Advertisement

An algorithm for performance evaluation of resilience engineering culture based on graph theory and matrix approach

  • Masoud RabbaniEmail author
  • Reza Yazdanparast
  • Mahdi Mobini
Original Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

While strengths can be improved, when weaknesses are not addressed, the desired improvements are not achievable. Determining weaknesses and strengths is much more important when it comes to safety issues in critical industrial units. Oil, gas and petrochemical industry is the main pillar of the economy in Iran. Not only most of the oil, gas and petrochemical infrastructure in Iran are old and worn-out, but also the safety management practices are not adequate. Resilience engineering is a growing concept toward proactive and preventive safety and performance improvement in critical industrial units. This study presents a new algorithm for performance evaluation of resilience engineering culture in critical industrial units. A petrochemical plant is considered as a real-life case study to demonstrate the application of the proposed methodology. The presented algorithm is based on graph theory, statistical methods, and matrix algebra which offer some desirable properties for modeling and solving complex decision-making problems and considers the interactions between factors. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that proposes a performance evaluation algorithm based on graph theory and matrix approach.

Keywords

Performance optimization Resilience engineering Graph theory Matrix approach Statistical methods 

Notes

References

  1. Agrawal S, Singh RK, Murtaza Q (2016) Disposition decisions in reverse logistics: graph theory and matrix approach. J Clean Prod 137:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad SI, Hashim H, Hassim MH (2014) Numerical descriptive inherent safety technique (NuDIST) for inherent safety assessment in petrochemical industry. Process Saf Environ Prot 92:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azadeh A, Ghaderi S, Anvari M, Saberi M (2007) Performance assessment of electric power generations using an adaptive neural network algorithm. Energy Policy 35:3155–3166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azadeh A, Salehi V, Arvan M, Dolatkhah M (2014) Assessment of resilience engineering factors in high-risk environments by fuzzy cognitive maps: a petrochemical plant. Saf Sci 68:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azadeh A, Salmanzadeh-Meydani N, Motevali-Haghighi S (2017a) Performance optimization of an aluminum factory in economic crisis by integrated resilience engineering and mathematical programming. Saf Sci 91:335–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azadeh A, Shafiee F, Yazdanparast R, Heydari J, Keshvarparast A (2017b) Optimum integrated design of crude oil supply chain by a unique mixed integer nonlinear programming model. Ind Eng Chem Res 56:5734–5746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azadeh A, Siadatian R, Rezaei-Malek M, Rouhollah F (2017c) Optimization of supplier selection problem by combined customer trust and resilience engineering under uncertainty. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8:1553–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azadeh A, Yazdanparast R, Zadeh SA, Zadeh AE (2017d) Performance optimization of integrated resilience engineering and lean production principles. Expert Syst Appl 84:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Azadeh A, Heydarian D, Nemati K, Yazdanparast R (2018a) Performance optimization of unique resilient human resource management system in a coal mine industry. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 9:1178–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Azadeh A, Salehi V, Kianpour M (2018b) Performance evaluation of rail transportation systems by considering resilience engineering factors: Tehran railway electrification system. Transp Lett 10:12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Battles J, King HB (2010) TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire (T-TPQ) manual Washington. American Institute for Research, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Baykasoglu A (2014) A review and analysis of “graph theoretical-matrix permanent” approach to decision making with example applications. Artif Intell Rev 42:573–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baykasoglu A, Ozbay E, Tolga Gogus M, Oztas A (2009) Contractor selection with multi criteria decision support tools. Int J Ind Syst Eng 4:174–197Google Scholar
  14. Boughaba A, Hassane C, Roukia O (2014) Safety culture assessment in petrochemical industry: a comparative study of two Algerian plants. Saf Health Work 5:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Braunger P, Korunka C, Kubicek B, Frank H, Lueger M (2015) The perspective of safety engineers on safety climate. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 25:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burtscher MJ, Manser T (2012) Team mental models and their potential to improve teamwork and safety: a review and implications for future research in healthcare. Saf Sci 50:1344–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carvalho PV, dos Santos IL, Gomes JO, Borges MR (2008) Micro incident analysis framework to assess safety and resilience in the operation of safe critical systems: a case study in a nuclear power plant. J Loss Prev Process Ind 21:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke I, Flaherty T (2005) Advances in electronic marketing. IGI Global, HersheyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clegg CW (2000) Sociotechnical principles for system design. Appl Ergon 31:463–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costella MF, Saurin TA, de Macedo Guimarães LB (2009) A method for assessing health and safety management systems from the resilience engineering perspective. Saf Sci 47:1056–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Domínguez-García AD, Kassakian JG, Schindall JE, Zinchuk JJ (2008) An integrated methodology for the dynamic performance and reliability evaluation of fault-tolerant systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:1628–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Errico A, Filippone E, Palumbo R, Pascarella D, Gargiulo F (2016) Simulation approach to the resilience engineering assessment of the ATM system in crisis scenarios. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference, p 0424Google Scholar
