1 / 43

Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the evaluation and mitigation of health and safety risks with MACBETH

Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the evaluation and mitigation of health and safety risks with MACBETH. Diana F. Lopes, Mónica D. Oliveira and Carlos A. Bana e Costa Centre for Management Studies of Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Agenda.

arlen
Download Presentation

Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the evaluation and mitigation of health and safety risks with MACBETH

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the evaluation and mitigation of health and safety risks with MACBETH Diana F. Lopes, Mónica D. Oliveira andCarlos A. Bana e Costa Centre for Management Studiesof Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal

  2. Agenda • Context and objectives • Methodological framework • Structuring • EI: Nomenclature • EII: How to identify and measure risk sources and their consequences? • EIII: Identification of impact dimensions • EIV: Impact scale construction • EV: How to estimate the consequences’ impact in each dimension? • Value measurement • MI: Independence test between impact dimensions • MII: Impact value measurement (MACBETH-Choquet model) • Future research

  3. Risk matrix in use by the Health Service Executive Prob. × Impact Similar systems are used by multiple public and private organizations…

  4. U.S. Department of Defense …prioritise risks that threat the health system, organisations, business units and team and/or patients (OSQHC, 2005) …prioritise risks encountered in the development, test, production, use, and disposal of defense systems (US DoD, 2012) Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) …prioritise risks that threat the health system, organisations, business units and team and/or patients (OSQHC, 2005) …managing health and safety risks in DETE workplaces (Figueiredo and Oliveira, 2009)

  5. Why are risk matrices widely used? • Allow for intuitive use, demanding for limited expertise (Cox, 2009) • ImposedbyInternational Standards (ISO, IEC/FDIS 31010) andrecommendedbyguidelines in manycontexts (e.g. healthandsafety) • Are included in several packages: • SAP (SAP AG, 2012) • Active Risk Manager (Microsoft Pinpoint, 2012) • MITRE’sriskmatrixtool (The MITRE corporation, 1999) • Provide a clear framework for systematic review of risks, enabling organizations to prepare convenient documentation • Allow for stakeholders participating in the process of building risk matrices (Cox, 2008)

  6. Key problems with risk matrices • Cox Jr., L. A. (2008). "What’s wrong with risk matrices?" Risk Analysis 28(2): 497-512. • Pickering, A. and S. P. Cowley (2010). "Risk Matrices: implied accuracy and false assumptions." Journal of Health & Safety Research & Practice 2(1): 9-16. • Linkov, I., F. K. Satterstrom, et al. (2006). "From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications." Environment International 32: 1072–1093. • Levine, E. S. (2011). “Improving risk matrices: the advantages of logarithmically scaled axes.” Journalof Risk Research 15(2): 209–222. • Levine, E. S. and J. F. Waters (2013). "Managing risk at the Tucson sector of the U.S. border patrol." Risk Analysis 33(7): 1281-1292. • Wall, K. D. (2011). The trouble with risk matrices. Working Paper, Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Resources Management Institute,. 2/2011. • Smith, E. D., W. T. Siefert, et al. (2009). " Risk matrix input data biases." SystemsEngineerings 12(4): 344-360.

  7. Key problems with risk matrices (examples) • Use of interval scales such that the difference in attractiveness between two consecutive impact (probability) levels is the same. • Use of the same qualitative impact scale for all the risk dimensions and characterize each source of risk only by the worst impact level across all the dimensions, ignoring the cumulative effects of multiple impacts Financial lossesof €3M & 20 Deaths Financial lossesof €3M =

  8. Context: case study • Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU) of the ARSLVT composed by an engineer, nurses, doctors and technicians, makes use of traditional risk matrices: • Source: (ARSLVT, 2010)

  9. Context: case study • Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU) of the ARSLVT composed by a engineer, nurses, doctors and technicians, makes use of traditional risk matrices: Problems with Risk Matrices Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis • Source: (ARSLVT, 2010)

  10. Context: Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis • Ambiguous nomenclature • Problems in resourceallocation • Difficulty in identifying therisk sources • Problems identified • Decision makers’ opinions incompatible with the manual • Arbitrariness when estimating impacts and probabilities

  11. Objectives • This study aims to answer the call for help from the OHSU of the ARSLVT • Risk Assessment in health and safety at work • Challenge: Improve risk matrices’ design to avoid inconsistencies • Selection of corrective measures with the greatest potential to mitigate risks

