You are on page 1of 22

Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Axiomatic Design for Lean-oriented Occupational Health and Safety
systems: An application in shipbuilding industry
Ferhat Babur, Emre Cevikcan, M. Bulent Durmusoglu ⇑
Istanbul Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 34367 Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of facilities provided by industrialization and technological developments has led to increase in
Received 25 May 2015 occupational diseases and accidents in workplaces. A sheer success in Occupational Health and Safety
Received in revised form 2 May 2016 (OHS) is possible when safety activities for employees, production and business are considered syn-
Accepted 13 August 2016
chronously. OHS systems, where scientific research oriented technological advances applied, are required
Available online 17 August 2016
to be designed with the aim of preventing OHS related problems and their effects in sustainable manner.
In this study, a systematic approach is proposed for design of Lean-oriented OHS systems by using
Keywords:
Axiomatic Design principles. A holistic roadmap is obtained as the output of the study for the application
Occupational Health and Safety
Axiomatic Design
of OHS system to a production system. The proposed OHS system design is applied to a real life shipyard
Lean system from shipbuilding industry and its feasibility is demonstrated.
Roadmap Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction resulting from factors adverse to health; the placing and mainte-
nance of the worker in an occupational environment adapted to
The number of occupational diseases and accidents has his physiological and psychological capabilities; and, to summarize,
increased in parallel with the improvement in industry. A number the adaptation of work to man and of each man to his job.”
of people died or maimed due to occupational diseases or acci- OHS has been handled in numerous scientific studies in addi-
dents, 98% of which could be prevented (Heinrich, Peterson, & tion to practical applications (Barlas, 2012a; Barlas, 2012b;
Roos, 1980). According to the International Labour Organization Ferjencik, 2011; Shikdar & Sawaqed, 2003). The major part of
(ILO), more than 337 million accidents occur on the job annually OHS literature is related with ergonomics (Bentley & Tappin,
and result in (together with occupational diseases) more than 2.3 2010; Neumann, Marianne, & Jorgen, 2009; Shikdar & Sawaqed,
million deaths annually (Url-1). Loss of labour about OHS consti- 2004), psychology (Quick & Tetrick, 2003; Warr, 2002) and work
tutes 4% of the total gross national product all over the world environment (McClain, 1995). Meanwhile, some OHS approaches
(ILO, 2011). In addition, for every 300 near-miss events without addressing physical hazards such as noise, vibration and dust
injury, there are 29 minor to moderate injuries and 1 major injury (Aluclu, Dalgic, & Toprak, 2008; Hermanus, 2007), chemical haz-
or fatality (Heinrich, 1931; Taylor, Easter, & Hegney, 2004). That ards such as heavy metals and gases (Garrigou, Baldi, & Le Frious,
being the case, including multi-disciplinary and preventive activi- 2011) and biological hazards such as bacteria and viruses
ties for occupational diseases and accidents, OHS is of great impor- (Piccoli, Assini, & Gambaro, 2001) are proposed. In addition, caus-
tance in industrial environments (Alli, 2008). ing occupational accidents disorderliness in working environment
Both World Health Organization (WHO) and ILO define OHS as can be regarded as a hazard in terms of OHS. Therefore, 5S, which
follows (ILO Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety): maintains order and cleanliness in shop floor, constitutes a basis
‘‘Occupational health should aim at: the promotion and mainte- for continuous improvement as well as OHS activities (Hirano,
nance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social 2009).
well-being of workers in all occupations; the prevention amongst Risk analysis and evaluation is a critical process which includes
workers of departures from health caused by their working condi- (i) the determination of hazards inside and outside the workplace,
tions; the protection of workers in their employment from risks (ii) the determination of their potential harms to employees, work-
place and environment, (iii) the assessment of risk and (iv) taking
pro-active measures against them. Therefore, risk concept has been
⇑ Corresponding author. handled in many scientific studies (Dekker, Cilliers, & Hofmeyr,
E-mail addresses: ferhatbabur@gmail.com (F. Babur), cevikcan@itu.edu.tr 2011; Hopkins, 2011; Maiti, 2010). Moreover, some sector oriented
(E. Cevikcan), durmusoglum@itu.edu.tr (M.B. Durmusoglu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.08.007
0360-8352/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

F. Babur et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 89

studies on healthcare (Cagliano, Grimaldi, & Rafele, 2011), electric discusses the importance of regular employee training for
industry (Liggett, 2009), wood processing industry (Holcroft & employee awareness and the elements of a safety and health pro-
Punnett, 2009) and maintenance processes (Lind, Nenonen, & gram that can be used by employers. In the booklet, it is stated that
Kivisto-Rahnasto, 2008) were conducted. hazards not covered by shipyard industry standards may be cov-
On the other hand, a systematic design domain cannot be ered by General Industry standards contained in 29 CFR Part
obtained without scientific rules. Systematic approach has a facil- 1910. In parallel, OSHA proposed some shipyard industry special-
itating effect on the stages of understanding, learning, developing ized guides for particular standards in related topics such as safe
and applying product and service design. lighting practices (OSHA, 2013b), ventilation (OSHA, 2013c), hot
Axiomatic Design (AD) theory, proposed by Suh (1990), exposes work on hollow or enclosed structures (OSHA, 2013d), working
the objective of the design evidently by determining FRs and con- alone in shipyards (OSHA, 2013e), fire watch safety during hot
straints during design process. In addition, AD involves a system- work (OSHA, 2012a), eye protection against radiant energy
atic flow and decomposition process. (OSHA, 2012b), aerial lift fall protection over water (OSHA, 2011),
Two axioms, namely independence axiom and information safe work practices for shipbreaking (OSHA, 2010). In addition,
axiom are used in AD (Suh, 1990). Independence axiom OSHA industry guide (Savage, 2014) is designed to assist employ-
(Durmusoglu & Kulak, 2008; Kim, Suh, & Kim, 1991; Kulak, ers in shipyard employment in complying with standards that have
Durmusoglu, & Tufekci, 2005) aims at determining the roadmap special requirements such as written programs, inspections, com-
which should be followed during the design process. Information petent persons, training and recordkeeping requirements that are
axiom (Kulak, Durmusoglu, & Kahraman, 2005) has the goal of applicable to shipyard employment.
determining the most appropriate design alternative with respect Furthermore, some other institutions such as ILO (1974), Oil
to FRs. Kulak, Cebi, and Kahraman (2010) provide a comprehensive Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) (2003),
review on AD applications. Workplace Safety and Health Council (2009), Washington State
Many AD applications in designing product (Cha & Cho, 1999; Legislature (2014) and Ingalls Shipbuilding (2015) also attempt
Lee, Seo, & Park, 2003), manufacturing system (Cochran, to make standards and guidance studies for OHS in shipyard
Eversheim, Kubin, & Sesterhenn, 2000; Nakao, Kobayashi, industry.
Hamada, Totsuka, & Yamada, 2007; Suh, Cochran, & Paulo, 1998), The consideration of a large body of literature has revealed that
software (Yi & Park, 2005) and decision support system (Coelho there is no published study which includes the following features
& Mourão, 2007; Jang, Yang, Song, Yeun, & Do, 2002) exist in the synchronously.
literature. Since both lean thinking (Womack & Jones, 1996) and
manufacturing support AD start with ‘‘What we want to achieve  providing AD for OHS system under lean production principles,
in terms of customer point of view?” logic, it will be meaningful  integrating Standard Risk Model with Kinney Risk Assessment
to give some information about lean manufacturing. Method for OHS system,
Lean manufacturing is originated by Toyota Production System  including an application-based feasibility analysis in a real life
and classifies all activities as either value-adding or non-value- shipyard system.
adding (i.e. wastes). Value-adding activities transform materials
and information into products and services that customers want. In this context, this paper has the originality of developing a
However, non-value-adding activities do not directly contribute road map by using the independence axiom, the first axiom of
to create products and services despite they consume resources. AD, for the design of lean OHS system effectively to address this
Companies applying lean manufacturing tools ultimately want to research gap. The road map provides a decomposition of broad
meet customer demands with fewer resources and less waste. Suc- design objectives into smaller supporting objectives that are then
ceeding a cultural as well as people oriented transformation, lean linked to specific design parameters (DPs) for framing OHS sys-
manufacturers use many process-improvement tools to achieve tems. In addition, this study is believed to add value to industry
and sustain effectiveness, flexibility, and profitability (Baysan, in terms of effectively raising control of OHS activities, since it indi-
Cevikcan, & Satoglu, 2013). cates a detailed application of some related lean tools (5S, visual
The expected results of lean manufacturing, namely shorter production performance tracking and task assignment boards, Kai-
lead times, reduction in inventory, space requirement and machine zen, A3 thinking, Yokoten, Oobeya (Hoppmann, Rebentisch,
breakdowns as well as improvement in delivery performance and Dombrowski, & ve Zahn, 2011) and work standardization) to OHS
cost management provide competitive advantage to lean compa- system.
nies (Monden, 1993). Moreover, health and safety hazards can The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: The basic
actually be decreased by lean manufacturing because it mixes pre- concept of AD principles is introduced in Section 2. An AD oriented
viously separated exposures and this affects additively and cumu- methodology for OHS system design is presented in Section 3. The
latively (Anvari, Zulkifli, & Yusuff, 2011; Gnoni, Andriulo, Maggio, & application of the proposed methodology is given in Section 4.
Nardone, 2013). The intensification of work leads both to higher Conclusions are provided in Section 5.
plant productivity and to greater adverse ergonomic and stress-
related health effects for workers. Some attempts have been made
to address the relationship between Lean Manufacturing and OHS 2. Axiomatic Design
(Anvari et al., 2011; Brown and O’Rourke, 2007; Gnoni et al., 2013;
Longoni, Pagell, Johnston, & Veltri, 2013). However, these studies Design is an interplay between what we want to achieve and
do not demonstrate how to apply lean tools to an OHS System in how we want to achieve it (Suh, 2001). Often designers believe that
detail. the precise description of ‘‘what we want to achieve” is a difficult
Since the proposed OHS system design is applied to a real life task. Many designers deliberately leave their design goals implicit
shipyard, it will be meaningful to mention OHS related standards rather than explicit and then start working on design solutions
and guidance studies for shipbuilding industry. For example, in a even before they have clearly defined their goals. They measure
recent study, Occupational Safety and Health Administration their success by comparing their design with the implicit design
(OSHA) provides a shipyard industry specific booklet with the code goals that they had in mind, which may or may not be what the
of OSHA 2268-10R (OSHA, 2014) including OHS standards for customer would want. They spend a great deal of time improving
shipyard employment (Title 29 CFR Part 1915). The booklet also and iterating the design until the design solution and ‘‘what they

