Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Assessment and improvement of integrated HSE and macro-

ergonomics factors by fuzzy cognitive maps: The case of a large
gas refinery
S.M. Asadzadeh a, A. Azadeh a, *, A. Negahban b, A. Sotoudeh a
a
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Center of Excellence for Intelligent Based Experimental Mechanics, College of Engineering, University of
Tehran, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA

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

Article history: This study analyzes and assesses the integrated health, safety, environment (HSE) and ergonomics (HSEE)
Received 3 April 2012 factors by fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM) approach. This is achieved through integrating ergonomic and
Received in revised form macro-ergonomic as well as occupational health and safety arrangements in an integrated modeling for
9 January 2013
assessment of their multi-faceted impact on workers’ productivity, injury rate and satisfaction. This
Accepted 16 March 2013
paper uses FCM to assess the direct and indirect effects of HSEE factors on system performance in-
dicators. The results of FCM are used to develop leading indicators useful for proactive management of
Keywords:
productivity, injury rate, and job satisfaction. The result of a comprehensive survey of 37 experts in
Health
Safety
control rooms and maintenance activities in a large gas refinery is used to show the applicability and
Environment (HSE) usefulness of FCM approach. Moreover, FCM results are used to determine the causal structure of HSEE
Macro-ergonomics factors and system performance indicators. It is concluded that macro-ergonomics factors such as in-
Fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM) structions and education, familiarity with organization’s rules, and proper communications most
Gas refinery contribute to improve workers’ safety, satisfaction, and productivity.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Occupational health, safety, environment (HSE) management
systems at the operational level will strive to eliminate injuries,
adverse health effects and damages to the environment. By
considering health, safety, environment and ergonomics (HSEE), an
organization manages to regulate, standardize and optimize its
operations in a manner that places safety and health first. It en-
courages employees to adopt a healthy and safe life-style. It de-
velops and operates its facilities with due concern for the health
and safety of its neighbors and collaborates with authorities in the
preparation of emergency response plans. It contributes to eco-
efficiency by continuously improving energy consumption and
reducing waste, emissions and discharges. It designs and develops
products to have the minimum adverse effect on the environment
throughout their life-cycle. It optimizes the relation between man
and machine in a manner that man faces the least fatigues, less
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aazadeh@ut.ac.ir (A. Azadeh).
injuries and gets the most efficiency (Changchit & Holsapple, 2001;
Chen & Yang, 2004; Levine & Toffel, 2010).
Accidents usually cost a lot of money not only in damage to the
plant and claims for injury, but also the lost of the company
reputation, workers’ satisfaction and productivity. Accidents and
occupational ill-health are global phenomena and occur at any
time. However, accidents in general and especially those with
catastrophic impacts are not unpredictable. Accidents occur prin-
cipally from interaction between system components arrangement
i.e. human, technology and organization. The identification of and
preparedness for these accidents would either prevent their
occurrence or mitigate the impact in the case that they do occur.
The first step in identification and prediction of accidents is to have
a model of system components failures and errors. with respect to
modeling human errors, in the shift from the so-called first gen-
eration HRA methods, for example THERP (Swain & Guttmann,
1983) to the second generation HRA methods such as ATHEANA
(Cooper et al., 1996) and CREAM (Hollnagel, 1998), the focus of
human failure analysis had changed from inherent deficiencies of
humans and task characteristics to the contextual conditions or
environment in which the task is performed (Zio, 2009). Therefore,