  12. Methodologicalframework Risk Assessment’scontext for HealthandSafetyatwork Risk management Value risk matrix, using MACBETH Multicriteria resource allocation model OUTPUTS Multicriteria risk impact value and probability for each risk & Classification of risks into risk categories & Selection of mitigation actions that maximize value given available budget Structuring SI: Identification of issues and challenges SII: Nomenclature SIII: Tables match SIV: Identification of impacts dimensions SV: Impact scales SVI: impacts Estimation Structuring and alocation Mitigation actions Value measurement MI: Dependency test between dimensions MII: Impact MIII: Subjective Probability Selection of mitigation actions Risk classification Acceptability System to supportriskassessment Model requisiteness ACTIVITIES PROPOSED

  13. STRUCTURING

  14. Structuring Nomenclature S I Appraisal Risk Sources S II Health consequences CORRESPONDENCE Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impact S III Impact scales construction Employee’s health Capability to return to work Absenteeism 0 yhll Best Best ND Best 0 days S IV Worst 34 yhll Worst ID Worst 18 years Nota -yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ID: irrecoverable total disability Impact estimation on each dimension S V

  15. Proposed Nomenclature Following(ISO, IEC/FDIS 31010), (ARSLVT, 2010), (Vose, 2008) Grooves on the stairs to access the building Fall Expressionlevels Grooves: 0 cm 2 cm 10 cm RISK SOURCE RISK (…) Expression’slevels Foot fracture • 3,5 dhll • RD • 1 month of absenteeism IMPACT CONSEQUENCE Nota -dhll: dayofhealthylifelost; RD: RecoverableDisability

  16. Appraisal Nomenclature S I Appraisal Risk Sources S II Health consequences CORRESPONDENCE

  17. Appraisal Problem Difficulty in identifying and measuring the expression levels of risk sources and their consequences Proposal Based on an intensive literature review CORRESPONDENCE

  18. Example: Noise Workfrom: (HCN, 1994);(Passchieret al., 2000);(Decreto-Lei 182/2006)

  19. Dimensionsidentification Nomenclature S I Appraisal Risk Sources S II Health consequences CORRESPONDENCE Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impact S III

  20. Dimensionsidentification • The identification of relevant dimensions to assess the risk impact was performed in workshops with OHSU Final Value Tree

  21. Impactscales Nomenclature S I Appraisal Risk Sources S II Health consequences CORRESPONDENCE Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impact S III Impact scale construction Employee’s health Capability to return to work Absenteeism 0 yhll Best Best ND Best 0 days S IV Worst 34 yhll Worst ID Worst 18 years Nota -yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ID: irrecoverable disability

  22. Impactscales Better 0 years of healthy life lost 34 years of healthy life lost Worst Employee’s Health Better 0 (zero duration) Capability to return to work 18 years = [Retirement age] – [Average age of ARS’ employees] Worst Absenteeism

  23. Impactestimation Nomenclature S I Appraisal Risk Sources S II Health consequences CORRESPONDENCE Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impact S III Impact scale construction Employee’s health Capability to return to work Absenteeism 0 yhll Best Best ND Best 0 days S IV Worst 34 yhll Worst ID Worst 18 years Nota -yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ITD: irrecoverable total disability Impact estimation on each dimension S V

  24. Impactestimation Problem Difficulty in estimating impacts due to the decision makers’ lack of knowledge Proposal Sources: (Bowie et al. ,1997);(Matherset al., 1999);(Murray et al., 1996); (Stouthardet al., 1997); (U.S. Department of Labor, 2013); …

  25. Value Measurement

  26. Valuemeasurement Dependency test between impact dimensions M I • Impact value measurement using the MACBETH-Choquet model: • Construction of a global descriptor that combines the various dimensions • Issues Protocol using the interactive version of Microsoft PowerPoint • Populate the MACBETH global matrix with the judgements elicited by the decision makers • Determination of IC’s parameters (Shapley and interaction) M II

  27. Dependencytest RD RD 1,6 mhll Strong Weak 15 yhll IPDR 1 year IPDR 1 year Capability to return to work Employee’shealth Capabilityto return towork Absenteeism Employee’shealth Absenteeism The capability to return to work is cardinally dependent on the employee’s health Nota - yhll: yearsofhealthylifelost; mhll: monthsofhealthylifelost; IPDR: Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to work;RD: Recoverable Disability

  28. Impactvaluemeasurement Dependencytestbetweenimpactdimensions M I • Impact value measurement using the MACBETH-Choquet model: • Construction of a global descriptor that combines the various dimensions • Issues Protocol using the interactive version of Microsoft PowerPoint • Populate the MACBETH global matrix with the judgements elicited by the decision makers • Determination of IC’s parameters (Shapley and interaction) M II