Iterations between ‘‘what” and ‘‘how” are necessary. a change in any DP may influ- the design with the smallest information content among those sat. (1): to the physical domain to find DP1. Then. They are stated as follows: sified into three categories as defined below (Durmusoglu & Kulak. which is a time-consuming process at best. 1. Babur et al. ture. Durmusoglu & Kulak. So each FR can be satisfied by simply considering the corre- sponding DP. stage. The most important concept in AD is the existence of the design The structure of [A] matrix defines the type of design being con- axioms (Suh. the designer must specifically state the design goals in {FR} is the FR vector terms of ‘‘what we want to achieve” and then begin designing {DP} is the DP vector and the process. 2001). 1996). DP2 and DP3 by conceptualiz. FR2 and FR3 at the next The coupled design matrix of Fig. the [A] matrix has throughout the design process. Uncoupled Design (most preferred): In this design. The second axiom is not ciples. Coupled design leads to complex struc- goes to the ‘‘how” domain. 8 9 2 3 8 9 Mathematically. design is eliminated by converting it to decoupled from coupled.The Independence Axiom: Maintain the independence of FRs. However. In general each entry aij of A relates the ith FR to the jth DP. DPs. Coupled design results in more repetitive tasks and/or inefficient the physical domain is addressed to conceptualize a design and design structure. Therefore. [A] matrix is clas- Information Axiom. 2 between the corresponding FR–DP pair. are chosen to satisfy the specified FRs Coupled Design (undesirable): In this design. which This design appears most frequently in real life. designer starts out in the ‘‘what” domain and to interactions between FRs. Zigzagging to decompose FRs and DPs. 2(a) has the following form level that collectively satisfies the highest level FR. we try to avoid coupled design as much as possible.90 F.The Information Axiom: Minimize the information is a diagonal matrix indicating the independence of FR-DP pairs. The information axiom states that no special structure. In order to satisfy the independence axiom. To be efficient and to generate the design that meets the perceived needs. The first design axiom is known as the Inde. sponding [A] matrix is triangular. functional domain is focused to create FR1. The decomposition 6 7 process is preceded layer by layer until the design reaches the final FR2 ¼ 4 X X 5  DP2 ð2Þ > : > . ence all FRs simultaneously. whereas and the second one is known as the should be an uncoupled or a decoupled design. The arrow represents a strong relationship The decoupled design of the coupled design is shown in Fig. The mathematical equation between FRs and DPs has the fol- At each level of decomposition. the independence of the lowing form: FRs must be maintained using the design matrix (DM). In designing systems with AD prin- isfying the first axiom is the best design. fFRg ¼ ½AfDPg ð1Þ FR1 X X DP1 FR DP FR1 FR2 FR3 DP1 DP2 DP3 FR21 FR22 DP21 DP22 Functional Domain Physical Domain Fig. 8 9 2 3 8 9 > < FR1 > = X X > < DP1 > = ing a design at this level which satisfies FRs. Here. The realization of uncoupled designs is rarely possible in the archies is an important part of AD (Suh. the corre- must always be maintained. The independence axiom states that the independence of FRs Decoupled Design (acceptable design): In this design. Then. are the key variables. where FRs are defined as the mini. 1. [A] matrix pendence Axiom. content. Zigzagging to decompose FRs and DPs and to create their hier. creating a design that can be fully implemented. coupled designs are mostly realized due between domains. As shown in Fig. 2008). [A] is the design matrix that characterizes the design but each iteration loop must redefine the ‘‘what” clearly (Suh. again. the negative effect of coupled determine its corresponding DP at the highest level. > : > . sidered. the FRs can be mum set of independent requirements that characterizes the listed as FR1 through FRn by only considering the first n DPs. the relationship between the FRs and DPs are > < FR3 > = X > < DP3 > = expressed as 6 7 FR2 ¼ 4 X X 5  DP2 ð3Þ > : > . From an FR in the functional domain. (b). 2. design goals (Suh. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 had in mind” converge. This process FR3 X DP3 is illustrated in Fig. 1990. > : > . the [A] matrix Axiom 2. considered in this paper. . 2008): Axiom 1. we move based on Eq. In order to zigzag design problem. 1990). Therefore.

the symbol X represents a strong relationship between the prevention system corresponding FR-DP pair. interre- lations among FRs). The following DP is determined principles. Notice that this matrix is triangular and all upper triangular ele. is regarded as embedding ‘‘Plan-Do-Check-Adjust” approach into eral FRs which are satisfied at the same time (Suh. Axiomatic Design for OHS system We move from the functional domain to the physical domain to satisfy the eleven next-level FRs defined above. ‘‘determining risk numerically” (predecessor FR) and ‘‘pre. Algorithmic approach can be effective if the design has to satisfy only one FR. 3). 2. In the matrix DP = Occupational diseases and accidents determination and below. FR10 = Decrease deviation from OHS targets ments are equal to zero. 3). DP9 = Protective systems applied on employees tem design. domain. DP10 = OHS control system analogy. this design would be a cou.e. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 91 FR1 FR2 FR3 FR3 FR2 FR1 DP1 DP2 DP3 DP3 DP2 DP1 (a) The coupled design (b) The decoupled design Fig. For example. (4). In addition. If the DM matrix is uncou- selected through a mapping process between the functional pled or decoupled. solutions) in an integrated way (i. axiomatic approach is Note that. The design given in Eq. are stated after the FR–DP sets are defined. The design equation and the DM corresponding to the to satisfy the FR provided above: FR–DP sets are defined in Eq. Conversion from the coupled design to the decoupled design. the main strategy the most effective way of representing system architecture of sev. sub-goals) and the correspond to the FRs listed above: corresponding DPs (i. In this study. Therefore. F. DP2 = 5S procedure venting plant and equipment sourced hazards in risky locations” DP3 = Lean management system design (successor FR) have a precedence relationship which can be real. 2 3 2 3 2 3 FR1 X DP1 Since the DPs proposed for satisfying those FRs defined in the 6 FR2 7 6 X 7 6 DP2 7 6 7 6 X 7 6 7 steps above cannot be implemented without further clarification. Otherwise. DP4 = Member election and training procedure for OHS ized by means of ‘‘risk assessment system”.e. risk and continuous improvement (Fig. DP8 = Hazard prevention system As for the method aspect. the following is selected as the highest FR: Such a classification is useful for the assignment of OHS tasks to staff throughout the application of the developed FR = Make a proper environment for OHS methodology. design. excessive (inadequate) effort could be focused DP7 = Risk measurement system on locations with low (high) risk for hazard prevention. aforementioned The first step in designing OHS system is to define the FRs of the functional requirements can be classified into the management system at the highest level of its hierarchy in the functional of human resource. experimentally based prescription. 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR3 7 6 X X X 7 6 DP3 7 the following next-level FRs are defined for decomposing the FR 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR4 7 6 X 7 6 DP4 7 determined above by returning to the functional domain (Fig.e. from the organizational management viewpoint. 6 7 6 X X X 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR5 7 6 X X X X X 7 6 DP5 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 FR1 = Provide the participation of top management 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR6 7 ¼ 6 X X X X X 7  6 DP6 7 FR2 = Create an orderly and clean working environment 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR7 7 6 X X X X X X 7 6 DP7 7 FR3 = Plan to change the habits and behaviours of employees 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 FR4 = Generate OHS committee 6 FR8 7 6 X X X X X X 7 6 DP8 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 FR5 = Establish the organization of OHS unit 6 FR9 7 6 X X X X X X X 7 6 DP9 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 FR6 = Determine critical control points with hazards 4 FR10 5 4 X X X X X X 5 4 DP10 5 FR7 = Determine risk numerically FR11 X X X X X X X X DP11 FR 8 = Prevent plant and equipment sourced hazards in risky ð4Þ locations FR9 = Decrease risk if risky cases still exist . in the proposed OHS system DP1 = Top management persuading procedure design. OHS. (4) is a decoupled design and satisfies independence axiom. 3. the first level of hierarchy is grouped into four fore. For the DP6 = Data gathering procedure and process analysis previous example. On the other hand. There. there are two ways to deal with sys. etc. 2001). Babur et al. while building the system design. AD is employed in this study for a complete OHS system main modules aforementioned as shown in Fig. The relationships between the FR and DP elements should be DPs. FR11 = Set new targets 3. it satisfies the independence axiom of the AD domain and the physical domain. DP5 = Personnel election procedure for OHS unit pled design which leads to an inefficient design structure. which satisfy the FRs established in the previous step. The following DPs The OHS system design has several FRs (i.) and axiomatic DP11 = Continuous improvement procedure approach. This system is regarded committee as the DP of predecessor FR. namely algorithmic approach (pattern recognition.

