The Effect of Workplace Cognitive Failure on Safety Participation of Heavy

Equipment Operator in Oil and Gas Companies

Yuanita Laksmiwati, Dewi Kurniasih, Farizi Rachman

Shipbuilding Institute of Polytechnic Surabaya
ITS Sukolilo, Teknik Kimia street, Surabaya, East Java 60111

ABSTRACT

Oil and gas industry support service firm is a business providing services to the oil and gas sector, supporting all
kinds of client activities (businesses) involved in the sector. Its operational activities include things like loading and
unloading and handling chemicals while using heavy machinery like cranes, forklifts, and trailers. In the past three years'
worth of incidents, from 2019 to 2021, risky behavior has dominated as the primary cause of accidents. The majority of risky
behaviors include the operator's focus and actions while operating large machinery. As a recommendation for future research,
this study proposes to investigate the impact of workplace cognitive failure on safety participation with administrative
controls. Safety participation is one of the dimensions of safety performance. Because many studies have been conducted to
improve safety performance, by examining one of the safety performance indicators as the dependent variable, it is expected
to improve the quality of operator safety performance. The research method used is quantitative research with multiple linear
regression method with a sample of 64 heavy equipment operators from a total population of 81 operators. The results
showed that the indicators of workplace cognitive failure namely memory, action, and attention had a significant effect on
safety participation. Therefore, the recommendations that can be given are operator safety training, safety rewards and
punishments, and increasing the frequency of inspections.

Keywords: Occupational safety , Oil and Gas Companies, Safety Participation, Workplace Cognitive Failure

