1 s2.0 S036083521630273X Main

Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88109
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie
Axiomatic Design for Lean-oriented Occupational Health and Safety

systems: An application in shipbuilding industry
Ferhat Babur, Emre Cevikcan, M. Bulent Durmusoglu
Istanbul Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 34367 Istanbul, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The use of facilities provided by industrialization and technological developments has led to increase in
Received 25 May 2015 occupational diseases and accidents in workplaces. A sheer success in Occupational Health and Safety
Received in revised form 2 May 2016 (OHS) is possible when safety activities for employees, production and business are considered syn-
Accepted 13 August 2016
chronously. OHS systems, where scientific research oriented technological advances applied, are required
Available online 17 August 2016
to be designed with the aim of preventing OHS related problems and their effects in sustainable manner.
In this study, a systematic approach is proposed for design of Lean-oriented OHS systems by using
Keywords:
Axiomatic Design principles. A holistic roadmap is obtained as the output of the study for the application
Occupational Health and Safety
Axiomatic Design
of OHS system to a production system. The proposed OHS system design is applied to a real life shipyard
Lean system from shipbuilding industry and its feasibility is demonstrated.
Roadmap 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction resulting from factors adverse to health; the placing and mainte-
nance of the worker in an occupational environment adapted to
The number of occupational diseases and accidents has his physiological and psychological capabilities; and, to summarize,
increased in parallel with the improvement in industry. A number the adaptation of work to man and of each man to his job.
of people died or maimed due to occupational diseases or acci- OHS has been handled in numerous scientific studies in addi-
dents, 98% of which could be prevented (Heinrich, Peterson, & tion to practical applications (Barlas, 2012a; Barlas, 2012b;
Roos, 1980). According to the International Labour Organization Ferjencik, 2011; Shikdar & Sawaqed, 2003). The major part of
(ILO), more than 337 million accidents occur on the job annually OHS literature is related with ergonomics (Bentley & Tappin,
and result in (together with occupational diseases) more than 2.3 2010; Neumann, Marianne, & Jorgen, 2009; Shikdar & Sawaqed,
million deaths annually (Url-1). Loss of labour about OHS consti- 2004), psychology (Quick & Tetrick, 2003; Warr, 2002) and work
tutes 4% of the total gross national product all over the world environment (McClain, 1995). Meanwhile, some OHS approaches
(ILO, 2011). In addition, for every 300 near-miss events without addressing physical hazards such as noise, vibration and dust
injury, there are 29 minor to moderate injuries and 1 major injury (Aluclu, Dalgic, & Toprak, 2008; Hermanus, 2007), chemical haz-
or fatality (Heinrich, 1931; Taylor, Easter, & Hegney, 2004). That ards such as heavy metals and gases (Garrigou, Baldi, & Le Frious,
being the case, including multi-disciplinary and preventive activi- 2011) and biological hazards such as bacteria and viruses
ties for occupational diseases and accidents, OHS is of great impor- (Piccoli, Assini, & Gambaro, 2001) are proposed. In addition, caus-
tance in industrial environments (Alli, 2008). ing occupational accidents disorderliness in working environment
Both World Health Organization (WHO) and ILO define OHS as can be regarded as a hazard in terms of OHS. Therefore, 5S, which
follows (ILO Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety): maintains order and cleanliness in shop floor, constitutes a basis
Occupational health should aim at: the promotion and mainte- for continuous improvement as well as OHS activities (Hirano,
nance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social 2009).
well-being of workers in all occupations; the prevention amongst Risk analysis and evaluation is a critical process which includes
workers of departures from health caused by their working condi- (i) the determination of hazards inside and outside the workplace,
tions; the protection of workers in their employment from risks (ii) the determination of their potential harms to employees, work-
place and environment, (iii) the assessment of risk and (iv) taking
pro-active measures against them. Therefore, risk concept has been
Corresponding author. handled in many scientific studies (Dekker, Cilliers, & Hofmeyr,
E-mail addresses: ferhatbabur@gmail.com (F. Babur), cevikcan@itu.edu.tr 2011; Hopkins, 2011; Maiti, 2010). Moreover, some sector oriented
(E. Cevikcan), durmusoglum@itu.edu.tr (M.B. Durmusoglu).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.08.007
0360-8352/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Babur et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88109 89
studies on healthcare (Cagliano, Grimaldi, & Rafele, 2011), electric discusses the importance of regular employee training for
industry (Liggett, 2009), wood processing industry (Holcroft & employee awareness and the elements of a safety and health pro-
Punnett, 2009) and maintenance processes (Lind, Nenonen, & gram that can be used by employers. In the booklet, it is stated that
Kivisto-Rahnasto, 2008) were conducted. hazards not covered by shipyard industry standards may be cov-
On the other hand, a systematic design domain cannot be ered by General Industry standards contained in 29 CFR Part
obtained without scientific rules. Systematic approach has a facil- 1910. In parallel, OSHA proposed some shipyard industry special-
itating effect on the stages of understanding, learning, developing ized guides for particular standards in related topics such as safe
and applying product and service design. lighting practices (OSHA, 2013b), ventilation (OSHA, 2013c), hot
Axiomatic Design (AD) theory, proposed by Suh (1990), exposes work on hollow or enclosed structures (OSHA, 2013d), working
the objective of the design evidently by determining FRs and con- alone in shipyards (OSHA, 2013e), fire watch safety during hot
straints during design process. In addition, AD involves a system- work (OSHA, 2012a), eye protection against radiant energy
atic flow and decomposition process. (OSHA, 2012b), aerial lift fall protection over water (OSHA, 2011),
Two axioms, namely independence axiom and information safe work practices for shipbreaking (OSHA, 2010). In addition,
axiom are used in AD (Suh, 1990). Independence axiom OSHA industry guide (Savage, 2014) is designed to assist employ-
(Durmusoglu & Kulak, 2008; Kim, Suh, & Kim, 1991; Kulak, ers in shipyard employment in complying with standards that have
Durmusoglu, & Tufekci, 2005) aims at determining the roadmap special requirements such as written programs, inspections, com-
which should be followed during the design process. Information petent persons, training and recordkeeping requirements that are
axiom (Kulak, Durmusoglu, & Kahraman, 2005) has the goal of applicable to shipyard employment.
determining the most appropriate design alternative with respect Furthermore, some other institutions such as ILO (1974), Oil
to FRs. Kulak, Cebi, and Kahraman (2010) provide a comprehensive Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) (2003),
review on AD applications. Workplace Safety and Health Council (2009), Washington State
Many AD applications in designing product (Cha & Cho, 1999; Legislature (2014) and Ingalls Shipbuilding (2015) also attempt
Lee, Seo, & Park, 2003), manufacturing system (Cochran, to make standards and guidance studies for OHS in shipyard
Eversheim, Kubin, & Sesterhenn, 2000; Nakao, Kobayashi, industry.
Hamada, Totsuka, & Yamada, 2007; Suh, Cochran, & Paulo, 1998), The consideration of a large body of literature has revealed that
software (Yi & Park, 2005) and decision support system (Coelho there is no published study which includes the following features
& Mouro, 2007; Jang, Yang, Song, Yeun, & Do, 2002) exist in the synchronously.
literature. Since both lean thinking (Womack & Jones, 1996) and
manufacturing support AD start with What we want to achieve providing AD for OHS system under lean production principles,
in terms of customer point of view? logic, it will be meaningful integrating Standard Risk Model with Kinney Risk Assessment
to give some information about lean manufacturing. Method for OHS system,
Lean manufacturing is originated by Toyota Production System including an application-based feasibility analysis in a real life
and classifies all activities as either value-adding or non-value- shipyard system.
adding (i.e. wastes). Value-adding activities transform materials
and information into products and services that customers want. In this context, this paper has the originality of developing a
However, non-value-adding activities do not directly contribute road map by using the independence axiom, the first axiom of
to create products and services despite they consume resources. AD, for the design of lean OHS system effectively to address this
Companies applying lean manufacturing tools ultimately want to research gap. The road map provides a decomposition of broad
meet customer demands with fewer resources and less waste. Suc- design objectives into smaller supporting objectives that are then
ceeding a cultural as well as people oriented transformation, lean linked to specific design parameters (DPs) for framing OHS sys-
manufacturers use many process-improvement tools to achieve tems. In addition, this study is believed to add value to industry
and sustain effectiveness, flexibility, and profitability (Baysan, in terms of effectively raising control of OHS activities, since it indi-
Cevikcan, & Satoglu, 2013). cates a detailed application of some related lean tools (5S, visual
The expected results of lean manufacturing, namely shorter production performance tracking and task assignment boards, Kai-
lead times, reduction in inventory, space requirement and machine zen, A3 thinking, Yokoten, Oobeya (Hoppmann, Rebentisch,
breakdowns as well as improvement in delivery performance and Dombrowski, & ve Zahn, 2011) and work standardization) to OHS
cost management provide competitive advantage to lean compa- system.
nies (Monden, 1993). Moreover, health and safety hazards can The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: The basic
actually be decreased by lean manufacturing because it mixes pre- concept of AD principles is introduced in Section 2. An AD oriented
viously separated exposures and this affects additively and cumu- methodology for OHS system design is presented in Section 3. The
latively (Anvari, Zulkifli, & Yusuff, 2011; Gnoni, Andriulo, Maggio, & application of the proposed methodology is given in Section 4.
Nardone, 2013). The intensification of work leads both to higher Conclusions are provided in Section 5.
plant productivity and to greater adverse ergonomic and stress-
related health effects for workers. Some attempts have been made
to address the relationship between Lean Manufacturing and OHS 2. Axiomatic Design
(Anvari et al., 2011; Brown and ORourke, 2007; Gnoni et al., 2013;
Longoni, Pagell, Johnston, & Veltri, 2013). However, these studies Design is an interplay between what we want to achieve and
do not demonstrate how to apply lean tools to an OHS System in how we want to achieve it (Suh, 2001). Often designers believe that
detail. the precise description of what we want to achieve is a difficult
Since the proposed OHS system design is applied to a real life task. Many designers deliberately leave their design goals implicit
shipyard, it will be meaningful to mention OHS related standards rather than explicit and then start working on design solutions
and guidance studies for shipbuilding industry. For example, in a even before they have clearly defined their goals. They measure
recent study, Occupational Safety and Health Administration their success by comparing their design with the implicit design
(OSHA) provides a shipyard industry specific booklet with the code goals that they had in mind, which may or may not be what the
of OSHA 2268-10R (OSHA, 2014) including OHS standards for customer would want. They spend a great deal of time improving
shipyard employment (Title 29 CFR Part 1915). The booklet also and iterating the design until the design solution and what they
90 F. Babur et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88109
had in mind converge, which is a time-consuming process at best. Here,

