AHP-Based Conceptual Model for Selection of Key Elements ...ieomsociety.org/ieom_2016/pdfs/137.pdf · Method for selection of elements from literature based criteria of ... (FA),

Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 8-10, 2016

AHP-Based Conceptual Model for Selection of Key Elements for Safety Culture Using SMART Criteria

Shahid Ali Centre of Advanced Process Safety (CAPS)

Chemical Engineering Department Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia [email protected]

Azmi Mohd Shariff Centre of Advanced Process Safety (CAPS)

Chemical Engineering Department Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia [email protected]

Abstract— Despite very intense research, lots of efforts are focused on discovering what safety culture really is and what key elements make up a safety culture. However, there still remains very little consensus with regard to selection of most of the elements and no definitive set of elements exists. This paper aims to develop a conceptual model of selecting the key elements of safety culture and to demonstrate the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for the selection of key elements for safety culture. The concept of safety culture, review on elements of safety culture, methods of elements selection and AHP are discussed in the second part. Method for selection of elements from literature based criteria of a safety culture and method of AHP-based decision model is discussed in the third part. An AHP-based decision-making matrix for a set of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) criteria analysis of the key elements is presented at the end of the paper.

Keywords— Safety Culture; Process safety; Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP); Decision matrix

I. INTRODUCTION Safety culture emerged from the analysis of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident from where the term “safety culture” gained its first official use in an initial report into the Chernobyl accident [1]. This report introduced the concept to look beyond the immediate engineering and technical failures by moving towards a standard industrial practice of inquiring more deeply into the underlying elements of accidents [2].

Safety culture has been defined in many ways with different hypothetical constructs, research paradigms and represents interpretations of different finding which are most of the times very global and therefore highly implicit. The most explicit definition of safety culture outlining most of the assumed contents is by HSE (2005) as: “Organisations with positive safety culture are characterised by communications founded on mutual trust, by shared perceptions of the importance of safety, and by the confidence in the efficacy of preventive measures”[3].

The identification and development of elements for safety culture depends highly on the different type of methodological facets, different analysis tools like factor analysis (FA), Principal component analysis (PCA) [4], on sample size and composition [5], strictly depends on environment like type of industry, country of origin [6], and the labelling of elements [4]. Furthermore, methods used for selection are mostly based on aggregate measures which results in a large number of elements [7]. Such type of dependencies has resulted in a considerable number of disparities in selection of factors in different studies and are probably the reason different studies fail to confirm factor structures of previous studies and has created a very little consensus on a definitive set of safety factors [8], [9], [4]. With this drawback, it calls for a simplified process for selection of key factors of safety culture related to process industries. The main goal of the study is to demonstrate the application of an AHP-based method for developing a conceptual model for selection of key factors of process safety culture.

455© IEOM Society International


II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Common elements of safety cultureManagement Commitment: Aspects of management include perceptions of management attitudes and behaviours in terms of safety and production, along with other issues such as discipline and selection [10]. On a practical level it means that managers at all levels in the organization must visibly demonstrate their commitment toward safety as well as their support for safety in visible behaviors. A commited management talk about safety, invest resources in creating a safe work environment, involve employees in safety matters, consideration of safety matters in job design and congruence between managerial safety talk and managerial actions. Communication: Communication is founded on shared beliefs of the importance of safety and mutual trust as well as confidence in effectiveness of preventive measures. Often companies are good at cascading information from management downwards but less effective in establishing two way communication [10]. Safety Training: Safety training has been one of the fundamental methods for improving safety Training provides the knowledge humans need in order to carry out the safety critical tasks and provides the ability to undertake responsibilities and to perform activities to a recognised standard on a regular basis. Safety Compliance: Task or safety compliance behaviour, describes the core safety activities that need to be carried out by individuals to maintain workplace safety [11]. Safety Attitude: Attitudes are learned tendencies to act in a consistent way towards something or someone. They are settled ways of thinking or feeling which reflect an individual’s disposition to a person, situation or thing, and may reflect underlying values [12]. According to Aronson et. al., 1997, attitudes serve a function of adaptation by facilitating an individual’s acceptance and integration into a group. It serve a knowledge function by helping the individual to interpret phenomena and behave accordingly and can also have a defence function, protecting an individual from understanding himself or herself as vulnerable or insignificant, or to deny unpleasant realities which are threatening or anxiety producing. Safety prioritization: Excessive workload of managers can also affect safety. Lee and Harrison studied nuclear power workers’ perceptions of the priority of production over safety and concluded that pressure to put production before safety was perceived to come from management rather than peers or safety representatives [13].