Corresponding Author:
Dewi Kurniasih
Email: déwi.kurniasih@ppns.ac.id
Telephone: +628129217043
INTRODUCTION
Oil and Gas Industry Support Service
Company (Migas) and shorebase are companies that
serve as the object of the author's research. Oil and
gas Industry Support Service Company is a company
engaged in services/services for the natural oil and gas
industry and supports all forms of customer activities
(companies) engaged in the oil and gas industry. The
company's services and accommodation cover many
things, including Man Power, workplace rental, heavy
equipment rental, car rental, lifting gear rental and oil
spill boom. In addition, several service support
facilities are provided, such as open yard, warehouse,
jetty (port), reverse osmosis plant, workshop, and
chemical storage.
Operational activities at oil and gas service
companies such as loading-unloading, clean water
production for consumer needs, equipment
maintenance for drill needs, chemical handling, and
many other activities where these activities have their
own potential dangers in each process. To minimize
the level of occupational risk, of course,
transportation facilities are needed to support
operational activities, namely the transportation of
heavy equipment in the form of forklifts, cranes, and
trailers.
Observations over the last three years have
identified that several times the company's operational
activities have been hampered due to unsafe behavior
by heavy equipment operators. It was found that in the
2019-2021 work period there were 9 accidents related
to heavy equipment operators. The direct cause of
these accidents was unsafe action (information taken
from the company's accident report), where all
accidents caused property damage with details in
2019 with 4 events, in 2020 with 2 events, and in
2021 with 3 events.
Figure 1. Graph of Immediate Cause of Heavy
Equipment Operator Accident
 Based on the results of interviews with HSE
officers, it was stated that the refreshment of
procedures regarding the operation of heavy
equipment had been carried out through routine safety
talks at every shift change. However, with cases
increasing every year, especially with immediate
causes in the form of unsafe action, it can be seen that
the safety performance of heavy equipment operators
has not increased. Safety performance is a quality of
work in the scope related to safety which includes
safety equipment, organizational and management
safety, the number of work accidents, complete safety
training with evaluations, and also accident
investigations (Nevhage & Lindahl, 2008).
Safety performance has two scopes, namely
safety compliance and safety participation (Griffin &
Neal, 2000). Safety Compliance explains how to
maintain the work environment so that it is always in
a safe condition as outlined in safety activities. One of
the concepts of safety compliance is the application of
safety procedures in work activities and the use of
safety equipment including personal protective
equipment. Meanwhile, safety participation explains
the behavior of contributing voluntarily and directly
in the form of activities related to work safety. This
research will discuss one of the safety performance
indicators, namely safety participation as the
dependent variable. Another description of the factors
that affect safety performance is stated by Nahrgang,
Morgeson, & Hofmann (2007) as follows:
1. Safety Related
Safety Related relates to matters that affect safety
participation, namely the presence of occupational
risks and hazards, activities carried out to prevent
work accidents and the level of involvement or
participation of workers related to issues in the
workplace environment with work safety.
2. General Organizational Factors (General
Organizational Factors)
General Organizational Factors relate to the influence
of the management or organization in facilitating
workers related to work safety which affects the
safety performance of workers. General
Organizational Factors consist of leadership, job
demands, and company commitment.
According to this study, activities undertaken to
prevent workplace accidents and the degree of
employee involvement or participation in matters
relating to workplace safety will have an impact on
the performance of safety measures. This study is
consistent with research by Allahyari et al. (2014),
which explains that there is a positive influence given
by a workplace cognitive failure on safety
performance.
Cognitive failure has two scopes, namely general
cognitive failure and workplace cognitive failure.
Because this research relates to humans and their
work environment, workplace cognitive failure will
be an appropriate independent variable to increase the
safety participation of heavy equipment operators.
Wallace & Chen (2005) explain a concept that
workplace cognitive failure is cognition and actions
taken outside of tasks or jobs that are usually carried
out safely and safely, where these actions lead to
errors or failures. Workplace Cognitive Failure
includes 3 dimensions where all three describe the
weaknesses of cognition namely memory, attention,
and action (Petitta et al., 2019). Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to determine the effect of
workplace cognitive failure on safety participation.
METHODS
Literature Study
As a theoretical foundation for the applied
research variables, literature review was undertaken.
In order to correctly digest research, address
formulations of problems identified, and ensure that
study objectives are met, literature studies are
conducted. In this study, memory, action, and
attention are the indications of workplace cognitive
failure, which is an independent variable. Safety
participation, a component of safety performance,
serves as the dependent variable. Additionally, the
statistical theory relating to the research's approach of
multiple linear regression is also examined. The
following are the literature references used:
1. Journals related to previous research
2. Journals related to statistics
3. Workplace Cognitive Failure Scale
Questionnaire and Safety Performance
Questionnaire
Field Study
After carrying out a literature study, the next
thing to do is a field study. This study aims to
determine whether the cause of the accident report is
related to the accident on the heavy equipment
operator in accordance with the accident report that
was caused or with the immediate cause unsafe
action. The field study was conducted by conducting
interviews with the HSE officer on duty and a brief
survey with several heavy equipment operators question 1 2 3 4 5
regarding their complaints while being the company's item score
“action”
heavy equipment operator. Then proceed by matching
the immediate cause with the company's HIRADC
and analyzing the recommendations made by the The validity of this questionnaire is using n=64
company. of research sample, and all of the item is valid with p-
value <0.05 and Rcalculate > Rtable. The value of Rtable is
Research Time and Location 0.244 based on n=64. Here is the total score of each
The study was carried out at an East Java-based item question :
oil and gas service firm in Indonesia. Forklifts,
trailers, and operator and assistance cranes were the Table 2. Validity Test Result of WFCS
subjects of this study. Two teams, one from the Total Score of Correlation
morning shift and the other from the night shift, Item 1 0.364
participated in the observation or data collection Item 2 0.557
process. The night shift runs from midnight to six Item 3 0.250
o'clock in the morning, whereas the morning shift Item 4 0.478
runs from six o'clock in the morning.
Item 5 0.328

Participants Item 6 0.581

The object of research is the operator and helper Item 7 0.551
of heavy equipment oil and gas service companies Item 8 0.287
who are members of the company's operations Item 9 0.253
department. The total population of operators and
Item 10 0.344
helpers is 81 people. So to determine the sample to be
studied using a simple random sampling method using Item 11 0.262
the Slovin formula, the research sample was obtained Item 12 0.501
as many as 68 operators and helpers. The age range of Item 13 0.574
the research subjects is 20 - 60 years, with 1 - 20 Item 14 0.297
years of work experience. Item 15 0.631

