occupational health and safety - autenticação · proposed nomenclature following (iso, iec/fdis...

16-11-2014

1

Workshop of the IRIS project, 17th November 2014

Occupational health and safety: Designing and building with MACBETH a

value risk‐matrix for evaluating health and safety risks

Mónica D. Oliveira, Diana F. Lopes, Carlos A. Bana e Costa, Maria Bernardes

Centre for Management Studies of Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal


Agenda

1. Context

2. Methodological framework

3. Model components

(a) Structuring

SI: Nomenclature

SII: Identification and measurement of risk sources and consequences

SIII: Identification of impact dimensions

SIV: Impact scale construction

SV: Estimation of consequences’ impact

(b) Value and probability measurement

MI: Independence test

MII: Impact value measurement

MIII: Subjective probability

(c) Value and probability measurement

(d) Risk classification

4. Value risk matrix

5. Decision Support System SAARSST

6. Future research

2

ContextMethodological

frameworkModel

componentsValue risk-

matrixDecision

support systemFuture

research

16-11-2014

2

Workshop of the IRIS project, 17th November 2014 3


frameworkModel


matrixDecision


research

Evaluate health & safety risks and select risk interventions at the

working place (applied to individuals working in primary care centres and in the buildings of the LTV Regional

Health Authority)

Severity of the injury

1. Very low 2. Low 3. High 4. Very high

Pro

bab

ility

of

the

even

t 1. Unlikely 1. Very low 2. Very low Low 4. Moderate

2. Likely 2. Very low 4. Moderate 6. Moderate 8. High

3.Quite likely 3. Low 6. Moderate 9. High 12. Very high

4. Very likely 4. Moderate 8. High 12. Very high 16. Very high

Source: (ARSLVT, 2010)

Case study

Objective



frameworkModel


matrixDecision


research

Besides theoretical problems with risk matrices…

Problems identified

Ambiguous nomenclature

Difficulty in identifying the

risk sources

Arbitrarinesswhen estimating

impacts and probabilities

Decisionmakers’ opinions incompatible with

the manual

Problems in resourceallocation

16-11-2014

3


Three-degree burns

Death

Strong 4 - 4 = 0

Verysevere (4)

Verysevere(4)

5

What is the difference in attractiveness between reversing the two impacts?

…the impact scale did not reflect the OHSU´spreferences


frameworkModel


matrixDecision


research

Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis


Build a tool to assess Occupational Health and Safety Risks

Challenge: Improve risk matrices’ design to avoid inconsistencies

Build methods to assist the selection of corrective measureswith the greatest potential to mitigate risks


frameworkModel


matrixDecision


research

Study objectives

16-11-2014

4



Methodological Framework

8


frameworkModel


matrixDecision


research

Value risk matrix, using MACBETHMulticriteria resource

allocation model

System to support risk assessment

Risk Assessment’s context for Health and Safety at

workplace

Model requisiteness

OUTPUTSMulticriteria risk

impact value and probability

for each risk&

Classification of risks into risk

categories&

Selection of mitigation

actions that maximize value given available

budget

Risk management

Structuring and alocation

Mitigation actions

Selection of mitigation actions

Risk classification

Structuring

SI: Identification of issues and challengesSII: NomenclatureSIII: Tables matchSIV: Identification of impacts dimensionsSV: Impact scalesSVI: impacts Estimation

Value and probability measurement

MI: Dependency test between dimensionsMII: ImpactMIII: Subjective Probability

16-11-2014

5


Methodological Framework

9


frameworkModel


matrixDecision


research

Value risk matrix, using MACBETHMulticriteria resource

allocation model

System to support risk assessment

Risk Assessment’s context for Health and Safety at

work

Model requisiteness

OUTPUTSMulticriteria risk

impact value and probability

for each risk&

Classification of risks into risk

categories&

Selection of mitigation

actions that maximize value given available

budget

Risk management

Structuring and alocation

Mitigation actions

Selection of mitigation actions

Risk classification

Structuring

SI: Identification of issues and challengesSII: NomenclatureSIII: Tables matchSIV: Identification of impacts dimensionsSV: Impact scalesSVI: impacts Estimation

