Abstract
The complexity of modern sociotechnical systems has resulted in new challenges in the safety areas, making traditional approaches no longer sufficient. Therefore, resilience engineering (RE) is a recognizable alternative to traditional approaches in safety management. Our literature review, however, showed that most studies have focused on a set of certain indicators for assessing RE, and other indicators have been left undeveloped. This study aims to represent a new view for assessing RE factors in a process industry using a wide range of indicators, i.e., buffering capacity, margin, tolerance, cross-scale interactions, learning culture, flexibility, anticipation, attention, and response. Related data were collected using semi-structured interviews with multiple-choice questions from 24 experienced operators and eight managers, analysis of documents, team work, as well as friendly and informal conversations. The data were analyzed based on the principal component analysis approach. The results led to determination of poor indicators and units in the industry. This is the first study in assessing RE factors using new indicators that demonstrate the nature of the risk and its complexity in the sociotechnical systems. It can, therefore, be employed as an appropriate method for assessing RE factors.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Akselsson R, Koornneef F, Stewart S, Ward M (2009) Resilience safety culture in Aviation Organisations. Paper presented at the the 17th world congress on ergonomics. Beijing, China
Azadeh A, Izadbakhsh H (2008) A multi-variate/multi-attribute approach for plant layout design. Int J Ind Eng Theory Appl Pract 15(2):143–154
Azadeh A, Salehi V (2014) Modeling and optimizing efficiency gap between managers and operators in integrated resilient systems: the case of a petrochemical plant. Process Saf Environ Prot 92:766–778
Azadeh A, Salehi V, Ashjari B, Saberi M (2014a) Performance evaluation of integrated resilience engineering factors by data envelopment analysis: The case of a petrochemical plant. Process Saf Environ Prot 92(3):231–241
Azadeh A, Salehi V, Arvan M, Dolatkhah M (2014b) Assessment of resilience engineering factors in high-risk environments by fuzzy cognitive maps: a petrochemical plant. Saf Sci 68:99–107
Besnard D, Hollnagel E (2014) I want to believe: some myths about the management of industrial safety. Cognit Technol Work 16(1):13–23
Brace I (2008) Questionnaire design: how to plan. Structure and write survey material for effective market research. Amazon, UK
Carim Junior GC, Saurin TA (2013) A framework for identifying and analyzing sources of resilience and brittleness: a case study of two air taxi carriers. Produção 23(4):777–792
Carvalho PV, dos Santos IL, Gomes JO, Borges MR (2008) Micro incident analysis framework to assess safety and resilience in the operation of safe critical systems: a case study in a nuclear power plant. J Loss Prev Process Ind 21(3):277–286
Costella MF, Saurin TA, de Macedo Guimarães LB (2009) A method for assessing health and safety management systems from the resilience engineering perspective. Saf Sci 47(8):1056–1067
De Carvalho PVR (2011) The use of Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) in a mid-air collision to understand some characteristics of the air traffic management system resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96(11):1482–1498
Dekker S, Hollnagel E, Woods D, Cook R (2006) “Resilience engineering: new directions for measuring and maintaining safety in complex systems.” Second Progress Report, School of Aviation, Lund University. Retrieved 27 Mar 2009
Gomes JO, Woods DD, Carvalho PV, Huber GJ, Borges MR (2009) Resilience and brittleness in the offshore helicopter transportation system: the identification of constraints and sacrifice decisions in pilots’ work. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(2):311–319
Gomes JO, Borges MR, Huber GJ, Carvalho PVR (2014) Analysis of the resilience of team performance during a nuclear emergency response exercise. Appl Ergon 45(3):780–788
Herrera IA, Hollnagel E, Håbrekke S (2011) Proposing safety performance indicators for helicopter offshore on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Paper presented at the PSAM 10-Tenth conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management. Seattle, WA, USA
Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (2007) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., UK
Hollnagel E, Nemeth CP, Dekker S (2008) Resilience engineering perspectives: remaining sensitive to the possibility of failure. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., UK
Hollnagel E, Pariès J, Woods DD (2010) Resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook. Ashgate Publishing Company, UK
Huber GJ, Gomes JO, de Carvalho PVR (2012) A program to support the construction and evaluation of resilience indicators. Work J Prev Assess Rehabil 41:2810–2816
Kirkpatrick DL (1975) Evaluating training programs, 3rd edn. Berrett-Koehler, USA
Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD (2005) Evaluating training programs: the four levels. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco
Morel G, Amalberti R, Chauvin C (2009) How good micro/macro ergonomics may improve resilience, but not necessarily safety. Saf Sci 47(2):285–294
Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42(1):15–29
Pariès MJ, Hollnagel E, Wreathall MJ, Woods DD (2012) Resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., UK
Qureshi ZH, Ashraf MA, Amer Y (2007) Modeling industrial safety: a sociotechnical systems perspective. Ind Eng Eng Manag 2007 IEEE Int Conf IEEE
Saurin TA, Carim Junior GC (2012) A framework for identifying and analyzing sources of resilience and brittleness: a case study of two air taxi carriers. Int J Ind Ergon 42(3):312–324
Saurin TA, Carim Júnior GC (2011) Evaluation and improvement of a method for assessing HSMS from the resilience engineering perspective: a case study of an electricity distributor. Saf Sci 49(2):355–368
