risk assessment of human risk factors in port …assessment and risk control (hirarc) guidelines...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 535 [email protected]

`International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET) Volume 8, Issue 11, November 2017, pp. 535–551, Article ID: IJMET_08_11_057

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=8&IType=11

ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

RISK ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN RISK FACTORS IN PORT ACCIDENTS

Zuritah A.Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan

and Astuty Amrin

Department of Engineering, Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology,

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kuala Lumpur, 54100, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

Risk assessment is the process of identifying and evaluating risks or hazards. It

serves as the main component in an effective safety management system, as well as in

accident prevention and control. In Malaysia, the existing hazard identification, risk

assessment, and risk control frameworks have been established to promote and

motivate the industry in the implementation of a risk management system. In this

paper, seven human risk factors were analyzed using the modified risk calculation

method by introducing Frequency and existing control measures in the calculation.

Based on the risk calculated, it was found that there were two risk factors in the

significant category, which were human carelessness and omissions (R3), and

worker’s individual experience (R7). Meanwhile, operators’ mistakes and faults on

operations (R1), communication misunderstandings (R2), and execution of the job

safety rules and regulations (R4) were in the moderate category. Worker’s individual

workload and stress (R5) and worker’s individual discipline (R6) were in the

acceptable category. The new risk matrix was also introduced, whereby the

recommendation risk control shall be made based on its category. Based on the new

risk calculation method suggested, the modified risk calculation method should help

the organization do better decision-making, and prioritize the risks based on the risk

category suggested.

Keywords: Port, Risk Assessment, Safety, Human Risk, Transport, and Logistics.

Cite this Article: Zuritah A.Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman,

Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin, RISK Assessment of Human Risk

Factors in Port Accidents, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and

Technology 8(11), 2017, pp. 535–551.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=8&IType=11

RISK Assessment of Human Risk Factors in Port Accidents


1. INTRODUCTION

Risk assessment in the port industry is necessary as it is considered a high-risk industry. Many

accidents may happen while handling the cargo in port, especially if the activity involves

manual handling, as the employees will be directly exposed to hazards and risks [1]. The

variety of the activities performed in port terminals are complex, such as the activities in

passenger transport, cargo and container handling, oil and chemicals storage, vehicle storage

and transport, and ship, lorry and train circulations, which create more risks and hazards.

These risks and hazards are exposed to persons (such as the crew, passengers, port users and

port workers), the environment (nature) and property (such as ships, port facilities, port

laborers) and others [2]. If it is not managed and controlled, it would create unwanted events

like unsafe acts and conditions [3], which will eventually cause major accidents such as

fatalities. These activities have their own risks and need to be assessed and evaluated to place

appropriate control measures to prevent accidents.

Risk assessment frameworks have been widely developed and implemented for ages [4].

The ability of an effective risk assessment framework is to help many organizations structure

their business systematically. Risk management frameworks are even crucial in the safety

management system of an organization [5]. Unlike other developed countries in the world that

have established specific risk management frameworks for the port industry, Malaysia still

uses the general risk management framework, which is the hazard identification, risk

assessment and risk control (HIRARC) guidelines from 2008. The current risk management

framework adopted by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) of

Malaysia is too general. Thus, the implementation of a risk management system becomes

challenging in the Malaysian port industry. This study intends to develop a risk assessment

framework specifically for the port industry. The findings of this study will contribute to

knowledge by using past research in the area to address the practical challenges and issues

concerning the implementation of risk assessments to prevent accidents and implementing a

safety and health management system in the industry, particularly in port terminal activities.

2. MANAGING RISKS AND ACCIDENTS

Whether in an industry or workplace, accidents may happen anytime under any

circumstances. Accidents can occur at any time and at any place that has exposure to hazards.

Accidents often occur due to the existence of risk in every task or job [6]. Accidents can be

defined as unplanned and uncontrolled events in which the action or reaction of an object,

substance, person, or radiation results in personal injury or the probability thereof (Heinrich

Theory) [7]. The theory stressed on the causal analysis theory which analyses the major

variable that causes an accident. An accident may involve human, machine, or infrastructure.

Once an accident occurs, many losses in terms of man-hours, employees, cost, equipment,

operation hours, or many more assets cannot be prevented. In this theory, it suggests that an

accident can be prevented if one of the barriers of the variables was eliminated.

Accidents can happen in all industries, whether in small organizations or high-risk

industries such as oil and gas, manufacturing, construction, and port. Nowadays, workplace

accidents occur every day, and it has become worse, to the point of becoming a major concern

in almost all industries [8]. High-risk industrial accidents arise from potential hazards and

risks which can produce unwanted negative consequences in various situations. The level of

exposed hazards varies because of the different working areas of every worker. Different

hazards and risks in the workplace have different levels of risk and consequences. Various

injuries closely related to workplace accidents have been found to be associated with

numerous workplace hazards, which can be categorized into physical hazards [9], ergonomics

hazards [10], safety hazards, chemical and dust hazards [11] and health hazard. These

Zuritah A.Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty

Amrin


hazards, if not identified, are able to cause an accident if the exposure is high. Thus, hazard

identification and management are significant in implementing risk assessments, occupational

safety and health management, and accident prevention.