Value and probability measurement

MI: Dependency test between dimensionsMII: ImpactMIII: Subjective Probability

Using concepts fromMulticriteria Value

Measurement: Evaluating risk impactwith the MACBETH-

CHOQUET global matrix, and evaluating

probabilities withMACBETH


Kickoff meeting

Interviews

2013

Workshops

•Dependency test•Value measurement

Value measurement

Impacts Probabilities

•Subjective probabilities

Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis•Identification of problems and opportunities to improve the current risk evaluation system

•Nomenclature•Tables of correspondence•Identification of the impact dimensions•Impact scales•Estimation of impacts

Structuring

Decision conferences

The social componentContext

Methodological framework

Model components

Value risk-matrix

Decision support system

Futureresearch

20140403 0605 07 08 1009 11 0512 02 03 04 06 07 08 1009 11

VRM & DSS

•Risk classification•Design of the VRM•Construction of the DSS SAARSST

The decision makers were the members of the Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU): a sanitary engineer, nurses, doctors and risk technicians

16-11-2014

6



Nomenclature

Appraisal

Identification of dimensions

Structuring the evaluation problemContext


Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

Impact scale construction

Impact estimation on each dimension

16-11-2014

7


Nomenclature

Appraisal




Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch



Clarification of risk terms based on literature: risk source, risk, consequences, impacts,…


Nota - dhll: day of healthy life lost; RD: Recoverable Disability

Grooves on the stairs to access the building

RISK SOURCE

Fall

RISK

Foot fracture

3,5 dhll RD 1 month of

absenteeism

CONSEQUENCEIMPACT

Expression levelsGrooves:

0 cm2 cm

10 cm (…)

Expression’s levels

Proposed NomenclatureFollowing (ISO, IEC/FDIS 31010), (ARSLVT, 2010), (Vose, 2008)

16-11-2014

8



15



Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

CORRESPONDENCE

Risk SourcesHealth

consequences

Nomenclature

Appraisal





Description of noise dB Exposure limit Health consequences

Normal breathing 10Without limit Without efect

Air conditioning 50

Home 55 8h Annoyance

Normal conversation (public lounges, offices, cafes, bars)

608h Annoyance pronounced

yhllirator 70

Alarm Clock (airport wainting room) 75 8h An increase in hearing threshold level (TL) can occur

Hairdryer 80 8hAnnoyance and possible increase in TL

Backhoe 85 8h Possible increase int the TL’s level

Exposure Limit 87 6h Hearing loss of 10-15 dB in a working period from 1 to 2 yearsHearing loss of 50 dB in the working period of 50/52 years

Mowing machine 89 4h30min

Sheet Metal Shop 100 1h

Ambulance siren 120 3,75 minPain and hearing loss treatable or not treatable

Very loud rock concert 130 56,25 s

Jet plane 140 14 sPain and acoustic trauma. Hearing loss may be accompanied by a buzzing

Work from: (HCN, 1994);(Passchier et al., 2000);(Decreto-Lei 182/2006)

Appraisal: Noise (example)Context


StructuringValue risk-

matrixDecision


research

16-11-2014

9


Nomenclature

Appraisal




Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch



CORRESPONDENCE

Risk SourcesHealth

consequences



The identification of relevant dimensions to assess the risk impact was performed in workshops with OHSU

Final Value Tree

Dimensions identificationContext


Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

An engineer, nurses, doctors and technicians

Occupational Health and Safety Unit

16-11-2014

10



19



Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

CORRESPONDENCE

Risk SourcesHealth

consequences

Worst

Employee’s health

Worst

Best

Cap. to return to work

0 days

18 yearsWorst

Best

Absenteeism

0 yhll

34 yhll

ND

ID

Note: yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability;ITD: irrecoverable total disability

Nomenclature

Appraisal




Best



20

Nomenclature

Appraisal




Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch



CORRESPONDENCE

Risk SourcesHealth

consequences

Worst

Employee’s health

Worst

Best

Cap. to return to work

0 days

18 yearsWorst

Best

Absenteeism

0 yhll

34 yhll

ND

ID

Note: yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability;ITD: irrecoverable total disability