To be efficient and to generate the design that meets the perceived
needs, the designer must specifically state the design goals in {FR} is the FR vector
terms of what we want to achieve and then begin designing {DP} is the DP vector and
the process. Iterations between what and how are necessary, [A] is the design matrix that characterizes the design
but each iteration loop must redefine the what clearly (Suh,
1996). In general each entry aij of A relates the ith FR to the jth DP.
The most important concept in AD is the existence of the design The structure of [A] matrix defines the type of design being con-
axioms (Suh, 1990). The first design axiom is known as the Inde- sidered. In order to satisfy the independence axiom, [A] matrix
pendence Axiom, whereas and the second one is known as the should be an uncoupled or a decoupled design. [A] matrix is clas-
Information Axiom. They are stated as follows: sified into three categories as defined below (Durmusoglu &
Kulak, 2008):
Axiom 1- The Independence Axiom: Maintain the independence
of FRs. Uncoupled Design (most preferred): In this design, the [A] matrix
Axiom 2- The Information Axiom: Minimize the information is a diagonal matrix indicating the independence of FR-DP pairs.
content. So each FR can be satisfied by simply considering the corre-
sponding DP.
The independence axiom states that the independence of FRs Decoupled Design (acceptable design): In this design, the corre-
must always be maintained, where FRs are defined as the mini- sponding [A] matrix is triangular. Therefore, the FRs can be
mum set of independent requirements that characterizes the listed as FR1 through FRn by only considering the first n DPs.
design goals (Suh, 1990; Durmusoglu & Kulak, 2008). DPs, which This design appears most frequently in real life.
are the key variables, are chosen to satisfy the specified FRs Coupled Design (undesirable): In this design, the [A] matrix has
throughout the design process. The information axiom states that no special structure. Therefore, a change in any DP may influ-
the design with the smallest information content among those sat- ence all FRs simultaneously. In designing systems with AD prin-
isfying the first axiom is the best design. The second axiom is not ciples, we try to avoid coupled design as much as possible.
considered in this paper.
Zigzagging to decompose FRs and DPs and to create their hier- The realization of uncoupled designs is rarely possible in the
archies is an important part of AD (Suh, 2001). In order to zigzag design problem. However, coupled designs are mostly realized due
between domains, designer starts out in the what domain and to interactions between FRs. Coupled design leads to complex struc-
goes to the how domain. From an FR in the functional domain, ture. Coupled design results in more repetitive tasks and/or inefficient
the physical domain is addressed to conceptualize a design and design structure. As shown in Fig. 2, the negative effect of coupled
determine its corresponding DP at the highest level. Then, again, design is eliminated by converting it to decoupled from coupled.
functional domain is focused to create FR1, FR2 and FR3 at the next The coupled design matrix of Fig. 2(a) has the following form
level that collectively satisfies the highest level FR. Then, we move based on Eq. (1):
to the physical domain to find DP1, DP2 and DP3 by conceptualiz- 8 9 2 3 8 9
>
< FR1 >
= X X >
< DP1 >
=
ing a design at this level which satisfies FRs. The decomposition 6 7
process is preceded layer by layer until the design reaches the final FR2 4 X X 5 DP2 2
>
: >
; >
: >
;
stage, creating a design that can be fully implemented. This process FR3 X DP3
is illustrated in Fig. 1. The arrow represents a strong relationship
The decoupled design of the coupled design is shown in Fig. 2
between the corresponding FRDP pair.
(b). The mathematical equation between FRs and DPs has the fol-
At each level of decomposition, the independence of the
lowing form:
FRs must be maintained using the design matrix (DM). 8 9 2 3 8 9
Mathematically, the relationship between the FRs and DPs are >
< FR3 >
= X >
< DP3 >
=
expressed as 6 7
FR2 4 X X 5 DP2 3
>
: >
; >
: >
;
fFRg AfDPg 1 FR1 X X DP1
FR DP
FR1 FR2 FR3 DP1 DP2 DP3
FR21 FR22 DP21 DP22
Functional Domain Physical Domain

Fig. 1. Zigzagging to decompose FRs and DPs.
FR1 FR2 FR3 FR3 FR2 FR1
DP1 DP2 DP3 DP3 DP2 DP1
(a) The coupled design (b) The decoupled design

Fig. 2. Conversion from the coupled design to the decoupled design.
Notice that this matrix is triangular and all upper triangular ele- FR10 = Decrease deviation from OHS targets
ments are equal to zero. FR11 = Set new targets
3. Axiomatic Design for OHS system We move from the functional domain to the physical domain to
satisfy the eleven next-level FRs defined above. The following DPs
The OHS system design has several FRs (i.e. sub-goals) and the correspond to the FRs listed above:
corresponding DPs (i.e. solutions) in an integrated way (i.e. interre-
lations among FRs). For example, in the proposed OHS system DP1 = Top management persuading procedure
design, determining risk numerically (predecessor FR) and pre- DP2 = 5S procedure
venting plant and equipment sourced hazards in risky locations DP3 = Lean management system design
(successor FR) have a precedence relationship which can be real- DP4 = Member election and training procedure for OHS
ized by means of risk assessment system. This system is regarded committee
as the DP of predecessor FR. Otherwise, this design would be a cou- DP5 = Personnel election procedure for OHS unit
pled design which leads to an inefficient design structure. For the DP6 = Data gathering procedure and process analysis
previous example, excessive (inadequate) effort could be focused DP7 = Risk measurement system
on locations with low (high) risk for hazard prevention. DP8 = Hazard prevention system
As for the method aspect, there are two ways to deal with sys- DP9 = Protective systems applied on employees
tem design, namely algorithmic approach (pattern recognition, DP10 = OHS control system
analogy, experimentally based prescription, etc.) and axiomatic DP11 = Continuous improvement procedure
approach. Algorithmic approach can be effective if the design has
to satisfy only one FR. On the other hand, axiomatic approach is Note that, while building the system design, the main strategy
the most effective way of representing system architecture of sev- is regarded as embedding Plan-Do-Check-Adjust approach into
eral FRs which are satisfied at the same time (Suh, 2001). There- OHS. Therefore, the first level of hierarchy is grouped into four
fore, AD is employed in this study for a complete OHS system main modules aforementioned as shown in Fig. 3. In addition,
design. from the organizational management viewpoint, aforementioned
The first step in designing OHS system is to define the FRs of the functional requirements can be classified into the management
system at the highest level of its hierarchy in the functional of human resource, risk and continuous improvement (Fig. 3).
domain. In this study, the following is selected as the highest FR: Such a classification is useful for the assignment of OHS tasks
to staff throughout the application of the developed
FR = Make a proper environment for OHS methodology.
The relationships between the FR and DP elements should be
DPs, which satisfy the FRs established in the previous step, are stated after the FRDP sets are defined. If the DM matrix is uncou-
selected through a mapping process between the functional pled or decoupled, it satisfies the independence axiom of the AD
domain and the physical domain. The following DP is determined principles. The design equation and the DM corresponding to the
to satisfy the FR provided above: FRDP sets are defined in Eq. (4). The design given in Eq. (4) is a
decoupled design and satisfies independence axiom. In the matrix
DP = Occupational diseases and accidents determination and below, the symbol X represents a strong relationship between the
prevention system corresponding FR-DP pair.
2 3 2 3 2 3
FR1 X DP1
Since the DPs proposed for satisfying those FRs defined in the 6 FR2 7 6 X 7 6 DP2 7
6 7 6 X 7 6 7
steps above cannot be implemented without further clarification, 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR3 7 6 X X X 7 6 DP3 7
the following next-level FRs are defined for decomposing the FR 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR4 7 6 X 7 6 DP4 7
determined above by returning to the functional domain (Fig. 3). 6 7 6 X X X 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR5 7 6 X X X X X 7 6 DP5 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
FR1 = Provide the participation of top management 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR6 7 6 X X X X X 7 6 DP6 7
FR2 = Create an orderly and clean working environment 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR7 7 6 X X X X X X 7 6 DP7 7
FR3 = Plan to change the habits and behaviours of employees 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
FR4 = Generate OHS committee 6 FR8 7 6 X X X X X X 7 6 DP8 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
FR5 = Establish the organization of OHS unit 6 FR9 7 6 X X X X X X X 7 6 DP9 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
FR6 = Determine critical control points with hazards 4 FR10 5 4 X X X X X X 5 4 DP10 5
FR7 = Determine risk numerically FR11 X X X X X X X X DP11
FR 8 = Prevent plant and equipment sourced hazards in risky
4
locations
FR9 = Decrease risk if risky cases still exist
FR
Make a proper environment
for Occupational Health and
Safety
DP
Occupational diseases and
accidents determination
and prevention system
HRM RM HRM HRM HRM RM RM RM RM CIM CIM
FR2 FR3 FR8