There are many factors that can cause accidents. Accidents can happen because of lack of

enforcement and implementation of a regulations system, poor role and responsibility

implementation, poor safety culture, lack of safety planning, poor communication procedures,

poor near-miss management, poor implementation of hazards and risk management, and lack

of competency in training and awareness. The rapid development of technology is also one of

the contributors towards accident risk in industries [12]. Additionally, Fabiano et al. (2010)

[13] found the development of technology in the sea transport and logistics industry to be one

of the major factors in the occurrences of accidents. Later on, the container was introduced to

reduce manual handling accidents in a conventional process. However, it was found to have

caused a striking increase in the frequency of occupational accidents. The main conclusion of

the analysis performed is that the development of technology represented by containerization

on injuries is not very effective. The new technology does not necessarily reduce safety risks,

but in turn, may introduce new risks.

Other factors for the cause of accidents include roles and responsibility [14]. If the

employer does not commit to his or her role as a leader, or if the employees do not play a role

in employee commitment, it could cause an accident. The success of occupational safety and

health management in terms of preventing and reducing accidents does not rely solely on the

employer. Rather, it takes shared responsibility between employer and employee to keep the

workplace free from any degree of risks and hazards [8]. Employer and employee must both

cooperate to create a safe and healthy workplace [14]. It is the responsibility of employers to

have a structured and organized risk assessment procedure and to implement risk control

measures to prevent accidents. The responsibility of employees is to strictly follow the health

and safety controls and measures adopted and implemented.

Poor management and control of risks and hazards can also be a cause of accidents.

Organizations that are unable to manage risk and hazards in the workplace tend to fail in

managing accidents. Thus, the ideal solution for the reduction of accidents and the

implementation of effective occupational safety and health management is to manage and

control the risk of occurrence of the hazards. This statement was agreed to by Amyotte et al.

(2017) [15], where they also found seven core concepts to prevent major accidents in the

processes of industries, one of which is dynamic operational risk management. Many studies

show the significance of risk management study [16]. An effective risk management can

decrease or at least minimize accidents from happening. The risk assessment can be

considered as a leading indicator of safety. Thus, it is essential for risks to be managed and

controlled to reduce the accident rate. The implementation and effectiveness of the risk

assessment need an effort from the top to the bottom of the organization. It would not be

successful if there is no cooperation within the organization.

Besides reducing accidents, risk assessments, with a combination of both risk analysis and

risk evaluation, not only provides a practical, useful, and logically structured input and

perspective on risks, but also supports the decision-making process, development of policies,

strategies, and measures for managing risks. However, it may not necessarily provide answers

to many questions, such as questions concerning the level of risks, trade-offs in risk control,

costs, and benefits. From a decision-making perspective, the key to managing and preventing

accidents in the workplace is to minimize and control risk exposure. The function of the risk

assessment method is to determine the current risk level to see if it is acceptable. If the risk is

unacceptable, the company needs to make further risk evaluations to manage the risk. Risk

assessment results can never act as the actual decision, but with additional information, it



might be able to help and provide useful support in decision making. Not only can risk

assessment prevent and reduce accidents, it can even assist organizations in making safety-

related decisions.

The risk assessment process starts with the identification of the activities, risks, and

hazards. After the hazards and risks are identified, it is necessary for the risks and hazards to

be analysed [17]. There are two mains techniques in risk analysis. It either can be analysed

qualitatively or quantitatively. In the past few decades, qualitative techniques have been

widely used in many applications. As modernization occurs, more advanced mathematical

techniques were derived. Both techniques have its own advantages and disadvantages, but the

main mission of both is to provide the best solution for risk analysis. Recently, many studies

focused on the integration of both methodologies to gain a solid and acceptable solution in

analysing risks. This effort supplements current knowledge on risk management of such

systems, advanced risk management models, and general guidelines on the improvement of

current frameworks and procedures. Motivated by this tremendous effort, this study has been

undertaken to take a leading step in designing frameworks related to these three main

components and to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of which would be

beneficial to system theories and indirectly, to the industry.

In a port, there are many hazards produced from complex activities. For example, Lu and

Kuo (2016) [18] found that container terminal operations are hazardous since stevedores have

to be involved in various risky workplace activities that include operating cranes, lashing,

electrical repairs, tally operating, and truck driving. The complexity and variety activities of

the port have led the port to be considered as “a place of risk”, where hazards can be directed

to persons, the environment, and/or property [19]. Regarding safety and port hazards,

Chlomoudis et al. (2012) [2] collected feedback from port experts and grouped the hazard into

five risk categories based on accident causes, which were human, machinery, environment,

security, and natural. This study suggested the Port Risk Assessment (PRA) method, which

was workable in Greece port.

In 2015, a case study was conducted by Bouzaher et al. [20] in the Algerian port. This

study aims to contribute to the management of risks associated with port operations by

designing a matrix for the specific assessment of these type of risks based on analysis of

several incidents and accidents regarding the maneuvering of ships in Algerian ports. The

design of the evaluation matrix of risks associated with port operations in Algeria is done in

the context of the application of the Formal Safety Assessment methodology to achieve

improved performance of this method in terms of accuracy of results.

