Se afișează postările cu eticheta safety. Afișați toate postările
Se afișează postările cu eticheta safety. Afișați toate postările

duminică, 16 august 2015

SAFEONTO- Using ontologies to improve safety learning



Abstract

The paper follows the development of a general purpose safety ontology (SAFEONTO) that could be used as a tool for safety learning and also a framework for the study of various accidents and incidents happened at work- turning this unexpected events into lessons learned.


Development of SAFEONTO


Based on previous experiences[i] we have tried to develop a general framework for risk and safety, framework that could be expanded as wished by any safety expert. The idea was to have a referential that could be generally used in order to provide an instrument for training and analysis for specific workplaces.
In order to do this we have used knowledge maps built using CMAP TOOLS- and also the PROTEGEE tool for the ontology development.
What should include a general knowledge map?
                -details about the economic activity that generates risks;
                -data about the worker(s) and the machines used in order to perform that activity;
                -some details about the workplace and its specificity;
As we have more data- a transition from general to specific would be made easy. Figure 1 shows the concept behind the ontology. All these building elements are used to develop best-worst case models- that allow us to establish the optimal safety requirements.

Figure 1 Main concepts of the ontology

Figure 2 shows the knowledge map developed as a start-up for the ontology.


Figure 2 Start-up knowledge map

Any economic activity (that could be specifically described) is done by workers (employees) using tools at the workplace. Such an activity is generating risks.
On the next step we have introduced the consequences of the risks, as shown in Figure 3.


Figure 3 Risk development and consequences

One step further we have introduced the safety lane.



Figure 4. The activity and safety lanes

Now we have a functional framework for the ontology. This framework could be developed further as far as is necessary.
On the last step of development we introduce also a use case lane.






Figure 5. The complete knowledge map

The use case is taken from an investigation report and could be automatically transformed into lesson learned.
A further step in the development process would be turning the ontology into a decision assistant system.
The next figure shows the list of concepts.





Figure 6.List of concepts introduced in the ontology



CONCLUSIONS

 The development of ontology was an interactive process. We have used the experience of five of the best specialists in safety inside Romania in order to be able to capture the most important parts – the one that are allowing the generalisation used inside the ontology.
Our instrument could be used:
1. to analyse specific unexpected events that are occurring at the workplace;
2. to transform them into lessons learned- in order to improve safety and health at the workplace;
3. to develop specific models that could be used for the decision process;
4. to use the instrument for safety training;
As the main benefits:
-the ontology is model-based, allowing integration of design and safety analysis;
-safety considerations could be introduced early in the development phase
-use of Semantic Web and Ontology standards;
-semantics based interoperability at a language and tool level;
-Web-ready;



[i] http://safetyinknowledge.blogspot.ro/2014/10/safety-eduwork-and-risk-ontologies.html

joi, 9 aprilie 2015

SIX SIGMA- the spin doctor for safety for SME?

GENERAL ASPECTS



Six Sigma is a significant managerial method, aiming at the improvement of the quality of outputs of an enterprise.
The foundation on which the Six Sigma concept rests consists of historic events in the enterprise, data and information. The three key elements of   Six Sigma are:
-Customer focus- in this case the customers are the enterprise employees
-Internal processes – activities that are involving risks
-The organization’s staff
Each element is supported by two pillars. The customer focus element counts speed and quality; the internal processes element relies on flow and variation control; and the people element requires teamwork as well as innovations and learning. This results in a 360-degree integration and alignment of an organization’s systems and resources.
Six Sigma could be a bless for a safety practitioner that had the resources and the time to implement it. It is a systemic approach- and this could lead to the optimal results with a rational resource allocation. It is also offering very specific referential against to check the obtained results.
The problem with Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) is- generally- that a SME does not have the necessary resources- or is too afraid to try and implement a Six Sigma approach- not even in order to improve their results.
However, Six Sigma could be turned into an useful instrument for safety into SME- by simplification, adapting to the way of thinking favoured by SME and also introducing a fuzziness factor that should take into account a rapid change of objectives- imposed by the market in order to stay afloat.

