A Multidimensional Approach to Modelling for Workplace Risk Assessment

• Autorzy: Targoutzidis A. , Antonopoulou L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper aims to help enhance the process of risk identification and assessment in small enterprises by facilitating the incorporation of insights from accident, human error and risk perception models. This effort takes place through grouping and classification models of all these aspects according to certain criteria, to fit the proper set of models to each situation. To further facilitate the process, the main guidelines of each model are presented. The whole approach is not a new theoretical model but a simplified presentation to help safety engineers in selecting the proper model for the workplace to better assess its risks. An example of the application of this approach is also presented.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

human error; risk perception; accident models; risk assessment

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: Vol. 15, No. 4
• Strony: 373--384
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 41 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Targoutzidis A.

• ELINYAE, Thessaloniki, Greece

autor

Antonopoulou L.

• Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Bibliografia

• 1.European Commission. SMEs in Europe 2003 (Observatory of European SMEs 2003, No. 7). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2004. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/analysis/doc/smes_observatory_2003_report7_en.pdf.
• 2.European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. The changing world of work. Trends and implications for occupational safety and health in the European Union. Forum. 2002;(5):1–12. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from: http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/forum/5.
• 3.Sorensen OH, Hasle P, Bach E. Working in small enterprises—is there a special risk? Saf Sci. 2007;45:1044–59.
• 4.Dorman P. The economics of safety, health and well-being at work: an overview. Geneva, Switzerland: InFocus Program on SafeWork, International Labour Organization; 2000. Retrieved August 24, 2009: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/papers/ecoanal/ecoview.pdf.
• 5.European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Eurostat. Work-related accidents in the EU—the statistical picture (1998–1999). Facts. 2001;(19):1–2. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from: http://osha.europa.eu/publications/factsheets/19.
• 6.Clifton R. The consequences of new enterprise structures. Magazine of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. 2000;(2):14–8. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from: http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/magazine/2.
• 7.European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. New forms of contractual relationships and the implications for occupational safety and health. Summary of an agency report. Facts. 2002;(25):1–2. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from: http://osha.europa.eu/publications/factsheets/25.
• 8.Guadalupe M. The hidden costs of fixed term contracts: the impact on work accidents. Labour Econ. 2003;10:339–57.
• 9.European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Prevention of work-related accidents: a different strategy in a changing world of work? European Conference and Closing Event of the European Week for Safety and Health at Work 2001. Forum. 2002;(7)1–8. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from: http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/forum/7.
• 10.Harrisson D, Legendre C. Technological innovations, organizational change and workplace accident prevention. Saf Sci. 2003;41:319–38.
• 11.Launis K, Pihlaja J. Changes in production concepts emphasize problems in workrelated well-being. Saf Sci. 2007;45:603–19.
• 12.Leveson N. A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf Sci. 2004;42:237–70.
• 13.Bellamy J, Geyer TAW. Organisational, management and human factors in quantified risk assessment (HSE Contract Research Report. No. 33/1992). London, UK: HSMO; 1992. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/1992/crr92033.pdf.
• 14.Campbell DJ. Task complexity: a review and analysis. Acad Manage Rev. 1988;13(1):40–52.
• 15.Ganster D. Individual differences and task design: a laboratory experiment. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1980;26:131–48.
• 16.Lees FP. Loss prevention in the process industries. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing; 1996.
• 17.Livingston AD, Jackson G, Priestley K. Root causes analysis: literature review (HSE Contract Research Report 325/2001). Sudbury, Suffolk, UK: HSE Books; 2001. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01325.pdf.
• 18.Svenson O. The accident evolution and barrier function (AEB) model applied to incident analysis in the process industries. Risk Anal. 1991;11(3):499–507.
• 19.Humphreys P, Jenkins AM. Dependent failures developments. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 1991;34:417–27.
• 20.Kjellen U, Larsson TJ. Investigating accidents and reducing risks—a dynamic approach. J Occup Acc. 1981;3:129–140.
• 21.Sun H, Andrews JD. Identification of independent modules in fault trees which contain dependent basic events. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 2004;86:285–96.
• 22.Smith AJ. The development of a model to incorporate management and organizational influences in quantified risk assessment (HSE Contract Research Report 38/1992). London, UK: HSMO; 1992. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/1992/crr92038.pdf.
• 23.Hollnagel E. Coping, coupling and control: the modelling of muddling through [unpublished, invited presentation]. Mental Models and Everyday Activities, 2nd Interdisciplinary Workshop on Mental Models. Robinson College, Cambridge, UK; 1992.
• 24.Mosneron-Dupin F, Reer B, Heslinga G, Strater O, Gerdes V, Saliou G, et al. Human-centered modeling in human reliability analysis: some trends based on case studies. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 1997;58:249–74.
• 25.Reason J. Human error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
• 26. Ryan TG. Task analysis-linked approach for integrating the human factors in reliability assessments of nuclear power plants (TALENT). Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 1988;22:219–34.
• 27.Fujita Y. Human reliability analysis: a human point of view. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 1992;38:71–9.
• 28.Greenstreet Berman Ltd. Preventing the propagation of error and misplaced reliance on faulty systems: a guide to human error dependency (Offshore Technology Report 2001/053). Sudbury, Suffolk, UK: HSE Books; 2001. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2001/oto01053.pdf.
• 29.Jo Y–D, Park K-S. Dynamic management of human error to reduce total risks. J Loss Prev Process Indust. 2003;16:313–21.
• 30.Lydell BOY. Human reliability methodology. A discussion of the state of the art. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 1992;36:15–21.
• 31.Mosleh A, Chang YH. Model-based human reliability analysis: prospects and requirements. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 2004;83:241–53.
• 32.Cacciabue PC. Human error risk management for engineering systems: a methodology for design, safety assessment, accident investigation and training. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 2004;83:229–40.
• 33.Hollnagel E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Eastbourne, UK: Elsevier Science; 1998.
• 34.Pyy P. Human reliability analysis methods for probabilistic safety assessment [doctoral dissertation] (VTT Publications 422). Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Center of Finland (VTT); 2000. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from: http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2000/P422.pdf.
• 35.Wilde GJS. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Risk Anal. 1982;2:209–25.
• 36.Tversky A, Kahneman D. The Framing of decisions and the pshycology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.
• 37.Fessler DMT, Pillsworth EG, Flamson TJ. Angry men and disgusted women: an evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk taking. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2004;95:107–23.
• 38.Lerner JS, Keltner D. Fear, Anger and Risk. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:146–59.
• 39.Mano H. Risk-taking, framing effects and affect. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;57:38–58.
• 40.Weyman AK, Kelly CJ. Risk perception and risk communication: a review of literature (Contract Research Report 248/1999). Sudbury, Suffolk, UK: HSE Books; 1999. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/1999/crr99248.pdf.
• 41.DeJoy DM. Theoretical models of health behavior and workplace self-protective behavior. J Safety Res. 1996;27(2):61–72.