0950-4230/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.007
1016 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026
work context and environment are the key factors in analyzing
performance of human workers in the work places.
Basically, ergonomics is concerned with all those factors that can
affect people and their behavior (Azadeh, Fam, Khoshnoud, &
Nikafrouz, 2008). In this sense, ergonomics covers a broad range
of programs from work place design, equipment design to work
regulation, communication, organization and system design. To
better reference to this broad variety of programs, macro-
ergonomics refers to the programs and tasks which concerns
macro-level in the organization. Training, education, communica-
tion, regulation and team-work are among those programs and
tasks at macro-level. In micro-level, ergonomics more concerns
with tool design, work-place design, lifting and transportation,
work load design, work shift schedule, etc.
There are close relationship between health, safety, environ-
ment and ergonomics factors (Azadeh, Rouzbahman, Saberi, &
Fam, 2011). Inappropriate design between human and machine
could lead to decreased safety. An ergonomics program aims at
reducing accidents and ill health, and increase productivity by
fitting the task to the worker (Health and Safety Executive). In
designing of production systems, economic and social goals can be
combined, if ergonomics is integrated into the design process (Dul,
de Vries, Verschoof, Eveleens, & Feilzer, 2004). At organization
level, poor management, training, education, communication,
regulation and team-work as well as work environment injurious
factors could cause human error and safety issues which conse-
quently would result in environmental risks (Bertolini, 2007;
Toriizuka, 2001).
The integrated HSEE system introduces a systemic mechanism,
which integrates the structure of the human and organizational
systems with a conventional HSE system and is utilized to enhance
team-work, reliability, availability, maintainability and safety
(Azadeh, Fam, & Azadeh, 2009; Azadeh Fam, Nouri, & Azadeh, 2008;
Azadeh, Rouzbahman, & Saberi, 2010). This study attempts to put
together ergonomics and macro-ergonomics as well as occupa-
tional health and safety arrangements in an integrated modeling
for assessment of their multi-faceted impact on workers’ produc-
tivity, injury rate and satisfaction.
Effective application of ergonomics in work system design can
achieve a balance between human characteristics and task de-
mands. This can enhance human productivity, reduce human error,
provide improved safety (physical and mental) and job satisfac-
tion. Several studies have shown positive effects of applying er-
gonomics principles to the workplace including machine, job and
environmental design (Ayoub, 1990a,b; Shikdar & Sawaqed, 2004).
Studies in ergonomics have also produced data and guidelines for
industrial applications (Burri & Helander, 1991). However, there is
still a low level of acceptance and limited application in industry.
The main concern of work system design in context of ergonomics
is improvement of machines and tools. Lack of utilization of the
ergonomics principles could bring inefficiency to the workplace.
Moreover, an ergonomically deficient workplace can cause phys-
ical and emotional stress, low productivity and poor quality of
work conditions. It is believed that ergonomics deficiencies in in-
dustry are root cause of workplace health hazards, low levels of
safety and reduced workers’ productivity (Champoux & Brun,
2003). Although ergonomics applications have gained significant
momentum in developed countries, awareness remains low in
developing regions.
Considerable research works have been devoted to study the
interrelationships of occupational health and safety, workers pro-
ductivity and job satisfaction. Azadeh et al. (2011) based on adap-
tive neural network (ANN) algorithm analyzed the relationship
between operators job satisfaction and HSEE factors. Saksvik and
Nytr (1996) presented an implementation of internal control of
health, environment and safety in Norwegian enterprises. Internal
control involves systematic actions that reduce stress and occupa-
tional hazards which will, in turn, prevent injuries and workplace
absenteeism. Flanagan, Strauss, and Ulman (1974) analyzed the
impacts of job dissatisfaction on work place behavior, such as lower
productivity, higher level of strikes, quits and absenteeism. Gyekye
and Salminen (2010) examined the relationships between work
experience and safety perceptions, job satisfaction, compliance
with safety management policies and accident frequency for Gha-
naian industrial workers. Although they did not report causal
relationship, they showed that there is a positive correlation be-
tween best safety perception, the highest level of job satisfaction,
the most compliant with safety procedures and the lowest accident
frequency.
Using ergonomics methods such as subjective assessment,
direct observation, use of archival data and assessment of noise,
Bin, Richardson, and Yeow (2010) studied a conducted ergonomics
program including installing noise insulating covers, providing
earplugs, installing elevated platforms, slanting visual display ter-
minals and installing extra exhaust fans. This study showed that the
ergonomics interventions significantly improved workers’ occu-
pational health and safety, which directly correlated with an
improvement in working conditions and job satisfaction. Shikdar
and Sawaqed (2003) identified factors that affected worker pro-
ductivity, occupational health and safety in industry. Hot environ-
mental conditions, noisy environment, and lack of resources and
facilities were identified as the main issues. They reported a sig-
nificant correlation among productivity indicators and health and
organizational attributes. Lack of skills in ergonomics and training,
communication and resources are believed to be some of the fac-
tors contributing to the poor ergonomics conditions and conse-
quent loss of worker productivity and reduced health and safety in
these industries.
Past injury/illness metrics as criteria for rating the effectiveness
of occupational safety and health (OSH) programs are necessary to
assess program success. However, they may not be sufficient for
developing proactive safety, ergonomics, and environmental
management plans (Wurzelbacher & Jin, 2011). Furthermore, the
effectiveness of occupational safety and health programs needs to
be assessed in a more broaden context as these programs have an
influential effect on other worker performance indicators such as
productivity and job satisfaction.
Adopting a holistic view of system performance, this paper uses
fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM) to assess the direct and indirect effects
of HSEE factors on three system performance indices: workers
productivity, injury rate, and job satisfaction. The results of FCM can
be used to develop leading indicators useful for proactive man-
agement of productivity, injury rate, and job satisfaction with re-
gard to the factors derived from the assessment of HSEE system.
Leading indicators of safety performance are predictors of future
safety performance based on selected criteria. The advantage of
using leading indicators of safety performance is if performance
indicators show poor or unacceptable performance, modifications
or changes can be made before injuries actually occur.
Fuzzy Cognitive Maps have been used in many application
fields where decision making process is related with uncertainty,
vague and incomplete information (Azadeh, Ziaei, & Moghaddam,
2012; Ghaderi, Azadeh, Pourvalikhan Nokhandan, & Fathi, 2012).
Ruan and Mkrtchyan (2012) used Belief Degree Fuzzy Cognitive
Maps to find the main factors influencing strong safety culture.
Safety Culture has been described how safety issues are managed
within an enterprise. Chytas, Glykas, and Valiris (2010) described
an FCM model for software reliability prediction. In order for
dealing with vague information and taking into account human
common sense and intuition, Smith and Eloff (2000) proposed a
 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026
fuzzy cognitive maps approach to assess risk in health care
institutions.
Toriizuka (2001) collected the background factors of human
behavior in an industrial plant and proposed original performance
shaping factors (PSFs) for maintenance tasks and utilized them to
evaluate human reliability. He categorized PSFs into eight groups:
1) Judgmental load, 2) Physical load, 3) Mental load, 4) Information
and confirmation, 5) Indication and communication, 6) Machinery
or tools, 7) Environment, 8) Work space. The PSFs defined by
Toriizuka (2001) were considered by Bertolini (2007) and a fuzzy
cognitive maps (FCMs) approach was presented in order to explore
the importance of the factors affecting human reliability in indus-
trial plants. The two macro-categories ‘‘environment’’ and ‘‘indi-
cation and communication’’ have emerged as the most important
categories as regards the causal influence on the top event human
reliability.
With the current increasing need for safety, productivity and
efficiency of both plant and human operator, fuzzy cognitive maps
(FCM) will provide an organization with a valid help in assessing
the most critical factors in managing socio-technical systems
(Bertolini & Bevilacqua, 2010). FCM of this study is a means to study
HSEE system factors and obtain useful indications on the conse-
quences which can be determined by the variation of one or more
health, safety, environment, ergonomics, and macro-ergonomics
variables. They can provide an interesting solution to the issue of
assessing the factors which are considered to affect the operator’s
safety, productivity and satisfaction.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
presents the overall methodology of the paper and illustrates the
method for analyzing cyclic FCMs. The research method of the
paper is discussed in section 3. Section 4 shows the application of
FCM for an HSEE system in gas refineries. Last section summarizes
and ends with the main findings of the study.
2. The overall methodology
The methodology of the paper is designed so as it comes up with
constructed indices of system performance in the integrated HSEE
system. The overall methodology of the paper is presented in six
stages as follows:
Stage 1. Identification of HSEE system limits
Stage 2. Identification of system performance indicators
Stage 3. Elicitation of concepts: Experts elicit a set of factors
(here called concepts) that might have an effect on system
performance
Stage 4. Direct impacts: the direct impact of each concept on
system performance as well as the impacts on each other will be
determined through subjective assessment.
Stage 5. Overall concepts weights: A weight of concept is the
relative importance of that concept in comparison to the
concept judged to be the most important. Fuzzy cognitive maps
is used to calculate these weights
Stage 6. Construct leading indicators of system performance e
based on the weight results of stage 5, indicators of system
performance are constructed for the analysis of changes in HSEE
factors.
2.1. Introduction to FCM
Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM) methodology is a symbolic repre-
sentation that is used for describing and modeling complex systems.
FCMs provide excellent mechanisms for supporting decision-makers
(Kosko, 1986). Decisions in organizations are commonly complex
which require analysis, brainstorming, experts’ consultation, or
1017
surveys. These decisions may result in either positive or dramatic
consequences that highly depend on the correct evaluation deci-
sional factors. Therefore, decision makers need to know all factors
related to the problem in order to make decisions. FCMs provide
decision makers with a tool to support and make successful
decisions.
In fact, a Fuzzy Cognitive Map incorporates the accumulated
experience and knowledge by employing human experts who are
aware of system operations and behavior in different situations.
The main advantage of this method is its simplicity. Another
advantage is that it functions on expert’s opinion. Experts deter-
mine concepts, interconnections, and assign casual fuzzy weights
to the interconnections. However, the strength of the data de-
pends on the number of experts’ opinion we can use. FCM is the
only fuzzy technique that gives the hidden pattern of the
problem.
Decision makers face difficulties in complicated dynamic sys-
tems where mathematical model formulation can be difficult,
costly, and impossible in some cases. In general, FCMs have been
found useful in variety of applications, including administrative
sciences, game theory, information analysis, popular political de-
velopments, electrical circuit analysis, cooperative manemachines,
distributed group-decision support, adaptation and learning
(Craiger, Goodman, Wiss, & Butler, 1996; Dickerson & Kosko, 1994;
Ghaderi et al., 2012).
Fuzzy Cognitive Maps describe the behavior of a complex sys-
tem in terms of concepts which represent different states, charac-
teristics, or variables of the system. Concepts interact with each
other in order to show the dynamics of the system. FCMs illustrate
the whole system by a graph showing the cause and effect relations
that exists among these concepts. The Fuzzy Cognitive Maps were
first introduced by Kosko (1986). He enhanced the power of
cognitive maps (Axelord, 1976), by considering fuzzy linguistic
representation for the concepts and fuzzy degrees of in-
terrelationships between concepts.
FCM is a directed graph which is composed of concepts (nodes)
and causal connections (edges) in order to represent causal rela-
tionship between concepts. The degree of the relationship between
concepts can be described as a number between [
1, 1], or fuzzy
linguistic terms, such as ‘‘high’’, ‘‘low’’, ‘‘medium’’, etc. Besides, each
variable concept can be excited in different measure from 0% to
100%.
The following rules are proposed by (Kardaras & Karakostas,
1999) in order to analyze cognitive maps:
 If an increase or decrease in Concept 1 causes Concept 2 to
change in the same direction, the relationship is positive. If the
effect on the effect variable is in the opposite direction, the
relationship is negative.
 The indirect effect I(X,Y) of a cause variable (X) on an effect
variable (Y) is positive if the multiplication of the sign of causal
effects that form the path from the cause variable to the effect
variable is positive.
 The total effect of a cause variable X on effect variable Y is the
sum of all the direct and indirect effects from all the possible
paths that connect X to Y and is denoted by T(X, Y).
Cyclic FCM includes at least a directed cycle (See Fig. 1 as an
example) whereas acyclic FCM does not have any directed cycle.
The interest for analysis of cyclic FCMs is their capability to model
dynamic systems with feedback. The counterpart of feedbacks in
FCM is a cycle.
In the cyclic FCM of Fig. 1, suppose we are interested in calcu-
lating the total effects of C1 on C4. According to Kosko (1986), the
total effects are defined as follows. Concept 1 is connected to
1018 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026