Constantinos et al. (2016) [19] also suggested a risk assessment method based on man-

related risk factors in their study, which covered nine risk categories. In 2013, Ding and

Tseng [21] conducted a risk assessment on safety operations for exclusive container terminals

at the Kaohsiung port in Taiwan. Based on the case study, sixteen (16) risk factors were listed,

which were then categorized into either man, machine, media, or management related risks.

From this study, it was found that three (3) risk factors, which were all categorized into the

“man” category, were identified as high leading risks. Based on the analysis of the typical

accidents in China in the last decade, the new challenges in safety risks management were

identified as the control of unsafe human behavior, technological innovation in safety risks

management and design of safety risks management regulations. This is the main factor in

managing risks and safety not only in the port industry but in all industries. In 2010, Fabiano

et al. [13] studied interactions between human factors and accident at ports. He found that the

human factor was not the ultimate factor, but instead, it is the technical or technology factor

that was most vital.


Amrin


Port activities are wide-ranging and include berthing/unberthing, vessel

loading/unloading, assets maintenance, dangerous goods management, warehousing, storage

of bulk goods, inter-modal transport movements, waste disposal, stevedoring, bunkering,

pilotage, towage and boat repairs, and maritime services. The complexity of port activities

implies certain risks. The effectiveness of risk management enables it to reduce accidents

[15]. The existence of hazards at the workplace such as physical hazards [9], ergonomics

hazards [10, 22], safety hazards, chemical and dust hazards [11], and health hazards need to

be managed and controlled. These hazards contribute to the possibility of people getting

harmed. These hazards, if not identified, are able to cause an accident if the exposure to it is

high. Thus, it is essential for risks to be managed and controlled to reduce the accident rate.

By doing that, organizations can avoid damage and loss profit and reputation.

3. RISK MATRIX

One method to analyse risk is to use a risk matrix [2]. Many researchers have been employed

and have certified the use of semi-quantitative risk assessment techniques in their study

[23,20]. The semi-quantitative analysis technique is the most preferred technique of stating

risks in the industry. The risk calculator and the semi-quantitative risk rating matrix can be

identified as the most preferred methods for risk analysis [17]. The simple, yet structured

techniques are easy to implement and adapt. The techniques are also easy to understand and

communicate.

Besides, the risk matrix model is also employed by many risk management frameworks,

such as the Australian/New Zealand Standard [24], which is AS/NZS ISO 30001, the

International Standard, which is OSHAS 18001[25], and the Malaysia Occupational Safety

and Health [26] (Hazard Identification, Risk Analysis and Risk control) Guidelines 2005.

Some of the ports in these international countries have established a code of practice and

guidelines, such as the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code, 2016[28] and

Ireland’s “Code of Practice for Health and Safety in Dock Work” [29], which has also

implemented the risk matrix model. The risk matrix model can assess the level of risk in

terms of risk analysis and evaluation. The risk matrix model can help risk managers to

develop highly efficient risk management strategies across multiple risk levels in accordance

with various risk factors, which will lessen loss occurrence rates, and thereby reduce the

financial impact on the corporation.

The classic risk matrix approach uses the multiplication of severity and its likelihood to

produce a risk rating. The risk’s category is then decided based on its risk rating [19]. Based

on the risk assessment, the organization will be able to identify and evaluate the risks based

on its category (high-risk or low-risk category). This will help the organization focus on the

most significant risks to be handled, and consider the suitable risk measures to be in place.

These structured techniques are easily explained and understandable, making it simple for

them to be implemented and adopted. The risk calculator and the semi-quantitative risk rating

matrix can be identified as the most preferred methods for risk analysis [17]. It is an

advantage to apply this technique in such a complex scenario. The risk matrix model can

assess placement of risk levels in terms of risk analysis and evaluation. The risk matrix model

can help risk managers to develop highly efficient risk management strategies across multiple

risk levels in accordance with various risk factors, helping lessen loss occurrence rates and

thereby reducing corporate financial losses. The simplicity of semi-quantitative techniques

can be implemented and conducted in many industries. The risk matrix model can assess

placement of risk levels using risk analysis and evaluation. The simplicity of risk matrix

techniques enables it to be easily implemented and conducted by many industries.



In this study, the author suggested a framework that follows three main risk management

frameworks, which were AS/NZ ISO 31000: 2009 ‘Risk management -Principles and

guidelines'[24], the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2001- Formal Safety

Assessment (FSA) [27], and the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514) - Hazard

Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC) [25], 2008, with an introduction

on modification of simple risk calculation.

The “Risk” is traditionally defined as a combination of the probability (or likelihood) and

the consequence of a negative outcome (or loss). Combining these components leads to the

expected value of risk. This simple formulation allows the calculation of expected losses

associated with an event.

�� (��) = �� (��)� �� (��) (1)

Another definition of “risk” is the multiplication of likelihood and consequences, which

leads to exposure to risk.

�� (��) = ��ℎ�� (�� ) � �� (��) (2)

In this study, the modified risk calculation is,

! � ! " ! ��# �� (3)

Where Frequency of Activity (F), Likelihood of Occurrence (L), Severity of Harm (S)

(The value of S shall be taken as the greatest value of People, Asset, Environment, and

Image), and Existing control measure (ECM) factor are the variables. The modified risk

matrix will be categorized into five categories, which are Trivial (I) (RR=1-9), Acceptable (II)

(RR=10-20), Moderate (III) (RR=21-45), Significant (IV) (RR=46-85) and Unacceptable (V)

(≥86) as per Table 1.

