Framing the FRAM: A literature review on the functional resonance analysis method

被引:174
作者
Patriarca, R. [1 ]
Di Gravio, G. [1 ]
Woltjer, R. [2 ]
Costantino, F. [1 ]
Praetorius, G. [3 ,4 ]
Ferreira, P. [5 ]
Hollnagel, E. [6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Sapienza Univ Rome, Dept Mech & Aerosp Engn, Via Eudossiana 18, I-00184 Rome, Italy
[2] Uppsala Univ, Dept Informat Technol, Uppsala, Sweden
[3] Linnaeus Univ, Kalmar Maritime Acad, Kalmar, Sweden
[4] Univ South Eastern Norway, Dept Maritime Operat, Borre, Norway
[5] Univ Lisbon, CENTEC Ctr Marine Technol & Ocean Engn, Inst Super Tecn, Lisbon, Portugal
[6] Jonkoping Acad, Jonkoping, Sweden
[7] Macquarie Univ, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
Systematic review; Complex systems; Socio-technical systems; Resilience engineering; Safety; RISK ANALYSIS; ACCIDENT MODEL; SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEMS; SAFETY ANALYSIS; RESILIENCE; COMPLEXITY; OPERATIONS; SERVICE; WORK; IDENTIFICATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104827
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
The development of the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) has been motivated by the perceived limitations of fundamentally deterministic and probabilistic approaches to understand complex systems' behaviour. Congruent with the principles of Resilience Engineering, over recent years the FRAM has been progressively developed in scientific terms, and increasingly adopted in industrial environments with reportedly successful results. Nevertheless, a wide literature review focused on the method is currently lacking. On these premises, this paper aims to summarise all available published research in English about FRAM. More than 1700 documents from multiple scientific repositories were reviewed through a protocol based on the PRISMA review technique. The paper aims to uncover a number of characteristics of the FRAM research, both in terms of the method's application and of the authors contributing to its development. The systematic analysis explores the method in terms of its methodological aspects, application domains, and enhancements in qualitative and quantitative terms, as well as proposing potential future research directions.
引用
收藏
页数:23
相关论文
共 223 条
[1]  
Abaei M M., 2017, Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop and Symposium on Safety and Integrity Management of Operations in Harsh Environments (C-RISE3), P1
[2]  
Adriaensen A., 2017, P 7 REA S 2017 LARG
[3]   Can Complexity-Thinking Methods Contribute to Improving Occupational Safety in Industry 4.0? A Review of Safety Analysis Methods and Their Concepts [J].
Adriaensen, Arie ;
Decre, Wilm ;
Pintelon, Liliane .
SAFETY, 2019, 5 (04)
[4]   A socio-technical analysis of functional properties in a joint cognitive system: a case study in an aircraft cockpit [J].
Adriaensen, Arie ;
Patriarca, Riccardo ;
Smoker, Anthony ;
Bergstrom, Johan .
ERGONOMICS, 2019, 62 (12) :1598-1616
[5]  
Albery S., 2014, EVALUATION FUNCTIONA, DOI [10.1201/9781351174664-189., DOI 10.1201/9781351174664-189]
[6]   Advantages for risk assessment: Evaluating learnings from question sets inspired by the FRAM and the risk matrix in a manufacturing environment [J].
Albery, Simon ;
Borys, David ;
Tepe, Susanne .
SAFETY SCIENCE, 2016, 89 :180-189
[7]  
Allspaw J., 2016, DEBRIEFING FACILITAT
[8]  
Alm H, 2010, Technological Organization, P153
[9]   A critical review of methods and models for evaluating organizational factors in Human Reliability Analysis [J].
Alvarenga, M. A. B. ;
Frutuoso e Melo, P. F. ;
Fonseca, R. A. .
PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR ENERGY, 2014, 75 :25-41
[10]   Improvisation at workplace and accident causation - an exploratory study [J].
Amorim, Ana Gabriella ;
Pereira, Claudio M. N. A. .
6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON APPLIED HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS (AHFE 2015) AND THE AFFILIATED CONFERENCES, AHFE 2015, 2015, 3 :1804-1811