FR1 FR5 FR6 FR9
Create an orderly Plan to change the FR4 FR7 Prevent plant and FR10
Provide the Establish the Determine critical Decrease risk if FR11
and clean working habits and Generate OHS Determine risk equipment sourced Decrease deviation
participation of top organization of control points with risky cases still Set new targets
environment and behaviours of committee numerically hazards in risky from OHS targets
management OHS unit hazards exist
sustain it employees locations
DP4
DP1 DP5 DP6 DP9 DP11
DP3 Member election DP7 DP8 DP10
Top management DP2 Personnel election Data gathering Protective systems Continuous
Lean management and training Risk assessment Hazard prevention OHS control
persuading 5S procedure procedure for OHS procedure and applied on improvement
system design procedure for OHS system system system
procedure unit process analysis employees procedure
committee
PLAN DO CHECK ADJUST
Abbreviations
HRM: Human Resources Management
RM: Risk Management
CIM: Continuous Improvement Management
Fig. 3. Decomposition of FRs and DPs.
After determining relationships among FRs and DPs, FR1,. . ., provide the realization of problems. Moreover, 5S should be
FR11 are decomposed by returning to functional domain from applied so as to prevent occupational diseases and accidents
the physical domain and determining corresponding DPs. (Hirano, 1995; Jimenez, Romero, Dominguez, & Espinosa, 2015).
In other words, a strong relationship between 5S and OHS exists.
FR1 = Provide the participation of top management FR2 and DP2 (5S procedure) are evaluated and decomposed as
follows.
When occupational disease and accident occur, workers (with
their family), employers and the national economy suffer. There- FR21 = Remove unnecessary physical items
fore, occupational diseases and accidents should be prevented as FR22 = Generate an economical working environment
much as possible. On the condition that employer and/or the proxy FR23 = Generate a working environment which is appropriate
is defective for the occurrence of occupational disease and acci- for OHS and maintenance
dent, penal acuse and tort litigation may be commenced for these FR24 = Determine working rules
people. In addition, Social Security Institution may require all FR25 = Maintain this working environment via the considera-
expense (with its interest) made for the observation of occupation order and cleanliness as a part of business principles.
tional accident. In this context, top management should support
OHS activities to avoid from the aforementioned problems. Top Corresponding DPs (DP5x) are listed as follows:
managers should not only attend the OHS committee, awarding
meetings and trainings but also integrate OHS with business pro- DP21 = Red tag procedure
cesses (FR1). Top managers should be persuaded about the impor- DP22 = Set in order procedure
tance of OHS (DP1) so as to satisfy FR1. The importance of OHS, DP23 = Cleaning procedure
successful OHS case studies, achievements provided by OHS DP24 = Standardization procedure
(reduction in visible and hidden costs, risks, etc.) should be empha- DP25 = Business discipline
sized within top management persuading procedure. Many per-
suasive theories exist in the relevant literature (Daiton & Zelley, The design matrix for the above set of FRs and DPs are
2015). The adoption needs the development of top management
2 3 2 3 2 3
persuading procedure for OHS. FR21 X DP21
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR22 7 6 X X 7 6 DP22 7
FR 2 = Create a clean and orderly working environment and 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR23 7 6 X X X 7 6 DP23 7 5
maintain it 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
4 FR24 5 4 X X X X 5 4 DP24 5
5S is a systematic and methodical approach for organizing
FR25 X X X X X DP25
workplace in a clean, orderly and safe manner to enhance produc-
tivity and to ensure the introduction of Lean Production (Womack In Sort stage of 5S (i.e. the first stage of 5S), unnecessary items
& Jones, 1996). This approach can be regarded as one of the most are removed from the focused systems by red tag procedure (FR21-
important milestones towards the development of a production DP21) so that a working environment is obtained for Set in order
system since tidy and clean environments (i.e. the output of 5S) and Clean stages (i.e. the second and third stages of 5S). In Set in
Order stage, an economical working environment is obtained by (c) Occupational physician.

means of preventing the sources of waste (non-value added activ- (d) A person from human resources or administrative affairs
ity) such as transportation and motion activities. In addition, this departments.
stage eliminates physical stresses damaging OHS (FR22-DP22). In (e) Production Manager.
Shine stage, a working environment suitable for OHS and main- (f) Civil defence expert (if exists).
tenance is provided by a cleaning procedure (FR23-DP23). Periodic (g) Union representative (if exists).
cleaning activities should be performed to maintain appropriate (h) Foremen or masters on production processes/areas.
working conditions. The fourth stage of 5S is related with stan- (i) Worker representative.
dardization (FR24-DP24). Serving OHS directly, execution rules
about 5S are stated in this stage. The last stage of 5S, Sustain, Members (b), (c), (d) and (e) are appointed by employer or
can be regarded as making a habit of properly maintaining correct employers representative. Members (f) and (g) are appointed by
procedures (FR25-DP25). It is often the most critical stage to per- open voting given adequate attendance. Employer assures that
form in 5S applications since changing entrenched behaviours each member of OHS committee is trained about the following
can be difficult. subjects:
FR3: Plan to change erroneous habits and behaviours of Mission and authority of the committee.
employees about OHS National legislation and standards about OHS.
Risk Analysis and Evaluation.
Erroneous habits and behaviours of employees about OHS is a Principles of industrial hygiene.
critical problem to be addressed in the design of OHS system Effective communication techniques.
(FR3). In this context, the strategy should be to change peoples Emergency measures.
process of thought after altering their behaviour with the help of Occupational diseases.
a business discipline which does not distress people (Shook, Workplace-specific risks.
2010). Lean Management System is suggested to achieve this strat-
egy (DP3). In order to change the habits and behaviours of employ- This managerial participation by OHS committee characterizes
ees, at the first stage, studies related to standardization in all safer workplaces (Geldart, Smith, Shannon, & Lohfeld, 2010).
production processes are required to complete. Then production
control system has become the standard with the help of the stan- FR 5 = Establish OHS unit
dardization at the activities of team and group leaders who provide
integration between management and workers. In this way, activ- The formation of OHS unit requires the selection of members
ities not following the standards, in other words the problems, are who have different roles and tasks in a multidisciplinary manner.
immediately being aware (FR31-DP31). In such an environment, Staff in OHS unit and their related tasks are given in Table 1. The
seeing at OHS perspective, unsafe behaviours and conditions will roles of staff in OHS unit (safety practitioners) were analyzed and
immediately begin to be noticed as problems. discussed in a study by Brun and Loiselle (2002). A selection proce-
After the stabilization and standardization of the processes, the dure (DP5) should be adopted for the establishment of OHS unit
next stage is to build the visual control system design (DP32) in order with respect to professional qualifications (experience, required
to make the problems visible (FR32). The problems defined here are certificates etc.) matching with related tasks.
the deviations to the actual practices from the standards. Make the
problems visible means that they are half the solutions. In addition FR 6 = Determine hazardous critical control points in
the visualizations are constant reinforcements for the team and workplace
group leaders to focus on their processes (Mann, 2010). It will be dis-
cussed in detail at the shipyard application section of this paper. Having an importance for the success of OHS system, a data col-
The decomposition of FR3 and DP3 is described below. lection procedure and process analysis (DP6) is proposed for the
determination of hazardous critical control points (FR6). First of
FR31 = Being aware of the problems
FR32 = Make the problems visible
The corresponding DPs are stated as follows:

Table 1
Staff in OHS unit and related tasks.
DP31 = Standardization in all production processes and activi-
The Occupation of Task(s)
ties of leaders
Staff
DP32 = Visual control system design
OHS specialist Indicating physical, chemical and biological risk
factors
The design matrix for the above set of FRs and DPs is given in Making or demanding required measurements for
(6). risk factors
Proposing and applying solutions for OHS problems
FR31 X DP31
6 Occupational Performing preventive medical activities
FR32 X X DP32 physician Making observations as well as suggestions about
industrial hygiene and occupational diseases
FR 4 = Constitute OHS committee
Member selection and training procedure (DP4) should be con- Nurse or medical Applying first aid in accidents
officer Assisting occupational physician
sidered for the constitution of OHS committee (FR4). Members of Statistician or Preparing and evaluating database for occupational
OHS committee should include the following. industrial engineer diseases and accidents
Human resources Editing OHS issues (training, work accident,
(a) Employers substitute. specialist insurance etc.) in personnel files
Physiotherapist (in Making anthropometric measurements and analysis
(b) OHS expert.
USA) Observing and improving task-worker assignments
all, information about employee, machine and equipment is col- DP72 = Gravity value assessment
lected systematically as the main data given in Table 2. DP73 = Risk formulation
The decomposition of FR6 and DP6 is described below. 2 3 2 3 2 3
FR71 X DP71
6 7 6 7 6 7
FR61 = Evaluate previous records about OHS 4 FR72 5 4 X X 5 4 DP72 5 8
FR62 = Visualize critical control points FR73 X X X DP73
The corresponding DPs are stated as follows: The objectives of the proposed risk management approach are
to visualize each risk threatening OHS, to understand the inherent
DP61 = Statistical analysis for critical control points progress of risks and to expose effective measures to prevent them.
DP62 = Hazard and Occupational Disease Sources Map To satisfy the above-mentioned objectives, a visual risk manage-
ment system is developed for DP7X by integrating risk assessment
The design matrix for the above set of FRs and DPs is given in model proposed by Fine and Kinney (1976) with Standart Risk
(7). Management Model (Kaliprasad, 2006).
Standart Risk Management Model is frequently used in project
FR61 X DP61
7 management since it not only requires small number of parameter,
FR62 X X DP62 but also has high level of reliability. In Fine and Kinney risk model,
Critical control points are determined by statistical analysis risk (R) assessment is performed by the consideration of probabil-
(histogram, graphs, tests) using collected information as input ity of an accident or damage occurrence (P), exposure at risk fre-
(Cameron & Raman, 2005; Saunders & Wheeler, 1991). In addition, quency (F) and gravity of induced consequence (G) as risk
visualization of critical control points (Gummesson, 2016; Li, Chan, parameters. This method possesses advantages such as accessibil-
& Skitmore, 2012), providing the observation of inappropriate sit- ity, simplicity in use and fitness for training and teaching workers
uations for OHS and taking preventive measures for them, causes basic risk concepts in a qualitative manner (Moraru, 2012). Consid-
OHS system to gain quick response ability. ering the advantages of two methods motivates the authors to
In this context, Hazard and Occupational Disease Sources Map, integrate them. As a result, the proposed risk model provides
prepared for product family, serves as a tool for the visualization of expressional decision support by drivers to assess the risk param-
critical control points. On the condition that, Hazard and eters in a proper manner. The proposed risk management model is
Occupational Disease Sources Map is insufficient for the visualiza- given in Fig. 4.
tion of critical control points, Standard Work Combination The application systematic for the risk management system
Chart (Edwards, Edgell, & Richa, 1993), including information and developed is given in Fig. 5.
activities about definition (labour, machine, material), takt time, Scales proposed by Fine and Kinney (1976) are used for the
total time, quality control, OHS measures, standard in-process determination of parameters within DP7X (Table 3).
inventory about standard work, is prepared for process analysis On the other side, the drivers are actually the most valuable
for OHS. aspects in the standard risk model. In Kaliprasad (2006), driver is
defined as something existing in the production environment that
FR 7 = Assess risk triggers the risk related parameters (i.e. probability, exposure fre-
quency and gravity). In other words, drivers can be considered as
The decomposition of FR about risk assessment (FR7) and its some indicators that provide convenience for assessing risk param-
related DP, namely risk measurement system (DP7), is described eters. Changing the drivers of probability, frequency and gravity
below and its mathematical representation is presented in (8). affects the evaluation of risks.
When OHS related risk events are addressed, it can be stated
FR71 = Determine likelihood and occurence incidence of hazard that they are mainly sourced from the problems about employee,
FR72 = Determine severity of loss machine, working environment and information. In this context,
FR73 = Integrate likelihood, occurence, loss risk factors, which are used for identifying drivers effectively, are
classified in Table 4.
The corresponding DPs are given as follows: Risk assessment methods in the literature are classified as qual-
itative and quantitative methods which are deterministic, proba-
DP71 = Probability and frequency index with respect to risk bilistic, or a combination of both. For comparison, in addition to
factors Fine Kinney Model and the proposed model, the most well-
known and applicable risk assessment model, namely Matrix
Model (5 5) is also chosen as seen in Table 5. It should be noted
Table 2
that the proposed method has superiority in terms of scope. How-
OHS information about employee and machine.
ever, the determination of drivers of the proposed model requires
Information about employee Information about machine and expertise.
equipment
Number of employees Preventive and periodic FR 8 = Prevent plant and equipment sourced hazards in risk
maintenance information locations
Age and gender Machine protective
Daily working time and the duration of a The number, reason(s) and
shift location(s) of break-downs Collective measures are applied in OHS activities as far as pos-
Education level Usage state of equipment sible in OHS activities so as to maximize proactive effect in less
Work experience cost and time. Main ways to control plant and equipment sourced
Trainings
hazards include (Swuste, Corn, & Goelzer, 1995):
Skill matrix
Attendance
The number, reason(s), effects and Elimination: Removing the hazard from the workplace.
measures for work accidents Substitution: Substituting hazardous materials or machines
Job description with less hazardous ones.
Probability Exposure Frequency Gravity