. After determining relationships among FRs and DPs. penal acuse and tort litigation may be commenced for these FR24 = Determine working rules people. Decomposition of FRs and DPs. for OHS and maintenance dent. top management should support OHS activities to avoid from the aforementioned problems. This approach can be regarded as one of the most are removed from the focused systems by red tag procedure (FR21- important milestones towards the development of a production DP21) so that a working environment is obtained for ‘‘Set in order” system since tidy and clean environments (i.e. orderly and safe manner to enhance produc- tivity and to ensure the introduction of Lean Production (Womack In ‘‘Sort” stage of 5S (i. There. FR1. DP23 = Cleaning procedure successful OHS case studies.) should be empha. DP22 = ‘‘Set in order” procedure tance of OHS (DP1) so as to satisfy FR1. DP21 = Red tag procedure cesses (FR1). workers (with their family). Romero. Babur et al. The importance of OHS. The design matrix for the above set of FRs and DPs are 2015). tion order and cleanliness as a part of business principles.e. the first stage of 5S). tional accident. unnecessary items & Jones. employers and the national economy suffer. FR21 X DP21 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR22 7 6 X X 7 6 DP22 7 FR 2 = Create a clean and orderly working environment and 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR23 7 ¼ 6 X X X 7  6 DP23 7 ð5Þ maintain it 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 4 FR24 5 4 X X X X 5 4 DP24 5 5S is a systematic and methodical approach for organizing FR25 X X X X X DP25 workplace in a clean. & Espinosa. Jimenez. In this context. 3. 2015). 5S should be FR11 are decomposed by returning to functional domain from applied so as to prevent occupational diseases and accidents the physical domain and determining corresponding DPs. etc. a strong relationship between 5S and OHS exists. awarding meetings and trainings but also integrate OHS with business pro. (Hirano. Top Corresponding DPs (DP5x) are listed as follows: managers should not only attend the OHS committee.. 1996). Many per- suasive theories exist in the relevant literature (Daiton & Zelley. The adoption needs the development of top management 2 3 2 3 2 3 persuading procedure for OHS. occupational diseases and accidents should be prevented as FR22 = Generate an economical working environment much as possible. the second and third stages of 5S). / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 FR Make a proper environment for Occupational Health and Safety DP Occupational diseases and accidents determination and prevention system HRM RM HRM HRM HRM RM RM RM RM CIM CIM FR2 FR3 FR8 FR1 FR5 FR6 FR9 Create an orderly Plan to change the FR4 FR7 Prevent plant and FR10 Provide the Establish the Determine critical Decrease risk if FR11 and clean working habits and Generate OHS Determine risk equipment sourced Decrease deviation participation of top organization of control points with risky cases still Set new targets environment and behaviours of committee numerically hazards in risky from OHS targets management OHS unit hazards exist sustain it employees locations DP4 DP1 DP5 DP6 DP9 DP11 DP3 Member election DP7 DP8 DP10 Top management DP2 Personnel election Data gathering Protective systems Continuous Lean management and training Risk assessment Hazard prevention OHS control persuading 5S procedure procedure for OHS procedure and applied on improvement system design procedure for OHS system system system procedure unit process analysis employees procedure committee PLAN DO CHECK ADJUST Abbreviations HRM: Human Resources Management RM: Risk Management CIM: Continuous Improvement Management Fig. In ‘‘Set in .92 F. In other words. Social Security Institution may require all FR25 = Maintain this working environment via the considera- expense (with its interest) made for the observation of occupa. provide the realization of problems. Dominguez. Top managers should be persuaded about the impor. FR21 = Remove unnecessary physical items fore. risks.e. In addition. achievements provided by OHS DP24 = Standardization procedure (reduction in visible and hidden costs. FR1 = Provide the participation of top management FR2 and DP2 (5S procedure) are evaluated and decomposed as follows. the output of 5S) and ‘‘Clean” stages (i. When occupational disease and accident occur. .. DP25 = Business discipline sized within top management persuading procedure. 1995. Moreover. On the condition that employer and/or the proxy FR23 = Generate a working environment which is appropriate is defective for the occurrence of occupational disease and acci.

means of preventing the sources of waste (non-value added activ. an economical working environment is obtained by (c) Occupational physician. 2010). critical problem to be addressed in the design of OHS system  Effective communication techniques. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 93 Order” stage. The last stage of 5S. The fourth stage of 5S is related with stan. Make the problems visible means that they are half the solutions. Shannon. In order to change the habits and behaviours of employ. in other words the problems. The problems defined here are certificates etc. This managerial participation by OHS committee characterizes ees. In this context. Employer assures that form in 5S applications since changing entrenched behaviours each member of OHS committee is trained about the following can be difficult. 2010). discussed in a study by Brun and Loiselle (2002). a business discipline which does not distress people (Shook. Nurse or medical Applying first aid in accidents officer Assisting occupational physician sidered for the constitution of OHS committee (FR4). Members of Statistician or Preparing and evaluating database for occupational OHS committee should include the following. (f) Civil defence expert (if exists). & Lohfeld. In (e) Production Manager. Smith. open voting given adequate attendance. the deviations to the actual practices from the standards. (a) Employer’s substitute. ‘‘Shine” stage.) matching with related tasks. tenance is provided by a cleaning procedure (FR23-DP23). risk factors       Proposing and applying solutions for OHS problems FR31 X DP31 ¼  ð6Þ Occupational Performing preventive medical activities FR32 X X DP32 physician Making observations as well as suggestions about industrial hygiene and occupational diseases FR 4 = Constitute OHS committee Member selection and training procedure (DP4) should be con. (d) A person from human resources or administrative affairs ity) such as transportation and motion activities. the dure (DP5) should be adopted for the establishment of OHS unit next stage is to build the visual control system design (DP32) in order with respect to professional qualifications (experience. Members (f) and (g) are appointed by procedures (FR25-DP25). this departments. (d) and (e) are appointed by employer or can be regarded as making a habit of properly maintaining correct employer’s representative. It will be dis- cussed in detail at the shipyard application section of this paper. Babur et al. In addition. specialist insurance etc. cleaning activities should be performed to maintain appropriate (h) Foremen or masters on production processes/areas. activ. studies related to standardization in all safer workplaces (Geldart. required to make the problems visible (FR32). DP31 = Standardization in all production processes and activi- The Occupation of Task(s) ties of leaders Staff DP32 = Visual control system design OHS specialist Indicating physical. are who have different roles and tasks in a multidisciplinary manner. Having an importance for the success of OHS system. production processes are required to complete. execution rules about 5S are stated in this stage. USA) Observing and improving task-worker assignments . work accident. Erroneous habits and behaviours of employees about OHS is a  Principles of industrial hygiene. chemical and biological risk factors The design matrix for the above set of FRs and DPs is given in Making or demanding required measurements for (6). F. industrial engineer diseases and accidents Human resources Editing OHS issues (training. In addition FR 6 = Determine hazardous critical control points in the visualizations are constant reinforcements for the team and workplace group leaders to focus on their processes (Mann. unsafe behaviours and conditions will roles of staff in OHS unit (safety practitioners) were analyzed and immediately begin to be noticed as problems. It is often the most critical stage to per. employees about OHS  National legislation and standards about OHS. at the first stage. A selection proce- After the stabilization and standardization of the processes. Members (b).) in personnel files Physiotherapist (in Making anthropometric measurements and analysis (b) OHS expert.  Risk Analysis and Evaluation. dardization (FR24-DP24).  Workplace-specific risks. the strategy should be to change people’s  Emergency measures. First of FR31 = Being aware of the problems FR32 = Make the problems visible The corresponding DPs are stated as follows: Table 1 Staff in OHS unit and related tasks. FR 5 = Establish OHS unit dardization at the activities of team and group leaders who provide integration between management and workers. Then production control system has become the standard with the help of the stan. Serving OHS directly. lection procedure and process analysis (DP6) is proposed for the determination of hazardous critical control points (FR6). stage eliminates physical stresses damaging OHS (FR22-DP22). working conditions. subjects: FR3: Plan to change erroneous habits and behaviours of  Mission and authority of the committee. a data col- The decomposition of FR3 and DP3 is described below. The seeing at OHS perspective. The formation of OHS unit requires the selection of members ities not following the standards. Periodic (g) Union representative (if exists). immediately being aware (FR31-DP31). (i) Worker representative. In such an environment. 2010). ‘‘Sustain”. process of thought after altering their behaviour with the help of  Occupational diseases. In this way. a working environment suitable for OHS and main. Lean Management System is suggested to achieve this strat- egy (DP3). (FR3). Staff in OHS unit and their related tasks are given in Table 1. (c).

Management Model (Kaliprasad. For comparison. DP62 = Hazard and Occupational Disease Sources Map To satisfy the above-mentioned objectives. to understand the inherent DP61 = Statistical analysis for critical control points progress of risks and to expose effective measures to prevent them. 4. is described eters. namely risk measurement system (DP7). Scales proposed by Fine and Kinney (1976) are used for the total time. standard in-process determination of parameters within DP7X (Table 3). which are used for identifying drivers effectively. tests) using collected information as input ity of an accident or damage occurrence (P). frequency and gravity below and its mathematical representation is presented in (8). simplicity in use and fitness for training and teaching workers uations for OHS and taking preventive measures for them. effects and  Elimination: Removing the hazard from the workplace. measures for work accidents  Substitution: Substituting hazardous materials or machines Job description with less hazardous ones. 5. OHS measures. occurence. How- OHS information about employee and machine. working environment and information. 1995): Skill matrix Attendance The number. information about employee. & Richa. 1991). In other words. driver is defined as something existing in the production environment that FR 7 = Assess risk triggers the risk related parameters (i. 1993). loss risk factors. ering the advantages of two methods motivates the authors to In this context. machine. quality control. causes basic risk concepts in a qualitative manner (Moraru. the drivers are actually the most valuable for OHS. quency (F) and gravity of induced consequence (G) as risk visualization of critical control points (Gummesson. The proposed risk management model is Occupational Disease Sources Map is insufficient for the visualiza. reason(s). 2016. integrate them. . Main ways to control plant and equipment sourced Trainings hazards include (Swuste. or a combination of both.94 F. Critical control points are determined by statistical analysis risk (R) assessment is performed by the consideration of probabil- (histogram. proba- DP71 = Probability and frequency index with respect to risk bilistic. 2012). ity. This method possesses advantages such as accessibil- & Skitmore. & Goelzer. takt time. When OHS related risk events are addressed. Corn. In Kaliprasad (2006). exposure fre- quency and gravity). aspects in the standard risk model. serves as a tool for the visualization of expressional decision support by drivers to assess the risk param- critical control points. 2 3 2 3 2 3 FR71 X DP71 6 7 6 7 6 7 FR61 = Evaluate previous records about OHS 4 FR72 5 ¼ 4 X X 5  4 DP72 5 ð8Þ FR62 = Visualize critical control points FR73 X X X DP73 The corresponding DPs are stated as follows: The objectives of the proposed risk management approach are to visualize each risk threatening OHS. 2012). FR72 = Determine severity of loss machine. reason(s) and shift location(s) of break-downs Collective measures are applied in OHS activities as far as pos- Education level Usage state of equipment sible in OHS activities so as to maximize proactive effect in less Work experience cost and time. exposure at risk fre- (Cameron & Raman. equipment Number of employees Preventive and periodic FR 8 = Prevent plant and equipment sourced hazards in risk maintenance information locations Age and gender Machine protective Daily working time and the duration of a The number. is prepared for process analysis On the other side. tion of critical control points. Saunders & Wheeler. including information and developed is given in Fig. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 all. DP72 = Gravity value assessment lected systematically as the main data given in Table 2. inventory about standard work. As a result. material). Li. activities about definition (labour. FR73 = Integrate likelihood. In Fine and Kinney risk model. it can be stated FR71 = Determine likelihood and occurence incidence of hazard that they are mainly sourced from the problems about employee. It should be noted Table 2 that the proposed method has superiority in terms of scope. graphs. affects the evaluation of risks. In this context. Babur et al.e. Chan. The corresponding DPs are given as follows: Risk assessment methods in the literature are classified as qual- itative and quantitative methods which are deterministic. DP73 = Risk formulation The decomposition of FR6 and DP6 is described below. providing the observation of inappropriate sit. In addition. the most well- known and applicable risk assessment model. Consid- OHS system to gain quick response ability. the determination of drivers of the proposed model requires Information about employee Information about machine and expertise. Changing the drivers of probability. FR62 X X DP62 but also has high level of reliability. namely Matrix Model (5  5) is also chosen as seen in Table 5. a visual risk manage- ment system is developed for DP7X by integrating risk assessment The design matrix for the above set of FRs and DPs is given in model proposed by Fine and Kinney (1976) with Standart Risk (7). probability. are classified in Table 4. given in Fig. the proposed risk model provides prepared for product family. Hazard and eters in a proper manner. ever. in addition to factors Fine Kinney Model and the proposed model. 2006). Hazard and Occupational Disease Sources Map. machine and equipment is col. parameters. Edgell.       Standart Risk Management Model is frequently used in project FR61 X DP61 ¼  ð7Þ management since it not only requires small number of parameter. 2005. drivers can be considered as The decomposition of FR about risk assessment (FR7) and its some indicators that provide convenience for assessing risk param- related DP. On the condition that. Standard Work Combination The application systematic for the risk management system Chart (Edwards.