Figure 1 shows a possible approach to Six Sigma. The employees and the management should express a common need for safety- as normal- with the management as the resource supplier and the employees as the one that are implementing safety.
Management is describing- on the basis of this need- a common safety vision that is assumed by the managerial staff- from the top management to the line one and to the supervisors.
Once expressed- the safety vision should find commitment- if possible in all the employees and the whole management.
Being committed- all the important actors would willingly participate in the implementation process- perhaps the most important part of  safety change through Six Sigma.
Speaking about safety, implementation would be:
-in form- involving documents, procedures and all the written (and stored) stuff;
-in practice- at the workplace;
The last step should be control and periodic monitoring- that would assure the persistence of the safety improvement in time.


Figure 1- General steps 



THE DMAIC TOOL



DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve (Implement), Control) could be taken as a mantra for Six Sigma. It really tells us that every improvement (in safety) should be based on a previous study (DMA part) and should be followed by a control process.
As the backbone of the Six Sigma methodology, DMAIC delivers sustained defect-free performance and highly competitive quality costs over the long run- being conceived with quality assurance in mind. A step further- safety assurance in a quality environment- could be what is needed for a safe SME.
DMAIC could be the main booster of Six Sigma safety implementation in Small and Medium Enterprises- as it is understandable, does not need any cost intensive measures and also could be completed and improved using the SME experience.


D-DEFINE


The Define part of DMAIC  tells us as safety practitioners that we should focus on significant problems that should be solved with Six-Sigma , considering project metric as e a subset of a higher level business metric- including safety in the current business.
The next form could be used in order to concentrate the needed definitions.
The form is partly filled with an example that was using a real case of Six Sigma implementation in the process industry.

SAFETY DMAIC
Enterprise name:
Identification code:
Date:
DEFINE THE FOLLOWING SAFETY AND SAFETY RELATED  PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED:
1. Incidents should be eliminated in the process facility no. …
2.
3.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Incidents are frequently occurring in the process facility no… as the operators have not a proper behaviour in handling and moving the required recipients.
USABLE METRICS:
Risk= 80…90 % probability x Gravity of the possible incident (the liquid being used is  mildly corrosive for skin and it also wets the floors) x Exposure (45 operators/shift x 2 shifts/day)
OPPORTUNITIES:
Reducing incidents by 50% at least would raise the benefit from process facility with minimum 15% and would solve a social problem regarding feeling safe at work that makes the above facility the most undesired workplace in the whole plant.
PROJECT STATUS:
Initial data about incidents in the facility gathered up from supervisors.
ACTIONS:
Action
Owner
Timing
Status
Analysis of the incidents



Identification of the training subjects that must be pursued



Development of the safety educational content



Implementation



Control



Validated by:
-Operational manager  of the plant
-Economic manager;

A schema of the D part could be seen below, in figure 2.
As seen in the figure the objectives proposed to be pursued should be critical for safety- considering not only the incidents and accidents that could occur but also the possible loss. Once defined and approved by the top management- the objectives should be written down and disseminated- as a referential for the future activity.



Figure 2- The D part of DMAIC


M-MEASURE


The Measure part of DMAIC is making operational the findings about the problem to be solved. In order to be able to measure something you should have a basic model- that would guide you towards what to measure.
Figure 3 shows such a model- for the above example; model filled with the use case findings.
On the left side there are mentioned the reported incidents- that could be ordered as:
-incidents at loading the recipient;
-transport incidents;
-incidents at emptying and washing the recipients.
These incidents could be measured:
-considering the number of incidents (the enterprise considers an incident that is stopping the normal activity more than 10 minutes;
-as pure loss- considering that the spilled processing liquid could not be recuperated; 1 unit of liquid is worth 0.5 USD and per shift there are used about 10.000 units.
As the liquid is mildly corrosive- small spillages that are falling upon the skin are not significant on a short term. However, if more than 5% of the recipient is spilled upon the skin- the operator should wash immediately. If the liquid is spilled accidentally in the eyes- an emergency wash is required, together with a medical examination.
An important measure- that could be considered in the safety six-sigma analysis would be the number of incidents/shift/day/days of the week.
Another measure would be – as shown before- the loss/month. We know that the process is transforming 1 unit of liquid into 0.3 units of output solution- with a normal tolerance- given by the whole process line of 0.003 units/shift.
A graph showing the medium number of incidents in a week – using data collected in a year-could be seen in figure 4.  