a lot 2.2. Applied FCM procedure

C1 C2
A general algorithm for performing FCM is given as follows:
- some
some - a lot - some Step 1: Read the input vector A(t).
Step 2: Give the connection matrix, E.
Step 3: Calculate the output vector O(t) ¼ A(t) *E.
C3 a lot C4 Step 4: Apply threshold function f($) to output vector: O(t) ¼ f
{O(t)}.
Fig. 1. Example of cyclic FCM. Step 5: If (O(t) ¼ A(t)), stop
else set t ¼ t þ 1; A(t) ¼ O(t); go to step 3.
End
Concept 4 via an infinite number of paths because the FCM in Fig. 1
is a cyclic graph with one loop between concepts C2 and C4. A In the Step 4 of the general algorithm, f is a threshold function
fuzzy causal algebra is developed by Kosko (1986) to effectively which can be defined in various formulations. The type of threshold
govern the causal propagation and combinations in FCM. Here the function has significant impact on the result of FCM analysis. Two
Min-Max fuzzy algebraic operators are illustrated. There is one threshold functions are usually used: The uni-polar sigmoid func-
direct effect of C1 on C4 which is effective on the one-edge Path 1: tion when interactions can only put on positive numbers and
P1(C1eC4). The effect delivered on this path is I1(1,4) and calcu- tanh(x) when concepts can be negative and their values belong to
lated as the interval [
1, 1]. Thresholding usually helps quickly converging
to stable limit cycles or fixed points. These limit cycles show
/I1 ð1; 4Þ ¼ minf
someg ¼
some; “hidden patterns” in the causal web of FCM (Kosko, 1988).
Here, to analyze a cyclic cognitive map we propose to use a
Indirect effect is an effect that a concept has on another concept normalizing function as the threshold function f. What makes this
via other concepts in FCM. The first group of indirect effects of C1 on choice appropriate is that in the FCM analysis of this study we are
C4 consists of two two-edge paths. C1 has an indirect effect on C4 interested in the relative total effects of concepts. Specifically by
via C2. Two-edge Path 2: P2(C1-C2eC4) represents this effect. having the relative total effects of HSEE factors on system perfor-
mance indicators such as injury rate, we are able to develop leading
indicators to improved managing the system performance. In this
/I2 ð1; 4Þ ¼ minfa lot;
a lotg ¼
a lot; study for the analysis of a cyclic cognitive map, the FCM matrix
properties showed by Kosko (1986) are used and a Monte Carlo
C1 has also an indirect effect on C4 via C3. Two-edge Path 3:
simulation-based procedure is suggested as follows:
P3(C1eC3eC4) represents this effect.

/I3 ð1; 4Þ ¼ minfsome; a lotg ¼ some: Table 1

HSEE system and its performance concepts.
Because of the loop (C2eC4) in the FCM, C4 could have indirect
Category Symbol Concepts
effect on itself via C2. Therefore, the second group of indirect effects
Health H1 Lack of enough drinks and liquids in warm
consists of one three-edge path P4(C1eC4eC2eC4) from C1 to C4
places
including a loop. H2 Lack of fresh air
H3 Breathing problems in workplace
H4 Stress and mental pressures
/I4 ð1; 4Þ ¼ minf
some;
some;
a lotg ¼
some: Safety S1 Not using safety devices and procedures
S2 Uncomfortable and obstructive safety devices
This means that C4 have an effect on itself via C2 because once S3 Dangerous and unsuitable work space design
C4 is affected by C1, it will affect C2 and once C2 is affected, it S4 Hazards in work place
S5 Fire and explosion hazards in work place
again affects C4. This process continually happens until the total
Environment EN1 Loud noise
effect reaches equilibrium. Accordingly, there are an infinite EN2 Improper lighting
number of indirect effects this FCM. Similarly four-edge paths, EN3 Warm places
five-edge paths, etc can be drawn and their indirect effects can be EN4 Pollution in the workplace
calculated. EN5 Pollution nearby workplace
Ergonomy ER1 Pain and distress because of work
The total effect of C1 on C4 is calculated by applying the max ER2 Ergonomically unsuitable office furniture
operator on all direct and indirect paths from C1 to C4. Due to the ER3 Difficult to move within workplace
presence of loops in the three or more-edge paths, the number of ER4 Difficult to transport and operate machines,
indirect effects is infinite and there is no closed form solution for materials and tools
ER5 Vibrations of tools and machinery on body
the total effects. Therefore, the equilibrium state for such dy-
ER6 Ergonomically unsuitable machines and tools
namic systems is of interest. Moreover, for the numerical analysis Macro ergonomy MER1 Lack of instructions and education about safety
of a dynamic system usually fuzzy numbers are defuzzified into and accident prevention
crisp numbers and by doing so, FCMs can numerically be MER2 Lack of respect for rules
analyzed. Acyclic FCMs can be numerically analyzed using the MER3 Work pressures
MER4 Lack of documented instructions about works
traditional approach proposed by Kosko (1986) but they consid-
MER5 Unfamiliarity with organization’s rules
ered FCM as a directed acyclic graph with no causal loops. MER6 Lack of proper communications with managers
Violation from the assumption of FCM as directed acyclic graph MER7 Difficulties within organization with coworkers
however restricts the application of the traditional procedure. System performance SP1 Overall job satisfaction
SP2 Workers productivity
The next section presents a procedure for numerical analysis of
SP3 Injury rates
cyclic FCMs.
 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026 1019

HSEE Categories System Performance

Macro-
Health
Ergonomy
Job Workers
Satisfaction Productivity

Safety Ergonomy

Injury Rate

Environment

Fig. 2. The research framework.