F. 2014. Stages Critical Information . Roughton & Mercurio.Material handling Stage 1 .Noise. 1998).  Enclosure and isolation: Creating a physical barrier between execution of proactive measures in related locations have an personnel and hazards. 2002. included within FR8. temperature etc. 2006) . Babur et al. -Probability Stage 2 -Frequencey Analyzing Risks -Gravity New Analysis for Manufacturing Systems -Exposure value under Changing Conditions Stage 3 Determining Priorities and -Subsets of risks managed Preparing Risk Map Stage 4 -Value stream managers. vibration. including various techniques and tools. important effect on OHS performance. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 95 Probability Exposure Frequency Gravity (Probality for hazard realization) (Repetition of hazard within Risk Value (Estimation of loss created on processing time) people and/or environment) P F G Occcurence of Hazard Severity of Harm R = PxFxG Drivers of Probability Drivers of Frequency Drivers of Gravity Assessed Risk Fig. substitution as wells as enclosure and isolation are is suggested with respect to hazard source types (Barlas. Hazard Prevention System (DP8). In this context. Risk management process. Sklet. Elimination. 5. 4.Working at heights Describing Hazards . Common components in hazard prevention sub- Hazard and Occupational Disease Sources Map (DP 6) and the systems (OSHA. Effective examination of risky locations in Stellman. Proposed risk management model. 2012a. Visualizing Risks and -Team leaders Performing Visual Task -Visual management Assignment Stage 5 -Current state Providing the Solution of -Planned state Risk Problem Fig.

warning signs. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 Table 3 Risk table. but possible 3 Occasional (weekly) 15 Invalidity 1 Improbable.) Periodic medical analyses Electrical Measures (ground (urinalysis.5 Plausible.1 Virtually impossible Risk value (R) Risk class and required action 400 > R Very High Activity cessation 200 < R < 400 High Immediate improvement (in one or two month) 70 < R < 200 Significant Measures to be taken (in one year) 20 < R < 70 Possible Monitoring R < 20 Very Low Acceptable risk: no measure required Table 4 Risk factors.5 Very rare (less than once per 1 Near miss year) 0. blood fault interrupter. Control points for each hazard source is given in Table 6. chemical and biological accidents and materials etc. climate control. System Hazard source-oriented decomposition of FR8 and DP8 is DP83 = Welding Process Sourced Hazard Prevention System expressed below and its mathematical representation is presented DP84 = Constant and Portable Electrical Wiring and Electric in (9). vibration.) grounding etc. but unlikely 1 Rare (yearly) 3 Injury without work capacity loss 0. hazard type-oriented trainings and DP82 = Machine and Equipment Sourced Hazard Prevention maintenance procedures. the auditory Reports about work and status) environment and noise. checklists for the following hazard sources can be found DP85 = Material Handling Sourced Hazard Prevention System in Url-2. DP86 = Vessel Sourced Hazard Prevention System DP87 = Confined Space Sourced Hazard Prevention System FR81 = Remove facility sourced hazards 2 3 2 3 2 3 FR82 = Remove machine and equipment sourced hazards FR81 X DP81 FR83 = Remove welding process sourced hazards 6 FR82 7 6 X 7 6 DP82 7 6 7 6 X 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 FR84 = Remove electricity sourced hazards 6 FR83 7 6 X X X 7 6 DP83 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 FR85 = Remove material handling sourced hazards 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR84 7 ¼ 6 X X X X 7  6 DP84 7 ð9Þ FR86 = Remove vessel sourced hazards 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 FR85 7 6 X X X 7 6 DP85 7 FR87 = Confined space sourced hazards 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 4 FR86 5 4 X X 5 4 DP86 5 The corresponding DPs are stated as follows: FR87 X X DP87 DP81 = Facility Sourced Hazard Prevention System FR 9 = Decrease risk if risk areas still exist . Probability index Description Exposure frequency Description Gravity Description (P) index (F) (E) 10 Predictable 10 Permanent 100 Several fatalities 6 Possible 6 Regular (daily) 40 One fatality 3 Unusual.) Machine Protective (existence and status) are procedures.96 F.2 Practically impossible 0. but possible at boundary 2 Monthly 7 Injury with loss of work conditions capacity 0. Risk factors about Risk factors about machines Risk factors about working environment Risk factors about employees information Physical state Machine Protective (existence Physical Environment (visual environment and lighting. static analysis etc. In Appliance Sourced Hazard Prevention System addition. Babur et al.) occupational diseases Psychological state Maintenance status Periodic measurements about physical environment Analysis of work accidents and occupational diseases Education level and Usage and maintenance Warning signs occupational trainings procedures Personal protective usage Design (open die-closed die etc.

6. budget. pipeline shut-off valves. boom stops. ventilation system. fan blades. etc. duration. and junction boxes. impellers. employers including working time (job rotation (Leider. drums. FR 10 = Decrease deviation from OHS targets viduals to reduce exposure (gloves. walkways etc. circuit breakers. regulators. reducing exposure time. grip sensitive automatic stooping mechanisms. Moreover. blade or saw guards. parking brake. groundings etc. respirators. should keep ‘‘Personal Protective Implementation Program” avail- Dresen. safety glasses. Risk assessment model Probability Frequency Gravity Exposure Drivers Value Drivers Value Drivers Value Drivers Value p p p Fine Kinney Model p p Matrix Model (5  5) p p p p p p p p The proposed model Table 6 Control points for hazards. pneumatic and hydraulic hoses. 2001) health and safety measures in workplace. Martin & Walters. cabinets. lighting. Electricity sourced hazards Plugs and sockets. formed under the responsibility of OHS specialist (Florczak & cuted via the following strategies. switches. disconnecting switches. rescue equipment. 2001). The selection of personal protective equipments should be per- protective systems applied on employees (DP9) should be exe. welding electrode cable. cables. and operating procedures. receptacles. 2013a). moving chains and gears. Material handling sourced Forklifts: lamps. and safety footwear. etc. ground-fault circuit interrupters. regulator-pressure adjusting screws Confined space sourced hazards Pipelines. stair handrails. hard hats. breaker boxes. stair protectors. valve-protection caps. exit doors. Han. Determination of personal protective equipments related complaints and occupational disease indications appears in  Administrative Controls: Changing the way employees work. cords. 2015). couplings. high-visibility clothing. If risky cases still exist despite Hazard Prevention System (DP8). The decomposition of OHS design. & van der Molen. fire protection equipment. anti-kickback devices etc. foot-operated switches. OHS control system . isolators. Machine and equipment Power shutoff switches. Babur et al. hoses. the responsibility of occupational physicians. two-hand control. Roughton. audible warning device. fire escape ladders. and work practices such as standards protective equipment usage (OSHA. pulleys and belts. horns. gas cylinders.) (Lu. certificate indicating that required testing and examinations etc.  Personal Protective Equipments: Equipments worn by indi. 2015. & Ling. open circuit (no load) hazards voltage of arc welding electrodes. extension cords. mirrors. and evacuation areas for emergencies. distance from external heat sources. Boschman. machinery guards. hazards forklift cylindersCranes and elevators: visual rated capacity marks.). security locks FR DP FR1 FR2 FR3 FR4 FR5 FR6 FR7 FR8 FR9 FR10 FR11 DP1 DP2 DP3 DP4 DP5 DP6 DP7 DP8 DP9 DP10 DP11 FR21 FR22 FR23 FR24 FR25 FR31 FR32 FR61 FR62 FR71 FR72 FR73 FR81 FR82 FR83 FR84 FR85 FR86 FR87 FR111 FR112 DP21 DP22 DP23 DP24 DP25 DP31 DP32 DP61 DP62 DP71 DP72 DP73 DP81 DP82 DP83 DP84 DP85 DP86 DP87 DP111 DP112 Fig. windshields. ground fault interrupters. sound alarm. cylinder valves. valve protectors. photocells and laser apparatus. targets for personal policies and other rules. gas content marks. tanks. noncurrent-carrying metal parts of electrically-operated machines. F. transportation method. barriers against slipping on the roof work. able to emphasize reasons. portable electrical equipment etc. and turn signals brake. agitators. In addition to the evaluation for adequacy and reliability of Shi. manually sourced hazards operated valves and switches emergency stop buttons. Vessel sourced hazards Valves. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 97 Table 5 Comparison among risk assessment models. containers. and apparatus. Hazards Control Points Facility Sourced Hazards Floor surfaces. natural or mechanical ventilation. barrels. Welding process sourced Regulators. lifelines and respiratory equipment.