In this study, the control measures were identified to reduce the risk levels. Additional

control measures were to be identified provided the Risk/Impact falls under Category III and

above. Risks with legal compliance statuses of Partially Complied (PC) or Non-Compliance

(NC) will be grouped into Risk Category IV and V respectively, and appropriate control

measures shall be identified. Apart from the identified control measures, it can also be

incorporated in other documents such as Management Programs, Standard Operating

Procedures, Work Instructions, Special Requirements, etc., and be communicated to all

involved parties. The decision made shall be determined based on the risk category.

The frequency of occurrence is listed in Table 2 (The frequency is based on the activity

conducted), and the likelihood of occurrence in Table 3 (The likelihood shall be considered

without the presence of control measure), and the severity of the occurrence on people, assets,

the environment and the image of the organization in Table 4 shall be assessed considering

the cause of the accident’s damage, such as damage to human life and health, damage to

material, property and equipment, damage to the environment. It also includes business

interruption, the cause of loss of profit, and reputation. The severity shall be considered where

the maximum (as practicably possible) is considered and without the presence of a control

measure. Table 5 shows the proposed existing control measure factors (ECM).


Amrin


Table 1 Proposed risk category

Risk Rating

Risk Category

Legal Compliance

Status Risk Level Action and Time Scale

1-9 I C Trivial No action required

10-20 II C Acceptable

No additional controls required. Monitoring

required in ensuring existing controls are

maintained.

21-45 III C Moderate

Efforts may be made to reduce the risk. Risk

reduction measures should be implemented

within a defined period of time (12 months).

46-85 IV PC Significant

Efforts shall be made to reduce the risk. Risk

reduction measures should be implemented

within a defined period of time (6 months).

>= 86 V NC Unacceptable

Work should not be started until the risk has

been reduced. Considerable resources shall

be allocated to reduce the risk. If the risk

hinders work in progress, urgent action

(within 7 working days, min, and admin

control) shall be taken.

Table 2 Frequency of activity (F)

Level Frequency of Activity (F)

Number of frequency

1 Yearly 1 to 10 times in a year

2 Monthly 1 to 3 times in a month

3 Weekly 1 to 3 times in a week

4 Daily 1 to 5 times in a day

5 Hourly Once or more in an hour, or > 5 times in a day

Table 3 Likelihood of occurrence (O)

Likelihood of

Occurrence ( L ) Percentage basis Number of occurrences

1 Very unlikely The probability to happen is extremely

small (< 1%) No case so far

2 Unlikely Could happen, but rare (1 to 9%) One case in 5 to 10 years

3 Likely Chances to happen is relatively high (10

to 59%) One case in 1 to 5 years

4 Most likely Can happen frequently (60 to 94%) One case within 6 months to

1 year

5 Certain Expected to happen (95 to 100%) Once case in less than 6

months



Table 4 Proposed severity of harm (S) (Adapted and modified IMO FSA)

Level Risk Level People(P) Asset(A) Environment(E) Image(I)

1 Negligible

No/slight injury or

health effect including

first aid & medical

treatment;not affecting

work performance or,

affecting only the

personnel in the activity

Tolerable

damage

< RM10,000

No environmental

damage or local

environmental damage

in a confined area

Slight public awareness

may exist, but there is

no public concern.

2 Minor

Minor injury or health

effect including first aid

case & outpatient

medical treatment, or

affecting work

performance such as

restriction to activities,

or need a few days to

recover, or affecting

only personnel involved

in the activity

Damage is

repair cost

> RM10,000,

< RM100,000

Contamination.

Damage sufficiently to

attack the

environmental at site.

Some local public

concern.

3 Major

Major injury or health

effect, or affecting work

performance in longer

term such as prolonged

absence from work,

hospitalized, disabling

injury but recoverable,

or affecting only

personnel in the local

department

Significant

damage with

repair cost

> RM100,000,

< RM500,000

Limited loss of

discharges of known

toxicity.

Damage sufficient to

attack the environment

around port area.

Potential for

environmental related

statutory requirement

i.e. EQA.

Regional public

concern. Considerable

local media and

political attention.

Potential for business-

related regulation or

statutory requirements,

e.g., business license.

4 Critical

Single fatality or

permanent total

disability from an

incident or occupational

illness (i.e. poison), or

affecting personnel in

the factory

Heavy damage

with repair

cost

> RM500,000,

<

RM1,000,000

Severe environmental

damage.

Damage sufficient to

attack the environment

at a national level.

Repeated overshoots of

environment-related

statutory or prescribed

limit.

National public

concern.

Adverse attention in

national media.

More than single

violation of business-

related regulation or

statutory requirements,

e.g., business license

5 Catastrophe

Multiple fatalities from

accidents or

occupational illness, or

affecting personnel

within and outside the

factory

Damage cost

>

RM1,000,000

Persistent severe

environmental damage

or severe nuisance

extending over a large

area.

Affecting international

community.

Constant high

overshoots of

environmental related

statutory or prescribed

limits.

International public

attention.

Extensive public

attention in

national/international

media.

Potentially severe

impact on access or

renewal of licenses.