The next form could be used to collect the results of measurements.

SAFETY DMAIC
Enterprise name:
Identification code:
Date:
Measured parameters:
1. Number of incidents/week
2. Loss
Data contained in:
1. Form a1
2. Form a2
Patterns found:
The number of incidents is increasing in the last days of the week partly because of an inexistent/insufficient supervision
Measurements done by:
Ion Ionescu
Verified by:
Stefan Kovacs



Figure 3 The Measurement Model


Figure 4. Graph regarding the medium number of incidents/week for a year


We could see from this graph that the maximum number of incidents is registered in the last three days of the week

A-ANALYSE


The Analyse phase in DMAIC isolates the top causes that are behind the identified problem(s). .  In most cases there will be no more than three causes that must be controlled in order to achieve success – if too many causes are identified, then the team has either not isolated the primary causes or the project goal is too ambitious to achieve success with a single project.  There are always exceptions, but speed and results are key ingredients to building Six Sigma momentum inside an organization, and projects should be sized to assure team success and project closure inside reasonable time limits.
Here we can define our performance objectives. For example, we can try to reduce the total number of incidents at 50.
The root causes of the problem are identified here. For our example, the root causes are:
Insufficient trainingà Dangerous behaviour and also Insufficient supervisionàDangerous behaviour
So we should consider the two root causes- the insufficient training- that is not telling the operator that the liquid spilled on skin could give health problems (dermatitis) on mid and long term and could be immediate harmful if too much is spilled or if sensible parts (like eyes) are touched accidentally.
The other root cause- the insufficient supervision (combined with long and monotonous shift hours) – is allowing operators to manifest their reckless behaviour in time.
Supervision without training could not work- as long as the operators do not understand why they must be careful at loading/unloading and transporting the recipients.

I-IMPROVE


The improvement phase would function according the scheme presented in Figure 5.


Figure 5. The Improvement part

For our example we are pursuing two improvements that would take their place into the safety culture of the company.
a. the development of a specific safety training and its implementation for the operators
b. the development and implementation of a supervision programme that would reward the safety behaviour.
A basic schema of the two programs (improvements) is shown in figure 6.


Figure 6. Improvement for the given example



C-CONTROL


Control is sustaining the changes made in the Improve phase.  The best controls are those that require no monitoring (irreversible product or process design changes).In this case- an non-intrusive control (CCTV) was used- for a period of 6 months- in order to observe the improvement in behaviour and the reduction of incidents and loss.

OBTAINED RESULTS


After implementing safety adapted Six Sigma in the process facility- the incidents were reduced at a maximum average 20/week –far better than the proposed performance. In our opinion this was done by the identification of the root causes and the proper improvements proposed and implemented.
 To completely eliminate the incidents- a technical solution should be found- in order to close the recipients- at least during transport- and to minimize the spills at loading and unloading.


sâmbătă, 4 aprilie 2015

A tale about safety in using hammers

Hammers are one of the most used hand tools. Even trivial, safety assurance when working with hammers is a significant thing.
In this respect we have developed a knowledge map- that could be seen in the next figure- and also a training material.


Figure 1 Knowledge map

Here you have the link to the training material.

