Abstract
Risk assessment (RA) refers to the actions to be done to determine the dangers existing in the work place or out of work place that may give damages to the workers, work environments, work place and to identfy the measures that can be taken against dangers. Ra minimizes the damages that may be caused by possible hazards are minimized. As the quality and productivity in the production are increased, the comptetitiveness of the company is also increased with RA. There are various methods used for RA in the literature. However, subjective evaluations are used to make decision and real values are’nt used to define the sector or company in term of risk level in these methods. Additionally, relations between criteria that effects the risk level are not considered. In the study, it is aimed to determine the work area which has the highest risk level by using qualitative values of criteria of work areas in different sectors that effects the risk level. In this context, by considering work accident numbers, death numbers, accident rates, death and disorder rates of 14 different work areas in mining, metal and transportation sectors, RA approach based on CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) which is one of the multi criteria decision making approach is advanced. CRITIC can compute the importance weights of criteria based on relations between these criteria using qualitative criteria values. It can model informations obtained from decision makers by considering contradictions and contrast intesity. As a result of the study, it is determined that textile manufacturing has the highest risk level
References
- Alemi-Ardakani M.,. Milani A.S, Yannacopoulos S. ve Shokouhi G. (2016), On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A case study on impact optimization of composites, Expert Systems With Applications 46, 426–438. Alli, B. O. (2008), Fundamental Principles of Occupational Health and Safety, Geneva: UÇÖ.
- Bazaras D., Palšaitis R., Petraška A. ve Zvaigzne A.(2017), Criteria System Of Emergency Situations Risks Assessment In The Baltic Sea Ports, Transport and Telecommunication, 18(4), 275–281.
- Beriha G.S., Patnaik B. Ve Mahapatra S.S. (2012), Assessment of safety performance in Indian industries using fuzzy approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3311–3323.
- Ceylan H. ve Başhelvacı V. S. (2011), Risk Değerlendirme Tablosu Yöntemi İle Risk Analizi: Bir Uygulama, International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, Vol.3, No.2, June 2011.
- Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı Yayınları (2007), 5 Adımda Risk Değerlendirmesi, Genel Yayın No:140, Ankara, s.:30.
- Deng, H., Yeh, C.H. ve llis, R.J. (2000), Inter-Company Comparison Using Modified TOPSIS with Objective Weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973.
- Diakoulaki D., Mavrotas G. ve Papayannakis L. (1995), Determining Objective Weights In Multiple Criteria Problems: The Critic Method, Computers and Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
- Ghorabaee M.K., Amiri M., Zavadskas E. K. ve Antuchevičienė J. (2017), Assessment of third-party logistics providers using a CRITIC–WASPAS approach with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Transport, 32(1), 66-78.
- Grassi A., Gamberini R. ve Mora C. (2009), A fuzzy multi attribute model for risk evaluation in workplaces. Safety Science, 47(5), 707–716.
- Gürcanli G.E. ve Müngen U. (2009), An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(2), 371–387.
- Jeong K-S., Lee K-W. ve Lim H-K. (2010), Risk assessment on hazards for decommissioning safety of a nuclear facility. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 37(12), 1751–1762.
- Jozi S. A., Shoshtary M. T. ve Zadeh A. R. K. (2015), Environmental risk assessment of dams in construction phase using a Multi-Criteria DecisionMaking (MCDM) method, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 21(1), 1-16.
- Karwowski W. ve Mital A. (1986), Potential applications of fuzzy sets in industrial safety engineerıng. Fuzzy Sets and Systems; 19, 105–120.
- Kılıç O. ve Çerçioğlu H. (2016), Applicatıon of Compromise Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods For Evaluation Of Tcdd’s Railway Lines Projects, Journal of The Faculty Of Engineerıng And Architecture Of Gazi University, 31(1), 211-220.
- Marhavilas P.K., Koulouriotis D. ve Gemeni V. (2011), Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries. 24(5), 477–523.
- Orakçı, E., Özdemir, A. (2017), Telafi edici çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile Türkiye ve AB ülkelerinin insani gelişmişlik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences/Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1).
- Özkılıç, Ö. (2009), Büyük endüstriyel kazaları önleme çalışmalarında kritik sistemlerin tespiti ve risk değerlendirme yaklaşım ve yöntemleri”, Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı Bildirisi, Ankara, 22-24.
- Pamela McCauley-Bell M.S. ve Badiru A.B. (1992), A fuzzy linguistics model for job related injury risk assessment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 23(1–4), 209–212.
- Stamatis D. H. (2003), Failure mode and effects analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd ed., ASQC Quality Press, Wisconsin.
- Ünlü, U., Yalçin, N., Yağli, İ. (2017), Kurumsal yönetim ve firma performansı: TOPSIS yöntemi ile BIST 30 firmaları üzerine bir uygulama. Dokuz Eylul University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 19(1).