Let C1, C2, ., Cn be causal concepts and let eij ¼ e(Ci, Cj) be the
(i, j) cell in adjacency matrix E representing the amount of cau-
sality Ci imparts to Cj. It lists all the one-edge paths on the
cognitive map representing the direct effects of concepts.
E2 ¼ ½e2ij  ¼ E*E lists all two-edge paths on the cognitive map.
Similarly E3, E4, ., En
1list the effect of summing all three-edge,
four-edge,., and (n
1)-edge indirect effects. The total effect of
Ci on Cj is the summation of direct and all indirect effects. In an
acyclic FCM, indirect effects corresponding to edges with more
than (n
1) order all are zero. However, here E is not an acyclic
matrix and the indirect effects include high-order edge effects.
Therefore, En, Enþ1, ., EM (M is a big number approaching infinity)
all include in total indirect effects. Then total-effect matrix TM can
be calculated by Equation (1).
XM/N
TM ¼ i¼1
Ei
It is noted that each row of TM contains the total effects of one
concept on other concepts in FCM and each column of TM contains
the total influence by all the concepts in FCM on a single concept.
Furthermore, a normalized column in TM represents the relative
causal weight of other concepts in forming the concept corre-
spondent to that column.
Although for a cyclic cognitive map TM does not necessarily
represent a deterministic stable process with known steady state;
however the normalized matrix Norm (TM) resulted from
normalizing columns of TM by dividing them by the maximum cell
of TM shows a stable behavior. This can be examined easily by
Monte Carlo simulation of TM process. The following simple
pseudo code illuminates the process of Monte Carlo simulation in
FCM.
Table 2
Cronbach alpha for the different categories.
Category Health Safety Environment Ergonomy Macro ergonomy
ra 0.71 0.82 0.77 0.72 0.83
3. Research method
3.1. Concept development for FCM
The integrated HSEE system characteristics as well as its per-
formance, give shape to five categories of concepts in FCM: Health,
safety, environment, ergonomics, macro ergonomics, and system
performance. Initially, a literature review was carried out, consid-
ering the studies on occupational safety and health, ergonomics,
(1) customer satisfaction and productivity in industrial plants specif-
ically for gas refineries. Standard indicators for assessment of HSEE
factors developed by Azadeh, Fam, Khoshnoud, et al. (2008) are
used for system quantification in each category. For validity anal-
ysis, the method of content validity is used. These factors are
initially analyzed by a panel of 7 experts to verify the relevance of
concepts for HSEE assessment. Based on this initial validation, the
most important factors (concepts in FCM terminology) are finalized
and represented in Table 1.
Fig. 2 illustrates the research framework describing the rela-
tionship between the HSEE categories (independent variables) and
system performance indicators (dependent variables). Each HSEE
category represents a set of system aspects which are hypothesized
to affect other aspects. Furthermore, the categories are interrelated
and are assumed to have impact on each other and on system
performance. The proposed FCM of the study analyses the total
 1020
Table 3
The global FCM connection matrix.

S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026
H1 H2 H3 H4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5 ER1 ER2 ER3 ER4 ER5 ER6 MER1 MER2 MER3 MER4 MER5 MER6 MER7 SP1 SP2 SP3
H1 0 0 0 0.64 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0.42 0 0 0.37 0.37
0.74
0.72 0.33
H2 0 0 0.89 0.56 0.51 0 0 0 0 0 0.49 0.27 0.42 0.4 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 0.53 0 0 0.22 0.24
0.83
0.66 0.51
H3 0 0 0 0.7 0.45 0 0 0.38 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.65 0 0 0.22 0.24
0.69
0.71 0.73
H4 0 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0.56 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 0.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.7 0 0 0.53 0.69
0.68
0.68 0.54
S1 0 0.14 0.59 0.34 0 0 0 0.75 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0 0 0 0.65 0 0 0.23 0 0 0 0 0
0.39
0.52 0.79
S2 0 0 0.56 0.66 0.82 0 0 0.7 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 0 0.38 0 0.54 0 0 0.45 0.44 0 0 0 0
0.63
0.74 0.49
S3 0 0 0.42 0.5
0.63 0 0 0.74 0.71 0.23 0.61 0.39 0.35 0.21 0.63 0 0.68 0.68 0.32 0 0 0.44 0.53 0 0 0.31 0.43
0.59
0.76 0.65
S4 0 0 0 0.56
0.58 0 0 0 0.58 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0
0.41
0.33 0.59
0.46
0.2
0.18 0.34
0.49
0.32 0.74
S5 0 0 0 0.5
0.59 0 0 0.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0 0 0 0 0
0.53
0.34 0.55
0.69
0.21
0.2 0.19
0.58
0.36 0.84
EN1 0 0 0 0.42
0.5 0 0 0.46 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 0.67 0 0 0.28 0.43
0.56
0.69 0.46
EN2 0 0 0 0.49
0.33 0 0 0.6 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 0.51 0 0.53 0.72 0 0 0 0.37 0.55 0 0 0.24 0.3
0.54
0.78 0.63
EN3 0.54 0 0.51 0.66 0.56 0 0 0.48 0.64 0 0 0 0.35 0.19 0.65 0 0 0.53 0 0 0 0.44 0.65 0 0 0.41 0.39
0.74
0.79 0.51
EN4 0 0.71 0.75 0.66
0.53 0 0 0.5 0.48 0 0.4 0 0 0.53 0.47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 0.54 0 0 0.5 0.5
0.64
0.71 0.63
EN5 0 0.61 0.63 0.38
0.29 0 0 0.26 0.24 0 0.31 0 0.54 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0 0 0 0
0.35
0.23 0.53
ER1 0 0 0 0.67
0.45 0 0 0.57 0.34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.41 0.57 0 0 0.41 0.47
0.88
0.88 0.71
ER2 0 0 0 0.38 0.28 0 0.41 0.33 0.23 0 0.47 0 0 0 0.57 0 0.51 0.33 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.55
0.58 0.32
ER3 0 0 0 0.43 0.55 0.42 0 0.59 0.39 0 0 0 0 0 0.48 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0.37 0.55 0 0 0.44 0.43
0.46
0.65 0.44
ER4 0 0 0 0.3 0.45 0.44 0 0.69 0.62 0.23 0 0 0.37 0.23 0.63 0 0.74 0 0.68 0 0 0.35 0.61 0 0 0 0
0.45
0.67 0.6
ER5 0 0 0 0.45
0.45 0 0 0.54 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 0.77 0 0 0.66 0 0
0.39 0 0.61 0 0 0 0
0.66
0.56 0.79
ER6 0 0 0 0.42 0.46 0.49 0 0.66 0.62 0.48 0 0 0 0 0.81 0 0.4 0.74 0.79 0 0 0.46 0.79 0 0 0.36 0.35
0.53
0.84 0.69
MER1 0 0 0 0.35 0.72 0.62 0.61 0.84 0.82 0 0.46 0.44 0.38 0.22 0.6 0 0.21 0.31 0.66 0.49 0 0.5 0.71 0 0.62 0.35 0.31
0.45
0.66 0.83
MER2 0 0 0
0.26 0.76 0 0.55 0.81 0.75 0.2 0.39 0.25 0.42 0.36 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0.53 0
0.2 0.5 0.51 0.38 0.4 0
0.59 0.64
MER3 0 0 0 0.69 0.39 0 0 0.48 0.51 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.52 0 0 0 0.39 0.64
0.83
0.61 0.58
MER4 0 0.32 0 0.32 0.71 0 0.51 0.74 0.74 0.34 0.34 0.38 0.5 0.39 0.61 0.16 0.28 0.57 0.68 0.44 0.83 0.7 0.57 0 0.62 0.29 0.5
0.46
0.73 0.63
MER5 0 0 0 0.34 0.51 0 0.48 0.48 0.51 0.27 0.22 0.21 0.43 0.35 0.43 0 0.33 0.35 0 0.38 0.53 0.85 0.52 0 0 0.56 0.37
0.27
0.54 0.53
MER6 0.4 0 0 0.51 0 0.39 0.49 0.38 0.39 0.19 0.43 0.36 0.41 0.25 0.29 0.34 0.43 0.53 0 0.47 0.76 0.46 0.4 0.73 0.55 0 0.35
0.51
0.56 0.23
MER7 0 0 0 0.56 0 0 0 0.28 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0.39 0.27 0.34 0 0.52 0.52 0
0.65
0.54 0.32
SP1 0 0 0
0.65
0.48 0 0
0.33
0.25 0 0 0
0.22
0.22
0.44 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.71
0.52 0
0.41
0.35
0.68 0 0.8
0.28
SP2 0 0 0
0.41
0.27 0 0
0.37
0.25 0 0 0
0.35
0.24 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.23
0.25
0.49
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.34 0.55 0
0.26
SP3 0 0 0 0.72
0.68 0
0.52
0.65
0.45 0 0 0 0 0 0.76 0 0 0 0 0
0.47
0.66 0.51
0.59
0.33
0.44 0.45
0.87
0.86 0
 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026 1021