(Probality for hazard realization) (Repetition of hazard within Risk Value
(Estimation of loss created on
processing time) people and/or environment)
P F G
Occcurence of Hazard Severity of Harm R = PxFxG
Drivers of Probability Drivers of Frequency Drivers of Gravity Assessed Risk
Fig. 4. Proposed risk management model.
Stages Critical Information

- Material handling
Stage 1 - Working at heights
Describing Hazards - Noise, vibration, temperature etc.
-Probability
Stage 2 -Frequencey
Analyzing Risks -Gravity
New Analysis for Manufacturing Systems
-Exposure value
under Changing Conditions
Stage 3
Determining Priorities and -Subsets of risks managed
Preparing Risk Map
Stage 4
-Value stream managers,
Visualizing Risks and
-Team leaders
Performing Visual Task
-Visual management
Assignment
Stage 5
-Current state
Providing the Solution of
-Planned state
Risk Problem
Fig. 5. Risk management process.
Enclosure and isolation: Creating a physical barrier between execution of proactive measures in related locations have an
personnel and hazards. important effect on OHS performance. In this context, Hazard
Prevention System (DP8), including various techniques and tools,
Elimination, substitution as wells as enclosure and isolation are is suggested with respect to hazard source types (Barlas, 2012a;
included within FR8. Effective examination of risky locations in Stellman, 1998). Common components in hazard prevention sub-
Hazard and Occupational Disease Sources Map (DP 6) and the systems (OSHA, 2014; Roughton & Mercurio, 2002; Sklet, 2006)
Table 3
Risk table.
Probability index Description Exposure frequency Description Gravity Description

(P) index (F) (E)
10 Predictable 10 Permanent 100 Several fatalities
6 Possible 6 Regular (daily) 40 One fatality
3 Unusual, but possible 3 Occasional (weekly) 15 Invalidity
1 Improbable, but possible at boundary 2 Monthly 7 Injury with loss of work
conditions capacity
0.5 Plausible, but unlikely 1 Rare (yearly) 3 Injury without work
capacity loss
0.2 Practically impossible 0.5 Very rare (less than once per 1 Near miss
year)
0.1 Virtually impossible
Risk value (R) Risk class and required action
400 > R Very High
Activity cessation
200 < R < 400 High
Immediate improvement (in one or two month)
70 < R < 200 Significant
Measures to be taken (in one year)
20 < R < 70 Possible
Monitoring
R < 20 Very Low
Acceptable risk: no measure required
Table 4
Risk factors.
Risk factors about Risk factors about machines Risk factors about working environment Risk factors about
employees information
Physical state Machine Protective (existence Physical Environment (visual environment and lighting, the auditory Reports about work
and status) environment and noise, climate control, vibration, chemical and biological accidents and
materials etc.) occupational diseases
Psychological state Maintenance status Periodic measurements about physical environment Analysis of work
accidents and
occupational diseases
Education level and Usage and maintenance Warning signs
occupational trainings procedures
Personal protective usage Design (open die-closed die
etc.)
Periodic medical analyses Electrical Measures (ground
(urinalysis, blood fault interrupter, static
analysis etc.) grounding etc.)
Machine Protective (existence
and status)
are procedures, warning signs, hazard type-oriented trainings and DP82 = Machine and Equipment Sourced Hazard Prevention
maintenance procedures. System
Hazard source-oriented decomposition of FR8 and DP8 is DP83 = Welding Process Sourced Hazard Prevention System
expressed below and its mathematical representation is presented DP84 = Constant and Portable Electrical Wiring and Electric
in (9). Control points for each hazard source is given in Table 6. In Appliance Sourced Hazard Prevention System
addition, checklists for the following hazard sources can be found DP85 = Material Handling Sourced Hazard Prevention System
in Url-2. DP86 = Vessel Sourced Hazard Prevention System
DP87 = Confined Space Sourced Hazard Prevention System
FR81 = Remove facility sourced hazards 2 3 2 3 2 3
FR82 = Remove machine and equipment sourced hazards FR81 X DP81
FR83 = Remove welding process sourced hazards 6 FR82 7 6 X 7 6 DP82 7
6 7 6 X 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
FR84 = Remove electricity sourced hazards 6 FR83 7 6 X X X 7 6 DP83 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
FR85 = Remove material handling sourced hazards 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR84 7 6 X X X X 7 6 DP84 7 9
FR86 = Remove vessel sourced hazards 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 FR85 7 6 X X X 7 6 DP85 7
FR87 = Confined space sourced hazards 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
4 FR86 5 4 X X 5 4 DP86 5
The corresponding DPs are stated as follows: FR87 X X DP87
DP81 = Facility Sourced Hazard Prevention System FR 9 = Decrease risk if risk areas still exist
Table 5
Comparison among risk assessment models.
Risk assessment model Probability Frequency Gravity Exposure

Drivers Value Drivers Value Drivers Value Drivers Value
p p p
Fine Kinney Model
p p
Matrix Model (5 5)
p p p p p p p p
The proposed model
Table 6
Control points for hazards.
Hazards Control Points

Facility Sourced Hazards Floor surfaces, stair handrails, stair protectors, barriers against slipping on the roof work, fire escape ladders, and evacuation areas for
emergencies, exit doors, fire protection equipment, ventilation system, walkways etc.
Machine and equipment Power shutoff switches, noncurrent-carrying metal parts of electrically-operated machines, foot-operated switches, manually
sourced hazards operated valves and switches emergency stop buttons, pulleys and belts, moving chains and gears, pneumatic and hydraulic hoses,
machinery guards, two-hand control, photocells and laser apparatus, blade or saw guards, fan blades, anti-kickback devices etc.
Welding process sourced Regulators, gas cylinders, cylinder valves, couplings, regulators, hoses, and apparatus, valve-protection caps, open circuit (no load)
hazards voltage of arc welding electrodes, welding electrode cable, drums, barrels, tanks, containers, isolators, ground fault interrupters,
portable electrical equipment etc.
Electricity sourced hazards Plugs and sockets, ground-fault circuit interrupters, cords, extension cords, cables, switches, disconnecting switches, cabinets,
breaker boxes, circuit breakers, receptacles, and junction boxes, groundings etc.
Material handling sourced Forklifts: lamps, horns, mirrors, windshields, and turn signals brake, parking brake, grip sensitive automatic stooping mechanisms,
hazards forklift cylindersCranes and elevators: visual rated capacity marks, audible warning device, boom stops, certificate indicating that
required testing and examinations etc.
Vessel sourced hazards Valves, valve protectors, gas content marks, distance from external heat sources, transportation method, regulator-pressure
adjusting screws
Confined space sourced hazards Pipelines, pipeline shut-off valves, impellers, agitators, natural or mechanical ventilation, lighting, sound alarm, lifelines and
respiratory equipment, rescue equipment, security locks
FR
DP
FR1 FR2 FR3 FR4 FR5 FR6 FR7 FR8 FR9 FR10 FR11
DP1 DP2 DP3 DP4 DP5 DP6 DP7 DP8 DP9 DP10 DP11
FR21 FR22 FR23 FR24 FR25 FR31 FR32 FR61 FR62 FR71 FR72 FR73 FR81 FR82 FR83 FR84 FR85 FR86 FR87 FR111 FR112
DP21 DP22 DP23 DP24 DP25 DP31 DP32 DP61 DP62 DP71 DP72 DP73 DP81 DP82 DP83 DP84 DP85 DP86 DP87 DP111 DP112
Fig. 6. The decomposition of OHS design.
If risky cases still exist despite Hazard Prevention System (DP8), The selection of personal protective equipments should be per-
protective systems applied on employees (DP9) should be exe- formed under the responsibility of OHS specialist (Florczak &
cuted via the following strategies. Roughton, 2001). Determination of personal protective equipments
related complaints and occupational disease indications appears in
Administrative Controls: Changing the way employees work, the responsibility of occupational physicians. Moreover, employers
including working time (job rotation (Leider, Boschman, should keep Personal Protective Implementation Program avail-
Dresen, & van der Molen, 2015), reducing exposure time, etc.), able to emphasize reasons, duration, budget, targets for personal
policies and other rules, and work practices such as standards protective equipment usage (OSHA, 2013a).
and operating procedures.
Personal Protective Equipments: Equipments worn by indi- FR 10 = Decrease deviation from OHS targets
viduals to reduce exposure (gloves, respirators, hard hats, safety
glasses, high-visibility clothing, and safety footwear, etc.) (Lu, In addition to the evaluation for adequacy and reliability of
Shi, Han, & Ling, 2015; Martin & Walters, 2001) health and safety measures in workplace, OHS control system
Table 7
98
Complete design matrix for OHS design.
DP6=Data DP11=
DP7=Risk
DP3=Lean gathering Continuous
DP2=5S procedure measurement DP8=Hazard prevention system
management procedure improvement
system
system design and analysis procedure
Design Parameters
Functional Requirements
labour gradation
DP1=Top management persuading procedure

DP4=Member election and training procedure for
OHS committee
DP5=Personnel election procedure for OHS unit
DP9=Protective systems applied on employees
DP10=OHS control system
DP21=Red tag procedure

