Safety and Health at Work

  • 제9권3호
  • /
  • Pages.257-264
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2093-7911(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-7997(eISSN)
산업안전보건연구원 (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Balance Between Safety and Productivity and its Relationship with Human Factors and Safety Awareness and Communication in Aircraft Manufacturing

  • Karanikas, Nektarios (Aviation Academy, Faculty of Technology, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences) ;
  • Melis, Damien Jose (School of Engineering, RMIT University) ;
  • Kourousis, Kyriakos I. (School of Engineering, RMIT University)
  • 투고 : 2017.06.21
  • 심사 : 2017.09.06
  • 발행 : 2018.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: This paper presents the findings of a pilot research survey which assessed the degree of balance between safety and productivity, and its relationship with awareness and communication of human factors and safety rules in the aircraft manufacturing environment. Methods: The study was carried out at two Australian aircraft manufacturing facilities where a Likert-scale questionnaire was administered to a representative sample. The research instrument included topics relevant to the safety and human factors training provided to the target workforce. The answers were processed in overall, and against demographic characteristics of the sample population. Results: The workers were sufficiently aware of how human factors and safety rules influence their performance and acknowledged that supervisors had adequately communicated such topics. Safety and productivity seemed equally balanced across the sample. A preference for the former over the latter was associated with a higher awareness about human factors and safety rules, but not linked with safety communication. The size of the facility and the length and type of employment were occasionally correlated with responses to some communication and human factors topics and the equilibrium between productivity and safety. Conclusion: Although human factors training had been provided and sufficient bidirectional communication was present across the sample, it seems that quality and complexity factors might have influenced the effects of those safety related practices on the safety-productivity balance for specific parts of the population studied. Customization of safety training and communication to specific characteristics of employees may be necessary to achieve the desired outcomes.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bunn WB, Pikelny DB, Slavin TJ, Paralkar S. Health, safety, and productivity in a manufacturing environment. J Occup Environ Med 2001;43:47-55. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-200101000-00010
  2. Maudgalya T, Genaidy A, Shell R. Productivity quality costs safety: a sustained approach to competitive advantage - a systematic review of the national safety council's case studies in safety and productivity. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 2008;18:152-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20106
  3. Geldart S, Lohfeld L, Shannon HS, Smith CA. Organizational practices and workplace health and safety: A cross-sectional studying manufacturing companies. Saf Sci 2010;48:562-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.01.004
  4. Hola J. Internal communication in the small and medium sized enterprises. E&M Ekon Manage 2012;15:32-45.
  5. Hall A, Oudyk J, King A, Naqvi S, Lewchuk W. Identifying knowledge activism in worker health and safety representation: A cluster analysis. Am J Ind Med 2016;59:42-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22520
  6. Luria G, Yagil D. Safety perception referents of permanent and temporary employees: safety climate boundaries in the industrial workplace. Accid Anal Prev 2010;42:1423-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.02.016
  7. Dode P, Greig M, Zolfaghari S, Neumann WP. Integrating human factors into discrete event simulation: a proactive approach to simultaneously design for systemperformanceandemployees' well being. Int J Prod Res2016;54:3105-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1166287
  8. Griffin MA, Neal A. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J Occup Health Psychol 2000;5:347-58. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347
  9. Bahari SF. An investigation of safety training and safety outcome in a manufacturing plant. J Teknol 2013;64:59-65.
  10. Cheyne C, Oliver A, Tomas JM, Cox S. The architecture of employee attitudes to safety in the manufacturing sector. Personnel Rev 2002;31:649-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480210445953
  11. Nesheim T, Gressgard LJ. Knowledge sharing in a complex organization: Antecedents and safety effects. Saf Sci 2014;62:28-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.018
  12. Ahasan A. Human adaptation to shift work in improving health, safety and productivity - some recommendations. Work Study 2002;51:9-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/00438020210415479
  13. Denkowski MR, Kelly BG, Garvin M. A paradigm shift in well control training and assessment. In IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition 1-3 March 2016, Fort Worth (TX). Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2016.
  14. Havold JI. Safety-culture in a Norwegian shipping company. J Saf Res 2005;36:441-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2005.08.005
  15. Hollnagel E. The ETTO principle: efficiency-thoroughness trade off. Farnham (UK): Ashgate; 2009.
  16. Fritzsche L, Wegge J, Schmauder M, Kliegel M, Schmidt KH. Good ergonomics and team diversity reduce absenteeism and errors in car manufacturing. Ergonomics 2014;57:148-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.875597
  17. Nathanael D, Tsagkas V, Marmaras N. Trade-offs among factors shaping operators decision-making: the case of aircraft maintenance technicians. Cogn Technol Work 2016;18:807-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0393-z
  18. Dekker S. Drift into failure: from hunting broken components to understanding complex systems. Farnham (UK): Ashgate; 2011.
  19. Kramer W. The battle between production & safety: safety in the modern do-more-with-less economy. Prof Saf 2013;14-15.