Amrin


Table 5 Proposed existing control measure factors (ECM)

Factor Measures excluding

human factors Measures on human factors

0.1

All applicable controls are

relevant, applied and

systematically implemented

in terms of Engineering,

Administrative and

PPE/SK.

For Administrative control on human factors, the following is

observed:

I. Competence, Awareness, Training - Excellent

ii. Physical condition - height, strength - Matches the worker

or better

iii. Workers on shift and shift duration - Monitored, no longer

than 8 hours in one shift

iv. Fitness required is against the nature of work - Based on

medical condition, approved by a panel doctor (e.g. MC,

Yearly health surveillance, Pre-recruitment and upgrading

check-up)

v. Behaviour towards safety - Staff/workers have the culture

of following SWP, concerns on safety prior to execution of

work, and react if control is not implemented, program for

behaviour-based safety regulations being implemented and

maintained with objectives set for continuous improvement

0.3

All applicable controls are

applied, however, further

control on engineering,

administrative and/or

PPE/SK is required

For Administrative control on human factors, the following is

observed:

I. Competence, Awareness, Training - Adequate

ii. Physical condition - height, strength -Matches the worker

iii. Workers on shift and shift duration - Adequate, no longer

than 12 hours in one shift

iv. Fitness required against the nature of work - Based on

acceptable medical condition, approved by panel doctor

v. Behaviour towards safety - Staff/workers have the habit of

following SWP, concern on safety prior to execution of work,

program for behaviour-based safety regulations being

implemented

0.6

Certain engineering,

administrative and/or

PPE/SK control are/is

available, but not adequate

or relevant to minimize the

risk.

For Administrative control on human factors, any of the

following is observed:

I. Competence, Awareness, Training - Not adequate

ii. Physical condition - height, strength - Poorly matched with

physical work assigned

iii. Workers on shift and shift duration - Poorly controlled,

more than 12 hours per shift

iv. Fitness required is against the nature of work - Poorly

evaluated

v. Behaviour towards safety - Poor acceptance of SWP,

inadequate behaviour-based safety program

1 There is no obvious control on the activity.



4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In order to assess the human risk factors of accidents in the port industry, the risk factors

related to humans were identified. In this study, 7 sub-factors were identified under the human

category based on previous studies conducted on port accidents and safety. The risks were

detailed into codes from R1 to R7 (Table 6). The identified risk factor was distributed to port

operators/workers by using questionnaire form. The author collected the data on the spot. The

operators and workers were given a briefing before answering the questionnaire by the author.

Table 6 Human Risk Factors

Risk Code Sub-Factor Description of Sub-Factor

R1

Operators’ mistakes

and faults on

operations

Risk raised from operator’s mistakes and faults on operations

such as a manoeuvre error, navigation error, pilot error, or

operator error

R2 Communication

misunderstandings

Poor communication systems, such as no walkie-talkies, and

miscommunication, such as errors in relaying messages.

R3 Human carelessness

and omission

Human carelessness, such as mishandling a crane and keying

in wrong data

R4

Execution of the job

safety rules and

regulations

The accidents occurred because the participants did not strictly

adhere to the rules and regulations. If the understandings on

those measures are built up, then the risk could be reduced in

the future.

R5 Worker’s individual

workload and stress

Individual efficiency in operations, peak season situations,

work hours and fatigue decreased, as caused by repetitive

work, or interpersonal

issues. Fatigue caused by repetitive work can cause loss of

concentration, unstable mood, physical fatigue and grogginess.


discipline

A worker’s attitude, personality and sense of responsibility can

dictate his work efficiency and safety. For example, a worker

with a high satisfaction level can keep a positive attitude at

work to achieve higher productivity levels. A responsible

worker does not consume alcohol or other drugs that may

lower his performance.


experience

The skills and experience of a professional personnel correlate

with workplace safety.

The data in this study was collected from one of seven major ports in Malaysia. The port

is a multipurpose port which has various operations of port services involving container

operations, liquid bulk operations, dry bulk operation, ferry operations, vehicle transit centers,

roll on-roll out operation, marine services, and dangerous goods storage operations. The data

of human risk factors which consists of 7 sub-factors were collected using a questionnaire.

The questionnaire was divided into two parts: Part I collected demographic data concerning

the participants, and Part II measured risk frequency, likelihood, severity, and existing control

measures using Likert 5-point scales for each of the 7 sub-factors.

As for the validity analysis, because the content of the questionnaire was developed based

on reviews of academic literature and investigated characteristics of port risk factors based on

historical accident data, the content validity of the questionnaire was good. The questionnaire

was completed by employees working at the port. Most port operators which were involved in

terminal operations were invited to complete the questionnaire. To increase the response rate,

the questionnaire was completed during interviews conducted by the authors. A total of 119

valid samples were collected out of the 150 questionnaires distributed. Since Deakin et al.


Amrin


[31] suggested that 5–7 Decision Makings are sufficient when dealing with group decision-

making problems, and as risk assessments can be generated by a group of professional

experts, the number of responses was deemed acceptable. The demographic data gathered

through the questionnaire indicated that most respondents were operators who had worked

directly in the field for over 5 years. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested using the

Cronbach alpha method [30]. The data is considered reliable if the value of α is 0.7 or more

(Table 7). The reliability analysis revealed the coefficients for risk frequency, risk likelihood,

risk severity, and risk existing control measures as tabulated in table 7 respectively; the fact

that all risk frequencies, risk likelihood, risk severity and risk existing control measures of

these exceeded 0.7 indicated a high level of reliability.