Safety for Hammers

luni, 30 martie 2015

KNOWLEDGE AND SAFETY

1. Knowledge and Safety

Knowledge is a tricky thing. Too less knowledge- would lead to defective activities, loss and incidents and even accidents in the future. Too much knowledge, without being focused on a specific objective, being cordoned so to achieve certain things- could be unusable.
In between- an improved safety at the workplace should be based on knowledge.
For a new activity, the process of knowledge development is shown in figure 1.
Previous knowledge leads to a new economic activity.
The activity generates theoretic (T) knowledge (which would describe the new activity domain in textbooks) and also heuristic knowledge- that is knowledge resulting from experience (performing the activity).
From the safety point of view, the heuristic knowledge gives us:
-best practice knowledge  or How to Do (HTD) knowledge- that gives the necessary steps in order to perform the activity;
-trial and error (TAE) knowledge- that gives us the risks linked with the new activity, possible human errors (or technical problems) that should be avoided and also possible unwanted consequences.
So finally we could consider that

SK=T+HTD+TAE (1)

Where SK is safety knowledge, T is theoretical knowledge, HTD is How to Do knowledge and TAE is Trial and Error knowledge.
This generic equation could be useful in the design of safety courses, taking into account the necessity to provide also TAE type knowledge (less used).
An important question would be- which kind of safety knowledge is needed most?
As theoretical knowledge is giving us the basis of safety for the new activity (like never mix non-compatible substances), How to Do knowledge is giving us practical advice on how to start and perform things – Trial and Error knowledge is perhaps one of the most instruments in assuring safety- giving us what not to do in the case of a specific activity- and what unwanted consequences could be as we are doing something wrong. TAE knowledge could not be designed (as HTD), could not be simulated and is invaluable because it gives us other undesired experiences.



Figure 1. Knowledge development

2. Knowledge maps

Knowledge should be collected (especially the TAE one), processed and offered to the user- the safety user- in the most usable form. Here we must take into account that:
-the user is heavily involved in a current activity- that should be done with specific results- and no loss or scrap;
-the user should assure his/hers safety and also should contribute to the safety of the team;
-the user that is designing or improving processes or activities should have enough and updated knowledge in order to safe design an activity or process for mid and long term.
-the user had a very limited amount of time in order to search, find and implement safety knowledge;
Here, the (safety) knowledge map could be an answer to (safety) organized knowledge, focused toward attaining a specific goal- to ensure safety in design, development and at workplace  
A knowledge map could be considered as an association of items of information, preferably visual, where the association leads to new information.
So, we could consider a Knowledge Map as a visual instrument to collect process and ordinate in an optimal form specific knowledge (in this case safety related knowledge).
 In learning, knowledge maps could be used to imitate a learning process- presenting the terms and the link between them- and also to imprint a chunk of specific learning. The target of knowledge maps are the students- which will receive the best knowledge- processed in an optimal learning form- and also trainers and teachers - which could use knowledge maps to design their course, structure it and develop it step by step. Knowledge maps would be very significant in safety- as they are offering processed and immediate usable knowledge
Figure 2 shows the link between safety specific knowledge and knowledge maps.


Figure 2 Safety Specific Knowledge and Knowledge Maps.


3. Experiments- main steps in developing a knowledge map


We have tried the usability of specific instruments for the development of knowledge maps.
Such an instrument should be used by the safety expert in designing or improving safety at the workplace, as a tool for structuring the safety knowledge and also in the preparation of safety courses.
The safety expert should:
1. Choose the proper instrument;
2. Develop a draft safety knowledge map- for the domain of interest;
3. Verify:
            3.1. the correctitude of the developed map;
3.2. the completitude of the knowledge map- as there should be included at least the main safety elements and aspects; safety maps could be refined by a step-by-step refinement process- in order to become exhaustive and to include all the needed knowledge;
4. Develop successive knowledge maps- increasing the degree of detail; also there could be developed knowledge maps for the manager (or supervisor) of the process, for training, for the employee that performs an important activity (for example the controller of a process activity);
5. Link all the available knowledge at the map (the knowledge map offers the possibility to link for online knowledge – Internet based- and also for the process specific- off-line knowledge- as local running pppt s for example).
6. Test the knowledge map on employees from the domain. The test part is very important as the users could consider that the knowledge maps includes- for example- too much theoretical knowledge and too less HTD one;
7. Implement the obtained feedback in the knowledge map;
8. Publish the knowledge map and make it available to others. Knowledge- and also knowledge maps- should be free- as sharing knowledge- and safety knowledge- is a good thing- not just for the receiver- but also for the sharer. As the late professor Trevor Kletz shows us”the not shared experience is a lost experience. People are retiring, changing their workplace or service- and the experience that is not shared- is lost”.
Here are some of the most significant aspects of our experiments.