  20. Dekker S. Production and safety. Hindsight 2013;17:8-9.
  21. Narayan V. Business performance and maintenance - How are safety, quality, reliability, productivity and maintenance related? J Qual Maint Eng 2012;18:183-95. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511211244210
  22. Li WC, Greaves M, Durando D, Lin JJ. The activated failures of human-automation interactions on the flight deck. J Aeronaut Astronaut Aviation 2016;48:163-71.
  23. Kaminski M. Unintended consequences: organizational practices and the irimpact on workplace safety and productivity. J Occup Health Psychol 2001;6:127-38.
  24. Goncalves R, Lancmana S, Trudeb L, Jarbimb TA, Sznelwarz LI, Santosa MC, Freeman A. An ergonomic approach to reorganize parking inspection agents' work productivity, health and safety in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Work 2010;36:345-53.
  25. Clarke S. Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant: The effects of work environment, job communication and safety attitudes on accidents and unsafe behaviour. Personnel Rev 2006;35:413-30. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480610670580
  26. Resnick M, Zanotti A. Using ergonomics to target productivity improvements. J Comput Ind Eng 1997;33:185-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-8352(97)00070-3
  27. Kadefors R, Engstrom T, Petzil J, Sundstrom L. Ergonomics in parallelized car assembly: a case study, with reference also to productivity aspects. Appl Ergon 1996;27:101-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(95)00064-X
  28. Shikda AA, Sawaqed NM. Worker productivity, and occupational health and safety issues in selected industries. J Comput Ind Eng 2003;45:563-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-8352(03)00074-3
  29. Dianat I, Vahedi A, Dehnavi S. Association between objective and subjective assessments of environmental ergonomic factors in manufacturing plants. Int J Ind Ergon 2016;54:26-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.12.004
  30. Allan HM, Bunn WB, Slavin TJ. Do long work hours impact health, safety, and productivity at a heavy manufacturer? J Occup Environ Med 2007;26:148-71.
  31. Salminen S. Long working hours and shift work as risk factors for occupational injury. Ergon Open J 2016;9:15-26. https://doi.org/10.2174/1875934301609010015
  32. Govindaraju M, Pennathur A, Mital A. Quality improvement in manufacturing through human performance enhancement. J Integr Manuf Syst 2001;10:360-7.
  33. Sobhani A, Wahab MM, Neumann WP. An innovative modeling method to evaluate Human factor effects on the performance of manufacturing systems. In: Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), IEEE Int 2016. p. 130-4.
  34. Salas E, Maurino D. Human factors in aviation. 2nd ed. Oxford (UK): Elsevier; 2010.
  35. Dhillon BS, Liu Y. Human error in maintenance: A review. J Qual Maint Eng 2006;21:21-36.
  36. Kumar R. Chapter 9: Selecting a method for data collection. In: Research methodology. 2nd ed. London (UK): SAGE Publications Ltd; 2005. p. 117-43.
  37. Sandom C, Harvey RS. Human factors for engineers. London (UK): The Institution of Engineering & Technology; 2004.
  38. Lehto MR, Buck JR. Introduction to human factors and ergonomics for engineers. New York (NY): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.
  39. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Human factors. In aviation maintenance technician handbook 8083-30 (p. 14-1 to 14-30). Washington (DC): Federal Aviation Administration, 2008.
  40. Garland DJ, Wise JA, Hopkin VD. Handbook of aviation human factors. 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
  41. Meister D. Human factors testing and evaluation, vol. 5. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1986.
  42. Hobbs A, O'Hara J, Adelstein B, Null C. Defining reliability and robustness from a human factors perspective. In: Space safety is no accident. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 277-83.
  43. Kumar R. Chapter 10: Collecting data using attitude scales. In: Research methodology. 3rd ed. London (UK): SAGE Publications Ltd; 2011. p. 167-76.
  44. Kumar R. Chapter 12: Selecting a sample. In: Research methodology. 3rd ed. London (UK): SAGE Publications Ltd; 2011. p. 191-214.
  45. Derek LP, Kevin JC. Some effects of "social desirability" in survey studies. Am J Sociol 1972;77:921-40. https://doi.org/10.1086/225231
  46. DeMaio TJ. Social desirability and survey measurement: A review. In: Surveying subjective phenomena, vol. 2. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation; 1984. p. 257-81.
  47. IBM. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. NY: Armonk; 2013.
  48. Roebuck DB, Sightler KW, Brush CC. Organizational size, company type, and position effects on the perceived importance of oral and written communication skills. J Manage Issues 1995;7:99-105.
  49. Hola J, Pikhart M. The implementation of internal communication system as a way to company efficiency. E+M Ekon Manage 2014;17:161-9.
  50. McVittie D, Banikin H, Brocklebanh W. The effects of firm size on injury frequency in construction. Saf Sci 1977;27:19-23.
  51. Hinze J, Raboud P. Safety on large building construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 1988;114:286-93. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1988)114:2(286)
  52. Lin J, Mills A. Measuring the occupational health and safety performance of construction companies in Australia. Facilities 2001;19:131-9. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770110381676
  53. Hinze J, Gambatese J. Factors that influence safety performance of specialty contractors. J Constr Eng Manag 2003;129:164.

피인용 문헌

  1. The Diagnosis of Communication and Trust in Aviation Maintenance (DiCTAM) Model vol.6, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace6110120
  2. Determining the safety culture in a gun factory in Turkey: A fuzzy approach vol.40, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-202222
  3. Occupational electrical accidents: Assessing the role of personal and safety climate factors vol.139, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105229
  4. Occupational Health & Safety and other worker wellbeing areas: Results from labour inspections in the Bangladesh textile industry vol.146, pp.None, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105533