|
Conclusion
Traditional risk assessment techniques such as
Preliminary Hazard Analysis, Cost/Benefit Risk
Analysis and qualitative Fault Tree Analysis are
more common in mature industries such as General
Construction, Heavy Construction, Motor Freight
Transportation, Railroad, Water and Air Transportation,
and Manufacturing. The newer industries such as
Telecommunication and Information Technology and
Logistics, E-Business and Supply Chain Services
use more sophisticated software risk analysis
and quantitative risk assessment in addition to
the qualitative FTA. The newer industries are
introducing more sophisticated techniques for
risk management, and some of these may be applied
to the mature industries for improving their management
process. It is of interest to find the use of
Human Error Analysis in construction projects.
Hazard And Operability Review (HAZOP), a technique
used extensively in the chemical industry, was
found to be used by a power plant project. From
the survey, we find that transfer of risk management
techniques has started, although in a limited
way, and this transfer process will be helpful
for all industries. There may also be another
factor, in that employees in newer industries
tended to be younger and were exposed to sophisticated
techniques, while the employees in the mature
industries generally were older and probably were
not exposed to the newer techniques to the same
extent. This study will help to bring awareness
of the various risk analysis techniques currently
applied in industries.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by a research grant from
the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) of the
National Aeronautical and Space Administration
(NASA) in 2001. Their support is appreciated.
Opinions, interpretations and conclusions are
those of the authors, and are not necessarily
endorsed by MSFC/NASA.
An abbreviated version of this article was presented
at the annual conference of the International
Society of Occupational Ergonomics and Safety
and GAF (German Ergonomics Society) held in Munich,
Germany, on May 7, 2003.
About the Authors
An Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering
at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Dr.
Paul S. Ray previously worked several years in
industry, primarily with General Motors, Union
Carbide and Bechtel Corporation. Since joining
the University, he has conducted research in Occupational
Safety and Ergonomics for NASA, the U.S. Air Force
and the National Institute of Safety and Health
(NIOSH), and has published numerous articles and
research papers. Dr. Ray is a registered Professional
Engineer (PE) in Texas, a Certified Safety Professional,
and a Chartered Engineer (C. Eng.) in Great Britain.
Surya Prasanna Kumar Chodimella, Balaji Pattabiraman
and Ramji Srinivasan, the co-authors of this article,
were graduate students in the MSIE degree program
at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
References
1. Haimes, Y.Y. Risk Modeling, Assessment,
and Management. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1998.
2. Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition.
Fort Belvoir, Virginia: Defense System Management
College Press, 2000.
3. Dorofee, A.J., J.A.Walker, C.J. Alberts, R.P.
Higuera, R.L. Murphy and R.C. Williams. Continuous
Risk Management Guidebook. Carnegie Mellon
University, SEI Joint Program Office, Hanscom
Air Force Base, Massachusetts, 1996.
4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
International Space Station Program. Failure
Modes and Effects Analysis and Critical Item,
Requirements for Space Station. SSP 30234,
Revision E, 1999.
5. Goetsch, D.L. Occupational Safety and Health
for Technologists, Engineers, and Managers.
Columbus, Ohio: Prentice Hall, 2002. |
