The International Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Empirical Study is a comparative benchmark of the prediction of HRA methods to the performance of nuclear power plant crews in a control room simulator. There are a number of unique aspects to the present study that distinguish it from previous HRA benchmarks, most notably the emphasis on a method-to-data comparison instead of a method-to-method comparison. This paper reviews seven lessons learned about HRA benchmarking from conducting the study: (1) the dual purposes of the study afforded by joining another HRA study; (2) the importance of comparing not only quantitative but also qualitative aspects of HRA; (3) consideration of both negative and positive drivers on crew performance; (4) a relatively large sample size of crews; (5) the use of multiple methods and scenarios to provide a well-rounded view of HRA performance; (6) the importance of clearly defined human failure events; and (7) the use of a common comparison language to “translate” the results of different HRA methods. These seven lessons learned highlight how the present study can serve as a useful template for future benchmarking studies