B. Common elements of safety culture identified from review and Meta-Analysis studiesA review conducted by Seo suggests that there are five main elements of safety culture [5]. Clarke, analysed 16 studies that performed factor analysis and extracted the dominant themes common across the studies and ended up with five main categories [6]. Flin conducted a similar analysis, analysed 18 studies and identified the five most common themes. Farrington, after reviewing 15 studies, identified common elements [14]. A literature review of 10 studies conducted by Wiegmann identified five indicators of safety culture [15]and the report prepared for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified five core dimensions [3]. Table.1 provides the names of the elements identified for every review paper.

TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF SAFETY CULTURE DIMENSIONS IDENTIFIED IN META-ANALYSIS STUDIESDimensions identified in the meta-analysis of studies that used factor analysis Dimensions identified in the literature reviews

(Clarke, 2000) (Flin, 2000) (Seo, 2004) (Wiegman, 2004) (Farrington, 2005) (HSE, 2005)

Work task/work environment

Work pressure Co-worker safety support

Reporting systems

Reporting system Two-way communication

Management attitudes

Management/supervision

Management commitment to safety

Management involvement

Management commitment

Leadership

Management actions

Risk supervisorsafety support

Reward Systems

Immediate supervisors and supervisor subordinate relationships

Involvement ofstaff

Individual responsibility and involvement

Competence Competence level ofemployees withregard to safety

Employee Empowerment

involvement, competency, training, attitude, behavior rules and procedures

Existence oflearning culture

Safety management system

Safety system Employee participation insafety-related decision making and activities

Organizational commitment

Communication Existence of justculture

This summary shows that the common element identified in all reviews, and therefore in all reviewed papers, was leadership and its different aspects (management attitudes and actions, commitment, involvement, supervisory support and relationship). The second most common element was employee involvement/empowerment. Four out of six review studies identified it as common to most of the research papers they reviewed.



C. Methods of selecting elements Aggregation consists in deciding the value of a higher-level to which the elements' hierarchy belongs, with the aim to reflect values of all underlying elements in an aggregate and synthetic manner they are usually referred to as integrated, aggregate or composite elements. In general, the aggregation of the elements can be performed for selection of elements if the unit of measurement in the hierarchy the same as is the case when selection is based on linear or arithmetic mean [16].

Although the idea of measuring performance by aggregate indicators is promising and simple, many scholars indicate its significant deficiencies For example, the weights are usually assigned to individual sub-indicators in a subjective manner, as very often, there are no sufficient data to calculate the weights objectively [7].

Furthermore, selection of elements based on an aggregate mean, and their application in the domain of safety culture requires collecting of data on a large number of elements [7]. Therefore, this method may not be considered as a simplification of a system or reducing the burden of carrying out large amount of measurements process.

D. Criteria for selection of elements Taking into account the stated shortcomings of the aggregation method the other approach should be considered and deliberated on, namely the selection of the most significant and representative elements out of the relatively large number of initially defined elements. But, where such large number of elements exists, a decision-making problem appears, in which questions arise: which element should be selected from a given set of elements, or how to prioritize these elements? The problem in question points to the need for defining the criteria for evaluation and selection of elements, and employing a relevant method in the domain of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) ey elements, a set being frequently recommended in the literature, [17], [18], [19], is the set of criteria denoted by the acronym of SMART, which stands for: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Other scholars recommend the application of differently formulated criteria for selection of performance indicators, yet the basic sense of the majority of them matches to a large extent with the SMART criteria. For example, a review by Carlucci (2010), suggests that elements should be characterized by the following features: relevance, reliability, comparability and consistency, understand-ability and representational quality [20].