DP6=Data DP11= DP7=Risk DP3=Lean gathering Continuous DP2=5S procedure measurement DP8=Hazard prevention system management procedure improvement system system design and analysis procedure Design Parameters Functional Requirements labour gradation DP1=Top management persuading procedure DP4=Member election and training procedure for OHS committee DP5=Personnel election procedure for OHS unit DP9=Protective systems applied on employees DP10=OHS control system DP21=Red tag procedure DP22="Set in order" procedure DP23=Cleaning procedure DP24=Standardizatin procedure DP25=Business discipline DP31=Standardization in all production processes and activities of leaders DP32=Visual control system design DP61=Stat.Table 7 98 Complete design matrix for OHS design. Babur et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 hazards X X X X X X X X X X X X X FR82=Remove machine and equipment sourced hazards X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FR83=Remove welding process sourced hazards X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FR84=Remove electricity sourced hazards X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FR85=Remove material handling X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X sourced hazards FR86=Remove vessel sourced X X X X X X X X X X X X X X hazards sourced hazards in risk locations FR 8=Prevent plant and equipment FR87=Remove confined space X X X X X X X X X X X X X X sourced hazards FR 9= Decrease risk if risk areas still exist X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FR 10= Decrease deviation from OHS targets X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FR111= Solve problems with respect to new targets X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X new FR112= Spread successful targets X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FR 11= Set applications . FR3: Plan to FR 4= Constitute OHS committee X X X X X X X X X FR 5= Establish OHS unit X X X X X X X X X X FR61=Evaluate previous records X X X X X X X X X X about OHS FR62=Visualize critical control points FR 6= critical control X X X X X X X X X X X hazardous Determine points FR71=Determine likelihood and occurence incidence of hazard X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X risk FR72=Determine severity of loss FR73=Integrate likelihood. FR 7= Assess occurence. analysis for control points DP62=Hazard and Occupational Disease Sources Map DP71=Hazard probability and frequency index with respect to risk factors DP72=Gravity value assessment DP73=Risk formulation DP81=Facility Sourced Hazard Prevention System DP82=Machine and Equipment Sourced Hazard Prevention System DP83=Welding Process Sourced Hazard Prevention System DP84= Constant and Portable Electrical Wiring and Electric Appliance Sourced Hazard Prevention System DP85= Material Handling Sourced Hazard Prevention System DP86=Vessel Sourced Hazard Prevention System DP87=Confined Space Sourced Hazard Prevention System DP111=A3 applications DP112= Yokoten procedure FR1=Provide the participation of top management X FR21=Remove unnecessary X X physical items FR22=Generate an economical X X X working environment FR23=Generate a working X X X X environment FR24=Determine working rules X X X X X and maintain it FR25=Maintain this working FR 2=Create a clean and X X X X X X orderly working environment environment FR31=Being aware of the X X X X X X X problems habits and FR32=Make the problems visual X X X X X X X X behaviours change err. loss X X X X X X X X X X X X FR81=Remove facility sourced F.

infor- mation about production processes. test wear. infrared rays and radioactive mate- rials. this article. On the other hand. suspended scaffolds). instructions and notes are written for each safety element on the form. 7. Specifications for facility. plant and equipments. and determine the healthy and safe or not. equipments and machines (compressors. Technical controls are performed for buildings and facilities (floor and mezzanine floors. to check methods and conditions determination. oven and stove. corrosion conditions due to working conditions.). Thus. arsenic. namely mechanical properties statement. F.) electrical wirings (lighting. Hygienic periodic controls involve recruitment and periodic consultations. motor pumps.. the fire system (fire hoses. the medical consultations for employee exposured health interfering factors (tetanus danger. Fig. and technical reporting. (a) Freighter and (b) powership. namely The purpose of the periodic controls are to determine the cur. information about test methods and conditions. the reader is referred to the web version of results. pressure. 8. Random control form contains a list of safety elements in workplace. control questions and com- ments about control results are available in periodic control form. measurements and maintenance procedures quality and quantity speed as well as to decide whether they are is proposed to identify OHS problems (if any). alarms. random controls can be regarded as a critical component of OHS control system. grounding and electrical appliances). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend.). the effectiveness of the OHS sys- tem has been enhanced by OHS measures and the evaluation of Fig. Pair-wise interactions among lean principles. Meanwhile. machines and equipments. fire extinguishers) and personal protectives. authorized personnel assignment. etc. 2007) incorporating specific controls processing parameters are appropriate or not with respect to time. The appropriateness of the safety element is checked and recorded during random observa- tions. noise. Periodic controls can be classified into two groups. etc. etc. Technical periodic control process is com- rent state of person or machine. vessels. 9. (random or periodic). elevators. reduction of deviation from OHS targets (FR 10). hygienic and technical. Babur et al. phosphorus. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 99 Principle Design Parameter Lean Tool Standardize and continuous 5S procedure (DP2) 5S improvement Lean management system Visualize the problems Visual management (DP3) Growing leaders who Hazard and occupational A3 understand the philosophy sources map (DP62) Go and see for yourself to OHS control system (DP10) Yokoten understand the situation Continuous improvement procedure (DP11) Fig. Example to a red tag used in the shipyard. investigate prised of four stages. boilers. (DP10) (WorkSafe Victoria. DPs and lean tools. dust. periodic tests for occupational diseases (lead.) . mer- cury. vibration. information about authorized technical personnel.

‘‘Red tag tled by date. Yokoten can be considered as an easily accessible library of FR112 = Spread successful applications A3 applications for documentation and deployment of continuous improvement activities. A3 paper size is used in A3 analysis with respect cedure (DP2) is performed via five FRs (FR21. sary physical items” (FR21) is performed. ‘‘Plan-Do-Check-Adj which does not require any additional FRs in the next level. procedure” (DP21) of FR21 is regarded as a clear and basic DP Regarded as a systematic management cycle. Hazard and Occupational Disease Resources Map. are decomposed as follows: Yokoten (DP112). which can also be seen as a management Table 7. a Japanese term. application are evaluated and necessary preventive measures are Imai. results of continuous improvement (Kaizen) procedure (Gnoni et al. inconsistent relations do not exist between leaf-level process. Title (problem). Babur et al. on the condition that the realization of a DP in standard methodology aiming to establish the basic structure for physical domain needs further FRs. of variability in a system and improving process. As can be seen in A3 analysis (DP111). tor in terms of OHS performance improvement. history. is a powerful problem solving tool to make performance DPs and FRs. ment. performing an overall systematic improve. 6.       So far. 10. and posed into next levels. 5S pro- problem-solving. means the horizontal spreading of ideas and policies in a company or its different facil- FR111 = Solve problems with respect to new targets ities. 2015) is used with the aim of monitoring activities in A3 applications by preventing the sources The identification of new targets (FR11) is a critical success fac. the design of OHS system is completed (Fig. determined. 2013. improvement (Shook.100 F. A com- FR111 X DP111 ¼  ð10Þ plete design matrix for OHS system is prepared in order to assure FR112 X X DP112 that leaf-level design decisions are consistent. The right side of the paper includes sections enti. . the related DP must be decom- wider and deeper thinking about innovation. 2004). changes in the process are proposed and applied. goals/objectives and analysis sections are given on the left ronment” (FR22) cannot be satisfied unless ‘‘Removing unneces- side of the paper. . Furthermore. planning. ‘‘Generating economical working envi- state. 2008). DP111 = A3 applications As for OHS aspect. action plan. as an information management The corresponding DPs may be stated as follows: skill. schedule monitoring and results. In this context. Then. In this context. Yokoten. FR25) and to international standardization.. maintains information in an organizational manner (Liker.. . In this method. For instance. in OHS system design. FR 11 = Set new targets ust” application procedure (Reese. . 2012) (DP11). A3 is denoted as a As seen in Fig. Yokoten provides dissemination of measures DP112 = Yokoten procedure identified for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of occupa- tional diseases and accidents that occured in the same/different The design matrix for the above set of FRs and DPs are company due to the same/similar reason(s). / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 Fig. current requires decoupled design. 6).

produc- was embraced to the road map of the developed methodology in tion track board as a lean management tool was designed in the order to secure the health and safety of each employee and to cre- shipyard (see Appendix B). terms of OHS (FR3-DP3). and OHS. the problem” interacts with all of the DPs. In addition. Inproper materials handling 1. (Principle 9). Widespread use of the possible crane transport 4. Carelessness years at the focused shipyard Result: Unusual but 3. In this context. a chief and a production manager respectively. The ing vessels. a The shipyard in consideration is constructed on a total area of group leader and a value stream manager were used instead of 279. The existing penalties were Holistic roadmap for OHS system design was planned to be also insufficient in terms of permanently eliminating unsafe acts applied to a real life manufacturing system from shipbuilding and conditions. a department managing OHS improvement” (Principle 6). Falling materials from height injury. 16. who were more competent the problems met in the application trigger to make some modifi- in terms of OHS and manufacturing processes. 11. DP10. Inproper attachments of named “falling materials from 3. As seen in Fig. Control system deficiency to “falling materials from height”during the last two 4. Visual Management. In other words. Red tag was used by authorized as lean tools. At the same time. 2004) are embodied to DP2. Requiring assembly tasks in the shipyard at heights Result: Almost evertime hazards available (a few times per hour) Fig. group leaders and value stream manager works. the principle of ‘‘visualize the problems were eliminated. a team leader. The job description of the foreman included 4. they were recorded. 7.1% of accident reason. In addition. where it constructs all types of new build- a foreman. General Manager of the senior management at the shipyard is to . A risk schema belonging to ‘‘Falling Materials from Height” event. DPs and lean tools are shown in Fig. each of the design stages explained in Sec- dled for changing worker habits and behaviours (cultures) in tion 3 (FRs-DPs) is linked with the real life shipyard.000 square meters. Standard work forms of This shipyard. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 101 Probability Exposure Frequency Gravity Risk Value 3 10 7 3 x 10 x 7 Significant damage. from the production system based on quality. 2. Not using helmets vehicle 39. 8 shows two kinds of building vessels in the shipyards. How- methodology ever this description was not usually sufficient to prevent acci- dents and occupational diseases. ‘‘Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the philosophy” to the General Manager (DP1). Application-based feasibility analysis for the developed taking the countermeasures to unsafe acts and conditions. ‘‘Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand For 5S in the shipyard (FR2-DP2). In a consistent manner. facturing director. industrial projects and conducts repair and conversion works of team leaders. which is the biggest private shipyard in Turkey. A3. 9). were planned on standard hourly basis. It contains the problems collected ate a better working environment. Fig. DP11 via 5S. started (see Fig. Safety and Environment is connected directly 7). The pair-wise interactions among the above men. not only for classification. DP62. There were usually unsafe acts and unsafe conditions in the shipyard such as smoking at the shop floor and leaving the cables on the wet ground. F. 7. Foremen. Meanwhile. Visual Management among lean tools is used Each application of red tags was visualized problems and after in each of DPs. value stream transition between theory and application improves the OHS sys- management oriented training program was handled for manu- tem design academically.5% of accidents related 3. need external R = 210 first aid Drivers of Probability Drivers of Frequency Drivers of Gravity 1. In terms of lean approach. Yokoten for orderliness and cleanliness. production timing In the context of the participation of senior management (FR1). the red tag application is the situation” (Principle 12) (Liker. these employees were shown in Appendix A. reciprocal achieving leadership qualities. Lack of first aid 2. ‘‘Standardize and continuous support the OHS work. Late arrival of the ambulance materials handling vehicle height” at shipyards in Turkey (Immediate improvement) (For example using magnet for carrying pipe) 2. under the responsibility of the team leader. As for lean principles aspect. were trained for cations on the developed methodology. technicians and the necessities shown on the tag were applied tioned principles. Babur et al. was used DP3. ‘‘Visualize the problems” (Principle work named Health. Taking first place with 1. The lean management system was built and han- industry. Red label.