DP22="Set in order" procedure
DP23=Cleaning procedure
DP24=Standardizatin procedure
DP25=Business discipline
DP31=Standardization in all production
processes and activities of leaders
DP32=Visual control system design
DP61=Stat. analysis for control points
DP62=Hazard and Occupational Disease
Sources Map
DP71=Hazard probability and frequency
index with respect to risk factors
DP72=Gravity value assessment
DP73=Risk formulation
DP81=Facility Sourced Hazard
Prevention System
DP82=Machine and Equipment Sourced
Hazard Prevention System
DP83=Welding Process Sourced Hazard
Prevention System
DP84= Constant and Portable Electrical
Wiring and Electric Appliance Sourced
Hazard Prevention System
DP85= Material Handling Sourced Hazard
Prevention System
DP86=Vessel Sourced Hazard Prevention
System
DP87=Confined Space Sourced Hazard
Prevention System
DP111=A3 applications
DP112= Yokoten procedure
FR1=Provide the participation of top management X

FR21=Remove unnecessary
X X
physical items
FR22=Generate an economical
X X X
working environment
FR23=Generate a working
X X X X
environment
FR24=Determine working rules X X X X X
and maintain it
FR25=Maintain this working
FR 2=Create a clean and

X X X X X X
orderly working environment

environment
FR31=Being aware of the
X X X X X X X
problems
habits and
FR32=Make the problems visual X X X X X X X X
behaviours
change err.
FR3: Plan to
FR 4= Constitute OHS committee X X X X X X X X X
FR 5= Establish OHS unit X X X X X X X X X X

FR61=Evaluate previous records
X X X X X X X X X X
about OHS
FR62=Visualize critical control
points
FR 6=
critical
control
X X X X X X X X X X X
hazardous
Determine
points
FR71=Determine likelihood and
occurence incidence of hazard X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
risk
FR72=Determine severity of loss
FR73=Integrate likelihood,
FR 7= Assess
occurence, loss X X X X X X X X X X X X
FR81=Remove facility sourced
F. Babur et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88109
hazards X X X X X X X X X X X X X
FR82=Remove machine and
equipment sourced hazards X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
FR83=Remove welding process
sourced hazards X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
FR84=Remove electricity sourced
hazards
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
FR85=Remove material handling
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
sourced hazards
FR86=Remove vessel sourced
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
hazards
sourced hazards in risk locations

FR 8=Prevent plant and equipment
FR87=Remove confined space
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
sourced hazards
FR 9= Decrease risk if risk areas still exist X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
FR 10= Decrease deviation from OHS targets X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

FR111= Solve problems with
respect to new targets X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
new
FR112= Spread successful
targets
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
FR 11= Set
applications
Principle Design Parameter Lean Tool
Standardize and continuous

5S procedure (DP2) 5S
improvement
Lean management system

Visualize the problems Visual management
(DP3)
Growing leaders who Hazard and occupational

A3
understand the philosophy sources map (DP62)
Go and see for yourself to

OHS control system (DP10) Yokoten
understand the situation
Continuous improvement
procedure (DP11)
Fig. 7. Pair-wise interactions among lean principles, DPs and lean tools.
Fig. 8. (a) Freighter and (b) powership.
(DP10) (WorkSafe Victoria., 2007) incorporating specific controls processing parameters are appropriate or not with respect to time,
(random or periodic), measurements and maintenance procedures quality and quantity speed as well as to decide whether they are
is proposed to identify OHS problems (if any), and determine the healthy and safe or not.
reduction of deviation from OHS targets (FR 10). Periodic controls can be classified into two groups, namely
The purpose of the periodic controls are to determine the cur- hygienic and technical. Technical periodic control process is com-
rent state of person or machine, plant and equipments, investigate prised of four stages, namely mechanical properties statement, test
wear, corrosion conditions due to working conditions, to check methods and conditions determination, authorized personnel
assignment, and technical reporting.
Technical controls are performed for buildings and facilities
(floor and mezzanine floors, suspended scaffolds), equipments
and machines (compressors, boilers, vessels, elevators, oven and
stove, etc.) electrical wirings (lighting, grounding and electrical
appliances), the fire system (fire hoses, motor pumps, alarms, fire
extinguishers) and personal protectives. Specifications for facility,
machines and equipments, information about authorized technical
personnel, information about test methods and conditions, infor-
mation about production processes, control questions and com-
ments about control results are available in periodic control form.
Hygienic periodic controls involve recruitment and periodic
consultations, periodic tests for occupational diseases (lead, mer-
cury, arsenic, phosphorus, etc.), the medical consultations for
employee exposured health interfering factors (tetanus danger,
dust, noise, vibration, pressure, infrared rays and radioactive mate-
rials, etc.).
On the other hand, random controls can be regarded as a critical
component of OHS control system. Random control form contains a
list of safety elements in workplace. The appropriateness of the
safety element is checked and recorded during random observa-
tions. Meanwhile, instructions and notes are written for each
safety element on the form. Thus, the effectiveness of the OHS sys-
tem has been enhanced by OHS measures and the evaluation of
Fig. 9. Example to a red tag used in the shipyard. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of results.
this article.)
Fig. 10. Hazard and Occupational Disease Resources Map.
FR 11 = Set new targets ust application procedure (Reese, 2015) is used with the aim of
monitoring activities in A3 applications by preventing the sources
The identification of new targets (FR11) is a critical success fac- of variability in a system and improving process. In this method,
tor in terms of OHS performance improvement. In this context, changes in the process are proposed and applied. Then, results of
continuous improvement (Kaizen) procedure (Gnoni et al., 2013; application are evaluated and necessary preventive measures are
Imai, 2012) (DP11), performing an overall systematic improve- determined.
ment, are decomposed as follows: Yokoten (DP112), a Japanese term, means the horizontal
spreading of ideas and policies in a company or its different facil-
FR111 = Solve problems with respect to new targets ities. Yokoten can be considered as an easily accessible library of
FR112 = Spread successful applications A3 applications for documentation and deployment of continuous
improvement activities. Yokoten, as an information management
The corresponding DPs may be stated as follows: skill, maintains information in an organizational manner (Liker,
2004).
DP111 = A3 applications As for OHS aspect, Yokoten provides dissemination of measures
DP112 = Yokoten procedure identified for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of occupa-
tional diseases and accidents that occured in the same/different
The design matrix for the above set of FRs and DPs are company due to the same/similar reason(s).
So far, the design of OHS system is completed (Fig. 6). A com-
FR111 X DP111
10 plete design matrix for OHS system is prepared in order to assure
FR112 X X DP112 that leaf-level design decisions are consistent. As can be seen in
A3 analysis (DP111), which can also be seen as a management Table 7, inconsistent relations do not exist between leaf-level
process, is a powerful problem solving tool to make performance DPs and FRs.
improvement (Shook, 2008). In this context, A3 is denoted as a As seen in Fig. 6, on the condition that the realization of a DP in
standard methodology aiming to establish the basic structure for physical domain needs further FRs, the related DP must be decom-
wider and deeper thinking about innovation, planning, and posed into next levels. For instance, in OHS system design, 5S pro-
problem-solving. A3 paper size is used in A3 analysis with respect cedure (DP2) is performed via five FRs (FR21, . . ., FR25) and
to international standardization. Title (problem), history, current requires decoupled design. Generating economical working envi-
state, goals/objectives and analysis sections are given on the left ronment (FR22) cannot be satisfied unless Removing unneces-
side of the paper. The right side of the paper includes sections enti- sary physical items (FR21) is performed. Furthermore, Red tag
tled by date, action plan, schedule monitoring and results. procedure (DP21) of FR21 is regarded as a clear and basic DP
Regarded as a systematic management cycle, Plan-Do-Check-Adj which does not require any additional FRs in the next level.
Probability Exposure Frequency Gravity Risk Value
3 10 7 3 x 10 x 7
Significant damage,
Falling materials from height injury, need external R = 210
first aid
Drivers of Probability Drivers of Frequency Drivers of Gravity

1. Inproper materials handling 1. Taking first place with 1. Not using helmets
vehicle 39.1% of accident reason, 2. Lack of first aid
2. Inproper attachments of named falling materials from 3. Late arrival of the ambulance
materials handling vehicle height at shipyards in Turkey (Immediate improvement)
(For example using magnet
for carrying pipe) 2. 16.5% of accidents related
3. Control system deficiency to falling materials from
heightduring the last two
4. Carelessness years at the focused shipyard
Result: Unusual but 3. Widespread use of the
possible crane transport
4. Requiring assembly tasks
in the shipyard at heights
Result: Almost evertime

hazards available (a few times
per hour)
Fig. 11. A risk schema belonging to Falling Materials from Height event.
As for lean principles aspect, Standardize and continuous support the OHS work. In addition, a department managing OHS
improvement (Principle 6), Visualize the problems (Principle work named Health, Safety and Environment is connected directly
7), Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the philosophy to the General Manager (DP1).
(Principle 9), Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand For 5S in the shipyard (FR2-DP2), the red tag application is
the situation (Principle 12) (Liker, 2004) are embodied to DP2, started (see Fig. 9). Red label, not only for classification, was used
DP3, DP62, DP10, DP11 via 5S, Visual Management, A3, Yokoten for orderliness and cleanliness. Red tag was used by authorized
as lean tools. The pair-wise interactions among the above men- technicians and the necessities shown on the tag were applied
tioned principles, DPs and lean tools are shown in Fig. 7. under the responsibility of the team leader.
As seen in Fig. 7, Visual Management among lean tools is used Each application of red tags was visualized problems and after
in each of DPs. In a consistent manner, the principle of visualize the problems were eliminated, they were recorded.
the problem interacts with all of the DPs. There were usually unsafe acts and unsafe conditions in the
shipyard such as smoking at the shop floor and leaving the cables
on the wet ground. The job description of the foreman included
4. Application-based feasibility analysis for the developed
taking the countermeasures to unsafe acts and conditions. How-
methodology
ever this description was not usually sufficient to prevent acci-
dents and occupational diseases. The existing penalties were
Holistic roadmap for OHS system design was planned to be
also insufficient in terms of permanently eliminating unsafe acts
applied to a real life manufacturing system from shipbuilding
and conditions. The lean management system was built and han-
industry. In this context, each of the design stages explained in Sec-
dled for changing worker habits and behaviours (cultures) in
tion 3 (FRs-DPs) is linked with the real life shipyard. Meanwhile,
terms of OHS (FR3-DP3). Foremen, who were more competent
the problems met in the application trigger to make some modifi-
in terms of OHS and manufacturing processes, were trained for
cations on the developed methodology. In other words, reciprocal
achieving leadership qualities. At the same time, value stream
transition between theory and application improves the OHS sys-
management oriented training program was handled for manu-
tem design academically.
facturing director. In terms of lean approach, a team leader, a
The shipyard in consideration is constructed on a total area of
group leader and a value stream manager were used instead of
279,000 square meters, where it constructs all types of new build-
a foreman, a chief and a production manager respectively. The
ing vessels, industrial projects and conducts repair and conversion
works of team leaders, group leaders and value stream manager
works. Fig. 8 shows two kinds of building vessels in the shipyards.
were planned on standard hourly basis. Standard work forms of
This shipyard, which is the biggest private shipyard in Turkey,
these employees were shown in Appendix A. In addition, produc-
was embraced to the road map of the developed methodology in
tion track board as a lean management tool was designed in the
order to secure the health and safety of each employee and to cre-
shipyard (see Appendix B). It contains the problems collected
ate a better working environment.
from the production system based on quality, production timing
In the context of the participation of senior management (FR1),
and OHS.
General Manager of the senior management at the shipyard is to
TASK ASSIGNMENT BOARD
Today
MONTH
UNIT/CELL RESPONSIBLE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Panel Line
Pre-Block
Production Area
Steel Processing
Shop
Painting Shop
Slideway
Assembly
Equip Final
Occupational
Healty and Safety
Quality
Manufacturing
Engineering
Maintanence
Purchasing
Planning
A sample text on a post-it

