Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.12.028

Graded approach to determine the frequency and difficulty of safety culture attributes: The F-D matrix  

Ahn, Jeeyea (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology)
Min, Byung Joo (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology)
Lee, Seung Jun (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.54, no.6, 2022 , pp. 2067-2076 More about this Journal
Abstract
The importance of safety culture has been emphasized to achieve a high level of safety. In this light, a systematic method to more properly deal with safety culture is necessary. Here, a decision-making tool that can apply a graded approach to the analysis of safety culture is proposed, called the F-D matrix, which determines the frequency and the difficulty of safety culture attributes recently defined by the IAEA. A hierarchical model of difficulty contributors was developed as a scoring standard, and its elements were weighted via expert evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process. The frequency of the attributes was derived by analyzing reported events from nuclear power plants in the Republic of Korea. Period-by-period comparisons with the F-D matrix can show trends in the change of the maturity level of an organization's safety culture and help to evaluate the effectiveness of previously implemented measures. In the evaluating the difficulty of the attributes in the recently developed harmonized safety culture model, the difficulties of Trending, Benchmarking, Resilience, and Documentation and Procedures were found to be relatively high, while the difficulties of Conflicts are Resolved, Ownership, Collaboration, and Respect is Evident were found to be relatively low. A case study was conducted with an analysis period of 10 years to attempt to reflect the many changes in safety culture that have been made following the Fukushima accident in March 2011. As a result of comparing two periods following the Fukushima accident, the overall frequency decreased by about 40%, providing evidence for the effects of the various improvements and measures taken following the increased emphasis on safety culture. The proposed F-D matrix provides a new analytical perspective and enables an in-depth analysis of safety culture.
Keywords
Nuclear safety culture; Harmonized safety culture model; Graded approach; Safety culture analysis; Analytic hierarchy process;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 G. Grote, C. Kunzler, Diagnosis of safety culture in safety management audits, Saf. Sci. 34 (1) (2000) 131-150, 2000/02/01/.   DOI
2 T. Lee, K. Harrison, Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations, Saf. Sci. 34 (1-3) (2000) 61-97. Feb-Apr.   DOI
3 N. McDonald, S. Corrigan, C. Daly, S. Cromie, Safety management systems and safety culture in aircraft maintenance organisations, Saf. Sci. 34 (1) (2000) 151-176, 2000/02/01/.   DOI
4 A.I. Glendon, D.K. Litherland, Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behaviour in road construction, Saf. Sci. 39 (3) (2001) 157-188, 2001/12/01/.   DOI
5 A.M. Williamson, A.-M. Feyer, D. Cairns, D. Biancotti, The development of a measure of safety climate: the role of safety perceptions and attitudes, Saf. Sci. 25 (1) (1997) 15-27, 1997/02/01/.   DOI
6 N.F. Pidgeon, Safety culture and risk management in organizations, J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 22 (1) (1991) 129-140.   DOI
7 Y. Kim, J. Park, W. Jung, A quantitative measure of fitness for duty and work processes for human reliability analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 167 (2017) 595-601, 2017/11/01/.   DOI
8 T. Lee, Perceptions, attitudes and behaviour: the vital elements of a safety culture, Health Saf. 10 (1996) 1-15.
9 K. Han, Y. Lee, and M. Jae, "A Methodology for Safety Culture Index Assessment Using Minimal Cut Sets.".
10 P.T. Harker, L.G. Vargas, The theory of ratio scale estimation: saaty's analytic hierarchy process, Manag. Sci. 33 (11) (1987) 1383-1403.   DOI
11 D.Z. Ma, X, 9/9 - 9/1 Scale method of AHP, in: 2nd Int. Symposium on AHP, Pittsburgh, 1991, pp. 197-202.
12 S. Cox, T. Cox, The structure of employee attitudes to safety: a European example, Work. Stress 5 (2) (1991) 93-106, 1991/04/01.   DOI
13 HSC, ACSNI Study Group on Human Factors. 3rd Report: Organising For Safety, 0 11 882104 0, Health and Safety Commission, London, 1993.
14 E. Novatsis, Chapter 18 - safety culture and behavior, in: J. Edmonds (Ed.), Human Factors in the Chemical and Process Industries, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 311-334.
