Crucial part of the reduction and prevention of workplace injuries and maintaining occupational safety and health system takes risk assessment model, which appears as one of the most important. Frequent advances in all fields cause changes in risk assessment models in relation to the traditional approach. This article is focused on providing reliable assessment tool that will enable suitable and easy usage of methodology for risk evaluation in the workplaces in manufacturing small and medium enterprises. For that purpose, three groups of factors are introduced and their hierarchical structures are defined. Pre-defined linguistic expressions are used to describe relative importance of factors, sub-factors and values of sub-factors. Fuzzy set theory is used for modeling of existing uncertainties. The levels of identified risks are given by exact way, using fuzzy logic. The proposed model is tested with real-life data from manufacturing small and medium enterprises.
SilvaSLimaMLBaptistaC. OSCI: an organizational and safety climate inventory. Safety Sci2004; 42: 205–220.
2.
ChoudhryRMFangDMohamedS. The nature of safety culture: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Safety Sci2007; 45: 993–1012.
3.
CarrilloRA. Complexity and safety. J Safety Res2011; 42: 293–300.
4.
MarhavilasPKKoulouriotisDE. A risk-estimation methodological framework using quantitative assessment techniques and real accidents’ data: application in an aluminum extrusion industry. J Loss Prevent Proc2008; 21: 596–603.
5.
MarhavilasPKKoulouriotisDGemeniV. 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. J Loss Prevent Proc2011; 24: 477–523.
6.
KalantarniaMKhanFHawboldtK. Dynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory. J Loss Prevent Proc2009; 22: 600–606.
7.
LabagnaraDMartinettiAPatruccoM. Tunneling operations, occupational S&H and environmental protection: a prevention through design approach. Am J Appl Sci2013; 10: 1371–1377.
8.
TixierJDusserreGSalviO. Review of 62 risk analysis methodologies of industrial plants. J Loss Prevent Proc2002; 15: 291–303.
9.
DemichelaMComuncoliF. Risk based decision making. Discussion on two methodological milestones. J Loss Prevent Proc2014; 28: 101–108.
10.
PintoA. QRAM a Qualitative Occupational Safety Risk Assessment Model for the construction industry that incorporate uncertainties by the use of fuzzy sets. Safety Sci2014; 63: 57–76.
11.
CagnoEMicheliGJLJacintoC. An interpretive model of occupational safety performance for Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises. Int J Ind Ergonom2014; 44: 60–74.
12.
CagnoEGuidoJLMPerottiS. Identification of OHS-related factors and interactions among those and OHS performance in SMEs. Safety Sci2011; 49: 216–225.
13.
KlirGJFolgerT. Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and information. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.
14.
ZimmermannHJ. Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing, 2001.
15.
FeraMMacchiaroliR. Appraisal of a new risk assessment model for SME. Safety Sci2010; 48: 1361–1368.
16.
AvenT. Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2011; 96: 509–514.
17.
GrøtanTOStørsethFAlbrechtsenE. Scientific foundations of addressing risk in complex and dynamic environments. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2011; 96: 706–712.
18.
ShalufIMAhmadunFRShariffAR. Technological disaster factors. J Loss Prevent Proc2003; 16: 513–521.
19.
DjapanMTadicDMacuzicI. A new model for evaluation of safety grade of indicators based on a fuzzy logic. Chem Eng Trans2013; 33: 463–468.
20.
BerglundMKarltunJ. Human, technological and organizational aspects influencing the production scheduling process. Int J Prod Econ2007; 110: 160–174.
21.
DağdevirenMYükselİ. Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Inform Sciences2008; 178: 1717–1733.
22.
WangYFRoohiaSFHuaXM. Investigations of Human and Organizational Factors in hazardous vapor accidents. J Hazard Mater2011; 191: 69–82.
23.
QifengNShiliangSRunqiuL. Research and application of safety assessment method of gas explosion accident in coal mine based on GRA-ANP-FCE. Proced Eng2012; 45: 106–111.
24.
YucelGCebiSHoegeB. A fuzzy risk assessment model for hospital information system implementation. Expert Syst Appl2011; 39: 1211–1218.
25.
WareJ. A systematic analysis to identify, mitigate, quantify, and measure risk factors contributing to falls in NASA ground support operations. PhD Thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 2009.
26.
SeçkinerSUDağdevirenMKurtM. Analytic network process approach for quantifying risk levels associated with occupational injuries. Teknoloji2007; 10: 153–165.
27.
DağdevirenMYükselİKurtM. A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model to identify faulty behavior risk (FBR) in work system. Safety Sci2008; 46: 771–783.
28.
KhanzodeVVMaitiJRayPK. Occupational injury and accident research: a comprehensive review. Safety Sci2012; 50: 1355–1367.
29.
ChangDY. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res1996; 95: 649–655.
30.
SeçmeYNBayrakdaroğuAKahramanC. Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish Banking Sector using Analytic Hierarchy Process and TOPSIS. Expert Syst Appl2009; 36: 11699–11709.
31.
TadicDGumusTAArsovskiS. An evaluation of quality goals by using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2013; 25: 547–556.
32.
ChangSITsaiCFShihDH. The development of audit detection risk assessment system: using the fuzzy theory and audit risk model. Expert Syst Appl2008; 35: 1053–1067.
33.
WangXChanHKYeeRWY. A two-stage fuzzy AHP mode risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. Int J Prod Econ2012; 135: 595–606.
34.
MurèSDemichelaM. Fuzzy Application Procedure (FAP) for the risk assessment of occupational accidents. J Loss Prevent Proc2009; 22: 593–599.
35.
FarukAKarakasEYunusB. Fuzzy logic-based user interference design for risk assessment considering human factor: a case study for high-voltage cell. Safety Sci2014; 70: 387–396.