Research Instruments
1. Workplace Cognitive Failure The 15 question item of Workplace Cognitive
The research instrument used for workplace Failure Scale Questionnaire is reliable, with
cognitive failure is the WFCS (workplace cognitive cronbach’s alpha value is > 0.6. Here is the result of
failure scale) by Wallace and Chen (2005) this reliability test :
questionnaire is contained with 15 question
instruments. The level of workplace cognitive failure Table 3. Reliability Test Result for WFCS
increases when the approach questionnaire's overall Reliability Statistics
Cronbanch’s Alpha N of Items
score approaches 75.. Each question item is calculated 0.647 15
using a Likert scale of 1-5 as follows:
2. Safety Participation
Table 1.Rating of WFCS Questionnaire The instrument that used for safety participation
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree Agree is safety performance questionnaire by Amaliyah
(2017) from her research which is consist of 8
question 1 2 3 4 5
item score questions. Each question item is calculated using a
“memory” Likert scale of 1-5 as follows:
question 1 2 3 4 5
item score
“attention
”
Table 4.Rating of Safety Participation Questionnaire the statistical test is invalid (cases with a small sample
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly size). If there is normality, the residual will be
disagree Agree distributed normally and independently, i.e. the
question 1 2 3 4 5 difference between the predicted value and the actual
item score or error will be distributed symmetrically
around the mean value equal to zero. The statistical
The validity of the questionnaire of safety test used to test the normality of the residuals is the
participation is using n=64 of research sample, and all Kolmogrov-Smirnov (K-S) non-parametric statistical
of the item is valid with p-value <0.05 and Rcalculate > test. If the results from Kolmogrov-Smirnov show a
Rtable. The value of Rtable is 0.244 based on n=64. Here significance value > 0.05, then the residual data is
is the total score of each item question : normally distributed. Meanwhile, if the results show
<0.05, the residual data is not normally distributed
Table 5. Validity Test Result of Safety Participation (Ayuwardani, 2018).
Total Score of Correlation The multicollinearity test aims to test whether in
Item 1 0.253 the regression model there is a high or perfect
Item 2 0.387 correlation between the independent (independent)
variables. To detect the presence or absence of
Item 3 0.430
multicollinearity, it can be done by regressing the
Item 4 0.684 analytical model and conducting correlation tests
Item 5 0.632 between independent variables using the variance
Item 6 0.632 inflation factor (VIF). If the tolerance value is above
Item 7 0.632 0.10 or VIF is below 10, then multicollinearity occurs,
Item 8 0.590
then one of the variables must be removed from the
equation.
Last is heteroscedasticity test aims to test whether
in the regression model there is an inequality of
The 8 question item of Safety Participation variance from the residual of one observation to
Questionnaire is reliable, with cronbach’s alpha value another observation. The test used is the glejser test,
is > 0.6. Here is the result of reliability test : where if the probability is significant > 0.05 then the
regression model does not contain heteroscedasticity.
Table 6. Reliability Test Result for Safety 2. Multiple Regression Analysis
Participation Multiple linear regression analysis is used to test
Reliability Statistics the hypothesis that the independent variable has an
Cronbanch’s Alpha N of Items
0.647 15
impact on the dependent variable. Determine whether
more than one independent variable has an influence
Statistics Method on one dependent variable partially or concurrently
1. Classic Assumption Test using a multiple linear regression study. The formula
The classical assumption test was run first before used to determine if an independent variable has an
using multiple linear regression analysis techniques to impact on a dependent variable is as follows (Liana,
assess the hypothesis of the variables utilized in the 2009) :
study. The purpose of this test is to determine whether Y = a+ b1X1 + b2X2 +… + bnXn + e
the assumptions required for the multiple linear
regression analysis are true. The normality test, Information :
multicollinearity test, heteroscedasticity test, and auto Y = dependent variable
correlation test are often used assumption tests.
Normality test aims to determine whether the data a = constant (intercept)
used is normally distributed. In testing the hypothesis,
b1 = regression coefficient for X1
namely the T test and F test, the value of the residual
data or variable will be assumed to follow a normal b2 = regression coefficient for X2
distribution, so that if a data does not pass this test,
bn = regression coefficient for X to – n
X1 = independent variable 1
X2 = independent variable 2
Xn = nth independent variable
e = residual value
Simultaneous Regression Test (F Test)
The purpose of the F test is to determine the
effect of the independent variables together on the
dependent variable. Determination of hypothesis
testing criteria can be measured with the following
conditions (Muliana, 2019):
a. Comparing t count with t table
1. If t count > t table then the hypothesis is accepted.
Where in this case the independent variables
jointly affect the dependent variable significantly.
2. If t count < t table then the hypothesis is rejected.
Where in this case the independent variables
together do not affect the dependent variable
significantly.
b. View Probability Values
1. If the probability > 0.05 then the hypothesis is
rejected
2. If the probability < 0.05, then the hypothesis is
accepted
Table 7. Hypothesis for F test
H0 : Memory (X1), attention (X2), and action (X3)
simultaneously have no effect on safety participation
(Y)
H1 : memory (X1), attention (X2), and action (X3)
simultaneously affect safety participation (Y).