Green dot shows Red dot shows Planning
that the defined
that the defined countermeasures for
task written on
task written on the fixture problem of
the post-it is
the post-it is late Station 2.
finished in-time
Fig. 12. Task assignment board.
At the scope of lean management system, training procedure for The committee took decisions in a month to countermeasure
blue collar workers which contained the subjects written below the deficiencies determined by evaluating the OHS activity report.
was applied: In the shipyard, HSE department as working as an OHS department
was formed by the following members (FR5-DP5):
1. Work place presentation (2 h).
2. Business psychology (4 h). i. HSE Chief (OHS expert).
3. Seeing and eliminating waste (3x4 = 12 h). ii. Consultant (OHS A class specialist).
4. 5S and visual factory (6 h). iii. OHS Personnel (7 members).
5. OHS (6x3 = 18 h) iv. Factory Doctor (full time status).
(a) Hazards and prevention v. Health Officer.
(b) Workers Justice and Responsibilities vi. Infirmary staff.
(c) More Technical Knowledge and Industrial Safety
(d) Professional training. Increasing the ability of building an OHS culture among team
6. Fire training (4 h). leaders and group leaders, the number of necessary HSE staff will
7. First aid training (16 h). be reduced.
In order to identify the hazardous points in the shipyard (FR6),
OHS committee in the shipyard were formed as follows (FR4-DP4): statistical analysis should primarily be performed (DP61).
In order to determine critical control points (FR62), Hazard and
1. General Manager (as employers substitute). Occupational Disease Resources Map were prepared (Fig. 10).
2. OHS Expert. Besides this map, hazards and their countermeasures for each
3. Occupational physician. related processes were recorded on Standard Work Combination
4. Administration Manager. Sheet.
5. Production Manager. Critical control points which contained the hazards in the
6. Union Representative. shipyard were determined based on processes and sub-
7. Foremen or masters on panel line, pre-block production area, processes. Some of the control points were listed below as an
painting shop etc. example:
8. OHS Worker Representative.
prevent the scatters of hazardous ray and smoke while welding,

Bring the forms including separators were widely used. Ground fault interrupters were con-
OHS at the production trolled at the fixed and portable electrical equipment (DP 84). At
trace board in the visual the electric hand tools and portable lamps, 24-volt was used. All
area by group leaders of the cranes and lifts were tested by the accredited institution
and the maximum load plates were not overlooked. Materials han-
dling equipment and the transport paths were determined, and
drawing the lines for materials handling equipment within the
scope of hazard prevention system (DP 85) were performed.
Standing meeting by Hazards based on the shipyards facilities and equipment, which
selected responsible have been still observed and worked on the elimination of them
Examine on the status of
employees in visual area are listed below:
previously written post-it
during 15 minutes at 1:30
assignments
p.m. every day
1. Some of the hand railing and files at the scaffoldings were not
allowed to be 120 cm. at height.
2. There were nylon on board units. In close proximity to the
nylon, making the cutting process, the ignition hazard (fire)
Analysis of problems was brought.
Putting a green dot on
posted at the production 3. The pipes could be transported with magnet pieces at the crane.
the timely completion of
monitoring board during the task Falling the pipe would be equipment-induced hazards.
meeting managed by the 4. Fairlead for cranes should be used in small pieces. However, it
value stream manager could be used for transport with large parts. This unsafe beha-
viours were one of the reason of the hazard named falling
materials from height.
5. The materials which would be used a few months later, were
Write tasks on post-it for placed at the block production area and the ships deck. Because
elimination the problems there was nowhere to walk easily on the floor or ships deck,
Putting the red dot on the
with assigning to the this situation also created hazards.
delayed task
responsible employee 6. 24-volt portable lamp and security isolation transformer based
and post it related
on the power, should be used for lighting while working in nar-
employees row with
row and small spaces. In such places, if electrical welding would
completion date column
on task assignment board be used, direct current machine was needed.
In the shipyard, to prevent people based on the principles of

hazard prevention system (DP 9), helmets, goggles, gloves, steel-
Fig. 13. A flowchart for visual management system. toed safety shoes, masks, earplugs, safety belts and special uni-
forms were used. However, in practice, some disruptions met
1. Materials supply, picking, handling and storage. due to the employees negligence.
2. Storage chemicals and keeping them in a store. In the scope of DP 10, OHS control system in the shipyard was
3. CNC Plasma sheet metal cutting at the panel line. built based on two main principles as follows:
4. Cutting and forming at the preliminary block manufacturing
area. 1. To standardize the work of the team leader, the group leader
5. Welding in the manufacturing area. and the value stream manager on hourly basis and ensure their
6. Pipe circuit assembly works at the block manufacturing area. implemantation.
2. To realize visual management practices.
Developed risk assessment system (DP 7) was implemented in
the shipyard and one of the example for Falling materials from Developed standard work forms of the team leader, the group
height event was examined (Fig. 11). leader and the value stream manager are depicted in Appendices
The assessment of high-level risk for falling material as well as A1A3.
determining and eliminating reasons of the event would be a As a part of visual management, production trace board and
proactive approach. Therefore, drivers of probability were focused task assignment board were developed. Production trace board
and aimed to reduce the realization scale value to 1 from 3 by contained the daily deviation from the standard based on quality
means of the application of proactive approaches. and manufacturing time of component parts, work-in-process
After the quantitative risk assessment were determined, hazards and OHS activities (see Appendix B1). A form was developed for
based the shipyards facilities and equipment were intended to pre- tracing OHS abnormalities (see Appendix B2).
vent (FR 8). In this context, stair handrails, stair protectors, barriers Task assignment board is depicted in Fig. 12. This board visual-
against slipping on the roof work, fire escape ladders, and evacua- izes who were responsible of the tasks and when they were com-
tion areas for emergencies were examined and the deficiencies pleted. A post-it sticker was used for task assignment on board.
were eliminated (DP 81). At the machinery and equipment hazard Red mark was used when the completion time of the task was
prevention system in the shipyard (DP 82), guillotine shears and overdue. In Fig. 13, the visual management process developed
press with two-hand control, photocells and laser apparatus, laser, are expressed.
pedal, blade guard, closed dies, gear-belt-pulley-shaft guards for the In order to become a continuous improvement (Kaizen) culture
machine tools and protective covers were not overlooked. At the in the shipyard, identification of new core objectives based on
welding equipment hazard prevention system (DP 83), all the weld- strategic planning using Hoshin Kanri is vital (FR 11).
ing machines were controlled by the electrician, using neoprene For this improvement culture, A3 applications (DP111) play an
pipes at the oxygen welding machines, were proposed. In order to important role. In the shipyard, three A3 applications were
Proposal: Lean management system application for reducing accidents in the shipyard dramatically and
Prepared/Date Ferhat Babr - M. Bulent Durmusoglu / 2015.02.22
increasing the production performance
I. BACKGROUND 5-PLAN DETAILS
Occupaonal Accidents for Four Years No Activity

120
1 Determination the standard works of team leader and design of his standard work form
2 Determination the standard works of group leader and design of his standard work form
100 3 Determination the standard works of value stream manager and design of his standard work form
98
Number of fatal 4 Design of production trace board
Number of Accidents
accidents 5 Design of task assignment board

80 Occupational accidents in the
72
shipyard peaked in 2013 has been 6 Preparation forms and boards
67 Number of accidents
60 62 7 Determination of system's operational procedures
resulng in temporary declining in 2014.
incapacity for work 8 Giving the required tranings for the users of forms and boards
40 There is also a fatal accident in 2012.
Number of cases of
occupaonal disease
20
0 1 1
2011 2012 2013 2014
An Example of Work Flow Chart of Visual

Standardization Form Management System
(Figure A1) (Figure 14)
2. CURRENT CONDITION
General Manager as a senior management of the shipyard supports the OHS works. In order to perform the OHS
works, HSE department has been established and connected directly to the General Manager. Including OHS expert,
HSE department consists of 12 members. The staff size is quite large.
Prevention of occupational accidents is considered by the large size of the HSE. However, despite of this HSE
department, the unsafe conditions and unsafe behaviors are available.
Example of Production Example of Task
For example the internal audit performed on June 12-13. 2014 was revealed that 22 were identified the unsafe Trace Board Assignment Board
conditions and behaviors. 14 from 22 were unsafe conditions, 8 were unsafe behaviors. (Figure B1) (Figure 13)
From the above numbers, we understand that more and strengthening members of the HSE department is not
sufficient to prevent occupatonal accidents.
3. PROPOSAL
Building the lean management system in the shipyard for reducing accidents dramatically and increasing the
production performance
4. ANALYSIS 6-IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
The main objective of lean management system is to change the behaviors of production workers (worker-foreman-
chief). To do this, the two stage application will be needed as follows: April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 September 2015
Selection Giving the Determination Design of

1. The work of team leader (foreman), group leader (chief) and value stream manager (production manager) is to be of project Design of Implemantation
required of Standard Visual
standardized on hourly basis and ensured their application. leader Forms
trainings Works Management
2.The application of visual management is performed. Boards
Occupational accidents will be reduced significantly using lean management system with less HSE members.
Fig. 14. A proposal A3 application for Lean Management System in the Shipyard.
available: (i) Problem solving A3; (ii) Proposal A3; (iii) Project sta- work since it requires a great deal of experience for application
tus review. The applications of A3 were suggested to be posted in a besides a multidisciplinary science consisting of engineering, law
visual way next to the production trace board in order to share and and social science. In this study, the first independence axiom of
train employees in the scope of Yokoten procedure (DP112). Fig. 14 the AD theory is applied to the design for OHS system in order to
shows a proposal A3 application for Lean Management System in validate it scientifically. Identification of OHS system elements,
the shipyard. totally performed in accordance with the axiom of independence,
Developed OHS system design will be implemented step by step prevents the confusion through the design process. Therefore, the
in the year of 2015. The changing performance (between 2011 and design process is simplified. In addition, the introduction of sys-
2015) for the criteria which have a direct or an indirect influence tematic solutions to especially cultural problems within the OHS
on the OHS system are indicated in Table 8. The positive effect of system, lean manufacturing techniques, such as 5S, visual manage-
the application can be observed especially in 2015. ment, standardization, Kaizen and Yokoten are embedded in the
The number of working days lost is regarded as the time period design process for OHS system.
between the starting the time of worker going to doctor and the The roadmap developed by AD was planned to be applied to the
last day of his/her resting. 7500 (300 days 25 years) days is added shipyard production system. It is expected that this approach will
for each of death or permanent incapacity incidents. reduce occupational accidents, worker absenteeisms and manufac-
turing costs significantly. On the other side, this road map can also
5. Conclusion guide different sectors such as mechanical, electrical and chemical
production.
Identifying, understanding and using of the elements of OHS There are several works to be pursued in future. Regarding the
system towards the whole OHS design objectives are not an easy subject of the application, the impact of the developed road map on
Table 8 the type of sectors and firms culture will be investegated. In addi-
Performance criteria for the OHS system. tion, a detailed comparative study considering risk assessment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 models including the proposed model may be conducted on
Number of fatal accidents 1 several real life manufacturing systems. Lastly, we consider devel-
Number of accidents resulting oping an expert system that measures the quantitative perfor-
continuous incapacity for work mances of the OHS process.
Number of accidents resulting in 62 72 98 67 59
temporary incapacity for work
Number of cases of occupational 1
disease Appendix A. Standard work forms
Number of working days lost 299 7659 1014 795 626
Number of improvement suggestions No record 372
See Figs. A1A3
Number of delivery delays No record
Number of defects No record
TEAM LEADER STANDARD WORK FORM

UNIT/CELL: Panel Line DATE:
No Tasks Control Explanation
1 Coordinate the team meeting
Check the environment and start the
2
production
3 Participate to a meeting of units/cells group
8:00-10:00 a.m. gemba walk for line with the
4
group leader
5 Provide discipline before and after the break
10:00-12:00 a.m. gemba walk for line with
6
the group leader
Provide discipline before and after lunch
7
break
0:00-2:00 p.m. gemba walk for line with the
8
group leader
9 Walk for line with value stream manager
2:00-4:00 p.m. gemba walk for line with the
10
group leader
11 Provide discipline before and after the break
12 Fill the OHS forms

13 Fill the defects and rework form
14 Fill the day-by-the hour form
15 Fill the stock information form
16 Control and improve work standards
17 Intervene abnormalities
18 Ensure and maintenance 5S system
19 Encourage Kaizen
20 Train workers
21 Update the TPM and lean board
Keep the team leader standard work forms
22
for the last week
GENERAL NOTES
Signature
Fig. A1. Team leader standard work form.

GROUP LEADER STANDARD WORK FORM

1 Participate any team meeting
Start the shift by adjusting the workforce of
2
the group unit
3 8:00-10:00 a.m. gemba walk
4 Coordinate the group meeting
5 10:00-12:00 a.m. gemba walk
6 Participate the 1:30 p.m. meeting
7 0:30-02:00 p.m. gemba walk
8 2:00-4:00 p.m. gemba walk
Control the standard work form of the team
9
leader
10 Control the OHS forms
11 Control the defects and rework forms
12 Control the day-by-the hour forms
13 Control the stock information form

14 Keep up to date visuals
15 Gemba walk with the value stream manager
16 Control the work standards
17 Intervene abnormalities
18 Assign tasks to the team leaders
19 Ensure break discipline
20 Ensure and maintenance 5S system
GENERAL NOTES
Approval: Value Stream Manager
Fig. A2. Group leader standard work form.

VALUE STREAM MANAGER STANDARD WORK FORM

DATE:
1 Coordinate the 13:30 meeting
2 Gemba walk with the group leaders
3 Control a line every day
4 Control the OHS forms
5 Control the defects and rework forms
6 Control the day-by-the hour forms
7 Control the stock information form
Check and improve work standards as a
8
point at any line
GENERAL NOTE
Approval:Factory Manager
Fig. A3. Value stream manager standard work form.
Appendix B. Application tool for OHS control system
See Figs. B1 and B2
WORK-IN-
DAY-BY-THE-
Unit/Cell OHS QUALITY PROCESS/STANDARD
HOUR
WORK-IN-PROCESS
Panel Line
Pre-Block
Production Area
Steel Processing
Shop
Painting Shop
Slideway
Assembly
Equip Final
Fig. B1. Production trace boards.