Business psychology (4 h). OHS Personnel (7 members). (b) Workers’ Justice and Responsibilities vi. (a) Hazards and prevention v. Increasing the ability of building an OHS culture among team 6. Sheet”. First aid training (16 h).102 F. In order to identify the hazardous points in the shipyard (FR6). 5S and visual factory (6 h). example: 8. At the scope of lean management system. OHS Expert. Seeing and eliminating waste (3x4 = 12 h). ii. 5. hazards and their countermeasures for each 3. HSE Chief (OHS expert). Occupational physician. ‘‘Hazard and 1. General Manager (as employer’s substitute). Occupational Disease Resources Map” were prepared (Fig. pre-block production area. leaders and group leaders. OHS (6x3 = 18 h) iv. Work place presentation (2 h). . Infirmary staff. Production Manager. 3. finished in-time Fig. Administration Manager. Besides this map. processes. OHS committee in the shipyard were formed as follows (FR4-DP4): statistical analysis should primarily be performed (DP61). Health Officer. i. HSE department as working as an OHS department was formed by the following members (FR5-DP5): 1. 10). 4. 2. the number of necessary HSE staff will 7. related processes were recorded on ‘‘Standard Work Combination 4. Fire training (4 h). OHS Worker Representative. shipyard were determined based on processes and sub- 7. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 TASK ASSIGNMENT BOARD Today MONTH UNIT/CELL RESPONSIBLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Panel Line Pre-Block Production Area Steel Processing Shop Painting Shop Slideway Assembly Equip Final Occupational Healty and Safety Quality Manufacturing Engineering Maintanence Purchasing Planning A sample text on a post-it Green dot shows Red dot shows Planning that the defined that the defined countermeasures for task written on task written on the fixture problem of the post-it is the post-it is late Station 2. training procedure for The committee took decisions in a month to countermeasure blue collar workers which contained the subjects written below the deficiencies determined by evaluating the OHS activity report. Union Representative. Babur et al. Some of the control points were listed below as an painting shop etc. In order to determine critical control points (FR62). Foremen or masters on panel line. 5. was applied: In the shipyard. 12. (c) More Technical Knowledge and Industrial Safety (d) Professional training. Consultant (OHS – A class specialist). Task assignment board. be reduced. iii. 2. Critical control points which contained the hazards in the 6. Factory Doctor (full time status).

2. F. direct current machine was needed. and evacua. 12. fire escape ladders. Babur et al. A post-it sticker was used for task assignment on board. However. Cutting and forming at the preliminary block manufacturing area. every day 1. work-in-process After the quantitative risk assessment were determined. steel- Fig. In this context. Fairlead for cranes should be used in small pieces. the ignition hazard (fire) Analysis of problems was brought. vent (FR 8). 1. In the shipyard. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 103 prevent the scatters of hazardous ray and smoke while welding. the visual management process developed press with two-hand control. stair protectors. closed dies. Some of the hand railing and files at the scaffoldings were not allowed to be 120 cm. guillotine shears and overdue. Bring the forms including separators were widely used. meeting managed by the 4. some disruptions met 1. safety belts and special uni- forms were used. identification of new core objectives based on welding equipment hazard prevention system (DP 83). which selected responsible have been still observed and worked on the elimination of them Examine on the status of employees in visual area are listed below: previously written post-it during 15 minutes at 1:30 assignments p. ‘‘to prevent people” based on the principles of hazard prevention system (DP 9). However. in practice. should be used for lighting while working in nar- employee’s row with row and small spaces. 11). Therefore. and the value stream manager on hourly basis and ensure their 6. At the machinery and equipment hazard Red mark was used when the completion time of the task was prevention system in the shipyard (DP 82). In close proximity to the nylon. pedal. 13. and manufacturing time of component parts. the group leader 5. all the weld. Materials han- dling equipment and the transport paths were determined. were eliminated (DP 81). In order to important role. Putting a green dot on posted at the production 3. A flowchart for visual management system. laser. gear-belt-pulley-shaft guards for the In order to become a continuous improvement (Kaizen) culture machine tools and protective covers were not overlooked. In Fig. barriers Task assignment board is depicted in Fig. were proposed. CNC Plasma sheet metal cutting at the panel line. Materials supply. To standardize the work of the team leader. masks. if electrical welding would completion date column on task assignment board be used. Welding in the manufacturing area. Pipe circuit assembly works at the block manufacturing area. To realize visual management practices. and drawing the lines for materials handling equipment within the scope of hazard prevention system (DP 85) were performed. OHS control system in the shipyard was 3. due to the employees’ negligence. drivers of probability were focused task assignment board were developed. At the in the shipyard. This unsafe beha- viours were one of the reason of the hazard named ‘‘falling materials from height”.m. All area by group leaders of the cranes and lifts were tested by the accredited institution and the maximum load plates were not overlooked. Putting the red dot on the with assigning to the this situation also created hazards. are expressed. handling and storage. 24-volt was used. 2. Production trace board and aimed to reduce the realization scale value to 1 from 3 by contained the daily deviation from the standard based on quality means of the application of proactive approaches. helmets. The materials which would be used a few months later. 13. implemantation. A form was developed for based the shipyard’s facilities and equipment were intended to pre. toed safety shoes. picking. were Write tasks on post-it for placed at the block production area and the ship’s deck. There were nylon on board units. the group height” event was examined (Fig. Developed risk assessment system (DP 7) was implemented in the shipyard and one of the example for ‘‘Falling materials from Developed standard work forms of the team leader. A3 applications (DP111) play an pipes at the oxygen welding machines. at height. This board visual- against slipping on the roof work. blade guard. 2. strategic planning using Hoshin Kanri is vital (FR 11). Storage chemicals and keeping them in a store. At trace board in the visual the electric hand tools and portable lamps. 24-volt portable lamp and security isolation transformer based and post it related on the power. Standing meeting by Hazards based on the shipyard’s facilities and equipment. Ground fault interrupters were con- OHS at the production trolled at the fixed and portable electrical equipment (DP 84). production trace board and proactive approach. three A3 applications were . built based on two main principles as follows: 4. determining and eliminating reasons of the event would be a As a part of visual management. earplugs. In such places. stair handrails. leader and the value stream manager are depicted in Appendices The assessment of high-level risk for falling material as well as A1–A3. delayed task responsible employee 6. Because elimination the problems there was nowhere to walk easily on the floor or ship’s deck. goggles. 5. making the cutting process. tracing OHS abnormalities (see Appendix B2). gloves. using neoprene For this improvement culture. hazards and OHS activities (see Appendix B1). In the shipyard. it value stream manager could be used for transport with large parts. photocells and laser apparatus. the timely completion of monitoring board during the task Falling the pipe would be equipment-induced hazards. ing machines were controlled by the electrician. izes who were responsible of the tasks and when they were com- tion areas for emergencies were examined and the deficiencies pleted. The pipes could be transported with magnet pieces at the crane. In the scope of DP 10.

14. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 Proposal: Lean management system application for reducing accidents in the shipyard dramatically and Prepared/Date Ferhat Babür . standardization. ANALYSIS 6-IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE The main objective of lean management system is to change the behaviors of production workers (worker-foreman- chief). 14 from 22 were unsafe conditions. The positive effect of system. totally performed in accordance with the axiom of independence. 3. The applications of A3 were suggested to be posted in a besides a multidisciplinary science consisting of engineering.The application of visual management is performed.22 increasing the production performance I. On the other side. In this study. The work of team leader (foreman). Including OHS expert. incapacity for work 8 Giving the required tranings for the users of forms and boards 40 There is also a fatal accident in 2012. 8 were unsafe behaviors.104 F. It is expected that this approach will for each of death or permanent incapacity incidents. worker absenteeisms and manufac- turing costs significantly. CURRENT CONDITION General Manager as a senior management of the shipyard supports the OHS works. law visual way next to the production trace board in order to share and and social science. (iii) Project sta. visual manage- the application can be observed especially in 2015. despite of this HSE department. (ii) Proposal A3. Therefore. the first independence axiom of train employees in the scope of Yokoten procedure (DP112). BACKGROUND 5-PLAN DETAILS Occupaonal Accidents for Four Years No Activity 120 1 Determination the standard works of team leader and design of his standard work form 2 Determination the standard works of group leader and design of his standard work form 100 3 Determination the standard works of value stream manager and design of his standard work form 98 Number of fatal 4 Design of production trace board Number of Accidents accidents 5 Design of task assignment board 80 Occupational accidents in the 72 shipyard peaked in 2013 has been 6 Preparation forms and boards 67 Number of accidents 60 62 7 Determination of system's operational procedures resulng in temporary declining in 2014. 2014 was revealed that 22 were identified the unsafe Trace Board Assignment Board conditions and behaviors. the unsafe conditions and unsafe behaviors are available. the two stage application will be needed as follows: April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 September 2015 Selection Giving the Determination Design of 1.02. Bulent Durmusoglu / 2015. Example of Production Example of Task For example the internal audit performed on June 12-13. However. the in the year of 2015. PROPOSAL Building the lean management system in the shipyard for reducing accidents dramatically and increasing the production performance 4. between the starting the time of worker going to doctor and the The roadmap developed by AD was planned to be applied to the last day of his/her resting. A proposal A3 application for Lean Management System in the Shipyard. lean manufacturing techniques. The changing performance (between 2011 and design process is simplified. Conclusion guide different sectors such as mechanical. In addition. Developed OHS system design will be implemented step by step prevents the confusion through the design process. work since it requires a great deal of experience for application tus review. reduce occupational accidents.M. electrical and chemical production. Fig. this road map can also 5. 7500 (300 days ⁄ 25 years) days is added shipyard production system. 14 the AD theory is applied to the design for OHS system in order to shows a proposal A3 application for Lean Management System in validate it scientifically. Fig. Babur et al. Prevention of occupational accidents is considered by the large size of the HSE. available: (i) Problem solving A3. In order to perform the OHS works. the shipyard. The staff size is quite large. ment. HSE department consists of 12 members. Number of cases of occupaonal disease 20 0 1 1 2011 2012 2013 2014 An Example of Work Flow Chart of Visual Standardization Form Management System (Figure A1) (Figure 14) 2. we understand that more and strengthening members of the HSE department is not sufficient to prevent occupatonal accidents. the impact of the developed road map on . such as 5S. Identification of OHS system elements. group leader (chief) and value stream manager (production manager) is to be of project Design of Implemantation required of Standard Visual standardized on hourly basis and ensured their application. Kaizen and Yokoten are embedded in the The number of working days lost is regarded as the time period design process for OHS system. Regarding the system towards the whole OHS design objectives are not an easy subject of the application. the introduction of sys- 2015) for the criteria which have a direct or an indirect influence tematic solutions to especially cultural problems within the OHS on the OHS system are indicated in Table 8. To do this. HSE department has been established and connected directly to the General Manager. understanding and using of the elements of OHS There are several works to be pursued in future. Identifying. (Figure B1) (Figure 13) From the above numbers. Boards Occupational accidents will be reduced significantly using lean management system with less HSE members. leader Forms trainings Works Management 2.

A1. .m. Number of accidents resulting in 62 72 98 67 59 temporary incapacity for work Number of cases of occupational 1 disease Appendix A. gemba walk for line with the 10 group leader 11 Provide discipline before and after the break 12 Fill the OHS forms 13 Fill the defects and rework form 14 Fill the day-by-the hour form 15 Fill the stock information form 16 Control and improve work standards 17 Intervene abnormalities 18 Ensure and maintenance 5S system 19 Encourage Kaizen 20 Train workers 21 Update the TPM and lean board Keep the team leader standard work forms 22 for the last week GENERAL NOTES Signature Fig. a detailed comparative study considering risk assessment 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 models including the proposed model may be conducted on Number of fatal accidents 1 several real life manufacturing systems. we consider devel- Number of accidents resulting oping an expert system that measures the quantitative perfor- continuous incapacity for work mances of the OHS process.m. tion. F. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 105 Table 8 the type of sectors and firm’s culture will be investegated. Team leader standard work form. gemba walk for line with 6 the group leader Provide discipline before and after lunch 7 break 0:00-2:00 p. gemba walk for line with the 4 group leader 5 Provide discipline before and after the break 10:00-12:00 a.m. Babur et al. A1–A3 Number of delivery delays No record Number of defects No record TEAM LEADER STANDARD WORK FORM UNIT/CELL: Panel Line DATE: No Tasks Control Explanation 1 Coordinate the team meeting √ Check the environment and start the 2 production √ 3 Participate to a meeting of units/cells group 8:00-10:00 a. gemba walk for line with the 8 group leader 9 Walk for line with value stream manager 2:00-4:00 p. Lastly. Standard work forms Number of working days lost 299 7659 1014 795 626 Number of improvement suggestions No record 372 See Figs.m. In addi- Performance criteria for the OHS system.

Babur et al. gemba walk 8 2:00-4:00 p. gemba walk √ 4 Coordinate the group meeting 5 10:00-12:00 a.106 F.m. gemba walk 6 Participate the 1:30 p. meeting 7 0:30-02:00 p. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 GROUP LEADER STANDARD WORK FORM UNIT/CELL: Panel Line DATE: No Tasks Control Explanation 1 Participate any team meeting √ Start the shift by adjusting the workforce of 2 the group unit √ 3 8:00-10:00 a.m.m.m.m. gemba walk Control the standard work form of the team 9 leader 10 Control the OHS forms 11 Control the defects and rework forms 12 Control the day-by-the hour forms 13 Control the stock information form 14 Keep up to date visuals 15 Gemba walk with the value stream manager 16 Control the work standards 17 Intervene abnormalities 18 Assign tasks to the team leaders 19 Ensure break discipline 20 Ensure and maintenance 5S system GENERAL NOTES Approval: Value Stream Manager Fig. Group leader standard work form. A2. .

Appendix B. B1 and B2 WORK-IN- DAY-BY-THE- Unit/Cell OHS QUALITY PROCESS/STANDARD HOUR WORK-IN-PROCESS Panel Line Pre-Block Production Area Steel Processing Shop Painting Shop Slideway Assembly Equip Final Fig. F. Application tool for OHS control system See Figs. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 107 VALUE STREAM MANAGER STANDARD WORK FORM DATE: No Tasks Control Explanation 1 Coordinate the 13:30 meeting √ 2 Gemba walk with the group leaders √ 3 Control a line every day 4 Control the OHS forms 5 Control the defects and rework forms 6 Control the day-by-the hour forms 7 Control the stock information form Check and improve work standards as a 8 point at any line GENERAL NOTE Approval:Factory Manager Fig. A3. . Production trace boards. B1. Value stream manager standard work form. Babur et al.

. Safety Science. Peterson. L. & Park. 40. Practical risk analysis and safety management. 7–13. & Espinosa.). Axiomatic design in a design for manufacturing context: A case study. A. T.. & Zelley. Rebentisch. A fuzzy logic-based model for noise facilitate safety training. E. D. (2002). Employee environmental. S. Computers & Industrial Engineering. R. J. Dombrowski. F. 36. Safety Science.. Y. (2002). . volume 2. C. (2009). wood processing. C.. Journal of Safety Research. Song. 5319–5334. functions and activities of safety organizing lean product development. SAGE Publications. S. manufacturing system design methodology based on axiomatic design Safety Science. Kulak. L... Marine Structures. McGraw- Anvari. Eversheim. B. 50. principles. O. F. S. & Roughton.. 3–16. Process systems risk management.. York: McGraw-Hill. M. L. D.. health and safety handbook segmentation.. Kim. (2009). 48(4).. O. & van der Molen.. 96–104. Kulak..ilo. E... Yeun. (2011). IEEE companies. J. W.. 107–148. H. B.. W. Y.. 34(3). D. 321–330. 163–172. C. Standard operations – the key to equipment selection based on information axiom. E. M. The complexity of failure: Kaliprasad. approach. G. C. R. (2011).huntingtoningalls. (2008). Applied Ergonomics. ISBN 798-1-4471-5142-5. & Raman. Safety Science. Ergonomics. C. 519–536. Cilliers. Imai. manufacturing. Safety and health at work <http://www. S. (1999). M. B. A. and concerns. & Le Frious. Safety Science. H. Brown. (2005). Boschman. C. 40. and workplace health and safety: A cross-sectional study in manufacturing Liggett. 49. A. 169. & Kinney. 633–652. Grimaldi. practitioners: The current situation in Québec. S. H. Fine. World Applied Sciences Journal. (1993). International Journal of approach for marine design problems. Jimenez. D. (2013). New York: McGraw Hill. I.. Cha. 23(1). control at industrial workplaces.. I. A systemic methodology for risk ILO (1974).com/procurement/forms/SSGK0200. & Roos. OHS form. 51. B. Dresen. K.. Ergonomics contribution to musculoskeletal complaints? Applied Ergonomics. Hermanus. of AD and lean management principles in the scope of production system Ingalls Shipbuilding (2015). 12–18. JIT implementation manual. Evaluation of approaches to safety in Hill. Baldi. (2010). In Hirano. Fundamental principles of occupational health and safety. 37. A. S. Durmusoglu. Seo. Hazard/risk evaluation-what is it? Electrical safety concepts.. (2011). 886–905.. Production Processing Technology. S. B2. Coelho. Z. Yang. N. risk and control visualization – a study of the effective use of QR codes to Aluclu.. & Do. H. 1247–1252. Applied Ergonomics.. International Journal of Solids and Structures. 249–257. 5S methodology Daiton.. Chan. (2006). CRP Press. & Toprak. 939–945. 765–787. (2009). H. P.. <www.. Design enhancements for stress relaxation in A-027189 Washington: US Dept. Work environment risk factors for injuries in ergonomics practice. Li.. 19–26. 15(1). Production Economics. A framework for Brun. Occupational fatalities in shipyards: an analysis in Turkey.. 42(2). (2001). Hazardous Leider. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining Brodogradnja. Heinrich. & Skitmore. S.. Cagliano. 26–35. S. ILO Codes of Practice. O. Cameron. Risk-management and rule-compliance: Decision-making in study of its impact on workplace health and safety. & Tufekci. W. Lean manufacturing comes to China: A case Hopkins.. B. Safety Science. Francis Group.pdf>. Incorporating organisational safety culture within Holcroft. D. D.. 243–255. & Loiselle. C. & Mourão (2007).. W. (2012). M. 695–708. S. D. J. J. M. International Journal of hazardous industries. (2003). W.. (2011). Shipyard fatalities in Turkey. Maggio. Occupational and Environmental Health. Dominguez. M. W. M.. Engineering Management Journal.. Florczak. Safety Science. Effective measures to decrease air contaminants through International Labour Office. 53. 48(1). Proactive risk management. chemical risks prevention. Taylor and London: Springer Verlag. Y. Babur et al. (2012). C. D. Durmusoglu. (1980). Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. D. 368–378. the complete guide to just-in-time Assessment and simulation tools for sustainable energy systems (pp. M. 110–120. Axiomatic design as support for decision-making Jang. Hoppmann. (1995). K.ilocis. Cebi.. A. The roles. O.-P..108 F. developments. (2008). T. P. M. B. M. J. Safety Science. K. M.org/global/topics/safety- Elsevier Academic Press. Andriulo. Gemba kaizen: A commonsense approach to a continuous Cochran. & Punnett. lean transformation: A simulation based improvement methodology. 22.. E. (2005). S. M. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology.. (2012a). Edgell. B. (2000). P. & Lohfeld. Bentley. 13. 107(8). Personal protective equipment. S. Safety and health in shipbuilding and ship repairing. (1931). Expert Systems with Applications. Service. (1991). A methodology for the design of office cells Kulak. 35–56. Journal of Materials continuous improvement in a just-in-time manufacturing system. 48(12). 8(4). 78. G. (2010). S. Industrial accident prevention. M.. & Kulak. 1159–1173. & Hofmeyr. M. Applying communication theory for professional life: implementation in the laboratories of an industrial engineering university A practical introduction. International Journal of Production Research. 562–569. & Yusuff. H. New relationship between them. (2015). Organizational practices the use of game technology.. Barlas. new Barlas. D. & Tappin. A. H.. Safety Science. & Nardone. Switzerland: management in healthcare sector. 120–128. & Kahraman. H.. C. 81–89. 40(6).. <https://spars. (2013).. I. 6705–6717. O. 498–505. (2007). Patricia (2011). A. 15(35–56). Applications of axiomatic design using axiomatic design principles. 531–538. (2012b). 247–255. & O’Rourke. Baysan. S. school. A complete cellular Ferjencik. & Rafele. D. Implications of complexity theory for safety investigations.. Occupational health and safety in mining-status. 1167–1174.).. & Kahraman.org>.. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 OHS FORM UNIT/CELL: Panel Line DATE: Picture No Unsafe Situation Condition Behaviour Explanation No 1 √ 2 √ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Signature Fig. 48(5). An integrated approach to the analysis of incident causes. Cost Engineering. G. 39(3). S. When Waste Compliance.. (2015). 49. U. S. (2015). S. of Commerce National Technical Information automotive multi-shell-structures. Portland: Productivity Inc. B. 38(6). Dekker. Industrial accident prevention: A scientific approach. and Inventory Management Journal. References Gnoni.htm>. T. (2016). H.. 205–210. lean manufacturing and safety management systems and clarification of the Heinrich. C. 85–89. G. (1976). Durmusoglu. H. H. is job rotation perceived useful and easy to use to prevent work-related Garrigou. Alli. H. M.. E. and-health-at-work/lang–en/index. G. Science. Development of DVD for the next generation by axiomatic ILO Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Design of software systems based on AD. Geneva: Gummesson. 35–41. & Sesterhenn. Chapter 7. (2007). Zulkifli. 63(1). waste and the 5S’s (2nd ed. M. C. 381–394). Fuzzy multi-attribute Edwards. L. & Kim. (2008). I. 49. 82. 49. Amsterdam: ILO (2011). Romero. G. Suh. Shannon. J. 53(10). N. Smith. M. A. ‘‘Lean occupational’’ safety: An application for a near-miss management system design.. Visualizing safety assessment by integrating Geldart.. & ve Zahn. (2011). Industry Applications Magazine.. & Richa. (2005). 5 pillars of the visual workplace. 109. The application improvement strategy (second ed. AD/ Lee.. & Cho. Omega International Journal of Management principles: A literature review. R. S. J. 337–345. Nam P. G. (2010). and Metallurgy. Geneva. Safety Science.. A. F... & Satoglu. Automation in Construction. Assessment of energy efficiency in Hirano. M. (2011). Dalgic. Kubin. Cevikcan..