Partial Regression Test (T Test)
T test is a test of the regression coefficient of
each independent variable on the dependent variable
which aims to determine the influence of the
independent variable on the dependent variable
individually. There are two ways that can be done to
find out whether the hypothesis is accepted or
rejected, namely as follows (Muliana, 2019):
a. Comparing t count with t table
1. If t count > t table then the hypothesis is accepted.
Where there is a significant influence of the
independent variables individually on the
dependent variable.
2. If t count < t table then the hypothesis is rejected.
Where there is no significant effect of the independent
variable individually on the dependent variable.
b. View Probability Values
1. If the probability > 0.05 then the hypothesis is
rejected
2. If the probability < 0.05 then the hypothesis is
accepted
3. If the research results are not in accordance with
the direction of the hypothesis (positive or
negative) even though it is below the significant
level, then the hypothesis is rejected.
Table 8. Hypothesis for T test
H0 : Memory (X1), attention (X2), and actions (X3) have
no effect on safety participation (Y)
H1 : Memories (X1), attention (X2), and actions (X3)
individually affect safety participation (Y)
Goodness of Fit Test
The coefficient of determination test, which
gauges how well the model can account for variance
in the dependent variable, is employed in the
Goodness of Fit test. The coefficient of determination
has a value between 0 and 1. The independent
variable can almost entirely supply all the information
required to predict the dependent variable if the value
of R2 is close to 1. However, if R2 is low or close to 1,
the independent variable's capacity to explain the
dependent variable is severely constrained (Muliana,
2019).
RESULT
In this section, we will discuss the results of
research data where to find out the condition of
workplace cognitive failure in heavy equipment
operators descriptively through the recapitulation of
the questionnaire results and its effect on safety
participation.
A General Description of The Company
This research was conducted by a corporation
that provides services to the oil and gas sector as well
as to ports in the province of East Java. The port
development of the corporation serves the oil sector as
a logistical service hub. Through ISO (International
Safety Organization) certification for 9001: 2015
(Quality Management), 14001: 2015 (Environmental
Management), and 45001: 2018 (Occupational Health
and Safety), the Oil and Gas Industry Support Service workplace cognitive failure is valid and reliable and it
Company and the shorebase where this research has is already discussed on the The following are details
been conducted have prioritized Occupational Health of the results of the number of questionnaires that
and Safety aspects that are implemented within the were returned :
context of Health, Safety, and Environment (K3
Management). Table 9. Detail Amount of Questionnaire
As a logistics provider for different oil and gas Responden
Questionnaire Returned
firms, we offer a range of business process services, Spread Returned Percentage (%)
Forklift, trailer, 70 64 91 %
including manpower, warehouse rental, heavy
and crane operator
equipment rental, car rental, lifting gear rental, and oil
spill boom rental. Additionally, supporting
Six of the questions are deemed unsuitable for data
infrastructure is offered to ensure that business
processing based on table 9. This is due to the fact
process activities are carried out in a structured
that the responses from the relevant respondents are
manner, including open yards, warehouses, jetties,
totally consistent when the question type in the
reverse osmosis plants, bunkers, and workshops.
provided questionnaire is not prioritized. 64
Many operational tasks, such as loading and
questionnaires or 91% returned for the WFCS and the
unloading, producing clean water for consumer use,
Safety Performance Questionnaire were used to
maintaining drill-related equipment, handling
continue the investigation.
chemicals, and many more tasks, each with their own
potential hazards.
Descriptive Analysis of Workplace Cognitive
This company has a total of 700 employees who
Failure
work with different work schedules. Non-shift
1. Workplace Cognitive Failure
workers will work from Monday to Friday starting at
One of the independent variables that looks at a
08.00 am – 05.00 pm which consists of office, driver,
person's cognitive system failing them while in a
warehouse and maintenance employees. Meanwhile,
work environment is called "workplace cognitive
shift workers will work on a 2-week schedule with 1
failure." The three components of workplace
week off with 11 working hours starting at 06.00 am –
cognitive failure are memory, attention, and action.
06.00 pm for the day shift and 06.00 pm – 06.00 am
The level of cognitive failure is stated to be higher the
for the night shift. The workers who will work at this
closer to 75 each question item's value was. The
hour are the HSE (safety officer safety inspector)
greatest total score for each dimension (memory,
department, paramedics, security, maintenance, and
activity, and attention) in the descriptive analysis for
operations departments.
the dimensions of workplace cognitive failure is 25
The author's research will focus on one area of
multiplied by 64 (research sample), or 1600.
the operations department, specifically some of the
operators and helpers of heavy equipment, such as Ingatan
operators and helpers of trailers, forklifts, and cranes, 42%
to examine the impact of workplace cognitive failure 40%
on safety participation. There are 81 workers in total,
including operators and helpers (from internal 38%
companies). The shift workforce includes all heavy 36%
equipment operators, and sampling is done during
both day and night hours (so that it is only carried out 34%
on two teams).

