A comparison of the HEART and CREAM methods for identifying human errors in the cement industry using the entropy Shannon-PROMETHEE approach

Abstract

The present study identified key criteria affecting the selection of human reliability analysis (HRA) methods through literature reviews and expert interviews. The Delphi method was applied to finalize the criteria. The prioritization of these criteria was also conducted using Shannon's Entropy. After that, the PROMETHEE technique was employed to compare the HEART and CREAM methods based on weighted criteria. The results showed that the criteria of validation (final weight: 0.182), consistency (final weight: 0.109), and comprehensiveness (final weight: 0.101) had the highest priorities for selecting reliability evaluation methods. Based on the results, the HEART method had the weakest performance in terms of error cause identification (Phi: -0.479), protective measures evaluation (Phi: -0.371), and team formation demand (Phi: -0.212). Conversely, the CREAM method showed weakest performance in terms of complexity (Phi: -0.484), implementation cost (Phi: -0.375), and required time (Phi: -0.216). Both methods obtained the highest scores in terms of validation, consistency, and comprehensiveness, which highlight their strengths in these key criteria. Given the advantages of the HEART method, it may be a more rational choice for human error assessment in the cement industry.