Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A unique intelligent algorithm for optimization of human reliability and decision styles: a large petrochemical plant

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The importance of decision-making failures in complex systems such as petrochemical plants has been well recognized. Decision making failures are mostly resulted from human error. In this paper, efficiency of human operator is assessed based on combination of decision style (DS) and human reliability. At first, a standard questionnaire is designed to collect required data. The reliability of the collected data is investigated by Cronbach’s alpha (about 0.75). Also, the efficiency is ranked according to the impact of decision styles on human reliability factors. Operators of control rooms in a petrochemical plant are respond to a human reliability-decision styles (HR-DS) hybrid questionnaire. The indicators related to decision styles and human reliability are used as inputs and outputs, respectively in a unique adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) algorithm. Decisive, hierarchical, flexible and integrated are the standard categorization of human decision styles. The optimum structure of ANFIS is selected based on minimum mean absolute percentage (MAPE). The best MAPE is achieved about 26%. Relative analysis shows that the efficient decision style achieved from ANFIS is consistent with plant’s dominant style. The results of this study help managers to enhance the system performance by using the best operator for critical positions. This study presents the first neuro-fuzzy algorithm for improvement of decision making and human reliability in a large petrochemical plant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aalipour M, Ayele YZ, Barabadi A (2016) Human reliability assessment (HRA) in maintenance of production process: a case study. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 7(2):229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aliyari Shoorehdeli M, Teshnehlab M, Khaki Sedigh A, Ahmadieh Khanesar M (2009) Identification using ANFIS with intelligent hybrid stable learning algorithm approaches and stability analysis of training methods. Appl Soft Comput 9:833–850

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Azadeh A, Ghaderi SF, Anvari M, Saberi M (2007) Performance assessment of electric power generations using an adaptive neural network algorithm. Energy Policy 35:3155–3166

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Azadeh A, Rouzbahman M, Mohammad Fam I, Saberi M (2011) An adaptive neural network algorithm for assessment and improvement of job satisfaction with respect to HSE and ergonomics program: the case of a gas refinery. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24:361–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azadeh A, Saberi M, Rouzbahman M, Saberi Z (2013) An intelligent algorithm for performance evaluation of job stress and HSE factors in petrochemical plants with noise and uncertainty. J Loss Prev Process Ind 26:140–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azadeh A, Motevali Haghighi S, Panah MY (2014) A unique intelligent approach for forecasting project completion time in oil refineries. J Loss Prev Process Ind 30:137–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azadeh A, Gaeini Z, Motevali Haghighi S, Nasirian B (2016) A unique adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for optimum decision making process in a natural gas transmission unit. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 34:472–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertolini M (2007) Assessment of human reliability factors: a fuzzy cognitive maps approach. Int J Ind Ergon 37(5):405–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickel JE, Bratvold RB (2008) From uncertainty quantification to decision making in the oil and gas industry. Energy Explor Exploit 26(5):311–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boring RL, Hendrickson SML, Forester JA, Tran TQ, Lois E (2010) Issues in benchmarking human reliability analysis methods: a literature review. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(6):591–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpio LGT, Margueron MV (2007) Decision-making process under uncertainty in international investments in petroleum exploration and production: multicriteria approach. Energy Explor Exploit 25(5):339–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty I, Hu PJH, Cui D (2008) Examining the effects of cognitive style in individuals’ technology use decision making. Decis Support Syst 45(2):228–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper DR, Schindler PS, Sun J (2003) Business research methods. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, pp 371–406

  • Costa A, Markellos RN (1997) Evaluating public transport efficiency with neural network models. Transp Res 5(5):301–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui L, Fan D, Fu G, Zhu CJ (2013) An integrative model of organizational safety behavior. J Saf Res 45:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado FJ (2005) Measuring efficiency with neural networks, an application to the public sector. Econ Bull 3(15):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewberry Ch, Juanchich M, Narendran S (2013) The latent structure of decision styles. Pers Individ Differ 54(5):566–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver MJ, Kenneth R, Hansiker P (1993) The dynamic decision maker: five decision styles for executive and business success, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Erensal YC, Albayrak E (2004) Successful adoption of macroergonomics in manufacturing: using a multicriteria decision-making methodology–analytic hierarchy process. Hum Fact Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 14(4):353–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ersdal G, Aven T (2008) Risk informed decision making and its ethical basis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:197–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French S, Bedford T, Pollard SJT, Soane E (2011) Human reliability analysis: a critique and review for managers. Saf Sci 49(6):753–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambetti E, Fabbri M, Bensi L, Tonetti L (2008) A contribution to the Italian validation of the general decision-making style inventory. Pers Individ Differ 44(4):842–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gati I, Landman Sh, Davidovitch Sh, Asulin-Peretz L, Gadassi R (2010) From career decision-making styles to career decision-making profiles: a multidimensional approach. J Vocat Behav 76(2):277–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gati I, Gadassi R, Mashiah-Cohen R (2012) Career decision-making profiles versus styles: convergent and incremental validity. J Vocat Behav 81(1):2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groth KM, Mosleh A (2012) A data-informed PIF hierarchy for model-based human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 108:154–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidl W, Thumfart S, Lughofer E, Eitzinger C, Klement EP (2013) Machine learning based analysis of gender differences in visual inspection decision making. Inf Sci 224:62–76