Data Recapitulation of Questionnaire Results Tindakan Perhatian

Questionnaires (WFCS and Safety Performance
Questionnaire) were distributed to 68 respondents and
then processed to be tested for validity and reliability
which were previously recapitulated. From the results
of validity and reliability, it is known that the Figure 2. Workplace Cogntiive Failure Rating
questionnaire instrument for safety participation and
According to the research it is known that from 64
respondents, 42% of respondents have a level of
cognitive failure in memory, then 38% of respondents
have a level of cognitive failure in attention, and as
many as 37% of respondents have a cognitive failure
level in action. So that the average workplace
cognitive failure that heavy equipment operators have
is memory.
Classic Assumption Test
1. Normality Test
The normality test was carried out using the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) using distributed residual
data with the following test results :

2. Safety Participation
The safety participation questionnaire was
collected from 64 respondents for later analysis. The
assessment parameter of safety participation by
Amaliyah (2020) is that if the percentage of safety
performance quality exceeds 60%, the quality of
safety performance for heavy equipment operators is
good. The following are the results of the safety
performance assessment for heavy equipment
operators.

Figure 3. Normality Test Result

The results of the normality test as a condition for

multiple linear regression testing are known that the
p-value is 0.200 so it is stated that the data is normally
distributed because it is > 0.05.

2. The Multicollinearity Test

The following is a recapitulation of test results
for the multicollinearity test :