Saurin TA, Formoso CT, Cambraia FB (2008) An analysis of construction safety best practices from a cognitive systems engineering perspective. Saf Sci 46(8):1169–1183
Shirali GA, Mohammadfam I, Ebrahimipour V (2013) A new method for quantitative assessment of resilience engineering by PCA and NT approach: a case study in a process industry. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 119:88–94
Størseth F, Tinmannsvik R, Øien K (2009) Building safety by resilient organization—a case specific approach. ESREL 2009:7–10
Woltjer R, Hollnagel E (2008) Functional modeling for risk assessment of automation in a changing air traffic management environment. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Working on Safety, Crete, Greece
Woods DD (2003) Creating foresight: how resilience engineering can transform NASA’s approach to risky decision making. Work 4(2):137–144
Woods DD (2005) Creating foresight: lessons for enhancing resilience from Columbia. In: Farjoun M, Starbuck WH (eds) Organization at the limit: NASA and the Columbia disaster. Blackwell
Woods DD (2006) Essential characteristics of resilience. In: Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (Eds) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing Company, England
Acknowledgments
At the end, the authors express their full thanks to the management and the painstaking staff of the plant as well as to Prof. Erick Hollnagel who was very effective in preparing and compiling the project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Question themes used in the interview
Appendix: Question themes used in the interview
Indicator | Question theme |
---|---|
Buffering capacity | 1.1 Adaptation |
1.2 Sense-making | |
1.3 Training Program | |
1.4 Competency | |
1.5 Management of change (MOC) | |
1.6 Self-reporting | |
1.7 Self-efficacy | |
1.8 Continuous system monitoring | |
1.9 Resources | |
1.10 Feedback of critical safety systems | |
1.11 Uncertainty in failure assessment | |
1.12 The difference between work as performed and as imaged | |
1.13 Redundancy | |
1.14 Work demand and workload | |
1.15 Safety equipment | |
1.16 Failure to recognize vulnerable and brittle areas of the system | |
1.17 Preventive maintenances | |
1.18 Conflict of goals | |
1.19 Poor interference between man and machine | |
1.20 Stress resulted from the work | |
1.21 Job unsatisfied | |
1.22 Sacrifice decision making | |
1.23 Situation awareness | |
1.24 Learning and experience | |
1.25 Management and documentation of margins | |
1.26 Centralized management | |
1.27 The priority of production over safety | |
Flexibility | 2.1 Emergency response plan |
2.2 Ability to control the unexpected incidents | |
2.3 Improvisation | |
2.4 Work conditions | |
2.5 Ergonomics problems in design | |
2.6 Uncertain safety boundaries | |
2.7. Communication problems | |
2.8 Limitations of resources | |
2.9 Expert employees with authority | |
2.10 Complexity and uncertainty in system | |
2.11 Motivation | |
2.12 MOC | |
2.13 Capacity for recovery | |
2.14 Penetrable boundaries | |
2.15 Team work | |
2.16 Feedback system | |
2.17 Innovation | |
2.18 Training program and competency | |
2.19 Supervisory systems | |
2.20 Management of work flow | |
2.21 Ignorance of safety issues | |
Margin | 3.1 Determination of margins |
3.2 Construction of margins | |
3.3 Perception of margins | |
3.4 Training of margins | |
3.5 Violation of margins | |
3.6 Uncertainty in margins | |
3.7 Degradation during time | |
Tolerance | 4.1 Knowledge and experience |
4.2 Worn-out equipment | |
4.3 Explicit margins | |
4.4 Financial problems | |
4.5 Uncertainty in procedures | |
4.6 Stress at work | |
4.7 Safety equipment and alarms | |
4.8 Defense in depth | |
Cross-scale interactions | 5.1 Collaboration between staff |
5.2 Cross-sectoral collaboration | |
5.3 Intersectoral collaboration | |
5.4 Individual competence | |
5.5 Communication systems | |
Learning | 6.1 Investigation of incidents and accidents |
6.2 Analysis of incidents | |
6.3 Analysis of near misses, errors, and deviations | |
6.4 Documentation and availability of documentation | |
6.5 Implementation of a practical training program | |
6.6 Information dissemination | |
6.7 Experience feedback from accidents | |
6.8 Blame culture in accident investigation | |
6.9 Fear of disclosure of information | |
6.10 Bias in accident investigation | |
6.11 Involvement of nonexpert in training system | |
6.12 Self-reporting of failures | |
6.13 Motivation of learning among the employees | |
Attention | 7.1 Process disturbances |
7.2 Intentionally bypassing safety devices and procedures | |
7.3 Early warnings | |
7.4 Changes and modifies in the system | |
7.5 Focuses on safety issues | |
7.6 Reported incidents and barrier efficiency | |
7.7 Violations of procedures and rules | |
7.8 Unexpected risks | |
7.9 Tasks given to individuals | |
Response | 8.1 Type of work and competence of individuals |
8.2 Logical Thinking | |
8.3 Leadership and management | |
8.4 Teamwork | |
8.5 Availability of facilities | |
8.6 Failure to anticipate a problem before it has arrived | |
8.7 Failing to preserve a problem that has actually arrived | |
8.8 Explicit of description responsibilities | |
8.9 Improvisation during emergency response | |
8.10 Appropriate responses to the problem and ensure its effectiveness | |
Anticipation | 9.1 Ability to anticipate the types of threats (regular, irregular and unexampled) |
9.2 Use your own experience and others | |
9.3 Ability to identify vulnerabilities and actually of the system | |
9.4. Ability to identify successes and failures of the system | |
9.5 Identify potential obstacles in the path of system performance |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shirali, G.A., Motamedzade, M., Mohammadfam, I. et al. Assessment of resilience engineering factors based on system properties in a process industry. Cogn Tech Work 18, 19–31 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0343-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0343-1