2016. Totsuka. & Tetrick. Current trends and future developments in occupational Sklet. (2014). Washington State Legislature. (2013c). Enterprise Institute. & Jorgen. N. <http://www. OSHA. 168–174. (2008). & Hegney. & Veltri. P. Engineering. McGraw-Hill Professional. checklists. Safety and safety in the oil industry: a managers’ response. How to change a culture: Lessons from NUMMI. classification. US: Penguin Press. M. E. accessed: 10. Aerial lift fall protection over water in shipyards. F. Johnston. Manufacturing system design. (2004). its implementation to an unmanned machine shop. Introduction to axiomatic design. Saunders. OSHA 2268-10R. Fact Sheet. and during factory acceptance testing <http://www. The principles of design. L. & Kivisto-Rahnasto. 47(2–3). Fact Sheet. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 40(3). Assini. 190–226.04. executions in navigating manufacturing processes for shortening lead time and Suh. B. J. OSHA Industry Guide 53. OSHA 3151–12R. Washington. CIRP OCIMF (2003). . R. Washington Administrative Codes. procedures. & Goelzer. 527–537. 14(2). J.. & Park.mit. Lean thinking.org/media/8922/ Swuste. Oregon OSHA Hazard Checklists.. S. Safety health and safety issues in selected industries. Computers & Industrial Science. D. (2004). Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety (Vol.. Stellman. (2010).ilo. Handbook of occupational health psychology. Shook. Ergonomics. Monden.. Eye protection against radiant energy during welding and cutting in Warr. package of a monitor using axiomatic design. Nenonen. accessed: 25. E. Easter. environment: A report of a WHO meeting. 494–506. S. J. & Wheeler. Controlling OHS hazards and risks.orosha. Suh. Development of worksystem safety capability index (WSCI).).. T. Hazard prevention and control in the work 2104E8BB-971D-4d39-804F-A9C69CB7C39E..pdf>. Publication: 3639.edu/2. 563–572. Melbourne. N. CRC Press. (1995). Personal protective equipment. & Sawaqed. N. Marianne. A. J.html>. J. Ventilation in shipyard employment. (2010). Risk management of loss prevention in the process industries. E. Guidance Document. T. Workplace Safety and Health Council (2009). N. (1998). W. A. L.htm>. Pagell. F. Womack. J. D. (2001). Safety and health at work. (2008). M. MIT Sloan Norcross. Axiomatic design: Advances and application. Url-2. shipyards. Lu. (2010). (1996). (2001). N. US: American Psychological Association.. for the future-theory and cases. Fact Sheet. QuickCard. Health safety and environment at new building and repair shipyards Annals Manufacturing Technology. 75–78. and performance. Applied University Press. Y.2016 <http:// Technology. S. A. 658–667. & Paulo. P.. J.. Cochran. Babur et al. R. (2006). (2003). (2013b). Shipyard Industry Standards. 3300–3320. Oxford: Elsevier. Safety standards for ship repairing. manufacturer. W. Chapter: 296-304 WAC. Individual and organizational factors Savage.. B. The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest Quick. Safety Science. J. Shikdar. 63–72. (2012a). K. Taylor. (1993). Fire watch safety during hot work in shipyards. (2002). Corn. Publication: FS 3677. Responses to health and safety risk at work environment. & Sawaqed. N. 45(4). (1990). C. associated with the use of personal protective equipment by Chinese migrant inspections. Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-time. A.. Publishing. 19. M. In Jan Emblemsvag (Ed. L. New York: Oxford production system development – the Volvo Powertrain case. records and/or training.. Advances in Engineering Software. (2013a). and occupational health and Martin. Roughton. Psychology at work. (2005). (1991). Decoupling Geneva: International Labour Office. Publication: FS-3499. Creating a lean culture: Tools to sustain lean conversions. and occupational Maiti. workers exposed to organic solvents.wshc. S. 38(6). OSHA. J. 627–639. WorkSafe Victoria. & Yamada. Development of a design system for EPS cushioning OSHA. Journal healthy and safety risk management.. Publication: 3375.). P.. W. J. M. W. marine industries <www. 51(11). Enhancing occupational safety and health. Neumann.. (1995). (2012b). Shikdar. 76. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 51. & Ling. S.. Moraru. Rijeka: Intech Europe. T. (2009). McClain. (2007).. (2011). (2015). Engineering.. Managing to learn: Using the A3 management process. and shipbreaking. T. infection in CAD operators: An on-site investigation. M. When does lean hurt? – an system.. Url-1. II) Nakao. K. Safe work practices for shipbreaking. & Mercurio. Worker productivity. (2003). 1369–1379. 171–174. B. QuickCard. (2002). Safety barriers: Definition. 47(2).882/www/chapter1/chapter1.. P.04. OSHA. & Jones. Safety while working alone in shipyards. New York: Simon & Schuster Ltd. Safety risk assessment in Reese.. (2014). New York: Oxford University Press. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Suh. Computers & Industrial Health Essentials. R. 273–284. Ergonomics. Shi. K. 1728–1743. health-at-work/lang–en/index. C. Fact Sheet. D. OSHA shipyard employment standards requiring programs. (3rd ed. A. & Gambaro.. D. G. I. OSHA.. OSHA. J. (2012). (1996). P. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88–109 109 Liker. Developing a hazard prevention and control Longoni. M. (2004). 56(1). L. Lind.. J.pdf>.04. Safe lighting practices in the shipyard industry. L. 205–217.. (2015). Workplace safety & health manual for OSHA. (2013d). S. shipyard employment. accessed: 18. Occupational health and safety management: A practical approach industrial maintenance.org/global/topics/safety-and- Publication: 3452. J. web. Piccoli. Hamada. Avon: Pitman International Journal of Production Research. L. (2007). G. Mann. C. Microbiological pollution and ocular 36. shipbuilding OSHA. Handbook of safety management. <http://www. Kobayashi. D. (2014). R. Shook. 44(6). 48. Ergonomics. Lean Academy of Management Journal. Management Review. 223–232. (2010).. Safely performing hot work on hollow or enclosed structures in Marine_Industries. N.htm>. 21(1).. GA: Industrial Engineering and Management Press.org/standards/ Publication: 3494. P.2016. New York. Developing an Effective Safety Culture. 202–233. (2013e). Personal protective equipment. Yi. P. (2013). OSHA..sg/files/wshc/upload/cms/file/WSH_Manual_ OSHA. Safety Science. J. Integrating ergonomics into Suh. (2001). A. (1998).ocimf.. exploration of lean practices and worker health and safety outcomes. & Walters.. Han.