Figure 3. Safety Particpation rating

Based on the graph in figure 3, it is known that

the average value of the respondents' answers on
average is more than equal to 60% of safety
participation, so that in this case it can be seen that
safety performance broadly within the scope of heavy
equipment operators refers to sufficient quality. either
because most operators have actively participated in
following K3 procedures, or activities that proactively
support a movement that prioritizes safety aspects. Figure 3. Multicollinearity Test Result
The results of the multicollinearity test stated that
there was no multicollinearity because the VIF value
of all independent variables namely memory, action,
and attention was below 10 and with a tolerance value
of more than 0.10.
3. The Heteroscedasticity Test
The following is a test results for the
Heteroscedasticity Test :
Figure 4. Heteroscedasticity Test Result
The value of all independent variables, including
memory, action, and attention, which serve as markers
of workplace cognitive failure in heteroscedasticity
testing, is bigger than 0.05, so it is concluded that
there are no signs of heteroscedasticity or that all
independent variables do not follow specific patterns
that would allow them to be declared identical.
Multiple Linear Regression
The multiple linear regression test method is
used in this study. Through the analysis of the F test
(simultaneous test) and T test (partial test), as well as
the coefficient of determination by analyzing R square
value, this test method is used to determine whether
there is a relationship between the independent
variables, namely memory, attention, and action, and
safety participation.
1. F test Workplace Cognitive Failure on Safety
Participation
The following are the results of the F test,
where the results will determine the simultaneous
effect of all dependent variables on safety
participation, which is one indicator of Safety
Participation :
Tabel 10. Hypothesis of F test
H0 : Memory (X1), attention (X2), and action (X3)
simultaneously have no effect on safety participation
(Y)
H1 : memory (X1), attention (X2), and action (X3)
simultaneously affect safety participation (Y).
.
Figure 5. F test (Simultanous Test)
Figure 5 demonstrates that H0 is rejected since
the F test or simultaneous test results indicate that the
test's p-value is 0.000, which is less than 0.005.
Therefore, it is clear from the simultaneous test results
that memory, action, and attention together have a
considerable impact on safety participation in the
ANOVA table.
2. T test Workplace Cognitive Failure on Safety
Participation
This test will determine the effect of each
dimension on workplace cognitive failure on safety
participation by looking at the coefficient table for
interpreting the T test. Here are the hypotheses for the
T test :
Tabel 11. Hypothesis of T test
H0 : Memory (X1), attention (X2), and actions (X3) have
no effect on safety participation (Y)
H1 : Memories (X1), attention (X2), and actions (X3)
individually affect safety participation (Y)
Figure 6. T test (Partial Test)
Based on the test results in Figure 6 using the
multiple linear analysis method, it is known that from
each dimension of workplace cognitive failure it is
known that memory (X1), attention (X2) and action
(X3) have a significant effect on safety participation
with a significance value of 0.006. , 0.005 and 0.000
which are less than 0.05 so that H0 is rejected and H1
is accepted.
DISCUSSION
According to the results of a recapitulation of
data on workplace cognitive failure among oil and gas
service company operators, memory errors accounted
for the highest percentage of errors at 42 percent,
followed by attention errors at 38 percent and action
errors at 37 percent. This suggests that the majority of
heavy equipment operators and helpers encounter
memory errors when working on operating cranes,
forklifts, or trailers. In this condition, the safety
participation of heavy equipment operators is still in
quite good condition, with an average of more than
equal to 60%.
Based on the results of statistical testing with
multiple linear regression which is shown in figure 5,
it is known that in general workplace cognitive failure
has an effect on safety performance by looking at the
ANOVA table on multiple linear regression testing. In
figure 6, namely the T test or partial test, it is known
that attention and action affect safety participation,
this is not in line with research by Bernstein et al.,
(2021) where attention and processing speed do not
have a significant impact. significant impact on safety
performance with the two indicators, namely safety
compliance and safety participation which will have
an impact on making decisions on driving safety for
veterans who carry out driving tests on the road. This
is different from the research from Guo et al., (2019)
which is in line with this study because in his research
it states that attention and action have a positive
significant effect on the safety performance of HSR
drivers. However, which memory indicator in Guo et
al., (2019)'s research using short term memory did not
have a significant effect on safety performance.
So from this study we know that workplace
cognitive failure has a significant influence on safety
participation. Therefore, it is necessary to provide an
administrative control or recommendation so that the
percentage of cognitive failure can decrease so that
safety participation for heavy equipment operators is
expected to increase.
Recommendation
1. Safety Training for Heavy Equipment helpers
and operators
Each operation must be accompanied by a helper,
according to the standard operating procedures for
using heavy equipment at work, particularly cranes
and trailers. This has not been executed in the best
way possible given the current state of the business's
environment. This is due to the fact that the
corporation has never conducted particular training