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt RG, Krzystofiak FJ, Meindl JR, Yousry AM (1989) Cognitive style and decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 44(3):436–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jago AG, Scamell RW (1982) Decision-making styles of MIS managers: a comparative evaluation. Inf Manag 5(1):19–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang JSR, Sun CT, Mizutanim E (1997) LNeuro-fuzzy and soft computing. Prentice-Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung WD, Yoon WC, Kim JW (2001) Structured information analysis for human reliability analysis of emergency tasks in nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71(1):21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kariukim SG, Lowe K (2006) Increasing human reliability in the chemical process industry using human factor techniques. Process Saf Environ Prot 84:200–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjellen U (2007) Safety in the design of offshore platforms: integrated safety versus safety as an add-on characteristic. Saf Sci 45:107–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner BM (2004) Macroergonomics as a large work-system transformation technology. Hum Fact Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 14(2):99–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latorella KA, Prabhu PV (2000) A review of human error in aviation maintenance and inspection. Int J Ind Ergon 26(2):133–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Li Y (2012) Cognitive model based fashion style decision making. Expert Syst Appl 39(5):4972–4977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin L-Z, Yeh H-R (2010) Fuzzy linguistic decision to provide alternatives to market mechanism strategies. Expert Syst Appl 37(10):6986–6996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma M-Y, Chen C-Y, Wu F-G (2007) A design decision-making support model for customized product color combination. Comput Ind 58(6):504–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinsons MG, Davison RM (2007) Strategic decision making and support systems: comparing American, Japanese and Chinese management. Decis Support Syst 43(1):284–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mejías Herrera SH, Huaccho Huatuco L (2011) Macroergonomics intervention programs: recommendations for their design and implementation. Hum Fact Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 21(3):227–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milkman KL, Chugh D, Bazerman MH (2009) How can decision making be improved? Perspect Psychol Sci 4(4):379–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Jung W (2004) A study on the systematic framework to develop effective diagnosis procedures of nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 84:319–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrovic D, Xie Y, Burnham K (2006) Fuzzy decision support system for demand forecasting with a learning mechanism. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157(12):1713–1725

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin W, Hibit R, Allen J, Sargent R (2000) Development and evaluation of the maintenance error decision aid (MEDA) process. Int J Ind Ergon 26(2):261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott SG, Bruce RA (1995) Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure. Educ Psychol Meas 55(5):818–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo DC, Torabi MR, Blair EH, Ellis NT (2004) A cross-validation of safety climate scale using confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Saf Res 35(4):427–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thonholm P (2004) Decision making style-habit, style or both. Pers Individ Differ 36:931–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valipour M (2016) Optimization of neural networks for precipitation analysis in a humid region to detect drought and wet year alarms. Meteorol Appl 23(1):91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valipour M, Eslamian S (2014) Analysis of potential evapotranspiration using 11 modified temperature-based models. Int J Hydrol Sci Technol 4(3):192–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaurio JK (2009) Human factors, human reliability and risk assessment in license renewal of a nuclear power plant. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(11):1818–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West D, Dellana S (2009) Diversity of ability and cognitive style for group decision processes. Inf Sci 179(5):542–558

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JR, Norris BJ (2006) Human factors in support of a successful railway: a review. Cogn Technol Work 8(1):4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yannopoulos SI, Lyberatos G, Theodossiou N, Li W, Valipour M, Tamburrino A, Angelakis AN (2015) Evolution of water lifting devices (pumps) over the centuries worldwide. Water 7(9):5031–5060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Y, Li S, Jin R (2002) A new fuzzy neural network with fast learning algorithm and guaranteed stability for manufacturing process control. Fuzzy Sets Syst 132:201–216

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou JX, Arnold MJ, Pereira A, Yu J (2010) Chinese consumer decision-making styles: a comparison between the coastal and inland regions. J Bus Res 63(1):45–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zon A, Fuss S (2008) Chapter 14—Risk, embodied technical change and irreversible investment decisions in UK electricity production: an optimum technology portfolio approach. Analytical methods for energy diversity & security, pp 275–303

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions by the respected reviewers, which have enhanced the strength and significance of this work. This study was supported by a grant from University of Tehran (Grant No. 8106013/1/17). The authors are grateful for the support provided by the College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Azadeh.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

1

The influence on system, preference in using the logical reasoning, applying creativity and innovation, implementing regulations

1.1

Can your ability to influence on the system be remedial in crisis situations?