However, the selection based approach to elements has a one undeniable advantage over the aggregation, particularly the potential for significant simplification of the measurement system, and thus reducing an administrative burden and the costs of running the safety system. By applying this approach one can focus firmly on a smaller number of key elements without the necessity to carry out measurement of all possible elements. Moreover, the selection based approach does not require mutual independence of indicators subject to the selection process..

E. Analaytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) first introduced by Thomas L. Saaty in 1971[21] has become one of the most popular and most widely used methods for multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problems. It is a decision approach designed to aid in making the solution of complex multiple criteria problems to a number of application domains. It has been known as an essential tool for both practitioner and academics to conduct researches in decisions making and examining management theories. AHP as a problem solving method is flexible and systematic that can represent the elements of a complex problem [22].

AHP methodology has several benefits such as:

i. Helps to decompose an un-structured problem into a rational decision hierarchy.

ii. It can elicit more information from the experts or decision makers by employing the pair-wise comparison of individual groups of elements.

iii. It sets the computations to assign weights to the elements.

iv. It uses the consistency measure to validate the consistency of the rating from the experts and decision makers.

The basic rating scale for AHP method is 1=Equal, 2=Between equal and moderate, 3=Moderate, 4=Between moderate and strong, 5=Strong, 6=Between strong and very strong, 7= very strong, 8=Between very strong and extreme, 9=Extreme

F. Uses of AHP in Safety The AHP method has been widely employed in hundreds of documented cases, mostly used been in management practices. The following examples show the verification of AHP application in the safety domain.

a) One of the applications of the AHP was in OSH management domain. A study conducted by Jervis and Collins concerned the ranking of main areas of OSH MS in the order of the corresponding cost-benefit ratio for actions for the benefit of OSH. The aim of the research was to indicate to the managers the areas worth investing in due to their potentially highest return on investment ratio [23].



b) Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management [24].

c) Macias employed the AHP for the evaluation of the extent to which the criteria of ergonomics and safety of operation are taken into account when selecting equipment to be purchased and installed in advanced manufacturing technology enterprises [25].

d) Caputo applied this method for setting priorities for the use of various equipment, ensuring safety when operating machines, such as a fixed enclosing guard, mobile enclosing guard, safety light curtain and two hands control system [26].

e) Padgorski, used the method to demonstrate the use of AHP method for selection of leading key performance indicators for measuring operational performance of OSH management system [7].

III. METHODOLOGY Following a literature search to be included in the selection process of selecting elements from literature studies had to meet certain criteria [27]. Published reports of safety climate surveys were identified and criteria for selection were:

i. Related to process industries and high risk organizations.

ii. The sample size should be greater than 100 for a survey.

iii. Elements from safety culture validated study

iv. Elements from safety culture meta-Analysis

v. Common elements identified in review articles related to safety culture

vi. Latest published articles from the year 2000 onward.

vii. The report should be presented in English.

A. Constructing the AHP-based Hierarchal model The proposed elements extracted from the criteria based literature review are used in constructing a hierarchy. The three groups were defined and constructed in the hierarchy including goal, criteria, and elements. In the hierarchy, selection of key elements for process safety culture is set to be the goal. The next level consists of set of five SMART criteria, while the last level includes all homogeneous set of elements identified from the literature survey. The hierarchal model is depicted in Fig.1.

Fig.1. A hierarchical model of decision-making problem concerning prioritization of the elements for safety culture

B. Developing AHP-based martix model A conceptual model for selecting key elements of process safety culture was developed based on the proposed elements of safety culture survey and SMART criteria. The following steps show the development of an AHP-based model.

i. First step is ranking the criteria, that is achieved by developing a prioritizing matrix for the preferences among the set of five SMART criteria. A 5x5 pair-wise matrix is developed. The matrix is normalized by dividing each value in the column with its corresponding column sum. Then averaging the values in each row gives a 5x1 priority matrix for ranking the criteria. The priority matrix for criteria is represent as “Cp”, while the values for the SMART criteria are “cs”, “cm”, “ca”, “cr” and “ct” respectively.