Table 7 Reliability Test

Item Cronbach’s alpha (α)

Frequency 0.726

Likelihood 0.810

Severity 0.789

Existing Control Measures 0.894

As mentioned above, the data in this study was collected from one of the seven major

ports in Malaysia. The port is a multipurpose port which has various port service operations

involving container operations, liquid bulk operations, dry bulk operations, ferry operations,

vehicle transit centers, roll on-roll out operations, marine services, and dangerous goods

storage operations. The age of the respondents, working years of experience, roles in the

industry, and department of the respondents were analysed using the descriptive analysis as

shown in Figure 1.

Based on the descriptive analysis, from a total of 119 respondents, a majority of the

respondents (62%) were aged between 30-49 years old, and a majority (71.43%) were from

the operations department. These operations staff were highly exposed to risks in port as they

work in the operations field. The role with the highest percentage of workers in the industry

were terminal operators (18.64%), while 17.8% were in middle-level management, 16.10%

were trained professionals, 15.25% were supporting staff, and 10.1% were below level

management staff. Most of the respondents have experienced between 6 to 10 years working

experience (26.89%), 24.37% had less than 5 years working experience, and those that have

worked for 11-15 years or 16-20 years both made up 19.33% of respondents respectively.

Meanwhile, 6.72% had experienced between 21-25 years and 3.36% has worked for more

than 25 years old in port.

Based on the data collection, the risk was qualitatively analysed using the Statistical

Package for Social Science (SPSS) where the mode, mean and standard deviation of each risk

factor was analysed and tabulated in Table 8.



Figure 1 Demographic data of respondents.

Table 8 Mode, Mean and Standard Deviation for Risk Factor

Frequency Likelihood Severity

Existing Control

Measure

R1 4(2.95,1.339) 4(3.48,0.946) 4(3.43,0.962) 3(2.61,0.885)

R2 4(3.62,0.792) 4(3.44,0.971) 4(3.39,0.976) 3(2.42,1.070)

R3 5(3.25,1.403) 4(3.18,1.171) 4(3.15,1.212) 3(2.55,0.936)

R4 4(3.14,1.137) 3(2.92,1.062) 3(2.88,1.173) 3(2.64,1.039)

R5 2(2.74,1.245) 3(2.87,1.178) 3(2.86,1.237) 2(2.46,1.032)

R6 2(2.48,1.301) 3(2.70,1.176) 3(2.61,1.099) 3(2.39,1.035)

R7 3(3.11,0.871) 4(3.24,1.118) 4(3.17,1.092) 4(2.57.1.218)

*Mode (Mean, Standard Deviation)

In this study, the modified risk calculation is,

!�!"!��# ��4

where the variables included Frequency of Activity(F), Likelihood of Occurrence(L),

Severity of Harm(S) (The value of S shall be taken as the greatest value of People, Asset,

Environment, and Image), and the Existing control measure (ECM) factor. The modified risk

matrix will be categorized into five categories, which are Trivial (I) (RR=1-9), Acceptable (II)


Amrin


(RR=10-20), Moderate (III) (RR=21-45), Significant (IV) (RR=46-85) and Unacceptable (V)

(≥86), as per Table 1. The mode of each category was used to calculate the risk as shown in

Table 9.

Table 9 Mode, Mean and Standard Deviation for Risk Factor

Risk Code Frequency Likelihood Severity Existing Control

Measure Risk Calculation

R1 4 4 4 0.6 38.4

R2 4 4 4 0.6 38.4

R3 5 4 4 0.6 48

R4 4 3 3 0.6 21.6

R5 2 3 3 0 5.4

R6 2 3 3 1 10.8

R7 3 4 4 1 48

The risk calculated was then categorized into risk rating ranks, which was based on the

risk matrix calculated (Table 10). Based on the risk calculated, it was found that there were

two risk factors in the significant category, which were human carelessness and omissions

(R3) and worker’s individual experience (R7). Meanwhile, operators’ mistakes and faults on

operations (R1), communication misunderstandings (R2), and execution of the job safety

rules and regulations (R4) were in the moderate category. Worker’s Individual workload and

stress (R5), and worker’s individual discipline the (R6) were in the acceptable category. For

significant risks, it is recommended that efforts shall be made to reduce the risk. Risk

reduction measures should be implemented within a defined period of time (6 months).

Meanwhile, for risks in the moderate category, it is recommended that efforts may be made to

reduce the risk. Risk reduction measures should be implemented within a defined period of

time (12 months). For acceptable risks, no additional controls are required. However,

monitoring is required in ensuring existing controls are maintained.