effects of HSEE variables and determines the relative significance of x 10

20
10
the existing effects.
8
3.2. Causal interrelationships
6
A panel of 37 experts consisting plant managers and academic

Total effect
researchers was formed to specify the causal interrelationships of 4
the concepts. Basically, the target experts have a high level of
background in system performance analysis and human resource 2
management. With background we mean executive long-term
experience as well as expertise and knowledge about health and 0
safety systems, employee relationship management, and human
productivity management. Academic researchers in the panel have -2
been long studying the related subjects and have published
research papers in the fields of system performance analysis and -4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
human resource management. M

Respondents are asked to express their opinion about the paired

relationships of concepts, based on a five-point Likert-type scale
with anchors ranging from ‘strongly negative (
1)’ to ‘strongly
positive (þ1)’ including ‘positive (þ0.5)’, ‘neutral (0)’, and ‘negative
(
0.5)’. Respondents realize that a value of zero means no causal
influence between concepts. A positive value of relationship shows
that an increase in one concept leads to an increase in the other
concept and a negative value of interrelationship shows an increase
in one concept cause the other concept to decrease.
Reliability is a technical specification of the instrument and
shows the ability of the instrument to generate identical results in a
given circumstance. Reliability is a coefficient between zero and one
and indicates the relevance and assessment power of the instru-
ment. Here, to examine the reliability of the instrument, the Cron-
bach alpha is used. The Cronbach alpha measures the internal
coordination of the instrument and is calculated by the Equation (2).
0 1
Pn
J B
2C
B j ¼ 1 sj C
ra ¼ B1
C (2)
J
1@ S 2 A effects of concepts. Then for total-effect matrix TM for which up to
Where J is the number of concepts in each category which is
identical to the number of questions in the questionnaire. s2j is the
variance of jth concept, and S2 is the overall variance. As com-
mented by Dornyei (2007, p. 207), the accepted level of this statistic
is 0.7. In the other words, ra greater than 0.7 shows acceptable
reliability of the instrument. The ra of the questionnaire in different
categories is calculated by SPSS 18 software and results are pre-
sented in Table 2. The results show an acceptable reliability level for
the questionnaire in different categories.
The signed FCM can show the cause and effect relations be-
tween factors; however in order to numerically and quantitatively
analyze the system, we need to give weights to relationships. In
Fig. 3. Changes in the total effects of HSEE factors on injury rate (SP3).
where FCMglobal is the global FCM that represents the expert
domain knowledge, Credi is the credibility weight of expert i, and
FCMi is the single FCM of expert i. Considering equal credibility for
experts, the global FCM is obtained as inTable 3. Although the in-
dividual FCMi represents a fuzzy cognitive map, the global FCM can
be considered as a cognitive map since the uncertainty arise from
specifying the causal relationships by only a single expert has been
handled through aggregation of all expert opinions. This global
FCM is considered as the adjacency matrix for the cognitive map
analysis in the next section.
4. Results
In order for the analysis of global FCM, the suggested procedure
of Section 2.2 is used. Suppose the FCM is a cognitive map, then the
global FCM represented in Table 3 is an adjacency matrix (E). It lists
all the one-edge paths on the cognitive map representing the direct
M-edge paths have been aggregated, Equation (1) is used. It is noted
that each row of TM contains the total effects of one concept on
other concepts in FCM and each column of TM contains the total
influence by all the concepts in FCM on a single concept. Norm (TM)
normalizes the columns of TM by dividing them by the maximum of
TM. Furthermore, a normalized column in TM represents the relative
causal weight of other concepts in forming the concept corre-
spondent to that column.
0.5
0.4
Normalized total effect

0.3
order to do so, there are different approaches (Papageorgiou,
Stylios, Groumpos, & Peter, 2003; Stach, Kurgan, Pedrycz, &
0.2
Reformat, 2005; Taber, 1991). In one approach, experts’ opinions
in the form of linguistic terms are gathered and after combining all
0.1
the different experts’ opinions together and then using deffuzifying
techniques such as center of area (COA) a weight is assigned to each
0
relationship. Here, the formula suggested by Taber (1991) is used to
unify different judgments of experts, which is based on the credi-
-0.1
bility weights of the experts. The union of different judgments is
obtained through Equation (3):
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
XN M
FCMglobal ¼ i¼1
ðFCMi *Credi Þ (3)
Fig. 4. Changes in the normalized total effects on injury rate of HSEE factors.
 1022
Table 4
FCM normalized total effect matrix.