15 L. Ostrom, C. Wilhelmsen, B. Kaplan, Assessing safety culture, Nucl. Saf. 34 (2) (Apr-Jun, 1993) 163-172.
16 IAEA, IAEA Safety Glossary: Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection, 2007 Edition, 2007.
17 M. Fleming, Safety Culture Maturity Model, HSE, 2001.
18 B. Bernard, A safety culture maturity matrix for nuclear regulatory bodies, Saf. Now. 4 (4) (2018) 44.
19 IAEA, Safety Assessment for Facilities and Activities, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2016.
20 IAEA, Safety Culture, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, 1991. Vienna.
21 M.D. Cooper, Towards a model of safety culture, Saf. Sci. 36 (2) (Nov, 2000) 111-136.   DOI
22 WANO, in: Traits of a Healthy Nuclear Safety Culture, W. A. o. N. Operators, 2013.
23 D.P. Fang, H.J. Wu, Development of a safety culture interaction (SCI) model for construction projects, Saf. Sci. 57 (Aug, 2013) 138-149.   DOI
24 Y.G. Kim, S.M. Lee, P.H. Seong, A methodology for a quantitative assessment of safety culture in NPPs based on Bayesian networks, Ann. Nucl. Energy 102 (2017) 23-36.   DOI
25 Y.G. Kim, A.R. Kim, J.H. Kim, P.H. Seong, Approach for safety culture evaluation under accident situation at NPPs; an exploratory study using case studies, Ann. Nucl. Energy 121 (Nov, 2018) 305-315.   DOI
26 S. Garcia-Herrero, M.A. Mariscal, J.M. Gutierrez, A. Toca-Otero, Bayesian network analysis of safety culture and organizational culture in a nuclear power plant, Saf. Sci. 53 (2013) 82-95, 2013/03/01/.   DOI
27 A.D. Swain, H.E. Guttmann, Handbook of Human-Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Final report, Sandia National Labs., 1983.
28 M. Barriere, D. Bley, S. Cooper, J. Forester, A. Kolaczkowski, W. Luckas, G. Parry, A. Ramey-Smith, C. Thompson, D. Whitehead, Technical basis and implementation guidelines for a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA), NUREG-1624, Rev 1 (2000) 2000.
29 Y. G. Kim, H. J. Jeong, and J. J. Park, "Consideration of Safety Culture through Analysis of Causes of Incidents/cases in the Nuclear Power Plant Industry.".
30 A.D. Swain, et al., Accident Sequence Evaluation Program: Human Reliability Analysis Procedure, Sandia National Labs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Albuquerque, NM (USA), 1987.
31 J. Bell, J. Holroyd, Review of human reliability assessment methods, Health Saf. Lab. 78 (2009).
32 J.A. G.v. Avermaete, NOTECHS: Non-technical Skill Evaluation in JAR-FCL, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, 1998.
33 IAEA, Summary Report on the Post-accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 1986.
34 F.A. Lootsma, Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 40 (1) (1989) 109-116, 1989/05/05/.   DOI
35 T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process : Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill International Book Co., New York; London, 1980.
36 Y.-H. Lee, Current status and issues of nuclear safety culture, J. Ergonom. Soc. Korea 35 (4) (2016) 247-261, 08/31.   DOI
37 IAEA, Fundamental Safety Principles, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2006.
38 IAEA, Leadership and Management for Safety, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2016.
39 IAEA, Application of the Management System for Facilities and Activities, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2006.
40 P. Foster, S. Hoult, The safety journey: using a safety maturity model for safety planning and assurance in the UK coal mining industry, Minerals 3 (1) (2013) 59-72.   DOI
41 INPO, Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, 2004.
42 E.S. Geller, Ten principles for achieving a total safety culture, Prof. Saf. 39 (9) (Sep 1994) 18.
43 IAEA, INES: the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User's Manual, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2013.
44 A.A. Salo, R.P. Hamlainen, On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process, J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 6 (6) (1997) 309-319.   DOI
45 A. Ishizaka, A. Labib, Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (11) (2011) 14336-14345, 2011/10/01/.
46 J. Franek, A. Kresta, Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP, Procedia Econ. Fin. 12 (2014) 164-173, 2014/01/01/.   DOI
47 F.J. Dodd, H.A. Donegan, Comparison of prioritization techniques using interhierarchy mappings, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 46 (4) (1995) 492-498.   DOI
48 A.R. Hale, J. Hovden, Management and culture: the third age of safety. A review of approaches to organizational aspects of safety, health and environment, Occup. Injury: Risk Prevent. Intervent. (1998) 129-165.
49 S.M. Han, S.M. Lee, H.B. Yim, P.H. Seong, Development of Nuclear Safety Culture evaluation method for an operation team based on the probabilistic approach, Ann. Nucl. Energy 111 (Jan, 2018) 317-328.   DOI
50 Y.-H. Lee, A revisit to the recent human error events in nuclear power plants focused to the organizational and safety culture, J. Ergonom. Soc. Korea 32 (1) (2013) 117-124.   DOI
51 G. Parry, B. Lydell, A. Spurgin, P. Moieni, A. Beare, An Approach to the Analysis of Operator Actions in Probabilistic Risk Assessment, 1992. EPRI Report TR-100259.
52 T.L. Saaty, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, J. Math. Psychol. 15 (3) (1977) 234-281, 1977/06/01/.   DOI
53 IAEA, A Harmonized Safety Culture Model - IAEA Working Document, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2020.