Once started the instrument (here the KnowledgeBase Builder software) - the working space appears- like in figure 3.


Figure 3 The working space

By double-clicking on the ”Create a new item” a dialog window is opening- allowing to define the new item, to describe it and even place it in a specific category- like it could be seen on the figure 4.



Figure 4. Definition mechanism


Starting from the central item- new items could be created by a drag and drop method.

Figure 5. Drag and drop for new items


Once fixed the pointer in the circle named as place for drag and drop- it could be dragged- then- on the working space- in order to create a new item
The construction could be seen in figure 6, 7 and 8.
.


                                          Figure 6. The pilot knowledge map- 1


Figure 7.The pilot knowledge map-different view-2



Figure 8 Same maps done with other tool


Links to the specific Web pages could be defined like in figure 9.



Figure 9 Link to specific Web page


Each item could access specific search engines- like in the figure 10


Figure 10 Access to specific search engines



4. Conclusion


Knowledge maps could be an important asset in a better safety based on knowledge. As the work with such instruments is relatively easy- and there are available free- the safety knowledge map could be significant developments in safety. Portable devices- as tablets and even smartphones- could be used for visualizing and using such maps.
A special place for knowledge maps would be safety training. Here knowledge maps could be used in the opening of a safety course- like an intelligent table of contents- and also for imprinting the course content for the learners.
Knowledge maps could collect and quantify individual safety experience- a very good thing considering TAE specific knowledge.


marți, 18 noiembrie 2014

A BETTER, COLLABORATIVE AND PARTICIPATIVE E-LEARNING

Introduction 

In the actual word the time is a very precious resource. More and more time is dedicated to activities that could give immediate satisfaction. Is learning such an activity? Apart from nice slogans like continuous learning or learning from cradle to grave, classic learning processes, with physical presence in the classroom are more and harder to follow. Studies made on people that have a workplace and are wishing to acquire a new competence which could give them advancement in the hierarchy -of course together with all the advantages have shown that at least 65% of them could not afford more than 1day/month absence from work. On the other part, e-learning is seen often as a little boring, being no more than a better Power-Point exercise. The same statistic relevant lot have mentioned that 35% could not focus on a more than 25 pages learning module.45% of the interviewed working people had shown that they could not find a constant support behind the e-learning and 56.5% had said that e-learning had not offered them a satisfactory challenge for their knowledge level.
The present paper tells the story of a research done between December 2011 and February 2013; research focused on the improvement of the quality and desirability of a specific e-learning module through an interactive development process using ontological models and scenario generators.
Ontological models are allowing the learner to particulate its learning module and more, to become a part of the module development process. The learner could instantiate some of the model classes or could add new classes and add content in the e-learning module in connexion with the instances or classes added. If his/ hers qualifications are high enough and if the added knowledge is empirical one ,then the proposed system would not wait for the tutor confirmation but would add this knowledge to the system, letting the users to decide if this knowledge is useful or not.
Scenario generator adds a bit of colour to the e-learning process, letting the students to explore different ways of thinking and also lateral thinking. A worst case scenario is given initially; the students are developing with the scenario generator alternative realities. For example, a worker alone in the workplace and working seven hours till now at a lathe was not conscious that the processing tool had a tiny crack and increased the processing speed-having parts of the tool projected into him. What if there was there a second worker, more experienced and fresher? Or what if there was a younger and inexperienced worker?
The e-learning module that was used in order to experiment on in this research was developed on the basis of the eduknowledge concept and is oriented around Health and Safety at the workplace. Here we have well established knowledge bases and a very large pool of empirical knowledge

1. Objectives

The objectives of the presented research are centred on the desire to improve the e-learning process in order to make it more attractive for the users that are working but willing to get new competences.
The main objectives are:
1. To analyse how is perceived the e-learning process by a specific category of users- the users that are working but willing to acquire new skills without taking part physically at the class
2. To get the positive feedback and use it in order to improve the e-learning process.
3. To develop new assistant instruments for e-learning.
4. To include such instruments in the improvement of an optimised e-learning module.
5. To test the results of the optimised module on a relevant statistical population.