S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026
H1 H2 H3 H4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5 ER1 ER2 ER3 ER4 ER5 ER6 MER1 MER2 MER3 MER4 MER5 MER6 MER7 SP1 SP2 SP3
H1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.31 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.26 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.28
0.02 0.07 0.14 0.26
0.36
0.36 0.29
H2 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.48 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.33 0.29 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.40 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.44
0.03 0.11 0.22 0.40
0.55
0.56 0.45
H3 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.30 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.18 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.25 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.28
0.02 0.07 0.14 0.25
0.35
0.35 0.28
H4 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.34 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.21 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.29 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.31
0.02 0.08 0.16 0.29
0.39
0.40 0.32
S1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.15
0.01 0.04 0.08 0.14
0.19
0.19 0.16
S2 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.20 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.28 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.30
0.02 0.07 0.15 0.28
0.38
0.39 0.31
S3 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.52 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.37 0.32 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.14 0.11 0.44 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.48
0.04 0.12 0.25 0.45
0.60
0.62 0.50
S4 0.00 0.00
0.01
0.08 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.06
0.05 0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.07 0.00
0.01
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.04
0.07 0.01
0.02
0.04
0.07 0.09 0.09
0.08
S5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.01
0.01 0.00
0.09
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.11 0.00
0.01
0.01 0.00
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.12 0.01
0.03
0.06
0.11 0.16 0.16
0.13
EN1 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.16 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.22 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.24
0.02 0.06 0.12 0.22
0.30
0.31 0.25
EN2 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.21 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.28 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.31
0.02 0.08 0.16 0.28
0.39
0.40 0.32
EN3 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.50 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.35 0.31 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.42 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.46
0.03 0.11 0.23 0.42
0.57
0.59 0.47
EN4 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.47 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.33 0.29 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.40 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.43
0.03 0.11 0.22 0.40
0.54
0.56 0.45
EN5 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.20 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.22
0.02 0.05 0.11 0.20
0.28
0.28 0.23
ER1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.31 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.26 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.28
0.02 0.07 0.14 0.26
0.35
0.36 0.29
ER2 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.27 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.23 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.25
0.02 0.06 0.13 0.23
0.31
0.32 0.26
ER3 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.37 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.23 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.08 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.34
0.03 0.08 0.17 0.31
0.43
0.44 0.35
ER4 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.21 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.29 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.32
0.02 0.08 0.16 0.29
0.40
0.41 0.33
ER5 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.14
0.01 0.03 0.07 0.13
0.17
0.18 0.14
ER6 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.49 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.34 0.30 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.41 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.45
0.03 0.11 0.23 0.41
0.56
0.58 0.46
MER1 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.68 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.48 0.42 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.18 0.14 0.57 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.63
0.05 0.16 0.32 0.58
0.79
0.81 0.65
MER2 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.49 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.34 0.30 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.41 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.45
0.03 0.11 0.23 0.42
0.57
0.58 0.47
MER3 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.34 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.21 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.29 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.31
0.02 0.08 0.16 0.29
0.39
0.40 0.32
MER4 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.85 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.59 0.52 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.22 0.18 0.71 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.39 0.78
0.06 0.19 0.40 0.72
0.97
1.00 0.80
MER5 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.63 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.44 0.39 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.16 0.13 0.53 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.58
0.04 0.14 0.30 0.54
0.73
0.75 0.60
MER6 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.84 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.59 0.52 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.22 0.18 0.71 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.39 0.77
0.06 0.19 0.39 0.71
0.97
0.99 0.80
MER7 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.37 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.23 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.08 0.31 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.34
0.03 0.09 0.18 0.32
0.43
0.44 0.35
SP1
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.41
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.29
0.25
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.11
0.09
0.35
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.19
0.38 0.03
0.09
0.19
0.35 0.47 0.49
0.39
SP2
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.36
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.25
0.22
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.09
0.08
0.30
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.17
0.33 0.02
0.08
0.17
0.31 0.42 0.43
0.34
SP3 0.00
0.01
0.01
0.10 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.08 0.00
0.01
0.01 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.04
0.09 0.01
0.02
0.05
0.08 0.11 0.11
0.09
 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026 1023

Table 5
Effects and influence of FCM concepts.

Category Symbol Concepts Absolute row mean Absolute column mean

Health H1 Lack of enough drinks and liquids in warm places 0.1 0.0
H2 Lack of fresh air 0.2 0.0
H3 Breathing problems in workplace 0.1 0.0
H4 Stress and mental pressures 0.1 0.4
Safety S1 Not using safety devices and procedures 0.1 0.0
S2 Uncomfortable and obstructive safety devices 0.1 0.0
S3 Dangerous and unsuitable work space design 0.2 0.0
S4 Hazards in work place 0.0 0.3
S5 Fire and explosion hazards in work place 0.0 0.2
Environment EN1 Loud noise 0.1 0.0
EN2 Improper lighting 0.1 0.0
EN3 Warm places 0.2 0.0
EN4 Pollution in the workplace 0.2 0.1
EN5 Pollution nearby workplace 0.1 0.1
Ergonomy ER1 Pain and distress because of work 0.1 0.3
ER2 Ergonomically unsuitable office furniture 0.1 0.0
ER3 Difficult to move within workplace 0.1 0.0
ER4 Difficult to transport and operate machines, materials and tools 0.1 0.0
ER5 Vibrations of tools and machinery on body 0.1 0.0
ER6 Ergonomically unsuitable machines and tools 0.2 0.0
Macro ergonomy MER1 Lack of instructions and education about safety and accident prevention 0.2 0.0
MER2 Lack of respect for rules 0.2 0.2
MER3 Work pressures 0.1 0.4
MER4 Lack of documented instructions about works 0.3 0.0
MER5 Unfamiliarity with organization’s rules 0.2 0.1
MER6 Lack of proper communications with managers 0.3 0.2
MER7 Difficulties within organization with coworkers 0.1 0.3
System performance SP1 Overall job satisfaction 0.1 0.4
SP2 Workers productivity 0.1 0.5
SP3 Injury rates 0.0 0.4

The results of Monte Carlo simulation of both TM and Norm (TM)
processes with the adjacency matrix of Table 3 are depicted in
Figs. 3 and 4. For illustration, the last column of total effects matrix
TM is considered which represents the total effects of HSEE factors
on rate of injury (SP3).
In both Figs. 3 and 4, 30 data series are depicted each corre-
sponding to a concept in Table 1. As seen in Fig. 3, the total effects of
HSEE factors do not show a stable process when M increases. How-
ever, a steady state is reached in the normalized processes of Fig. 4
where the values of the normalized total effects remain unchanged
for Ms greater than 15. Similar steady state analysis is performed for
all concepts in Table 1 and the results are presented in Table 4.
Numbers in Table 4 are the steady state effects of concepts on
each other. One important feature that could be extracted is the
average of absolute total effects on or total influences by the other
concepts in FCM. These can be calculated by the means over rows
and columns of Table 4. For each concept i, the mean of total effects
over row i of FCM normalized total effect matrix (Table 4) is the
average causal effects that concept i imparts on FCM concepts
including itself. Similarly, the average of total effects over column j
of FCM normalized total effect matrix can be interpreted as a degree
of causality by which concept j is influenced. It is noted that
because experts are asked to express their opinion about the paired
relationships of concepts, the final results of FCM analysis is
interpreted as the causal relationship between concepts, as well.
Normally, experimental methods are employed to test hypotheses
concerning cause-and-effect relationship. However, the data
needed for experimental analysis should be panel data collected for
different companies or for a company in different periods of time.
Usually, accessing the accurate data due to the lack of data man-
agement systems especially in developing countries is limited and
this fact restricts the successful application of experimental
methods. Table 5 shows the averages over rows and columns of the
FCM normalized total effect matrix.
Based on the causality features extracted in Table 5, a diagram of
causality levels (Fig. 5) is developed, which clusters HSEE factors in

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

H1
H3
S1
H2
S2
S3 MER6
EN1 EN4 ER1 H4
MER4 EN3 MER2 Productivity
MER7 MER3
EN2 MER5
ER6 S5
ER2 S4 Satisfaction
MER1 EN5
ER3 Injuries