  23. Frangopol DM, Curley JP (1987) Effects of damage and redundancy on structural reliability. J Struct Eng 113:1533–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glendon AI, Stanton NA (2000) Perspectives on safety culture. Saf Sci 34:193–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goncalves Filho AP, Andrade JCS, de Oliveira Marinho MM (2010) A safety culture maturity model for petrochemical companies in Brazil. Saf Sci 48:615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haimes YY (2009) On the complex definition of risk: a systems-based approach. Risk Anal 29:1647–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentise-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. Harary F, Maybee JS (1985) Graphs and applications: proceedings of the first Colorado symposium on graph theory. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (2007) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Hong H, Xu D (2015) Performance evaluation of logistics firms based on DEA model. Int J Serv Technol Manag 21:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hsu SH, Lee C-C, Wu M-C, Takano K (2008) A cross-cultural study of organizational factors on safety: Japanese vs Taiwanese oil refinery plants. Accid Anal Prev 40:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johansson BJ, Wikberg P, Andersson D (2016) Assessing resilience and agile capability in socio-technical systems. In: Proceedings of the European conference on cognitive ergonomics. ACM, p 30Google Scholar
  33. Jurkat WB, Ryser HJ (1966) Matrix factorizations of determinants and permanents. J Algebra 3:1–27MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Kalungi P, Tanyimboh TT (2003) Redundancy model for water distribution systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 82:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kao CS, Lai WH, Chuang TF, Lee JC (2008) Safety culture factors, group differences, and risk perception in five petrochemical plants. Process Saf Prog 27:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lanjewar PB, Rao R, Kale A (2015) Assessment of alternative fuels for transportation using a hybrid graph theory and analytic hierarchy process method. Fuel 154:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lanjewar P, Rao R, Kale A, Taler J, Ocłoń P (2016) Evaluation and selection of energy technologies using an integrated graph theory and analytic hierarchy process methods. Decis Sci Lett 5:237–348Google Scholar
  38. Ling-Ling F, Yong-Duan S (2010) On fault-tolerant control of dynamic systems with actuator failures and external disturbances. Acta Autom Sin 36:1620–1625MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mearns KJ, Flin R (1999) Assessing the state of organizational safety—culture or climate? Curr Psychol 18:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Minc H (1984) Permanents. vol 6. Cambridge University Press,Google Scholar
  41. Mohaghar A, Kashef M, Khanmohammadi E (2014) A novel technique to solve the supplier selection problems: combination of decision making trial & evaluation laboratory, graph theory and matrix approach methods. Int J Ind Eng 25:103–113Google Scholar
  42. Najjar W, Gaudiot J-L (1990) Network resilience: a measure of network fault tolerance. IEEE Trans Comput 39:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Namian M, Albert A, Zuluaga CM, Jaselskis EJ (2016) Improving hazard-recognition performance and safety training outcomes: integrating strategies for training transfer. J Constr Eng Manag 142:04016048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nejad AD, Gholamnia R, Alibabaee A (2017) A new framework to model and analyze organizational aspect of safety control structure. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8:1008–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nemeth C, Wears R, Woods D, Hollnagel E, Cook R (2008) Minding the gaps: creating resilience in healthcare. Adv Patient Saf New Dir Altern Approaches 3:1–13Google Scholar
  46. Omidvar M, Mazlomi A, MohammadFam I, Rahimi Foroushani A, Nirumand F (2016) Development of a framework for assessing organizational performance based on resilience engineering and using fuzzy AHP method—a case study of petrochemical plant. J Health Saf Work 6:43–58Google Scholar
  47. Parkan C, Wu M-L (2000) Comparison of three modern multicriteria decision-making tools. Int J Syst Sci 31:497–517CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Pęciłło M (2016) The resilience engineering concept in enterprises with and without occupational safety and health management systems. Saf Sci 82:190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Plowman DA, Solansky S, Beck TE, Baker L, Kulkarni M, Travis DV (2007) The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. Leadersh Q 18:341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rasmussen J, Pejtersen AM, Goodstein LP (1994) Cognitive systems engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Serugendo GDM (2009) Robustness and dependability of self-organizing systems - a safety engineering perspective. In: Guerraoui R, Petit F (eds) Stabilization, safety, and security of distributed systems, SSS 2009. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5873. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05118-0_18 Google Scholar
  52. Shannon DM (2000) Using SPSS (R) To Solve Statistical Problems: A Self-Instruction Guide. ERIC,Google Scholar
  53. Shirali GA, Mohammadfam I, Ebrahimipour V (2013) A new method for quantitative assessment of resilience engineering by PCA and NT approach: a case study in a process industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 119:88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shirali GA, Shekari M, Angali K (2016) Quantitative assessment of resilience safety culture using principal components analysis and numerical taxonomy: a case study in a petrochemical plant. J Loss Prev Process Ind 40:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sorensen J (2002) Safety culture: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 76:189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Størseth F, Tinmannsvik R, Øien K (2009) Building safety by resilient organization—a case specific approach. In: ESREL, pp 7–10Google Scholar
  57. Tran HT, Balchanos M, Domerçant JC, Mavris DN (2016) A framework for the quantitative assessment of performance-based system. Resil Reliab Eng Syst Saf 158:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolfram S (1991) Mathematica. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  59. Wreathall J (2006) Properties of resilient organizations: an initial view. In: Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) Resilience engineering concepts and precepts. Ashgate, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  60. Xyrichis A, Ream E (2008) Teamwork: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 61:232–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zarrin M, Azadeh A (2018) Mapping the influences of resilience engineering on health, safety, and environment and ergonomics management system by using Z-number cognitive map. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20766 Google Scholar
  62. Zhong W, Yuan W, Li SX, Huang Z (2011) The performance evaluation of regional R&D investments in China: an application of DEA based on the first official China economic census data. Omega 39:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhou Z, Wang M, Ding H, Ma C, Liu W (2013) Further study of production possibility set and performance evaluation model in supply chain DEA. Ann Oper Res 206:585–592MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations