İş sağlığı ve güvenliği risk değerlendirme süreci için bulanık çok kriterli bir model ve uygulaması

İşletmelerde kaza veya kayıpların önlenmesi etkin bir İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Sisteminin (ISG)kurulmasına ve risk analizlerinin başarılı bir şekilde gerçekleştirilmesine bağlıdır. Uzman görüşlerindekiöznellik risk analizini ve sonuçları etkilemektedir. Tehlikelerin değerlendirilmesi ve tehlikelere yönelikönlemlerin değerlendirilmesi olmak üzere iki aşamadan oluşan bu çalışmada, Bulanık Mantık ve ÇokKriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinin risk analizi sürecine entegrasyonu ile geleneksel risk analiziyaklaşımının etkinliği artırılmıştır. Birinci aşamada, geleneksel risk analizinde kullanılan "olasılık" ve"şiddet" faktörlerine "maliyet" unsuru da dâhil edilmiş, faktör ağırlıkları Bulanık-AHP ile belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen ağırlıklar kullanılarak Bulanık-TOPSIS ile tehlikeler önceliklendirilmiştir. İkinci aşamada isetehlikelerin faktör ağırlıkları kullanılarak önlemlerin öncelik sırası Bulanık-TOPSIS ile belirlenmiştir. Bu yaklaşımın önemi risklerin yanında önlemlerin de önceliklendirilmesidir. Önlemlerin önceliklendirilmesinde tehlikeler için tespit edilen faktör ağırlıkları dikkate alınmış; risk ve önlemlerbirlikte değerlendirilmiştir. Önerilen yöntem metal sanayinde faaliyet gösteren bir işletmede uygulanmış vetehlike büyüklüğünün belirlenmesinde "maliyet" faktörünün "olasılık" ve "şiddet" faktörlerinden dahaetkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. En önemli ilk üç risk kaynağı "Çalışma Ortamı Kaynaklı, Makine Kaynaklıve Çalışan Kaynaklı" tehlikeler olurken, öncelikli ilk üç önlem "Tatbikat Yapma, Eğitim Düzenleme ve Makine Yenileme" olarak belirlenmiştir.

A model and application of occupational health and safety risk assessment

An efficient Occupational Health and Safety System (OHSAS) and successful risk analysis are required toprevent accidents in companies. Subjectivity within experts' view effects risk analysis and results. Thisstudy consist of two phases which are evaluations of risks and preventive actions, the efficiency oftraditional risk analysis approach has been increased with the integration of Fuzzy Logic and Multi-CriteriaDecision Making (MCDM) methods. In the first phase, "cost" factor was included in addition to"probability" and "violence" factors employed in traditional risk analysis. Hazards are ordered by FTOPSISwith respect to these weights. In the second phase, preventive actions are ordered by F-TOPSISwith respect to hazard factor weights. Hazard factor weights were taken into account while orderingpreventive actions, risks and preventive actions are simultaneously evaluated. The proposed approach was applied in a metal industry company and it is revealed that "cost" factor is more important than"probability" and "violence" in determining hazards values. While "Operating Environment, MachineryRelated and Employee-Related" hazards are determined as the primary three sources of risks, "FieldExercise, Internal Trainings and Machinery Renewal are identified as the three primary actions to eliminate these risks.