1.2

Can logical reasoning be useful in emergency situations?

1.3

Can creativity and innovation be useful in emergency situations?

1.4

Can implementing regulations be remedial in crisis situations?

2

Time pressure, pace of work, excessive workload

2.1

What is the importance degree of time pressure when faced with an emergency situation?

2.2

What is the importance degree of pace of work when faced with an emergency situation?

2.3

What is the importance degree of excessive workload when faced with an emergency situation?

3

The need for planning, lack of awareness about the work and the regulations, control limits, rate of power

3.1

How much planning needs can be useful in emergency situations?

3.2

Can lack of awareness about the work and the regulations be effective in emergency situations?

3.3

Can the definition of control for the operator be remedial in crisis situations?

3.4

Can rate of operator’s power be effective in emergency situations?

4

Information complexity, uncertainty, rate of involvement with others

4.1

What is the importance degree of information complexity when faced with an emergency situation?

4.2

What is the importance degree of uncertainty when faced with an emergency situation?

4.3

What is the importance degree of rate of involvement with others when faced with an emergency situation?

5

Argument and logic needed to perform the assigned works

5.1

Are using reason and logic useful to perform the assigned works?

5.2

Can the arguments with others be useful to perform the assigned works?

6

Preference in using several methods, involvement of others

6.1

What is the importance degree of using several methods when faced with an emergency situation?

6.2

What is the importance degree of involvement of others when faced with an emergency situation?

7

Degree of risk

7.1

Is there the training in relation to safety issues (such as fire and explosion)?

7.2

Is there an abnormal condition in the workplace that is not provided in the instructions?

7.3

Do you have job security in your work?

7.4

Do you work in high risk condition (accident and injury)?

7.5

Do you think that in the workplace there is a risk of fire and explosion?

7.6

Is there pollution in the vicinity of your work?

8

Physical and mental health

8.1

Do you feel pain or fatigue during daily work on your waist?

8.2

Do you feel pain or fatigue after work on your waist?

8.3

Do you feel pain or fatigue during the daily work on your hands?

8.4

Do you feel pain or fatigue after the completion of work on your hands?

8.5

Do you feel pain or fatigue during daily work on your feet?

8.6

Do you feel pain or fatigue in your legs after work?

8.7

Do you feel pain or fatigue in the head and neck during daily work?

8.8

Do you feel pain or fatigue after the work in your head and neck?

8.9

Dose the breathing bother you in your workplace?

8.10

Dose the breathing bother you out of your workplace?

8.11

Dose the sound bother you in your workplace?

8.12

Dose the sound bother you out of your workplace?

8.13

Do you have sore eyes after work?

8.14

Is noise disturbed your concentrate in the workplace?

8.15

Are other activity or people disturbed your concentrate in the workplace?

8.16

Should your eyes move from the dark to light and from light to dark?

9

Communications

9.1

How do you evaluate your ease of communication with your supervisors?

9.2

Do you clearly know the available instructions?

9.3

Do you have problems with colleagues within the organization?

9.4

Can you achieve easily the required information from managers or supervisors?

9.5

Can you achieve easily the required information from colleagues?

9.6

Do the information exchange and communication with colleagues outside of organization help you in your works?

9.7

Do you perform your works without the need for constant contact with other people?

10

Inherent psychological characteristics

10.1

Do your performance at work depend on work shift?

10.2

Do changing of the work shift depend on your performance?

11

Stress factors

11.1

Should you follow the rules and regulations?

11.2

How do you evaluate the pressure working in your organization at normal situation?

11.3

How do you evaluate the pressure working in your organization at emergency situation?

11.4

Do you need to instructions due to the nature of your work in normal situations?

11.5

Do your organization provide instructions regarding work in emergency situations?

11.6

Do you need to instructions due to the nature of your work in emergency situations?

11.7

Do your manager control and monitor your works?

11.8

How do you evaluate the stress issues in your organization at normal situation?