Best

16-11-2014

11


Problem

Estimating impacts due to the decision-makers’ lack of knowledge based upon literature

Proposal

21

Sources: (Bowie et al. ,1997);(Mathers et al., 1999);(Murray et al., 1996); (Stouthard et al., 1997); (U.S. Department of Labor, 2013); …

Consequences Employee’s HealthCapability to

return to workAbsenteeism

Amputation of a finger (except the

thumbs)

3,5 years of healthy life lost

Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to

work 26 days

Sprain1 day of healthy life

lostRecoverable Disability 10 days

Tuberculosis1,6 months of

healthy life lostRecoverable Disability

6 months

… … … …

Impact estimationContext


StructuringValue risk-

matrixDecision


research


Impact value measurementContext


Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

Dependency test between dimensions

Impact value measurement

Subjective probabilities

MACBETHChoquetintegral

m

i

ji

jijujiuiijiuii

u

Ag xvxvIxvsV1 ,

|)()(|2

1)(

Interactive questioning

protocol

MACBETH global matrix

Choquetintegral’s

parameters

Global descriptor

Levels D escription

SQ: Status quo 0 anos saudáveis perdidos

RS 1,6 meses saudáveis perdidos

P: Pior 34 anos saudáveis perdidos

Levels D escription

SQ: Status quo

0 anos

RS 1 mês

P: Pior 18 anos

Levels D escription

SQ: Status quo IN

RS RTD

RI IPDR

P : Pior ITD

Levels Description

P1P2P3 34 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18 anos de ausência laboral (34yhll, ITD, 18a)

15 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18 anos de ausência laboral (15yhll, ITD, 18a)

(…)

M-MACBETH

Shapley andinteraction’sparameters

16-11-2014

12


Interactive questioning protocolQuestion 1: From the following impacts, what would you choose to reverse in the first place?

34yhll,ITD, 18y

15yhll,ITD, 18y

15yhll,IPDN, 18y

4yhll,ITD, 18y

4yhll,IPDN, 18y

15yhll,IPDR, 1y

15yhll,IPDR, 6m

15yhll,IPDR, 1m

15yhll,RTD, 1y

15yhll,RTD, 6m

15yhll,RTD, 1m

4yhll,IPDR, 1y

4yhll,IPDR, 6m

4yhll,IPDR, 1m

4yhll,RTD, 1y

4yhll,RTD, 6m

4yhll,RTD, 1m

1yhll,IPDR, 1y

1yhll,IPDR, 6m

1yhll,IPDR, 1m

1yhll,RTD, 1y

1yhll,RTD, 6m

1yhll,RTD, 1m

0,5yhll,IPDR, 1y

0,5yhll,IPDR, 6m

0,5yhll,IPDR, 1m

0,5yhll,RTD, 1y

0,5yhll,RTD, 6m

0,5yhll,RTD, 1m

1,6mhll,IPDR, 1y

1,6mhll,IPDR, 6m

1,6mhll,IPDR, 1m

1,6mhll,RTD, 1y

1,6mhll,RTD, 6m

1,6mhll,RTD, 1m

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact

Withoutimpact


34yhll, ITD, 18y

Withoutimpact

1st

Question: What is the attractiveness ofreversing the selected impact?

Interactive questioning protocol

Note - yhll: years of healthy life lost; mhll: months of healthy life lost; ID: Irrecoverable disability; IPDR: Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to work; RD: Recoverable Disability; ND: Null Disability; y:years; m: months

16-11-2014

13


34yhll, ITD, 18y

Withoutimpact

1st

Question: What is the attractiveness ofreversing the selected impact?