ER4
ER5

Fig. 5. The causal levels of HSEE factors and system performance indicators.
1024 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026

1.00 map will not be too sensitive to the values chosen for clusters
Overall job satisfaction Workers productivity Injury rate
0.80 thresholds.
The results of causal leveling in Fig. 5 shows that lack of docu-
0.60
mented instructions about works (MER4) can be considered among
0.40 the root causes of low satisfaction, high injuries, and low produc-
0.20 tivity. Other root causes include lack of fresh air (H2), dangerous
Relative effect

and unsuitable work space design (S3), warm places (EN3), ergo-
0.00
nomically unsuitable machines and tools (ER6), and Lack of in-
H2

S4
S5
H1

H3
H4
S1
S2
S3

ER1
ER2
ER3
ER4
ER5
ER6

MER3
MER4
MER5
MER6
MER7
EN1
EN2
EN3
EN4
EN5

MER1
MER2
-0.20 structions and education about safety and accident prevention
-0.40 (MER1). Two HSEE factors of stress and mental pressures (H4) and
work pressures (MER3) are most influenced by other factors and
-0.60
along with low satisfaction and high injury rate contribute to low
-0.80
accounts of workers productivity. Productivity belongs to the last
-1.00 level of causality indicating that it is most influenced by the other
-1.20
factors.
HSEE Factors
Another interesting conclusion that can be drawn from Table 4 is
Fig. 6. The normalized effects of HSEE factors on system performance indicators. to determine the most important factors with regard to system
performance indicators. Fig. 6 shows the total effect of HSEE factors
on system performance indicators. These relative effects provide an
different levels of causality. There are six levels in this diagram. indication on changes occurred in injury rate by the variation in
Factors in each level impart some causality on the factors in their each of HSEE factors and are served as a basis to construct leading
subsequent level. As mentioned before, the average over columns in indicators of system safety performance. Specifically, a leading in-
Table 5 represents the degree by which each concept is under dicator of injury rate can be constructed as in Equation (4).

Leading Inj: Rate ¼ 0:29*H1 þ 0:45*H2 þ 0:28*H3 þ 0:32*H4 þ 0:16*S1 þ 0:31*S2 þ 0:50*S3 þ
0:08S4 þ
0:13*S5 þ 0:25*EN1
þ 0:32EN2 þ 0:47*EN3 þ 0:45*EN4 þ 0:23*EN5 þ 0:29*ER1 þ 0:26*ER2 þ 0:35*ER3 þ 0:33*ER4 þ 0:14*ER5
þ 0:46*ER6 þ 0:65*MER1 þ 0:47*MER2 þ 0:32*MER3 þ 0:80*MER4 þ 0:60*MER5 þ 0:80*MER6
þ 0:35*MER7
(4)

influence of the other concepts in HSEE system FCM. The less this
degree of influence, the lower the level of causality to which concept i
belongs.
In the clustering of Fig. 5, the concepts with column mean be-
tween zero and 0.05 belong to the first level. Level 2 contains
concepts with column mean between 0.05 and 0.15, level 3 with
column mean between 0.15 and 0.25, level 4 between 0.25 and
0.35, column 5 between 0.35 and 0.45, and finally level 6 contains
concepts with average column greater than 0.45. On the other
hand, the average of row i in Table 5 represents the degree of effect
concept i has on the other concepts in HSEE system FCM. In the
causal leveling of Fig. 5, the level of causality is shown by increased
or decreased indentation. In other words, in each level the con-
cepts are organized so that concepts with decreased indentation
have greater row means than the concepts with increased inden-
tation indicating more effect on concepts in the subsequent levels.
These values are intuitively assigned to the clusters thresholds in
order to form six near-size clusters in the discourse of 0e0.5.
Moreover, in each cluster indentation is used to differentiate be-
tween the levels of the concepts causality. It is noted that with both
clustering and indentation in the clusters, the results of causality
As seen in Equation (4) and Fig. 6, macro-ergonomics factors
such as lack of instructions and education about safety and accident
prevention (MER1), lack of documented instructions about works
(MER4), unfamiliarity with organization’s rules (MER5), and lack of
proper communications with managers (MER6) are influential
factors that most contribute to the accounts of system performance
indicators. It is also noted that the negative signs for S4 and S5 may
be interpreted as the effect on injury rate of situation awareness in
work place. As the level of awareness of hazards in work place in-
creases, staff preparedness and readiness increase when encoun-
tering incidents hence lower rate of injury.
5. Qualitative comparison
The applicability and usefulness of the proposed approach of
this study is compared with the previous studies in terms of some
qualitative features (Table 6). The common characteristic of the
studies in Table 6 is that they all focus on the subject of assessment
and improvement of HSEE risk management systems, most in the
process industries. This comparison is performed to highlight the
contribution of the proposed FCM approach. The proposed FCM is

Table 6
The features of the proposed FCM versus other studies.