  29. MACBETH • MACBETH is an interactive decision support approach • … uses qualitative judgments of differences of attractiveness… • … based on seven qualitative categories of difference in attractiveness • Wideapplicability in MCDA: • Healthcare: (Bana e Costa et al., 2011)(de Castro et al., 2011)(Lopes, 2013)(Oliveira et al., 2011) • Energy:(Bana e Costa et al., 2008)(Barinet al., 2012) • Environment:(Bana e Costa et al., 2013); (Cox et al., 2013) • Risk management: (Bana e Costa et al., 2008b);(Dall'Ossoet al., 2009); (Joerinet al., 2010); (Oliveira et al., 2004) • … • Typically, MACBETH applications use an additive value model (preference independence conditions are verified)… • …but many studies are using MACBETH with CI to model interdependencies

  30. MACBETH-Choquetmodel • Proposal • Use of the MACBETH-Choquet methodology to model interdependencies • Friendly and intuitive questioning protocol • Judgments based on seven qualitative categories of MACBETH • Intuitive meaning of the results MACBETH Choquet integral Mathematical formulationof the 2-additive CI operator: (Lopes et al., 2014)

  31. MACBETH-Choquetmodel Interactive questioning protocol Global Descriptor MACBETH Global Matrix Choquetintegral’sparameters Shapleyandinteraction’sparameters M-MACBETH

  32. Global descriptor (2) Incapability to return to work (1) Employee’sHealth (3) Absenteeism

  33. Global descriptor Nota - yhll: yearsofhealthylifelost; mhll: monthsofhealthylifelost; ID: Irrecoverabledisability; IPDR: Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to work; RD: Recoverable Disability; ND: Null Disability; y:years; m: months

  34. Interactivequestioningprotocol • Questioningprotocolbasedonquestions-type: • “Whatistheattractivenessofreversingcertaincombinationofimpacts?” • Supportsystem: Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007 • Sequential • Interactive

  35. Interactivequestioningprotocol Final Judgments Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact 34yhll,ID, 18y 15yhll,ID, 18y 15yhll,IPDN, 18y 4yhll,ID, 18y 4yhll,IPDN, 18y 15yhll,IPDR, 1y 15yhll,IPDR, 1m 15yhll,RD, 1y 15yhll,RD, 6m 15yhll,RD, 1m 15yhll,IPDR, 6m Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact 4yhll,IPDR, 1y 4yhll,IPDR, 6m 4yhll,IPDR, 1m 4yhll,RD, 1y 4yhll,RD, 6m 4yhll,RD, 1m 1yhll,IPDR, 1y 1yhll,IPDR, 6m 1yhll,IPDR, 1m 1yhll,RD, 1y 1yhll,RD, 6m 1yhll,RD, 1m Noimpact Noimpact Nompact Noimpact Noimpact Nompact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact Noimpact 0,5yhll,IPDR, 1y 0,5yhll,IPDR, 6m 0,5yhll,IPDR, 1m 0,5yhll,RD, 1y 0,5yhll,RD, 6m 0,5yhll,RD, 1m 1,6mhll,IPDR, 1y 1,6mhll,IPDR, 6m 1,6mhll,IPDR, 1m 1,6mhll,RD, 1y 1,6mhll,RD, 6m 1,6mhll,RD, 1m

  36. MACBETH global matrix Judgments elicited by the decisions makers

  37. MACBETH global matrix Validated scales obtained in decision conferences based on the elicited judgments Scalevalidatedbythedecisionmakers

  38. Choquet integral parameters Combinationsofimpactsrequired to determine the CI parameters UR1,UR2,UR3 UR1,UR2,LR3 UR1,LR2,UR3 UR1,LR2,LR3 LR1,UR2,LR3 LR1,UR2,LR3 LR1,LR2,UR3 LR1,LR2,LR3 • Shapley’sparameters • Interaction’s parameters

  39. Future research • Conclusion of the probability scale construction considering a group test of risks Valuerisk-matrix 100

  40. Future research • Conclusion of the probability scale construction considering a group test of risks • Construction of a DSS in order to facilitate the use of the risk assessment system by the OHSU • Selection of mitigation measures (allocation resources)

  41. Questions? Suggestions?

  42. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FUNDING FROM THE PORTUGUESE PUBLIC BUDGET THROUGH FCT – FUNDAÇÃO PARA A CIÊNCIA E A TECNOLOGIA, WITHIN THE PROJECT PTDC/EGE-GES/119230/2010