11.9

How do you evaluate the stress issues in your organization at emergency situation?

12

Skill level

12.1

Do you feel comfortable in the use of personal protective equipment?

12.2

Are you able to find an unusual situation in your works?

12.3

Do you understand rules and regulations in your organization at emergency situation?

13

Anthropometry

13.1

If you work standing do you prefer (and possible) sitting work?

13.2

Do you think your work could design a better way (as amended), to provide more comfort and safety for you?

13.3

Can an elbow rest be designed for tour work?

13.4

Is enough space for free movement and comfort in your work?

13.5

Do you need a place to relax feet?

13.6

Is the intensity of natural light (daylight) in the control room during the day enough?

13.7

Is the intensity of natural light (daylight) in the workplace outside of the control room enough?

13.8

Is the control room lighting appropriate (especially for evening and night shifts)?

13.9

How do you evaluate the quality of natural light in your work?

13.10

Is there high brightness difference (contrast or contrast) in different parts of your work?

13.11

Is the temperature tolerable at hot season in your work?

13.12

Is cooling equipment (refrigerators) be located in the right location?

13.13

Is the temperature tolerable at cold season in your work?

13.14

Is heating equipment (refrigerators) be located in the right location?

13.15

Is it enough to breathe fresh air?

13.16

Do you drink enough liquid to compensate for sweating?

13.17

Do you think that noise reduction is applicable in the workplace?

13.18

Do you think that the tables, chairs, and equipment location can be caused risks and incident at normal situation?

13.19

Do you think that the tables, chairs, and equipment location can be caused risks and incident at emergency situation?

14

Human errors

14.1

Do you have to violation of safety regulations due to pressures of work in normal situation?

14.2

Do you have to violation of safety regulations due to pressures of work in emergency situation?

15

Job satisfaction

15.1

Are you satisfied with your salary?

15.2

Do you feel happy with your work in general?

15.3

Are you satisfied with time working?

Appendix 2: Train code

  • % %train for anfis

  • itrain = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’A1:d57’);

  • otrain = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’n1:n57’);

  • itest = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’A58:d62’);

  • otest = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’n58:n62’);

  • trnData = [itrain otrain];

  • j = 1;

  • for i = 0.1:0.01:1

  • fismat = genfis2(itrain,otrain,i);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’andmethod’,’prod’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’ormethod’,’max’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’impmethod’,’prod’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’aggmethod’,’sum’);

  • out_fis = anfis(trnData,fismat,20);

  • y(:,j) = evalfis(itest,out_fis);

  • j = j+1;

  • end

  • for i = 1:85

  • e1 = y(:,i)-otest;

  • mape(i) = mean(abs(e1./otest));

  • end

  • xlswrite(‘prod-max-prod-sum’,mape,’mape’);

Appendix 3: Output code

  • % % test for anfis

  • input = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’A1:d62’);

  • itrain = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’A1:d57’);

  • otrain = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’e1:e57’);

  • trnData = [itrain otrain];

  • fismat = genfis2(itrain,otrain,0.27);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’andmethod’,’prod’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’ormethod’,’max’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’impmethod’,’prod’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’aggmethod’,’sum’);

  • out_fis = anfis(trnData,fismat,20);

  • z = evalfis(input,out_fis);

Appendix 4: Efficiency code

  • % % efficiency

  • itrain = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’A1:d57’);

  • otrain = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’g1:g57’);

  • p = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’A1:d62’);

  • t = xlsread(‘s.xls’,’r’,’g1:g62’);

  • trnData = [itrain otrain];

  • fismat = genfis2(itrain,otrain,0.32);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’andmethod’,’min’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’ormethod’,’max’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’impmethod’,’prod’);

  • fismat = setfis(fismat,’aggmethod’,’max’);

  • out_fis = anfis(trnData,fismat,20);

  • z = evalfis(p,out_fis);

  • for i = 1:115

  •   v(i) = mean(t)- t(i)/115;

  •   s = sum(v);

  •   w(i) = v(i)/s;

  •   E(i) = t(i)-z(i);

  •   E1(i) = E(i)/w(i);

  •   [c,k] = max(E1);

  •   sh(i) = E(k)*(w(i)/w(k));

  •   F(i) = t(i)/(z(i) + sh(i));

  • End

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azadeh, A., Khakestani, M., Motevali Haghighi, S. et al. A unique intelligent algorithm for optimization of human reliability and decision styles: a large petrochemical plant. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8 (Suppl 2), 1161–1176 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-017-0582-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-017-0582-z

Keywords

Navigation