- Wang L., Liu H. ve Quan M. (2017), Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environments, Computers & Industrial Engineering 102, 175–185. About Us
Abstract
RD, işyerlerinde var olan ya da dışarıdan gelebilecek tehlikelerin, işçilere, işyerine ve çevresine verebileceği zararların ve bunlara karşı alınacak önlemlerin belirlenmesi amacıyla yapılması gerekli çalışmaları ifade eder. RD ile olası tehlikelerin yol açabileceği zararların en aza indirilmesi, üretimde verimlilik ve kalitelinin arttırılması sağlandığı gibi firmanın rekabet gücünün arttırılması da sağlanır. Literatürde kullanılan birçok RD yöntemi bulunmaktadır. Ancak, söz konusu yöntemlerde öznel değerlendirmelerle karar verilmekte ve sektörü ya da firmayı risk düzeyi açısından tanımlayan gerçek değerler kullanılmamaktadır. Ayrıca risk düzeyini etkileyen kriterlerin aralarındaki ilişkiler de dikkate alınmamaktadır. Çalışmada, farklı sektörlerde yer alan iş kollarının risk düzeyini etkileyen kriterlerin nicel değerleri kullanılarak risk düzeyi yüksek olan iş kolunun belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda, madencilik, metal, inşaat ve ulaştırma sektörleri kapsamındaki 14 farklı iş koluna ait kaza sayıları, ölüm sayıları, kaza oranı, ölüm oranı ve hastalık olayları kriterleri göz önüne alınarak çok kriterli bir karar verme (ÇKKV) yaklaşımı olan CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) yöntemine dayalı bir RD yaklaşımı geliştirilmiştir. CRITIC, nicel kriter değerlerini kullanarak objektif bir şekilde kriterlerin önem ağırlıklılarını aralarında ilişkiler temelinde belirleyen ve karar vericilerden elde edilen bilgiyi zıtlık yoğunluğu ve çelişkilerden yola çıkarak modelleyebilen bir yöntemdir. Çalışmanın sonucunda tekstil imalatının en yüksek risk içeren iş kolu olduğu belirlenmiştir
References
- Alemi-Ardakani M.,. Milani A.S, Yannacopoulos S. ve Shokouhi G. (2016), On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A case study on impact optimization of composites, Expert Systems With Applications 46, 426–438. Alli, B. O. (2008), Fundamental Principles of Occupational Health and Safety, Geneva: UÇÖ.
- Bazaras D., Palšaitis R., Petraška A. ve Zvaigzne A.(2017), Criteria System Of Emergency Situations Risks Assessment In The Baltic Sea Ports, Transport and Telecommunication, 18(4), 275–281.
- Beriha G.S., Patnaik B. Ve Mahapatra S.S. (2012), Assessment of safety performance in Indian industries using fuzzy approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3311–3323.
- Ceylan H. ve Başhelvacı V. S. (2011), Risk Değerlendirme Tablosu Yöntemi İle Risk Analizi: Bir Uygulama, International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, Vol.3, No.2, June 2011.
- Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı Yayınları (2007), 5 Adımda Risk Değerlendirmesi, Genel Yayın No:140, Ankara, s.:30.
- Deng, H., Yeh, C.H. ve llis, R.J. (2000), Inter-Company Comparison Using Modified TOPSIS with Objective Weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973.
- Diakoulaki D., Mavrotas G. ve Papayannakis L. (1995), Determining Objective Weights In Multiple Criteria Problems: The Critic Method, Computers and Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
- Ghorabaee M.K., Amiri M., Zavadskas E. K. ve Antuchevičienė J. (2017), Assessment of third-party logistics providers using a CRITIC–WASPAS approach with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Transport, 32(1), 66-78.
- Grassi A., Gamberini R. ve Mora C. (2009), A fuzzy multi attribute model for risk evaluation in workplaces. Safety Science, 47(5), 707–716.
- Gürcanli G.E. ve Müngen U. (2009), An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(2), 371–387.
- Jeong K-S., Lee K-W. ve Lim H-K. (2010), Risk assessment on hazards for decommissioning safety of a nuclear facility. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 37(12), 1751–1762.
- Jozi S. A., Shoshtary M. T. ve Zadeh A. R. K. (2015), Environmental risk assessment of dams in construction phase using a Multi-Criteria DecisionMaking (MCDM) method, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 21(1), 1-16.
- Karwowski W. ve Mital A. (1986), Potential applications of fuzzy sets in industrial safety engineerıng. Fuzzy Sets and Systems; 19, 105–120.
- Kılıç O. ve Çerçioğlu H. (2016), Applicatıon of Compromise Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods For Evaluation Of Tcdd’s Railway Lines Projects, Journal of The Faculty Of Engineerıng And Architecture Of Gazi University, 31(1), 211-220.
- Marhavilas P.K., Koulouriotis D. ve Gemeni V. (2011), Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries. 24(5), 477–523.
- Orakçı, E., Özdemir, A. (2017), Telafi edici çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile Türkiye ve AB ülkelerinin insani gelişmişlik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences/Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1).
- Özkılıç, Ö. (2009), Büyük endüstriyel kazaları önleme çalışmalarında kritik sistemlerin tespiti ve risk değerlendirme yaklaşım ve yöntemleri”, Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı Bildirisi, Ankara, 22-24.
- Pamela McCauley-Bell M.S. ve Badiru A.B. (1992), A fuzzy linguistics model for job related injury risk assessment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 23(1–4), 209–212.
- Stamatis D. H. (2003), Failure mode and effects analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd ed., ASQC Quality Press, Wisconsin.
- Ünlü, U., Yalçin, N., Yağli, İ. (2017), Kurumsal yönetim ve firma performansı: TOPSIS yöntemi ile BIST 30 firmaları üzerine bir uygulama. Dokuz Eylul University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 19(1).
- Wang L., Liu H. ve Quan M. (2017), Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environments, Computers & Industrial Engineering 102, 175–185. About Us
Details
| Other ID | JA28MF82VB |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 1, 2017 |
| Submission Date | January 1, 2017 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2017 Volume: 1 Issue: 1 |
Cite
