Content area
Full text
Abstract
The advent of Industry 4.0 has ushered in a new era of greater system sophistication, which goes beyond the capabilities of traditional risk analysis methods. In response, researchers have turned to systemic methods that are more suitable. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), along with other systemic methods, stands out for its ability to analyze accidents, regular performance, and risks by considering the entire system as the unit of analysis. FRAM's unique focus on understanding how everyday variability combines to produce unexpected results distinguishes it from conventional methods as well as its focus on what went wrong and analysis capacity of what went right. In this regard, there are two opposing perspectives regarding FRAM's applicability to Industry 4.0. While the first focuses on the advantages of this method, the second argues that FRAM may not align well with industry 4.0 systems. This study delves into the performance of FRAM within the context of Industry 4.0, including its ability to address human error. This investigation examines the application of FRAM in the dynamic landscape of Industry 4.0, leveraging a comprehensive literature analysis to provide an in-depth understanding of the method's strengths and limitations in contemporary industrial systems. Drawing on evidence from successful documented applications, this study argues that FRAM can be effectively utilized in complex systems employing Industry 4.0 applications, countering claims of misalignment and emphasizing FRAM's applicability for Industry 4.0 contexts.
Keywords
Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), Industry 4.0, Risk management, Systemic methods
1. Introduction
Various perspectives exist regarding human error, encompassing the mechanistic, individual, interactionist and systems perspectives [1]. Systemic methods are distinct from human error methods as they focus on analyzing accidents and normal performance by considering the entire system as the unit of analysis, rather than solely focusing on human behavior. These methods, such as AcciMap, STAMP (System Theoretic Accident Model and Process), CWA (Cognitive work analysis), EAST (Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork), Net-HARMS (Networked Hazard Analysis and Risk Management System), and FRAM, take into account the complexity of sociotechnical systems and help identify conditions or components that contribute to both failures and normal performance [1, 2]. As part of systems thinking, one emphasizes interactions and relationships, considers multiple perspectives, and recognizes patterns of cause and effect by looking at...