Table 10 Risk Category

Code Sub-Factor Risk

Rating Risk Category

R1 Operators’ mistakes and faults on operations 38.4 Moderate

R2 Communication misunderstandings 38.4 Moderate

R3 Human carelessness and omissions 48 Significant

R4 Execution of the job safety rules and regulations 21.6 Moderate

R5 Worker’s individual workload and stress 5.4 Acceptable

R6 Worker’s individual discipline 10.8 Acceptable

R7 Worker’s individual experience 48 Significant

In this study, the author suggested the scale to measure existing control measures to help

organizations in proposing and implementing the risk control. Based on the new risk

calculation suggested, the organizations should be able to do better decision making and

prioritize the risks based on the risk category suggested. If we compare the risk calculation

based on the standard and classic 5X5 risk calculation as below,

�� (��) = ��ℎ�� (�� ) � �� (��) (5)

The risk shall be calculated as below (Table 11):



Table 11 Risk Calculation based on Classic Risk matrix

Risk Code Likelihood Severity Risk Calculation

R1 4 4 16

R2 4 4 16

R3 4 4 16

R4 3 3 9

R5 3 3 9

R6 3 3 9

R7 4 4 16

By using risk classic calculation method, the risk was categorized as per risk value (RV)

as per risk matrix above. The green box (RV = 1- 4) shows the low-risk level, while the

yellow box (RV = 6-10) shows the medium risk level and the red box (RV = 11-25) indicates

a high degree of risk, as shown in Table 12.

Table 12 Risk matrix [17]

Likelihood(L)

Unexpected Rarely Expected Rarely Most Likely

Sev

erit

y(S

)

1 2 3 4 5

Disaster 1 1 2 3 4 5

Fatality 2 2 4 6 8 10

Severe 3 3 6 9 12 15

Minor 4 4 8 12 16 20

Negligible 5 5 10 15 20 25

Thus, the risk category summarized as Table 13. From risk calculated, it indicates that R1,

R2, R3 and R7 are in high risk level. Meanwhile, R4, R5 and R6 are in medium risk level.

The results are more general and might be difficult for organizations to detail out and

prioritize which risk should be taken care of first.

Table 13 Risk Category

Risk Code Risk Calculation Risk Category

R1 16 High

R2 16 High

R3 16 High

R4 9 Medium

R5 9 Medium

R6 9 Medium

R7 16 High

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Risk analysis or risk assessment, which are part of a risk management system and other

elements of a risk management system involve a systematic but laborious scientific process

that is usually smoothed by frameworks or techniques. In this paper, seven human risk factors

were analysed using the modified risk calculation by introducing Frequency and existing

control measures in the calculation. Based on the risk calculated, it was found that there were

two risk factors in the significant category, which were human carelessness and omissions

(R3) and worker’s individual experience (R7). Meanwhile, operators’ mistakes and faults on


Amrin


operations (R1), communication misunderstandings (R2), and execution of the job safety

rules and regulations (R4) were in the moderate category. Worker’s individual workload and

stress (R5) and worker’s individual discipline (R6) were in the acceptable category. The new

risk matrix was also introduced where the recommendation risk control shall be made based

on its category. This study was made based on qualitative analysis. It is recommended that

further studies on validation through quantitative analysis be made. It is also recommended

that other risk factors such as those involving machinery, management, weather, and other

variables be made. This study was a case study conducted in one of seven major ports in

Malaysia. It is recommended that future studies be made on a larger scale by covering all the

seven major ports in Malaysia so that the reliability and the validity of data will be more

accurate and valid.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express the utmost appreciation and gratitude to the Ministry of Higher

Education, MyBrain15 MyPhD Ministry of Higher Education, UTM Razak School of

Engineering & Advanced Technology, and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for all the

support given in making the study a success. VOTE UTM: Q.K130000.2540.17H87.

REFERENCES

[1] Ng, C. A., Berg, M. B., Jude, D. J., Janssen, J., Charlebois, P.M., Amaral, L.A. N., & Ray,

K.A. (2008). Chemical amplification in an invaded food web: seasonality and ontogeny in

a high-biomass, low-diversity ecosystem. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27

(10), 2186–2195.

[2] Chlomoudis, C. I., Kostagiolas, P. A., Pallis, L. P. (2012). An analysis for formal risk and

safety assessments for ports: Empirical evidence from container terminals in Greece,

Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering, 2(1), 45-54.

[3] Gnoni, M. G., & Saleh, J. H. (2013). Near-miss management systems and observability-

in-depth: Handling safety incidents and accident precursors in light of safety principles.

Safety Science, 91,154–167.

[4] Dos Santos, D. R., Marinho, R., Schmitt, G. R, Westphall, C. M., & Westphall, C. B.

(2016). A framework and risk assessment approaches for risk-based access control in the

cloud. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 74, 86–97.

[5] Kouabenan, D.R., Ngueutsa, R., & Mbaye, S. (2015). Safety climate, perceived risk, and

involvement in safety management. Safety Science, 77, 72–79.

[6] Leveson, N. (2015). A systems approach to risk management through leading safety

indicators. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 136, 17–34.

[7] Landucci, G., Argenti, F., Spadoni, G., & Cozzani, V. (2016). Domino effect frequency

assessment: The role of safety barriers. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process

Industries, 1, 1-12.

[8] Huda, N. Z., Norudin, M., & Zalinawati, A. (2016). Workplace Accident in Malaysia:

Most Common Causes and Solutions. Business and Management Review, 2(5), 75-88.

[9] Joo, S. H., Hong, S. C., & Kim, N. J. (2016). Comparative study on Korean and

international chemical control regulations of the physical hazards of sodium cyanide and

hydrogen cyanide. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 44, 143-149.