Cp cscmcacrct

ii. Second step is called synthesization. Here the proposed elements of safety culture are judged based on the criteria. The priority matrix for a set of SMART criteria for each factor of safety culture is developed following same the procedure in the first step mentioned as above. Where ‘Ei” is priority matrix for factor “i” of safety culture, e1,1, e1,1, e3,1, e4,1, e5,1 represents criteria-based values of the factor. e1,1e2,1e3,1e4,1e5,1

iii. The final step is developing an overall decision-matrix for prioritization of the key elements of safety culture. A finalized decision based matrix was developed for all the 28 proposed elements. Here the representation of values of the elements are changed to “ei,j” as the column matrix from the Ei, changes to single row matrix for each factor. Where “e” is the factor of row “i” and column “j” of the finalized matrix.

iv. The finalized score of the AHP based ranking of the elements of safety culture is represented as “Wi”. The finalized score is computed by multiplying the values of elements of the decision-matrix “ei,j”, by the preceding priority matrix “Cp” for criteria and summing the products. The following Model Equation (1), is for calculating the overall score for factor E1.

W1= (cs)(e11) + (cm)(e12) + (ca)(e13) + (cr)(e14) + (ct)(e15)

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Identification of elements The main elements were extracted and relabelled using a most common title for the factor and were assigned represented in a simplified manner i.e. “Ei”, where “E” is the alphabetic representation of factor while “i” is the number assigned to the factor.

A total of 28 elements were identified from the criteria based literature. This summary shows that the common factor identified in all reviews, and therefore in all reviewed papers, was leadership and its different aspects (management attitudes and actions, commitment, involvement, supervisory support and relationship). The other most common elements are “communication”, “training” “safety awareness” and “safety prioritization”.

As the labelling of most of the elements depends solely on the creation and concept of the developer, most of the elements were simplified for its simple identification. For example, in a study conducted by Frazier [8], element is used as “training and rules” while Morrow [28] in his study represented as “training quality”, having the same theme for assessing the perception about training, Boughaba has represent it with simple term “training” in the culture survey [29]. Similarly, to assess management perceptions about safety, Frazier represents the term as “Senior management concern” while in studies by Shang [30] and Morrow, it is represented as “management commitment”. Furthermore, in some cases where element is assessed by its individuality such as “safety rules and procedures” being represented as a perception indicator under “risk awareness” in a study [30]. For the purpose of current study such type of ambiguities and confusions were eliminated to represent the elements in a simplest understandable way.

B. AHP-based decision model for prioritizing key elements of safety culture For creating the AHP criteria based model, the target set of elements are selected to be homogeneous in terms of the criteria of selection of key elements, which means that for the selection of key elements for all components of safety culture, the same weights of SMART criteria can be applied. Furthermore, the SMART criteria provides a smart guidance for selecting the best of the elements that can be distributed in hierarchal order for safety culture, it means the burden to assess the elements further by Hierarchal Factor Analysis is being eliminated.

The following is the AHP based decision model by which key elements can be identified accordingly by their weights as shown in Table.2.



V. CONCLUSION Despite the fact that Safety culture measurment systems have been implemented and maintained in numerous enterprises all over the world for more than three decades, there has so far been no agreement on what elements make up the culture and what methods are used to select the core elements of safety culture. Based on literature search AHP based selection can be a simplest method to successfully apply in the process of selecting the key elements out of a larger set of candidate elements, particularly when this process is based on the utilisation of SMART criteria (i.e. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound). For future research, the AHP based decision model can be used to get expert’s opinion from relative fields to identify the key elements.



TABLE 2:A SMART CRITERIA BASED AHP- DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR SELECTION OF KEY ELEMENTS FOR SAFETY CULTURE Elements of Safety Culture Elements