PDF

___

1. Labodová A., Implementing Integrated Management Systems Using A Risk Analysis Based Approach, Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 571-580, 2003.
2. Özfırat P.M, A New Risk Analysis Methodology Integrating Fuzzy Prioritization Method and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 29 (4), 755-768, 2014.
3. Larsson T.J., Field B., The Distribution of Occupational Injury Risks In the State of Victoria, Safety Science, 40 (5), 419-437, 2002.
4. Makin A.M., Winder C., A New Conceptual Framework to Improve the Application of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, Safety Science, 46, 935-948, 2008.
5. Chen C.Y., A Comparative Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Implementation of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems in the Printed Circuit Board Industry in Taiwan, Journal of Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 210-215, 2009.
6. Marhavilas P.K., Koulouriotis D., Gemeni V., Risk Analysis And Assessment Methodologies in the Work Sites: on A Review, Classification and Comparative Study of The Scientific Literature of the Period 2000- 2009, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 24 (5), 477-523, 2011.
7. Tixier J., Dusserre G., Salvi O., Gaston D., Review of 62 Risk Analysis Methodologies of Industrial Plants, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 15 (4), 291-303, 2002.
8. Pinto A., Nunes I.L., Ribeiro R.A., Occupational Risk Assessment in Construction Industry-Overview and Reflection, Safety Science, 49 (5), 616-624, 2011.
9. Bowles J.B., Pelaez C.E., Fuzzy Logic Prioritization of Failures in A System Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 50 (2), 203-213,1995.
10. Ceylan H., Başhelvacı V.S., Risk Analysis With Risk Assessment Matrix Method: An Application, International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 3 (2), 25-33 (InTurkish), 2011.
11. Cho H.N., Choi H.H., Kim Y.B., A Risk Assessment Methodology for Incorporating Uncertainties Using Fuzzy Concepts, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 78, 173-183, 2002.
12. Hadjimichael M., A Fuzzy Expert System for Aviation Risk Assessment, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 6512-6519, 2009.
13. Zhang Z., Chu X., Risk Prioritization in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Under Uncertainty, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 206-214, 2011.
14. Padma T., Balasubramanie P., A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Processing Decision Support System to Analyze Occupational Menace Forecasting the Spawning of Shoulder and Neck Pain, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 15303-15309, 2011.
15. Mokhtari K., Ren J., Roberts C., Wang J., Decision Support Framework for Risk Management on Sea Ports and Terminals Using Fuzzy Set Theory and Evidential Reasoning Approach, Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 5087-5103, 2012.
16. Fan Z.P., Suo W.L., Feng B., Identifying Risk Factors of it Outsourcing Using Interdependent Information: An Extended DEMATEL Method, Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 3832-3840, 2012.
17. Kutlu A.C., Emekçioğlu M., Fuzzy Failure Modes and Effects Analysis by Using Fuzzy TOPSIS-Based Fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 61-67, 2012.
18. Liu H.C., Liu L, Liu N., Mao L. X., Risk Evaluation in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis with Extended VIKOR Method Under Fuzzy Environment, Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 12926-12934, 2012.
19. Samantra C., Datta S., Mahapatra S.S., Risk Assessment in IT Outsourcing Using Fuzzy DecisionMaking Approach: An Indian Perspective, Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 4010-4022, 2014.
20. Mandal S., Maiti J., Risk Analysis Using FMEA: Fuzzy Similarity Value and Possibility Theory Based Approach, Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 3527-3537, 2014.
21. Capocelli R.M., De Luca A., Fuzzy Sets and Decision Theory, Information and Control, 23, 446-473, 1973.
22. Zadeh L.A., Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control, 8, 338-353, 1965.
23. Buckley J.J., Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17 (3), 233-247, 1985.
24. Saaty T.L., Modeling Unstructured Decision ProblemsThe Theory of Analytical Hierarchies, Matematics and Computers in Sımulatio XX, 147-158, 1978.
25. Laarhoven V.P.M.J., Pedrycz W., A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty's Priority Theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1 (11), 229-241, 1983.
26. Chang D.Y., Extent Analysis and Synthetic Decision, Optimization Techniques and Applications, 1, 342, 1992.
27. Chang D.Y., Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 95, 649-655, 1996.
28. Aksakal E., Dağdeviren M., Talent Management Based Personnel Assignment Model and Solution Proposal, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 30 (2), 249-262, 2015.
29. Dağdeviren M., Personnel Selection with Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process and an Application, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 22 (4), 791-799, 2007.
30. Dağdeviren M., Dönmez N., Kurt M., Developing a New Model for Supplier Evaluation Process for a Company and its Application, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 21 (2), 247-255, 2006.
31. Arıkan F., Küçükçe Y.S., A Supplier SelectionEvaluation Problem for the Purchase Action and its Solution, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 27 (2), 255-264,2012.
32. Güner M., Önder Y., The Determination of Optimal Product by Using the Hierarchical Simulation of Basic Criteria in Clothing Production, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 22 (1), 73-79, 2007.
33. Kabak M., Uyar Ö.O., A Multi Criteria Approach for Heavy Commercial Vehicle Selection Problem in Logistics Sector, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 28 (1), 115-125, 2013.
34. Hwang C.L., Yoon K., Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,1981.
35. Chen S.J., Hwang C.L., Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer -Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
36. Delice E.K., A Fuzzy Multi Criteria Model for Airline Companies Selection, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 31 (2), 263-276, 2016.
37. Kılıç O., Çerçioğlu H., Application of Compromise Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods for Evaluation of TCDD's Railway Lines Projects, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 31 (1), 211-220, 2016.
38. İç Y.T., Tekin M., Pamukoğlu F.Z., Yıldırım S.E., Development of A Financial Performance Benchmarking Model for Corporate Firms, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 30 (1), 71-85, 2014.
39. Yurdakul M., İç Y.T., An Illustrative Study Aimed to Measure and Rank Performance of Turkish Automotive Companies Using TOPSIS, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 18 (1), 1-18, 2003.