2. Methodology

The used methodology was centred on a few simple questions:
-who were the learners and what are their learning goals?
-when are they considering that these goals are realised?
-is the existing e-learning structure the best for them?
-will it add value for the safety teaching process?
-how could we find what is good inside the existing modules of e-learning and what should be improved?
-could we find a certain cognitive presence among our learners or are they just readers of the content?
-is there a social, work-together presence in participating at such classes?
In order to understand the needs of a better, optimal e-learning development we have asked actual users (students of various safety classes) and would be users to assess an existing e-learning module and to feedback the likes and dislikes. The module was of 20 minutes long and at the end of it was a short test with multiple answer questions. Our statistic relevant group was composed by 500 users that were divided on 3 age groups, one of users between 19-30 years, one including  users between 31-50 years and one of users between 51 and 70 years. There were 180 people in the first group, 220 people in the second group and 100 people in the third group. After assessing the first e-learning module we collected and processed their opinions using a survey with Likert like scales. We found that 78% of the members of the first group found that the module was boring, other 20% found it acceptable and 2% found it covers what were they expecting from an e-learning module. The results at test for the first group were 85% took the test. In the second group a number of 30% found the module boring, 25% acceptable and 45% covering their expectations. The per cent of the test passing was here high- 100%. The last group had about 5% of participants considering the module boring and 95% finding it covering what they desired.
We have considered their opinions and have developed on their basis a second e-learning module, using ontological models and also the scenario generator.
One of the most important findings was that the first group was not exactly understanding 100% of what was presented in the first e-learning module. There were presented usual safety notions but without a detailed explanation and without underlining their provenience.
In order to improve this aspect, the ontological models were developed so as to give the learner a better view of the introduced aspects. Another problem that has appeared during the analysis of the first group feedback was that they have asked for hands on training and practical examples in order to illustrate what they have learned. The general safety training curricula was conceived without too many examples and hands-on work with the idea that all this would be done at the workplace.
We have developed the scenario generator exactly in order to support the lecturer to generate a lot of examples and interactive applications before starting the class having a general profile of the students and using structured knowledge bases in order to fill in the scenarios. After developing a new module, with the same content but tailored taking into account the groups feedback the participants were invited to interact with the improved module. Finally, another checklist was given to ask the groups about the new module.  We found now that over 80% of the participants, from the three groups were satisfied with the improved module as considering their goal for the followed safety classes and over 95% of the participants were satisfied with the new module by comparison with the first version. We found that older students are more sensible to perceptual challenges, to the challenging nature of their work and also to the challenges of working with younger participants. The proposed system would be commercially available in 2014.
The final product would be integrated into a hybrid platform that would offer support for the specific safety learning process. The final product would have a limited free access.

3. Technology Description

The scenario generator is a discrete event simulation model [1] with a network of pathways, pathways that are describing specific situations at the workplace [2]. Pathway service points can be associated with specified constrained resources.
The scenario generator was developed in order to give the e-learner a hands-on approach in its learning process. Before starting the class the tutor is checking the learner profiles, the learning context and if he has enough proper examples and case studies to work with. If not, the scenario generator helps him to build the needed examples. Figure gives a functional schema of the scenario generator.
The scenario generator- having as the central piece the scenario developer- gives the individualisation of the learning process- developing scenarios from the existing experience of the trainees. If no such experience exists, it is supposed that a generic scenario should be used, improved and re-stored for the usage of the trainees in the knowledge base. Various templates are used in order to present the learning content to the users in an optimal way.