Representation Criteria based weights Weight

Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-bound

cs cm ca cr ct

Management Commitment E1 e11 e12 e13 e14 e15 W1

Communication E2 e21 e22 e23 e24 e25 W2

Compliance E3 e31 e32 e33 e34 e35 W3

Safety compliance E4 e41 e42 e43 e44 e45 W4

Safety Policy E5 e51 e52 e53 e54 e55 W5

Emergency Planning E6 e61 e62 e63 e64 e65 W6

Preventive Planning E7 e71 e72 e73 e74 e75 W7

Training E8 e81 e82 e83 e84 e85 W8

organizational learning E9 e91 e92 e93 e94 e95 W9

Safety Awareness E10 e10 1 e10 2 e10 3 e10 4 e10 5 W10

Resources E11 e11 1 e11 2 e11 3 e11 4 e11 5 W11

Safety incentives E12 e12 1 e12 2 e12 3 e12 4 e12 5 W12

Reporting Culture E13 e13 1 e13 2 e13 3 e13 4 e13 5 W13

Working Environment E14 e14 1 e14 2 e14 3 e14 4 e14 5 W14

Competence E15 e15 1 e15 2 e15 3 e15 4 e15 5 W15

Peer Support E16 e16 1 e16 2 e16 3 e16 4 e16 5 W16

Motivation E17 e17 1 e17 2 e17 3 e17 4 e17 5 W17

Supervision E18 e18 1 e18 2 e18 3 e18 4 e18 5 W18

Questioning attitude E19 e19 1 e19 2 e19 3 e19 4 e19 5 W19

Personal Responsibility E20 e20 1 e20 2 e20 3 e20 4 e20 5 W20

Safety prioritization E21 e21 1 e21 2 e21 3 e21 4 e21 5 W21

Workers involvement E22 e22 1 e22 2 e22 3 e22 4 e22 5 W22

Feedback E23 e23 1 e23 2 e23 3 e23 4 e23 5 W23

At-risk behaviour E24 e24 1 e24 2 e24 3 e24 4 e24 5 W24

Safety Audit and Inspection E25 e25 1 e25 2 e25 3 e25 4 e25 5 W25

Accident/incident investigation

E26 e26 1 e26 2 e26 3 e26 4 e26 5 W26

Blame culture E27 e27 1 e27 2 e27 3 e27 4 e27 5 W27

Decision making E28 e28 1 e28 2 e28 3 e28 4 e28 5 W28



REFERENCES [1] I. A. E. A. (IAEA), "Summary report on the post accident review meeting on the Chernobyl accident," Vienna.1986. [2] S. Yule, "Yule, S. (2003). Senior Management Influence on safety performance in the UK and US energy sectors.,"

University of Aberdeen, Scotland, 2003. [3] H. S. Executive, A review of safety culture and safety climate literature for the development of the safety culture

inspection toolkit: HSE Books: Health and Safety Executive, 2005. [4] F. W. Guldenmund, "The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research," Safety Science, vol. 34, pp. 215-

257, 2000. [5] D. C. Seo, M. R. Torabi, E. H. Blair, and N. T. Ellis, "A cross-validation of safety climate scale using confirmatory

factor analytic approach," J Safety Res, vol. 35, pp. 427-45, 2004. [6] S. clarke, "The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: a meta-analytic review," Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 11, pp. 315-327, 2006. [7] D. Podgórski, "Measuring operational performance of OSH management system – A demonstration of AHP-based

selection of leading key performance indicators," Safety Science, vol. 73, pp. 146-166, 2015. [8] T. D. L. Christopher B. Frazier, Brian Whitaker, D. Steve Roberts, "A hierarchical factor analysis of a safety culture

survey," Journal of Safety Research, vol. 45, pp. 15-28, 2013. [9] C M Tomlinson, B N Craig, and M J Meehan, "ENHANCING SAFETY PERFORMANCE WITH A LEADING

INDICATORS PROGRAM," presented at the Human factor in ship design and operation, London UK, 2012. [10] C. A. M. Gadd. S., "Safety Culture: A review of the literature," Health and Safety laboratory2002. [11] G. M. A. Neal. A., "Safety climate and safety behaviour," Australia Journal of Management, pp. 27-67, 2002. [12] C. S. Glendon. I., McKenna. E, Human Safety and Risk Management. Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor and Francis,

2006. [13] T. H. Lee, K, "Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations," Safety Science, vol. 30, pp. 61-97, 2000. [14] T. Farrington-Darby, Pickup, L., & Wilson, J. R, "Safety culture in railway maintenance. Safety Science," Safety

Science, vol. 43, pp. 39-60, 2005. [15] D. A. Wiegmann, Zhang, H., von Thaden, T. L., Sharma, G., & Gibbons, A. M., "Safety Culture: An Integrative