[10] Sholihah, O., Hanafi, A.S., Bachri, A. A., & Fauzi, R. (2016). Ergonomics Awareness as

Efforts to increase knowledge and prevention of musculoskeletal disorders on fishermen.

Aquatic Procedia, 7, 187-194.

[11] Nakayama, J., Sakamoto, J., Kasai, N., Shibutani, T., & Miyake, A. (2016). Preliminary

hazard identification for qualitative risk assessment on a hybrid gasoline-hydrogen fueling



station with an on-site hydrogen production system using organic chemical hydride.

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(18), 7518-7525.

[12] Rodríguez, M., Díaz, I. (2016). A systematic and integral hazards analysis technique

applied to the process industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 43,

721-729.

[13] Fabiano B., Curro F., Reverberi A.P. and Pastorino R. (2010). Port safety and the

container revolution: A statistical study on human factor and occupational accidents over

the long period. Safety Science, 48, 980–990.

[14] Mullen, J., Kevin, E. K., & Teed, M. (2017). Employer safety obligations,

transformational leadership and their interactive effects on employee safety performance.

Safety Science, 91, 405–412.

[15] Amyotte, P. R., Berger, S., Edwards, D. W., Gupta, J.P., Hendershot, D. C., Khan, F.,

Mannan, M.S & Willey, R. J. (2016). Why major accidents are still occurring. Current

Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 14, 1–8.

[16] Abrahamsen, E. B., Asche, F., & Milazzo, M. F. (2013). An evaluation of the effects on

safety of using safety standards in major hazard industries. Safety Science, 59, 173–178.

[17] Jusoh, Z., Shattar, N.A., Majid, M. A. B., & Adenana, N. D. (2016). Determination of

Hazard in Captive Hotel Laundry Using Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment Matrix.

Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 222, 915-922.

[18] Lu, C.S & Kuo, S.Y. (2016). The effect of job stress on self-reported safety behaviour in

container terminal operations: The moderating role of emotional intelligence.

Transportation Research Part F, 37, 10–26.

[19] Constantinos, I., Chlomoudis, P. L., & Pallis, E. S. T. (2016). Port risk assessment

methodology for human accidents in container terminals: evidence from the port of

piraeus – Greece. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 6(4), 368 –

377.

[20] Bouzaher, A., Bahmed, L., Furusho, M., & Fedila, M. (2015). Designing a Risk

Assessment Matrix for Algerian Port Operations. Journal of Failure Analysis and

Prevention, 15. 10.1007/s11668-015-0019-4.

[21] Ding, J.F. and Tseng, W.J. (2013). Fuzzy risk assessment on safety operations for

exclusive container terminals at Kaohsiung port in Taiwan. Proceeding IMechE, Part M:

Journal Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 227(2), 208–220.

[22] Veselinovic, S. P., Hedge, A., & Veselinovic, M. (2016). An ergonomic expert system for

risk assessment of work-related musculo-skeletal disorders. International Journal of

Industrial Ergonomics, 53, 130-139.

[23] Hsu, W. K. K., Hui, S H., Huang, S., & Tseng, W. J. (2016). Evaluating the risk of

operational safety for dangerous goods in airfreights – A revised risk matrix based on

fuzzy AHP. Transportation Research Part D, 48, 235–247.

[24] New Zealand Code 2016. New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code (the Code).

Second edition revised 2016 ISBN 978-0-478-44790-3.

[25] International standard organization. Occupational Health and Safety Management System

(OHSAS 18001) 2015.

[26] Department of Occupational Safety and Health Malaysia. Guidelines of Hazard

Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (2005).

[27] Guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process

international maritime organization 2002, Available from: International Maritime

organization.

[28] New Zealand Code 2016. New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code (the Code).

Second edition revised 2016 ISBN 978-0-478-44790-3.


Amrin


[29] Ireland Code of practice 2016. Code of Practice, titled “Code of Practice for Health and

Safety in Dock Work”. Available from: Ireland Health and safety.

[30] Pinto, R. A., Peter. J. F. & Ray, V. (2015). Project Decision Chain. Project Management

Journal, 46. 10.1002/pmj.21517.

[31] Deakin, J., Aitken, M., Robbins, T. and Sahakian, B. J. (2015). Risk taking during

decision-making in normal volunteers changes with age. Journal of the International

Neuropsychological Society, 10 (4), 590-598.

[32] S. Drissi, S. Benhadou and H. Medromi, An Autonomous Risk Assessment Model for

Cloud Computing Based on Multi-agent System before and after the Cloud Adoption.

International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 19–30.

[33] Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi, Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal

Contamination in Baghdad City. International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 236–251.

[34] Norazli Othman, Liaw Lerk Lerk, Shreeshivadasan, Chelliapan, Roslina Mohammad,

Noreen Mohd Ariff and Noor Shawal Nasri, Risk Assessment and Control Measures for

the Printing Ink Production Process, International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 8(10), 2017, pp. 41–55

[35] Samaraj S. Thiyagarajan, PMP, A Perspective of Risk Assessment for Product

Developments in Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Products, International Journal Of

Management (IJM), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 44-50

risk assessment of human risk factors in port …assessment and risk control (hirarc) guidelines...

Documents