Figure 1 Functional schema of the scenario generator

The scenario developer uses specific tailored templates in order to build a scenario framework. This framework could be filled in with existing content- from the knowledge base or could get content from the tutor [3]. Some of the most important templates to be used in building a scenario are:

Human Factors- describes the employees at the workplace together with their supervisor- a list of  typical workers is available, from the electrician to the mechanic- in order to build a realistic team.
Machines- all kind of machines and hand tools could be added here, together with specific defects.
Facilities- the facilities that could be part of an unpredicted event- that could turn into an incident or an accident- could be entered here.
Work environment- the most important (from the safety point of view)
Context of activity [4] - defines the context of a specific task and workplace.
Some aspects from the Scenario Generator are presented in the next images.



Figure 2 Scenario Generator User Instructions


Figure 3 Scenario Generator Human Factor template

The ontological models were developed because the desire of the global image- including all the relevant aspects- for a safety practitioner. Speaking of various notions the student is interested to know their origin, the relationship between various terms, etc. Generally there is no sufficient time in the class to explain all of these notions- so an ontological chain of notions is the best solution for this problem. Introducing new knowledge through the ontological chain could be very rewarding for the teacher because the students are being challenged to search and find new notions, enriching their knowledge.
The ontological models were developed using Protegee – the free tool  of the Stanford University.
Some aspects of the development and usage of the ontological models are shown in the next figures.

Figure 4 Ontological risk tree

The figure shows the accessing of an ontological tree.
As seen in the figure, it is possible to define branches of the tree as needed. For example, for the branch ”Risk practice areas” other dependent branch could be ”Classrooms or e-learning solutions”.
Figure 5 shows the knowledge inside one of the tree branches.


Figure 5 Accessing knowledge from one of the tree branches

The user could join in the development and implementation of the ontological trees as the process of new e-learning modules development is under  way.

4. Developments and Results

On the basis of the above mentioned work there was developed a prototype that was tested in a complex environment in the period of January-March 2013. The prototype was found by the testers as fit for the safety training using just the online approach and also a mixed approach (class plus on line).Some images from the developed prototype are given below.

Figure 6 Main screen of the developed prototype


Figure 7 Safety assessment using the prototype


Figure 8 Prototype screen

5. Business Benefits

Business benefits are important for those institutions that are willing to train in the safety area using e-learning techniques and especially the improved modules that are including ontological models and the scenario generator. E-learning is essentially better for safety training than the training at class, taking into account the fact that the most interested would be students could barely be present at a traditional class . The amount of presented knowledge could be improved in the e-learning solutions, giving more to the student. The problem that was analysed – and solved partially in this research was how to make such classes interesting, interactive and not just a simple formality.

6. Conclusions

Starting from a Power Point like e-learning module, during our research we found that in the safety training there is more needed in order to keep the students interest and also obtain effective results. During our research we found that more than 75% of our statistic significant lot of 500 students were not happy with the old e-learning structure.
We have developed two distinct instruments in order to respond to the feedback of the users- one, the scenario generator allowing a hands-on approach and improving the e-learning with a lot of examples and use-cases, the other one – ontological models being used in the definition of the main content.
Our work will continue in order to develop at least 10 complex e-learning modules that would be used in safety training for medium and high education. The Safety Generator would be improved in order to allow its usage also by the students, not only by the tutor.
The ontological framework of development could be also taken over by other domains, realizing in this way an inter-domain approach.
 

References

[1] KuljisJ, Paul R, Chen CM. Visualization and simulation: Two sides of the same coin?
Simulation 2001; 77(3-4):141-152
[2] Brailsford S, Lattimer VA, Tarnaras P, Turnbull C. Emergency and on-demand health care:
Modelling a large complex system.J Oper Res Soc 2004; 55:34-42.
[3] Davies R. An assessment of models of a health system.J Oper Res Soc 1985; 36(8):679-686
[4] Rohleder TR, Bischak DP, Baskin LB. Modeling patientservice centers with simulation and
system dynamics. Health Care Mngt Sci 2007; 10:1-12.