## 5 Conclusions  
Human reliability analysis (HRA) has become an essential component in many industries for risk management and the prevention of major accidents, where human reliability is a critical factor [33; 34]. HRA operates on the underlying assumption that human error is a significant concept and can be linked to individual actions [35]. It is increasingly being used independently, both to assess the risks associated with human error and to reduce system vulnerabilities. The current trend in organizations is to keep the level of risk as low as possible. Based on available statistics, humans can be identified as one of the most risky factors in the human-machine system. Human error not only affects safety, but also the environment and quality. Any type of organization can benefit from addressing the issue of human reliability. The issue of the impact of the human factor on technological processes is a complex system. The complexity results primarily from the fact that each person is an individual and behaves differently when exposed to the same conditions. Therefore, it is not possible to elaborate a general model of human behavior that would allow to reveal the factors causing human factor failure in technological processes.  
This close relationship between man and machine increases work efficiency, but at the same time brings new incident situations and presents new challenges in the field of occupational health and safety [36]. The reliability of protective barriers is also influenced by the human factor and the activity of individuals in identifying threats or changes in the functionality of these barriers, diagnosing the necessary steps and subsequently taking measures [37; 38; 39].  
There are four shortcomings of methods for estimating the probability and prediction of human error in the past. First, reliable data are insufficient. Second, there are insufficient criteria for selecting PSFs (PSFS is an easy-to-use, reliable and sensitive scale for many non-musculoskeletal disorders). Third, there is a limited ability to assess cognitive behavior. Finally, possible causes are ignored [40; 41].  
Conceptualization, M.B.; methodology, M.B.; validation, M.B.; formal analysis, Z.K.; investigation, Z.K.; resources, M.B.; data curation, M.B.; writing--original draft preparation, Z.K.; writing--review and editing, Z.K.; visualization, M.B.; supervision, M.B. and Z.K.; project administration, Z.K.; funding acquisition, Z.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
Not applicable.  
Data Availability Statement: Data available on request due to restrictions, e.g., privacy or ethical. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to measurement in private industrial sector.  
This work has been supported by the Slovak Agency Supporting Research and Development APVV-19-0367 and KEGA 026 TUKE-4/2023 Supporting the development of knowledge in the area of implementing quality management system requirements for the aerospace and defense industries.  
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.