Evaluation of resilience engineering using super decisions software

Abstract

Background: Resilience engineering (RE) is a new approach to upgrade safety management systems. Due to its novelty in the field of safety, RE seems to be promising in providing good indicators to assess priorities in organizational strengths/weaknesses while planning to promote safety within organizations. Several methods have been recently developed to evaluate RE performance. The current study is an attempt to quantify and determine the priorities of RE dimensions in a steel industry using analysis network process (ANP). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 489 male workers of a steel industry participated. For this purpose, the RE questionnaire was distributed among workers and, then, super decisions software (version 3.2) was used to analyze the data. Results: The results indicated that there was a sufficient level of RE in the organization where top management commitment with normalized weight 0.1781 and awareness-opacity with normalized weight 0.1483 were ranked as the first and last priorities of the organization, respectively. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the top management system, with the adoption of safety policies, has been able to improve the performance of RE in the organization. Managers should consider appropriate measures to improve the RE situation.

Skills and Competencies for Resilience in Manufacturing Systems: A Systematic Literature Review

“…The authors propose a model that incorporates factors that promote a resilient environment, such as system complexity, worker age, worker commitment, preparation, and experience, among others [23] . Shirali and Nematpour [24] and Gattola, et al [25] agree with the previous authors that resilience includes the ability to anticipate and manage risks before they become serious threats to the operation, as well as the ability to survive a situation in which the operation has been compromised. RE strives to clarify how the organization creates security to determine when the model needs to be reviewed.…”

Measuring Resilience Engineering: An Integrative Review and Framework for Bench-Marking Organisational Safety

“…[54] "a paradigm for safety management that concentrates on how to help people deal with complexity under stress to achieve success" (p. 336) [56] "an organizational culture that fosters safe practices for improved safety in an ultra-safe organization striving for cost-effective safety management" (p. 297) [58] "capability to sustain or rapidly return to a steady state that allows the organization to continue operation during or after a major event or in the presence of continuous stresses" (p. 191) [59] "ability of an organization to regulate its function before, during, and after perturbations and fluctuations, so that it can continue the operations required under both predicted and unpredicted situations" (p. 142)…”

“…The 11 studies published from Iran, the country with the largest number of articles, did not utilize the same instruments. Three studies from this country [47,49,53] used ten characteristics to measure thirty questions, while two [56,58] measured six characteristics through sixty-one questions. Four instruments [30,47,54,57] were associated with a theoretical framework or model, but one of these [30] has not been empirically tested or validated.…”

“…This should include, as a minimum, six of the seven most common themes identified by Wreathall [27]. These include top management commitment, just culture, learning culture, reporting culture, flexibility and awareness [30,[45][46][47][48][49][50]52,54,55,58,59]. In addition, other characteristics can be incorporated; however, this needs to be supported with adequate theory.…”

“…One of the instruments reviewed [53] investigated margins of manoeuvre by evaluating the closeness of its operating system in relation to its boundary of safe performance, and tolerance by gauging how well it worked at the borders when subjected to increased pressures and adaptive capacity. However, four instruments also measured tolerance [45,46,49,58]. Collectively, these capture the key facets that can be used to measure the available margins of manoeuvre.…”