  43. References ACSS (2007). UnidadeFuncional de Estudos e Planeamento de RecursosHumanos, Acidentes de trabalho. Administração Regional de Saúde do Norte, Carga global dadoençanaregiãonorte de Portugal, Abril 2011. Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2010a). Segurança e Saúde no Trabalho: Gestão do riscoprofissionalemestabelecimentos de saúde, Orientaçõestécnicas nº1. Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2010b). SaúdeOcupacional: acidentes de trabalho e doençasprofissionais, Orientações nº2. Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2013). SaúdeOcupacional: acidentes de trabalho e doençasprofissionais, Orientações nº3. AssembleiadaRepública (1991). Decreto-Lei n.º 441/1991 de 14 de Novembro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 262: 5826-5833. Assembleia da República (2003). Lei n.º 99/2003 de 27 de Agosto. Diário da República, 1ª série-A – N.º 197: 5558-5656. AssembleiadaRepública (2004). Lei n.º 35/2004 de 29 de Julho. Diário da República, 1ª série-A – N.º 177: 4810-4885 AssembleiadaRepública (2009). Lei nº 102/2009 de 10 de Setembro, Regime jurídicodapromoçãodasegurança e saúde no trabalho. DiáriodaRepública, 1ª série – Nº 176:6167-6192 Bowie C., Beck S. et al. (1997). Estimating the burden of disease in an English region, Journal of Public Health Medicine, 19(1): 87-92 Factor Segurança. (2013) Movimentação manual de cargas. http://www.factor-segur.pt/shst/docinformativos/Movim_Manual_de_Cargas.pdf Ferreira, L. N. (2002). Utilidades, Qalys e medição da Qualidade de Vida, Associação Portuguesa de Economia da Saúde. Giomo, D. B., de Freitas, F.C.T., Alves, L.A. e Robazzi, M.L.C.C. (2009) Acidentes de trabalho, riscos ocupacionais e absenteísmo entre trabalhadores de enfermagem hospitalar. Rev. Enferm. 17(1): 24-29. Health Council of the Netherlands: Comitee on Noise and Health. (1994). Noise and health, nr 1994/15E. IEC/FDIS 31010 (2009) Risk management – risk assessment techniques. International Standard. Lopes, D.F., Bana e Costa, C.A., Oliveira, M.D., Morton, A. (2014), “Using MACBETH with the Choquet Integral fundamentals to model interdependencies between elementary concerns in the context of risk management”, in Vitoriano, B., Pinson, E., Valente, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems, ICORES 2014, ESEO, Angers, Loire Valley, France, 6th-8th March 2014, SCITEPRESS, p. 116-126 (digital edition), doi: 10.5220/0004833701160126 Mathers C., Vos T. e Stevenson C. (1999). Theburdenofdiseaseandinjury in Australia – summaryreport. AustralianInstituteofHealthandWelfare, Canberra, no. PHE 18. Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto-Lei n.º 182/2006 de 6 de Setembro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 172: 6584-6593. Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto Regulamentar n.º 76/2007 de 17 de Julho. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 136: 4499-4543. Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto-Lei n.º 352/2007 de 23 de Outubro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 204: 7715-7808. Murray C.J.L., Lopez A.D. (ed). (1996). Global Burden of Disease and Injury series. Vol. 1: The Global Burden of Disease. Boston: Harvard University Press. Ocupational Health and Safety Unit (2011). Risk Assessment and management Guidelines. University of Queensland, Australia Passchier-Vermeer, W., Passchier W. (2000). Noise exposureandpublichealth, EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives, 108(1): 123–131. Presidência do Conselho de Ministros, Decreto-Lei n.º 503/1999 de 20 de Novembro. Diário da República, 1ª série A – N.º 271: 8241-8256. Presidência do Conselho de Ministros e Ministérios do Trabalho dos Assuntos SocITDs e da Indústria e Energia, Decreto Regulamentar n.º 12/1980 de 8 de Maio. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 106: 907-924. Soler & Palau. (2013) Fichas técnicas. Acústica. O ruído I. Os decibéis. http://www.solerpalau.pt/formacion_01_23.html Stouthard M., Essink-Bot M., Bonsel G., Barendregt J. e Kramers P. (1997). Disabilityweights for diseases in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University. Teixeira, V. (2011) Medicina, Higiene e Segurança no trabalho, Extintores http://medicinanotrabalho.blogspot.pt/2011/03/extintores.html U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau Labor Statistics (2013). Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, 2012. News Release, USDL-13-2257. Vose D. (2008). Risk Analysis: A quantitativeguide, 3rd edition, Wiley Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. (2002). Office Ergonomics: Practical solutions for a safer workplace. Office ErgonomicsAdvisoryCommittee. WorldHealthOrganization. (2004). Global burdenofdisease 2004 update: disabilityweights for diseasesandconditions. Work Safe Victoria. (2009) Homecare – occupationalhealthandsafetycompliance kit: how to control the most commonhazardoustasksin the home care sector, worksafe.vic.gov.au

More Related