If you've read our guide on what SIRE 2.0 is, you'll know every question is assessed across three dimensions: hardware, process, and human. The human dimension is genuinely new territory compared to VIQ7 — this guide explains exactly how it works, based directly on OCIMF's own programme documentation.
What "Human Factors" Means in SIRE 2.0
OCIMF defines human factors as the physical, psychological, and social characteristics that shape how people interact with equipment, systems, processes, other individuals, and their work team. In practice, the idea behind this is straightforward: it's the people on board and ashore who make safety work day to day, but human error still happens — usually through the way people interact with the conditions, systems, and other people around them. Addressing those interactions, rather than just blaming the individual, is what actually reduces error and improves reliability.
How Human Factors Fit Into an Inspection
Every SIRE 2.0 question is assessed across three dimensions, each with its own method of analysis when something is flagged:
- Hardware — analysed through a standard hardware cause-analysis tree
- Process — analysed through a standard process cause-analysis tree
- Human — analysed through one or more Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs)
When an inspector codifies an observation, OCIMF's own documentation uses two structured terms: the Subject of Concern (SOC) — what was observed — and the Nature of Concern (NOC) — why it happened. For a human-based observation, the NOC is expressed through the relevant PIF or PIFs.
What Is a Performance Influencing Factor (PIF)?
A PIF is the standard mechanism inspectors use to explain why a crew member's performance on a task was rated the way it was — not just record that it happened. OCIMF's Negative Observation Module documentation gives worked examples using a defined, numbered list of PIF categories. Two of these are confirmed directly by name:
How Inspectors Record Human Observations
Human-based tasks aren't scored on a simple pass/fail basis. OCIMF's own guidance requires the inspector to explain, in a supporting comment, why the execution of a task exceeded expectation, was largely as expected, or fell short — a graded judgement, not a binary one.
Importantly, a PIF and supporting comment aren't reserved for poor performance. They're also required when a task is rated as exceeding expectation or largely as expected — meaning the tool is used to explain strong performance too, not just to flag problems.
Reports are also anonymised at the individual level: inspectors record a seniority band for the person observed, but never a name or specific rank.
Conceptual illustration of how a task observation leads to a recorded finding in SIRE 2.0, based on OCIMF's Negative Observation Module documentation — not an official OCIMF flowchart.
How This Differs From VIQ7
Industry sources, including P&I club guidance published around the transition, note that VIQ7 had no structured equivalent for assessing human performance — its binary yes/no format left little room for explaining why something did or didn't meet expectation. The three-dimension model, with PIFs specifically for the human element, is one of the most substantial additions SIRE 2.0 introduced.
Where to Learn More: OCIMF's Own Training Videos
OCIMF has produced its own official Human Factors training video series, split by audience — separate modules for masters, officers and crew, for owner/operators, and for vetting organisations. This guide explains the concepts; OCIMF's own material goes deeper on a role-by-role basis.
For OCIMF's own training material on this topic, see the SIRE 2.0 Human Factors training videos, produced directly by OCIMF for crew, officers, vetters, and operators.
What This Means for Crew Preparation
Because inspectors are assessing understanding, not just correct execution, preparation needs to go beyond knowing the steps of a task. Crew should be ready to explain why a procedure exists and why a step matters — not just perform it correctly while being watched. Practising that kind of explanation out loud, during drills or interviews, is more useful preparation than re-reading the SMS the night before an inspection.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does "Human Factors" mean in a SIRE 2.0 inspection?
OCIMF defines human factors as the physical, psychological, and social characteristics that shape how people interact with equipment, systems, processes, other people, and their team. In SIRE 2.0, this becomes a formal assessment dimension alongside hardware and process.
What is a PIF (Performance Influencing Factor)?
A PIF is the standard mechanism OCIMF inspectors use to identify the Nature of Concern behind a human-based observation. Two confirmed categories include recognition of the safety criticality of a task, and whether procedures are accessible, helpful, understood, and accurate.
Is a PIF only recorded when performance is poor?
No. OCIMF's own guidance requires a PIF and a supporting comment when a human task is rated as exceeding expectation or largely as expected, not only when it falls short.
Does the inspector name the crew member involved in a human observation?
No. Reports record a seniority band for the observed person without stating their name or specific rank.
Did VIQ7 assess human factors this way?
Industry guidance published during the transition from VIQ7 to SIRE 2.0 indicates that VIQ7 did not have an equivalent structured mechanism for assessing human performance in this way.