerospace Safety.

Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (1998). A human error analysis of general aviation controlled flight into terrain accidents occurring between 1990-1998. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OKLAHOMA CITY OK CIVIL AEROMEDICAL INST.

Shappell, S., Detwiler, C., Holcomb, K., Hackworth, C., Boquet, A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007). Human error and commercial aviation accidents: an analysis using the human factors analysis and classification system. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(2), 227-242.

Sullenberger, C., Zaslow, J., & McConnohie, M. (2009). Highest duty: My search for what really matters. HarperAudio.

Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2001). Applying the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) to the analysis of commercial aviation accident data.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