Review," The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, vol. 14, pp. 117-134, 2004. [16] M. Nardo, Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E.,, Handbook on Constructing

Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide: OECD Publishing, 2005. [17] H. H. a. S. Executive), "A Guide to Measuring Health & Safety Performance," H. a. S. Executive, Ed., ed. UK,

2001. [18] A. McNeeney. Selecting the Right Key Performance Indicators [Online]. Available: <http://www.mt-

online.com/april2005/selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators?Itemid=90> [19] G. Zwetsloot. Key performance indicators [Online]. Available:

<http://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Key_performance_indicators> [20] D. Carlucci, "Evaluating and selecting key performance indicators: an ANP-based model. ," Meas. Bus. Excellence.,

vol. 14, pp. 66–76, 2010. [21] S. TL., "The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: application to decisions under risk,"

European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 1, pp. 122-96, 2008. [22] C. H. Chan FTS, Lau HCW, Ip RWL. , "An AHP approach in benchmarking logistics performance of the postal

Benchmarking: ," An International Journal industry., vol. 13, pp. 636-61, 2006. [23] S. Jervis, Collins, T.R.,, "Measuring safety’s return on investments," Prof. Saf. , vol. 46, pp. 18-23, 2001. . [24] I. Y. Metin Dagdeviren, "Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety

management," information sciences, vol. 178, p. 1733, 2008. [25] A. Maldonado-Macías, Realyvásquez, A., Martínez, E., Sánchez, J., 2010. , "Importance of Ergonomic

Compatibility Attributes on the Selection of Advanced Manufacturing Technology - AMT," presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Cancun, Mexico., 2010.

[26] A. C. Caputo, Pelagagge, P.M., Salini, P., , " AHP-based methodology for selecting safety devices of industrial machinery. ," Safety Science, vol. 53, pp. 202-218, 2013.

[27] J. E. Hunter, & Schmidt, F. L., "Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings," Organizational Research Methods, vol. 11, p. Organizational Research Methods, 2008.

[28] S. L. Morrow, G. Kenneth Koves, and V. E. Barnes, "Exploring the relationship between safety culture and safety performance in U.S. nuclear power operations," Safety Science, vol. 69, pp. 37-47, 2014.

[29] A. Boughaba, C. Hassane, and O. Roukia, "Safety culture assessment in petrochemical industry: a comparative study of two algerian plants," Saf Health Work, vol. 5, pp. 60-5, Jun 2014.



[30] C.-C. L. a. Shang Hwa Hsua, b,*, Muh-Cherng Wua, Kenichi Takanoc, "The influence of organizational factors onsafety in Taiwanese high-risk industries," Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 23, pp. 646-653,2010.

BIOGRAPHY Shahid Ali is a PhD candidate at Centre of Advanced Process Safety (CAPS) in Department of Chemical Engineering at the Universiti

Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia. He earned B.Sc in Chemical Engineering from University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan and M.E in Chemical Engineering from Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia. He has published journal and conference papers. His research interests include process safety, safety culture, Behavior-based Safety and Hierarchal task analysis.

Azmi Mohd Shariff is currently Professor, Head of Research Center for CO2 Capture (RCCO2C), and Head of Centre of Advanced Process Safety (CAPS) at Department of Chemical Engineering, in Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. Prof. Dr. Azmi Mohd Shariff holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, M.Sc degree in Chemical Engineering (Process Integration) from University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST), UK, and PhD from University of LEEDS, UK. He is inventor for Process Hazards Management System and Method, Process Safety Information Management System and Method, and System for Electrical Safety Assessment. Some of numerous successfully completed projects related to process safety are Online At-Risk Behaviour Analysis and Improvement System (E-ARBAIS), Electrical Safety and Operability Review (ELSOR), Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for PETRONAS plants and Review of CIMAH 1996 Regulations to include Process Safety Management for Department of Safety and Health (DOSH), Government of Malaysia.


Documents

AHP-Based Conceptual Model for Selection of Key Elements ...ieomsociety.org/ieom_2016/pdfs/137.pdf · Method for selection of elements from literature based criteria of ... (FA),