OHS FORM
Picture
No Unsafe Situation Condition Behaviour Explanation
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Signature
Fig. B2. OHS form.
References Gnoni, M. G., Andriulo, S., Maggio, G., & Nardone, P. (2013). Lean occupational
safety: An application for a near-miss management system design. Safety
Science, 53, 96104.
Alli, B. O. (2008). Fundamental principles of occupational health and safety. Geneva:
Gummesson, K. (2016). Effective measures to decrease air contaminants through
International Labour Office.
risk and control visualization a study of the effective use of QR codes to
Aluclu, I., Dalgic, A., & Toprak, Z. F. (2008). A fuzzy logic-based model for noise
facilitate safety training. Safety Science, 82, 120128.
control at industrial workplaces. Applied Ergonomics, 39(3), 368378.
Heinrich, H. W. (1931). Industrial accident prevention: A scientific approach. McGraw-
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., & Yusuff, R. M. (2011). Evaluation of approaches to safety in
Hill.
lean manufacturing and safety management systems and clarification of the
Heinrich, H. W., Peterson, D., & Roos, N. (1980). Industrial accident prevention. New
relationship between them. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15(1), 1926.
York: McGraw-Hill.
Barlas, B. (2012a). Shipyard fatalities in Turkey. Safety Science, 50, 12471252.
Hermanus, M. A. (2007). Occupational health and safety in mining-status, new
Barlas, B. (2012b). Occupational fatalities in shipyards: an analysis in Turkey.
developments, and concerns. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining
Brodogradnja, 63(1), 3541.
and Metallurgy, 107(8), 531538.
Baysan, S., Cevikcan, E., & Satoglu, S. I. (2013). Assessment of energy efficiency in
Hirano, H. (1995). 5 pillars of the visual workplace. Portland: Productivity Inc.
lean transformation: A simulation based improvement methodology. In
Hirano, H. (2009). JIT implementation manual, the complete guide to just-in-time
Assessment and simulation tools for sustainable energy systems (pp. 381394).
manufacturing, volume 2, waste and the 5Ss (2nd ed.). CRP Press, Taylor and
London: Springer Verlag. ISBN 798-1-4471-5142-5.
Francis Group.
Bentley, T., & Tappin, D. (2010). Incorporating organisational safety culture within
Holcroft, C. A., & Punnett, L. (2009). Work environment risk factors for injuries in
ergonomics practice. Ergonomics, 53(10), 11671174.
wood processing. Journal of Safety Research, 40, 247255.
Brown, G. D., & ORourke, D. (2007). Lean manufacturing comes to China: A case
Hopkins, A. (2011). Risk-management and rule-compliance: Decision-making in
study of its impact on workplace health and safety. International Journal of
hazardous industries. Safety Science, 49, 110120.
Occupational and Environmental Health, 13, 249257.
Hoppmann, J., Rebentisch, E., Dombrowski, U., & ve Zahn, T. (2011). A framework for
Brun, J.-P., & Loiselle, C. D. (2002). The roles, functions and activities of safety
organizing lean product development. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1),
practitioners: The current situation in Qubec. Safety Science, 40(6), 519536.
316.
Cagliano, A. C., Grimaldi, S., & Rafele, C. (2011). A systemic methodology for risk
ILO (1974). Safety and health in shipbuilding and ship repairing. Geneva, Switzerland:
management in healthcare sector. Safety Science, 49, 695708.
ILO Codes of Practice.
Cameron, I., & Raman, R. (2005). Process systems risk management. Amsterdam:
ILO (2011). Safety and health at work <http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-
Elsevier Academic Press.
and-health-at-work/langen/index.htm>.
Cha, S., & Cho, K. (1999). Development of DVD for the next generation by axiomatic
ILO Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety, <www.ilocis.org>.
approach. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology, 48(1), 8589.
Imai, M. (2012). Gemba kaizen: A commonsense approach to a continuous
Cochran, D. S., Eversheim, W., Kubin, G., & Sesterhenn, M. L. (2000). The application
improvement strategy (second ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
of AD and lean management principles in the scope of production system
Ingalls Shipbuilding (2015). Employee environmental, health and safety handbook
segmentation. International Journal of Production Research, 38(6), 11591173.
<https://spars.huntingtoningalls.com/procurement/forms/SSGK0200.pdf>.
Coelho, A. M. G., & Mouro (2007). Axiomatic design as support for decision-making
Jang, B. B., Yang, Y. S., Song, Y. S., Yeun, Y. S., & Do, S. H. (2002). Axiomatic design
in a design for manufacturing context: A case study. International Journal of
approach for marine design problems. Marine Structures, 15(3556), 3556.
Production Economics, 109, 8189.
Jimenez, M., Romero, L., Dominguez, M., & Espinosa, M. D. (2015). 5S methodology
Daiton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2015). Applying communication theory for professional life:
implementation in the laboratories of an industrial engineering university
A practical introduction. SAGE Publications. Chapter 7.
school. Safety Science, 78, 163172.
Dekker, S., Cilliers, P., & Hofmeyr, J. H. (2011). The complexity of failure:
Kaliprasad, M. (2006). Proactive risk management. Cost Engineering, 48(12), 2635.
Implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Safety Science, 49,
Kim, S. J., Suh, Nam P., & Kim, S. (1991). Design of software systems based on AD.
939945.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 8(4), 243255.
Durmusoglu, M. B., & Kulak, O. (2008). A methodology for the design of office cells
Kulak, O., Cebi, S., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Applications of axiomatic design
using axiomatic design principles. Omega International Journal of Management
principles: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 67056717.
Science, 36, 633652.
Kulak, O., Durmusoglu, M. B., & Kahraman, C. (2005). Fuzzy multi-attribute
Edwards, D. K., Edgell, R. C., & Richa, C. E. (1993). Standard operations the key to
equipment selection based on information axiom. Journal of Materials
continuous improvement in a just-in-time manufacturing system. Production
Processing Technology, 169, 337345.
and Inventory Management Journal, 34(3), 713.
Kulak, O., Durmusoglu, M. B., & Tufekci, S. (2005). A complete cellular
Ferjencik, M. (2011). An integrated approach to the analysis of incident causes.
manufacturing system design methodology based on axiomatic design
Safety Science, 49, 886905.
principles. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 48(4), 765787.
Fine, W. T., & Kinney, W. D. (1976). Practical risk analysis and safety management. AD/
Lee, H., Seo, H., & Park, G. J. (2003). Design enhancements for stress relaxation in
A-027189 Washington: US Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information
automotive multi-shell-structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Service.
40, 53195334.
Florczak, C. M., & Roughton, J. E. (2001). Personal protective equipment. Hazardous
Leider, P. C., Boschman, J. S., Dresen, M. H. W. F., & van der Molen, H. F. (2015). When
Waste Compliance, 107148.
is job rotation perceived useful and easy to use to prevent work-related
Garrigou, A., Baldi, I., & Le Frious, Patricia (2011). Ergonomics contribution to
musculoskeletal complaints? Applied Ergonomics, 51, 205210.
chemical risks prevention. Applied Ergonomics, 42(2), 321330.
Li, H., Chan, G., & Skitmore, M. (2012). Visualizing safety assessment by integrating
Geldart, S., Smith, C. A., Shannon, H. S., & Lohfeld, L. (2010). Organizational practices
the use of game technology. Automation in Construction, 22, 498505.
and workplace health and safety: A cross-sectional study in manufacturing
Liggett, D. (2009). Hazard/risk evaluation-what is it? Electrical safety concepts. IEEE
companies. Safety Science, 48(5), 562569.
Industry Applications Magazine, 1218.
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the worlds greatest Quick, J. C., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Handbook of occupational health psychology.
manufacturer. McGraw-Hill Professional. Washington, US: American Psychological Association.
Lind, S., Nenonen, S., & Kivisto-Rahnasto, J. (2008). Safety risk assessment in Reese, C. D. (2015). Occupational health and safety management: A practical approach
industrial maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14(2), (3rd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
205217. Roughton, J. E., & Mercurio, J. J. (2002). Developing a hazard prevention and control
Longoni, A., Pagell, M., Johnston, D., & Veltri, A. (2013). When does lean hurt? an system. Developing an Effective Safety Culture, 190226.
exploration of lean practices and worker health and safety outcomes. Saunders, R., & Wheeler, T. (1991). Handbook of safety management. Avon: Pitman
International Journal of Production Research, 51(11), 33003320. Publishing.
Lu, L., Shi, L., Han, L., & Ling, L. (2015). Individual and organizational factors Savage, T. (2014), OSHA shipyard employment standards requiring programs,
associated with the use of personal protective equipment by Chinese migrant inspections, procedures, records and/or training. OSHA Industry Guide 53.
workers exposed to organic solvents. Safety Science, 76, 168174. Shikdar, A. A., & Sawaqed, N. M. (2003). Worker productivity, and occupational
Maiti, J. (2010). Development of worksystem safety capability index (WSCI). Safety health and safety issues in selected industries. Computers & Industrial
Science, 48, 13691379. Engineering, 45(4), 563572.
Mann, D. (2010). Creating a lean culture: Tools to sustain lean conversions. CRC Press. Shikdar, A. A., & Sawaqed, N. M. (2004). Ergonomics, and occupational health and
Martin, W. F., & Walters, J. B. (2001). Personal protective equipment. Safety and safety in the oil industry: a managers response. Computers & Industrial
Health Essentials, 202233. Engineering, 47(23), 223232.
McClain, D. (1995). Responses to health and safety risk at work environment. Shook, J. (2008). Managing to learn: Using the A3 management process. Lean
Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 17281743. Enterprise Institute.
Monden, Y. (1993). Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-time. Shook, J. (2010). How to change a culture: Lessons from NUMMI. MIT Sloan
Norcross, GA: Industrial Engineering and Management Press. Management Review, 51, 6372.
Moraru, R. I. (2012). Current trends and future developments in occupational Sklet, S. (2006). Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance. Journal
healthy and safety risk management. In Jan Emblemsvag (Ed.), Risk management of loss prevention in the process industries, 19, 494506.
for the future-theory and cases. Rijeka: Intech Europe. Stellman, J. M. (1998). Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety (Vol. II)
Nakao, M., Kobayashi, N., Hamada, K., Totsuka, T., & Yamada, S. (2007). Decoupling Geneva: International Labour Office.
executions in navigating manufacturing processes for shortening lead time and Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. New York: Oxford University Press.
its implementation to an unmanned machine shop. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Suh, N. P. (1996). Introduction to axiomatic design. accessed: 18.04.2016 <http://
Technology, 56(1), 171174. web.mit.edu/2.882/www/chapter1/chapter1.htm>.
Neumann, W. P., Marianne, E., & Jorgen, W. (2009). Integrating ergonomics into Suh, N. P. (2001). Axiomatic design: Advances and application. New York: Oxford
production system development the Volvo Powertrain case. Applied University Press.
Ergonomics, 40(3), 527537. Suh, N. P., Cochran, D. S., & Paulo, C. L. (1998). Manufacturing system design. CIRP
OCIMF (2003). Health safety and environment at new building and repair shipyards Annals Manufacturing Technology, 47(2), 627639.
and during factory acceptance testing <http://www.ocimf.org/media/8922/ Swuste, P., Corn, M., & Goelzer, B. (1995). Hazard prevention and control in the work
2104E8BB-971D-4d39-804F-A9C69CB7C39E.pdf>. environment: A report of a WHO meeting. Safety Science, 21(1), 7578.
OSHA. (2010). Safe work practices for shipbreaking. Guidance Document, Taylor, G., Easter, K., & Hegney, R. (2004). Enhancing occupational safety and health.
Publication: 3375. Oxford: Elsevier.
OSHA. (2011). Aerial lift fall protection over water in shipyards. QuickCard, Url-1. Safety and health at work. <http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-
Publication: 3452. health-at-work/langen/index.htm>, accessed: 10.04.2016.
OSHA. (2012a). Fire watch safety during hot work in shipyards. QuickCard, Url-2. Oregon OSHA Hazard Checklists. <http://www.orosha.org/standards/
Publication: 3494. checklists.html>, accessed: 25.04.2016.
OSHA. (2012b). Eye protection against radiant energy during welding and cutting in Warr, P. (2002). Psychology at work. New York, US: Penguin Press.
shipyard employment. Fact Sheet, Publication: FS-3499. Washington State Legislature. (2014). Safety standards for ship repairing, shipbuilding
OSHA. (2013a). Personal protective equipment. OSHA 315112R. and shipbreaking, Washington Administrative Codes, Chapter: 296-304 WAC.
OSHA. (2013b). Safe lighting practices in the shipyard industry. Fact Sheet, Womack, J., & Jones, T. (1996). Lean thinking. New York: Simon & Schuster Ltd.
Publication: FS 3677. Workplace Safety and Health Council (2009). Workplace safety & health manual for
OSHA. (2013c). Ventilation in shipyard employment. Publication: 3639. marine industries <www.wshc.sg/files/wshc/upload/cms/file/WSH_Manual_
OSHA. (2013d). Safely performing hot work on hollow or enclosed structures in Marine_Industries.pdf>.
shipyards. Fact Sheet. WorkSafe Victoria. (2007). Controlling OHS hazards and risks, Melbourne.
OSHA. (2013e). Safety while working alone in shipyards. Fact Sheet. Yi, J. W., & Park, G. J. (2005). Development of a design system for EPS cushioning
OSHA. (2014). Shipyard Industry Standards. OSHA 2268-10R. package of a monitor using axiomatic design. Advances in Engineering Software,
Piccoli, B., Assini, R., & Gambaro, S. (2001). Microbiological pollution and ocular 36, 273284.
infection in CAD operators: An on-site investigation. Ergonomics, 44(6),
658667.

1 s2.0 S036083521630273X Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S036083521630273X Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Industrial Engineering 100 (2016) 88109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

Axiomatic Design for Lean-oriented Occupational Health and Safety

had in mind converge, which is a time-consuming process at best. Here,

FR1 FR2 FR3 DP1 DP2 DP3

FR21 FR22 DP21 DP22

Functional Domain Physical Domain

FR1 FR2 FR3 FR3 FR2 FR1

DP1 DP2 DP3 DP3 DP2 DP1

(a) The coupled design (b) The decoupled design

HRM RM HRM HRM HRM RM RM RM RM CIM CIM

FR2 FR3 FR8

PLAN DO CHECK ADJUST

Fig. 3. Decomposition of FRs and DPs.

Order stage, an economical working environment is obtained by (c) Occupational physician.

The corresponding DPs are stated as follows:

Probability Exposure Frequency Gravity

Occcurence of Hazard Severity of Harm R = PxFxG

Drivers of Probability Drivers of Frequency Drivers of Gravity Assessed Risk

Fig. 4. Proposed risk management model.

Stages Critical Information

Fig. 5. Risk management process.

Probability index Description Exposure frequency Description Gravity Description

Risk assessment model Probability Frequency Gravity Exposure

Hazards Control Points

Fig. 6. The decomposition of OHS design.

DP1=Top management persuading procedure

DP21=Red tag procedure

FR1=Provide the participation of top management X

FR 2=Create a clean and

orderly working environment

FR 5= Establish OHS unit X X X X X X X X X X

sourced hazards in risk locations

FR 10= Decrease deviation from OHS targets X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Principle Design Parameter Lean Tool

Standardize and continuous

Lean management system

Growing leaders who Hazard and occupational

Go and see for yourself to

Fig. 8. (a) Freighter and (b) powership.

Fig. 10. Hazard and Occupational Disease Resources Map.

Probability Exposure Frequency Gravity Risk Value

Drivers of Probability Drivers of Frequency Drivers of Gravity

Result: Almost evertime

TASK ASSIGNMENT BOARD

A sample text on a post-it

Fig. 12. Task assignment board.

prevent the scatters of hazardous ray and smoke while welding,

In the shipyard, to prevent people based on the principles of

I. BACKGROUND 5-PLAN DETAILS

Occupaonal Accidents for Four Years No Activity

accidents 5 Design of task assignment board

An Example of Work Flow Chart of Visual

4. ANALYSIS 6-IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Selection Giving the Determination Design of

TEAM LEADER STANDARD WORK FORM

12 Fill the OHS forms

Fig. A1. Team leader standard work form.

GROUP LEADER STANDARD WORK FORM

12 Control the day-by-the hour forms

13 Control the stock information form

Approval: Value Stream Manager