Interactive questioning protocol

Note - yhll: years of healthy life lost; mhll: months of healthy life lost; ID: Irrecoverable disability; IPDR: Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to work; RD: Recoverable Disability; ND: Null Disability; y:years; m: months


Interactive questioning protocolFinal Judgments

34yhll,ID, 18y

15yhll,ID, 18y

15yhll,IPDN, 18y

4yhll,ID, 18y

4yhll,IPDN, 18y

15yhll,IPDR, 1y

15yhll,IPDR, 6m

15yhll,IPDR, 1m

15yhll,RD, 1y

15yhll,RD, 6m

15yhll,RD, 1m

4yhll,IPDR, 1y

4yhll,IPDR, 6m

4yhll,IPDR, 1m

4yhll,RD, 1y

4yhll,RD, 6m

4yhll,RD, 1m

1yhll,IPDR, 1y

1yhll,IPDR, 6m

1yhll,IPDR, 1m

1yhll,RD, 1y

1yhll,RD, 6m

1yhll,RD, 1m

0,5yhll,IPDR, 1y

0,5yhll,IPDR, 6m

0,5yhll,IPDR, 1m

0,5yhll,RD, 1y

0,5yhll,RD, 6m

0,5yhll,RD, 1m

1,6mhll,IPDR, 1y

1,6mhll,IPDR, 6m

1,6mhll,IPDR, 1m

1,6mhll,RD, 1y

1,6mhll,RD, 6m

1,6mhll,RD, 1m

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Nompact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Nompact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

16-11-2014

14




Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch


Scale validated by the decision makers



Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

16-11-2014

15


Dependency test between dimensions

Impact value measurement

Subjective probabilities

Using MACBETH to define subjective

probabilities

Subjective probabilitiesContext


Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch


M-MACBETH DSS

Full characterization

of risk

Protocol concerning questions usually answered by risk

managers

Populate the first row and the last column of a MACBETH matrix

Automatically populate the

matrix of judgments by

transitivity

Ordinal judgments between

judgments of the same category

“Verifying stage” of the probability

encoding process

Risk sourceConsequencesExposureEfficacy of mitigation actionsEmployee’s type

Subjective probabilitiesContext


Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

30

16-11-2014

16


1

‘How unlikely is x (to occur)?’

2

Protocol based on questions-type

‘How likely is risk event x to occur?’ - this is identical to ask which is the difference in likelihood between x and an impossible event

31


Probability scaleContext


Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

The probability can be adjusted according to pros and cons (ARSLVT 2010):

Worker individual characteristics and his vulnerability

Workers’ education

Unsecured acts and dangerous conditions in the service

Collective and individual protection

Control measures already

implemented and their efficacy

81%

16-11-2014

17


NewRisk

Equaltosomeriskpresentintheso ware?

Similartosomeriskpresentintheso ware?

Indicatetherisk

YES

YES

NO

NO

Associatetheprobabilityoftheso warerisk

Lis ngProseCons

Adjusttheriskprobability

Thereatesomefactorsthatincreaseordecresetherisk?

Consultthesequenceprobabilityfordifferentrisks

YES

NO

Indicatelowerboundeupperboundfortherespec verisk

Consultthequalita vescale

Finalreviewofjudgments

Indicatetheriskthatirequallylikelytooccur

System rules for the assessment of probability of a new risk

33


Risk classificationContext


Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

Steps for risk classification procedure:

Definition of the categories

Protocol of questioning

Construction of boundaries

Validation

Categories Description

Grade I Recommendation: routine monitoring

Grade II Recommendation that, as soon as possible, corrective measures are implemented

Grade III As soon as possible, the corrective actions must be implemented.

Grade IVRequires immediate corrective actions for its control and development of sustainable prevention programs

Grade V Justifies the immediate closure of the sector, to obtain their elimination or control

16-11-2014

18


Group test of risks in the value risk matrixContext


Risk classification

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

0 20 40 60 80 1000

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Impact value

Pro

ba

bili

ty


Generic protocol for risk classificationContext


Risk classification

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

1st stepComplete characterization of the risk event

2nd stepQuestions:“How do you classify a certain risk?”

Risk sourceExposure to risk sourceEffectiveness of security measuresHealth consequences

Probability

Impact value

Categories Description

Grade I Recommendation: routine monitoring

Grade IIRecommendation that, as soon as possible, corrective measures are implemented

Grade III As soon as possible, the corrective actions must be implemented.

