Treceți la conținutul principal



Loss control is one of the most neglected aspects of occupational safety management. Generally:
a) There are few referential by which to evaluate loss in a specific workplace;
b) Few top managers are willing to declare that there is a loss problem inside their enterprise; more line managers are not interested in losing their time in order to quantify loss.
A new method concerning the evidence of occupational loss and the estimation of enterprise loss control capabilities was developed under my supervision.
The method is oriented towards the following goals:
-a.) realize the evidence of significant occupational safety related loss at workplaces; we are understanding as safety related loss the one that if not checked and controlled in due time could turn into incidents and occupational accidents;
-b) assess the existing loss control capabilities of the enterprise;
-c) propose improvements for these capabilities in order to make loss control operational and efficient;
Some relevant aspects of the method are presented in this paper.


The generic diagram could be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1-Structure of the new method

In order to talk about loss there should be specific evidence- concerning loss that is:
a) out of the usual activity;
b) targeted by improvement plans;
Once identified and declared relevant- the enterprise should assess its loss control capabilities.  The assessment is using analytic hierarchy process A-HP and done on the basis of an expert team, as presented in the paragraph below.


The method uses analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in order to assess loss control capabilities- given the complexity of the problem.
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a structured technique for organizing and analysing complex decisions, like those needed in Safety Management based on mathematics and psychology.
Generally, most of the safety constructs (technical, human or organisational) could be considered as analytic hierarchies.
The method could be applied in group decision making- considering the expertise held by safety specialists.
Assessors first decompose their situation regarding loss control into a hierarchy of more easily comprehended sub-problems, each of which can be analysed independently. The elements of the hierarchy can relate to significant aspects of the decision problem—tangible or intangible, carefully measured or roughly estimated, well or poorly understood—anything at all that applies to the decision at hand.
The AHP converts these evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent way. This capability distinguishes the AHP from other decision making techniques.
The procedure for using the AHP in this method of loss control can be summarized as:
-Model the problem (loss control inside an operational facility) as a hierarchy containing the decision goal, the alternatives for reaching it, and the criteria for evaluating the alternatives.
-Establish priorities among the elements of the hierarchy by making a series of judgments based on pairwise comparisons of the elements. For example, comparing the human based and the organisational based approaches regarding a better loss control;
-Synthesize these judgments to yield a set of overall priorities for the hierarchy. This would combine the expert’s judgments about location, price and timing for properties A, B, C, and D into overall priorities for each property.
-Check the consistency of the judgments on the basis of actual results in loss control for similar units.
-Come to a final decision based on the results of this process.
Specific software Expert Choice 200- was used for the implementation of the assessment structure. Behind each item (main influencers) is a checklist with more than 50 items- that the assessment panel should use.
Figure 2 shows the main reporting print.

Figure 2- Main reporting print

Some aspects of this assessment are presented in figures 3, 4 and 5.

Figure 3-Constructed hierarchy for assessment

Figure 3 shows the constructed hierarchy draft.This hierarchy is based on the OTO paradigm Operator-Technique-Organization. 

Figure 4-Analysis of the cooperation attribute

Figure 5- Dynamic sensitivity


Postări populare de pe acest blog


Analiza cauzelor rădăcină este o metodă extrem de folosită de către managementul de performanță  din firmele dezvoltate. Metoda este considerată ca o metodă primară- care trebuie utilizată în primele faze ale analizei specifice procesului managerial. Ne propunem să prezentăm o metodă de analiză a cauzelor rădăcină care să poată fi aplicată atât pentru managementul calității cât și pentru managementul securității – ținând seama de faptul că în cea mai mare parte, cauzele rădăcină ale problemelor de calitate și problemelor de securitate și sănătate sunt comune. Figura 1 prezintă modul  global de analiză pentru cauzele rădăcină Din figură se poate observa că avem 2 procese distincte: ·         -un proces de identificare- care va fi realizat pe baza metodei cunoscute și ca 5 W ( 5 Why); ·         -un proces de analiză; procesul de analiză urmărește: o   stabilirea cauzelor specifice managementului calității și managementului de SSM; o   ierarhizarea cauzelor identificate;

Figura 1  Structurare…


KPI definitionA key performance indicator(KPI) is a measure of performance, commonly used to help an organization defineand evaluate how successful it is, typically in terms of making progress towards its long-term organizational goals.
–KPIs provide business-level context to security-generated data –KPIs answer the “so what?” question –Each additional KPI indicates a step forward in program maturity –None of these KPIs draw strictly from security data
COBITControl Objectives for Information and Related Technology (COBIT) is a framework created by ISACA for information technology (IT) management and IT governance. It is a supporting toolset that allows managers to bridge the gap between control requirements, technical issues and business risks. COBIT was first released in 1996; the current version, COBIT 5, was published in 2012. Its mission is “to research, develop, publish and promote an authoritative, up-to-date, international set of generally accepted information technology control obj…


Așa după cum s-a văzut dintr-o postare trecută, graful de risc poate fi un instrument util- și nu numai în cazul bolilor profesionale. Vom adapta în continuare  teoria existentă la teoria și practica din România și vom detalia câteva aspecte considerate de interes.
Este interesant de adaptat  graful de risc pornind de la clasicul sistem Om-Mașină folosit în practica de specialitate din domeniul SSM din România. În acest sens, folosind experiența existentă și datele statistice putem dezvolta în mod corespunzător- așa cum se prezintă în continuare în acest material.
Tabelul 1- Atribute folosite în graf Atribut Descriere I (Inițiatori) Operator(O): a. operator pregătit necorespunzător[1] b.operator malevolent [2] c.operator surprins de un eveniment neprevăzut datorat sarcinii[3] d. operator surprins de un eveniment neprevăzut datorat mașinii;[4] e. operator surprins de un eveniment neprevăzut datorat mediului/factorilor naturali. [5] Sarcină(S): a. sarcină incorect formulată- care dete…