for assistance, as opposed to operator training, which
undergoes a training refresher every year but is not
routinely and regularly conducted. Heavy equipment
operators and helpers are therefore required to
complete job training in accordance with the Decree
of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration of
the Republic of Indonesia number
KEP.261/MEN/XI/2004 regarding businesses that are
required to provide job training for their employees if
they employ 100 or more people, heavy equipment
operators and helpers are required to attend training.
The company can make training based on the
Regulation of the Minister of Manpower of the
Republic of Indonesia number 8 of 2020 concerning
Occupational Safety and Health of Lifting Aircraft
which is carried out on a scheduled basis and is
followed by all operators or helpers. The training can
be carried out every 6 months or once a year, where
the scheduling is done consistently for every year.
The training methods that can be carried out can be in
the form of presentations, discussions, and
simulations with a time of no more than 8 hours. Then
the effectiveness of the results of the training can be
done by using a pre-test or post-test conducted before
and after the training.
2. Safety Campaign
In terms of management, it is possible to lessen
operators' propensity for forgetting where in the
workplace cognitive failure occurs (heavy equipment
operators have the highest proportion of failure to
remember, which is 42%) by regularly reminding staff
members of safety processes and norms. It is known
from the high proportion of recollections that many
heavy equipment operators frequently forget a variety
of work operations, including shutting off machines,
following work protocols, remembering important
phone numbers, and so forth. In order to print or
promote work procedures like SOP (Standard
Operational Procedure), IK (Work Instructor), or JSA
(Job Safety Analysis) using sticker media, company
magazines, wall magazines, or posters.
Through a safety campaign, the operator can
directly recall the stage of operating heavy machinery
that was forgotten and will always be aware of the
potential risks that could arise if he forgets it.
Naturally, the safety campaign will continue to be
based on all OHS policies and practices that are
currently in place at the business.
CONCLUSION
This study's conclusion is that one of the
performance metrics for safety, safety participation, is
significantly influenced by memory, attention, and
action, which are signs of cognitive failure at work
with p-value < 0.05. It is hoped that the company will
be able to implement the suggested administrative
controls to promote operator safety participation in
order to reduce risky actions on heavy equipment
operators in the upcoming year as a result of the
research and recommendations that have been
provided.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to express my gratitude to the oil and gas
service provider in the East Javan city of L for all the
opportunity to do research there. I also want to thank
my lecturer, who I am proud of, and the institution
where I studied, PPNS, for providing all of the
direction and assistance for this research.
REFERENCES
Amaliyah, N. (2017). Hubungan Antara Iklim
Keselamatan Kerja Dengan Kinerja Keselamatan
Pada Karyawan Perusahaan Food And Beverage Di
Pasuruan Malang: UNIVERSITAS
MUHAMMADIYAH .
Allahyari, T., J.Kass, S., & Adi, J. (2014). Cognitive
Failures, Driving Errors and Driving Accidents.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics (JOSE) 14(2), 149-158.
Ayuwardani, R. (2018). Pengaruh Informasi
Keuangan dan Non Keuangan Terhadap Underpricing
Harga Saham pada Perusahaan yang Melakukan
Initial Public Offering. Jurnal Nominal VII (1), 143-
158.
Bernstein, John P.K, et al (2021). On-road driving test
performance in veterans: Effects of age, clinical
diagnosis and cognitive measures. Journal of Safety
Research 77 (40-46)
Guo, Ming,. Hu, Lily., Ye, Long. (2019). Cognition
and driving safety: How does the high-speed railway
drivers’ cognitive ability affect safety performance?.
Journal Transportation Research Part F 65 10-22
Griffin, M., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of Safety
at Work: A Framework for Linking Safety Climate to
Safety Performance, Knowledge, and Motivation.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(3),
347-358
Liana. (2009). Penggunaan MRA dengan Spss untuk
Menguji Pengaruh Variabel Moderating terhadap
Hubungan antara Variabel Independen dan Variabel
Dependen. Jurnal Teknologi Informasi DINAMIK
(XIV), 90-97.
Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration number
KEP.261/MEN/XI/2004 tentang Perusahaan yang
Wajib Melaksanakan Pelatihan Kerja
Muliana. (2019). PENGARUH PARTISIPASI
ANGGARAN, PATERNALISTIC CULTURE DAN
JOBRELEVANT INFORMATION TERHADAP
KINERJA MANEJERIAL DENGAN
PENGENDALIAN INTERNAL SEBAGAI VARIABEL
MODERASI PADA PEMERINTAH KOTA
MAKASSAR. Makassar: FAKULTAS EKONOMI
DAN BISNIS ISLAM UNIVERSITAS ISLAM
NEGERI ALAUDDIN MAKASSAR.
Nahrgang, J., Morgeson, F., & Hofmann, D. (2007).
Predicting safety performance: A meta-analysis of
safety and organizational constructs. New York:
Poster session presented at the 22nd Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology.
Nevhage, B., & Lindahl, H. (2008). A Conseptual
Model, Methodology and Tool to Evaluate Safety
Perfomance in an Organization. Sweden: Department
of Design Sciences, Div. of Ergonomics and Aerosol
Technology.
Petitta, L., M. Probst, T., Ghezzi, V., & Barbaranelli,
C. (2019). Cognitive failures in response to emotional
contagion: Their effects on workplace accidents.
Accident Analysis and Prevention (125), 165-173.
Wallace, J., & Chen, G. (2005). Development and
validation of a work-specific measure of cognitive
failure: Implications for occupational safety. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (78),
15532.