Grade IVRequires immediate corrective actions for its control and development of sustainable prevention programs

Grade VJustifies the immediate closure of the sector, to obtain their elimination or control

16-11-2014

19


Group test of risks in the value risk matrixContext


Risk classification

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

Grade V

Grade IV

Grade IIIGrade IIGrade I


16-11-2014

20


Iso-curves using MatLab software

Grade V

Grade IV

Grade IIIGrade IIGrade I


frameworkRisk

classificationValue risk-

matrixDecision


research


16-11-2014

21


Decision support system: SAARSSTContext


Model components

Value risk-matrix


Futureresearch

Next presentation: “A Decision Support System to evaluate health and safety risks”


Discussion and further research

42

Discussion

Technical work and a large number of workshops and decisionconferences!

Interactive (context designed) decision support tools

So far, our client is happy!

Further research

Further validation

Communication issues when using the new risk matrix

Conclusion of the DSS

Improve the component related with the selection of mitigationmeasures (and respective resource allocation)


frameworkModel


matrixDecision


research

16-11-2014

22


FUNDING FROM THE PORTUGUESE PUBLIC BUDGET THROUGH FCT – FUNDAÇÃO PARA A CIÊNCIA E A

TECNOLOGIA, WITHIN PROJECT PTDC/EGE-GES/119230/2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Thank you!

[email protected]

Lopes, D.F., Oliveira, M.O., Bana e Costa, C.A. (2014) “Occupational health and safety: Designing and building with MACBETH a value risk‐matrix for evaluating health and safety risks” (manuscript in preparation).

16-11-2014

23


ReferencesAdministração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, Segurança e Saúde no Trabalho: Gestão do risco profissional em

estabelecimentos de saúde, in: O.t. nº1 (Ed.), 2010.C.A. Bana e Costa C.A., Ensslin L., Corrêa E.C. and Vansnick J.-C. (1999). Decision Support Systems in action: Integrated application in

a multicriteria decision aid process, European Journal of Operational Research, 113: 315-335.M. Stouthard, M. Essink-Bot, G. Bonsel, J. Barendregt, P. Kramers, Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands, Department of

Public Health, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 1997.C. Mathers, T. Vos, C. Stevenson, The burden of disease and injury in Australia – summary report, Australian Institute of Health and

Welfare, Canberra, no. PHE 18., 1999.HCN, Noise and health, No 1994/15E, Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN): Comittee on Noise and Health,, 1994.W. Passchier-Vermeer, W.F. Passchier, Noise exposure and public health, Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 2000, pp. 123-131.European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Legislation, 2014.Presidência do Conselho de Ministros, Decreto-Lei n.º 503/99 de 20 de Novembro, Nº 271, Diário da República - I Série-A, 1999, pp.

8241-8256.D.F. Lopes, C.A. Bana e Costa, M.D. Oliveira, A. Morton, Using MACBETH with the Choquet Integral fundamentals to model

interdependencies between elementary concerns in the context of risk management, in: B. Vitoriano, E. Pinson, F. Valente (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems, ICORES 2014, SCITEPRESS, ESEO,Angers, Loire Valley, France, 2014, pp. 116-126 (digital edition).

D.F. Lopes, M.D. Oliveira, C.A. Bana e Costa, A. Morton, A MACBETH-Choquet approach for modelling interdependencies in decision aid contexts, (to submit), 2015.

J. Baron, Thinking and Deciding, 4th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2008, D. Von Winterfeldt, W. Edwards, Decision analysis and behavioral research, Cambridge University Press, 1986, S. Monti, G. Carenini, Dealing with the expert inconsistency in probability elicitation, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data

Engineering, 12, 2000, pp. 499-508.J.L. Riggs, S.B. Brown, R.P. Trueblood, Integration of technical, cost, and schedule risks in project management, Computers and

Operations Research, 21, 1994, pp. 521-533.T.L. Saaty, Risk-its priority and probability: the analytic hierarchy process, Risk Analysis, 7, 1987, pp. 159-172.P. Szwed, J. Rene van Dorp, J.R.W. Merrick, T.A. Mazzuchi, A. Singh, A Bayesian paired comparison approach for relative accident

probability assessment with covariate information, European Journal of Operational Research, 169, 2006, pp. 157-177.M. Bernardes, Building subjective probabilities for health and safety risks with MACBETH, Department of Engineering and

Management, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, 2014.

occupational health and safety - autenticação · proposed nomenclature following (iso, iec/fdis...

Documents