Reference study
This study
Bertolini (2007)
Azadeh et al. (2011)
Smith and Eloff (2000)
Azadeh et al. (2010)
Fuzzy modeling Intensive data necessity Integrated HSEE modeling Systemic feedback modeling Causal structure determination
O O O O O
O O O
O
O O O
O O
 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026
capable of dealing fuzzy and subjective assessment in the modeling
environment. This approach does not require intensive data
collection due to its mechanism whereas the artificial intelligent
modeling in Azadeh et al. (2011) and Azadeh et al. (2010) need
intensive experimental data. Moreover, this study assesses the
influential factors in the integrated HSEE system. The cyclic FCM of
this study allows modeling feedbacks and loop effects of the factors.
Finally, the causal structure determination in different levels and
clustering of the factors in different levels of causality is the unique
feature of this study.
6. Conclusion
This study analyzed and assessed the integrated HSEE factors by
FCM approach. This was achieved through integrating ergonomics and
macro-ergonomics as well as occupational health and safety ar-
rangements in an integrated model for assessment of their multi-
faceted impact on workers’ productivity, injury rate, and workers’
satisfaction. The direct and indirect effects of HSEE factors on each
other as well as on system performance indicators were assessed. The
result of FCM was used to develop leading indicators useful for pro-
active management of system performance. As illustrated in this study
FCM is a very powerful technique for decision support where there is a
need to map knowledge of different experts for system analysis.
In the case study, important health, safety, environment and
ergonomics factors in gas refineries were determined and then
through the use of cyclic FCM, we mapped the knowledge of ex-
perts about the relationships between HSEE factors and showed the
cause and effect relations between these factors and then con-
structed leading indicators for system performance. Based on the
causality features extracted from FCM, a diagram of causality levels
was developed, which categorized HSEE factors in different levels
of causality.
The results of this study showed that macro-ergonomics factors
such as lack of instructions and education about safety and accident
prevention, lack of documented instructions about work, unfamil-
iarity with organization’s rules, and lack of proper communications
with managers are important influential factors that most
contribute to the accounts of system performance indicators.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the valuable comments and sug-
gestion from the respected reviewers. Their valuable comments
and suggestions have enhanced the strength and significance of our
paper. This study was supported by a grant from University of
Tehran (Grant No. 8106013/1/12). The authors are grateful for the
support provided by the College of Engineering, University of
Tehran, Iran.
References
Axelord, R. (Ed.). (1976). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites.
New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press.
Ayoub, M. A. (1990a). Ergonomics deficiencies: I. Pain at work. Journal of Occupa-
tional Medicine, 32(1), 52e57.
Ayoub, M. A. (1990b). Ergonomics deficiencies: II. Probable causes. Journal of
Occupational Medicine, 32(2), 131e136.
Azadeh, A., Fam, I. M., & Azadeh, M. A. (2009). Integrated HSEE management sys-
tems for industry: a case study in gas refinery. Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Engineers, 32(2), 235e241.
Azadeh, A., Fam, I. M., Khoshnoud, M., & Nikafrouz, M. (2008). Design and imple-
mentation of a fuzzy expert system for performance assessment of an inte-
grated health, safety, environment (HSE) and ergonomics system: the case of a
gas refinery. Information Sciences, 178, 4280e4300.
Azadeh, A., Fam, I. M., Nouri, J., & Azadeh, M. A. (2008). Integrated health, safety,
environment and ergonomics management system (HSEE-MS): an efficient
substitution for conventional HSE-MS. Journal of Scientific and Industrial
Research, 67, 403e411.
1025
Azadeh, A., Rouzbahman, M., & Saberi, M. (2010). An artificial intelligent approach
for evaluation of teamwork versus health, safety, environment and ergonomics
(HSEE). In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Advances in human factors, ergonomics, and safety in
manufacturing and service industries (pp. 1222e1231). USA: CRC Press.
Azadeh, A., Rouzbahman, M., Saberi, M., & Fam, I. M. (2011). An adaptive neural
network algorithm for assessment and improvement of job satisfaction with
respect to HSE and ergonomics program: the case of a gas refinery, 2011. Journal
of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 24(4), 361e370.
Azadeh, A., Ziaei, B., & Moghaddam, M. (2012). A hybrid fuzzy regression-fuzzy
cognitive map algorithm for forecasting and optimization of housing market
fluctuations. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 298e315.
Bertolini, M. (2007). Assessment of human reliability factors: a fuzzy cognitive
maps approach. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37, 405e413.
Bertolini, M., & Bevilacqua, M. (2010). Fuzzy cognitive maps for human reli-
ability analysis in production systems, in: production engineering and
management under fuzziness. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 252,
381e415.
Bin, W. S., Richardson, S., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2010). An ergonomics study of a semi-
conductors factory in an IDC for improvement in occupational health and safety.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 16(3), 345e356.
Burri, G. J., & Helander, M. G. (1991). A field study of productivity improvements in
the manufacturing of circuit boards. International Journal of Industrial Ergo-
nomics, 7, 207e215.
Champoux, D., & Brun, J. J. (2003). Occupational health and safety management in
small size enterprises: an overview of the situation and avenues for interven-
tion and research. Safety Science, 41, 301e318.
Changchit, C., & Holsapple, C. W. (2001). Supporting managers’ internal control
evaluations: an expert system and experimental results. Decision Support Sys-
tems, 30, 437e449.
Chen, J. R., & Yang, Y. T. (2004). A predictive risk index for safety performance in
process industries. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 17, 233e242.
Chytas, P., Glykas, M., & Valiris, G. (2010). Software reliability modelling using fuzzy
cognitive maps, In: FUZZY COGNITIVE MAPS. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft
Computing, 247, 217e230.
Cooper, S. E., Ramey-Smith, A. M., Wreathall, J., Parry, G. W., Bley, D. C., Luckas, W. J.,
et al. (1996). A technique for human error analysis (ATHEANA) (NUREG/CR-6350).
Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craiger, J., Goodman, D., Wiss, R., & Butler, B. (1996). Modeling organizational
behavior with fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Computational In-
telligence and Organizations, 1, 120e123.
Dickerson, J., & Kosko, B. (1994). Virtual worlds as fuzzy cognitive map. Presence,
3(2), 173e189.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dul, J., de Vries, H., Verschoof, S., Eveleens, W., & Feilzer, A. (2004). Combining
economic and social goals in the design of production systems by using ergo-
nomics standards. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 47(2e3), 207e222.
Flanagan, R. J., Strauss, G., & Ulman, L. (1974). Worker discontent and work place
behavior. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 13(2), 101e123.
Ghaderi, S. F., Azadeh, A., Pourvalikhan Nokhandan, B., & Fathi, E. (2012). Behavioral
simulation and optimization of generation companies in electricity markets by
fuzzy cognitive map. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 4635e4646.
Gyekye, S. A., & Salminen, S. (2010). Organizational safety climate and work experi-
ence. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 16(4), 431e443.
Health and Safety Executive. (2013). Understanding ergonomics at work. Retrieved
from http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg90.pdf.
Hollnagel, E. (1998). Cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Oxford: Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Kardaras, D., & Karakostas, B. (1999). The use of cognitive maps to simulate the
information systems strategic planning process. Information and Software
Technology, 41, 197e210.
Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies, 24, 65e75.
Kosko, B. (1988). Hidden patterns in combined and adaptive knowledge networks.
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2, 337e393.
Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Quality management and job quality: how the
ISO 9001 standard for quality management systems affects employees and
employers. Management Science, 56(6), 978e996.
Papageorgiou, E., Stylios, C., Groumpos, & Peter. (2003). Fuzzy cognitive map
learning based on nonlinear Hebbian rule, AI 2003: ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2903, 256e268.
Ruan, D., & Mkrtchyan, L. (2012). Using Belief degree-distributed fuzzy cognitive
maps for safety culture assessment. In Y. Wang, & T. Li (Eds.), Practical appli-
cations of intelligent systems, advances in intelligent and soft computing (pp. 501e
510). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Saksvik, P., & Nytr, K. (1996). Implementation of internal control (IC) of health, envi-
ronment and safety (HES) in Norwegian enterprises. Safety Science, 23(1), 53e61.
Shikdar, A. A., & Sawaqed, N. M. (2003). Worker productivity, and occupational
health and safety issues in selected industries. Computers & Industrial Engi-
neering, 45(4), 563e572.
Shikdar, A. A., & Sawaqed, M. N. (2004). Ergonomics, occupational health and safety
in the oil industry: a managers’ response. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 47,
223e232.
Smith, E., & Eloff, J. (2000). Cognitive fuzzy modeling for enhanced risk assessment
in a health care institution. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15(2), 69e75.
1026 S.M. Asadzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 1015e1026

Stach, W., Kurgan, L., Pedrycz, W., & Reformat, M. (2005). Genetic learning of fuzzy
cognitive maps. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 153, 371e401.
Swain, A. D., & Guttmann, H. E. (1983). Handbook of reliability analysis with emphasis
on nuclear plant applications. Technical report NUREG/CR-1278. Washington,
DC: NUclear REGulatory Commission.
Taber, R. (1991). Knowledge processing with fuzzy cognitive maps. Expert Systems
with Applications, 2, 83e87.
Toriizuka, T. (2001). Application of performance shaping factors (PSF) for work
improvement in industrial plant maintenance tasks. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 225e236.
Wurzelbacher, S., & Jin, Y. (2011). A framework for evaluating OSH program effective-
ness using leading and trailing metrics. Journal of Safety Research, 42(3), 199e207.
Zio, E. (2009). Reliability engineering: old problems and new challenges. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 94, 125e141.