Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Identify the Most Influencing Human Factors (HFs) and Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) in Process Safety Accidents

Stephen C. Theophilus · Olayinka G. Abikoye · Andrew Oyen Arewa · Augustine Osamor Ifelebuegu · Victor N. Esenowo

6 citations0/0 files storedSPE/AAPG Africa Energy and Technology Conference

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Risk and Safety Analysis Multi-Criteria Decision Making Occupational Health and Safety Research

Abstract

ABSTRACT Numerous studies suggest that 80% of accidents in hydrocarbon processing industries are as a result of human factors (HFs). While a lot is known of human factor influence to process accident, the effects of performance influencing factors (PIFs) on human factors in process accidents is not yet well understood. This study examined HFs and PIFs which influences the propagation of undesired occurrences in hydrocarbon processing industries. An illustrative case study of the Tesoro refinery accident was analysed. To affirm consistency in judgments, Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP – a multi-criteria decision-making method was used in identifying HFs and PIFs of critical events. BPMSG AHP computer program was also used to validate results obtained from the manual calculations. Three critical events namely non-routine operations (Event 1), manual manipulation of several isolation block valves (Event 2) and automated start-up operations of Naphtha Hydro-Treating unit (Event 3) were identified. The ranking of PIFs revealed that Procedures, Level of Supervision, Task Characteristics, and Skill Level were major influencing factors to the event. Analysis of human factors revealed that Job Factors had the most significant influence (41%), while the Individual Factors and Organisational Factors had (31%) and (28%) influence respectively. The consistency index (CI) and consistency ratios (CR) of the PIFs were 0.174 and 0.193 for critical Event 1; 0.170 and 0.120 for critical Event 2; and, 0.037 and 0.033 for critical Event 3 respectively. This showed consistency in judgments of the study on PIFs selected for the critical events identified. The Tesoro refinery accident was due to latent organisational and cultural failures.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

2008Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process 1987The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used 1990Human Error 1996Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control 1999Major accidents in process industries and an analysis of causes and consequences 2002Development and application of a human error identification tool for air traffic control 2003A taxonomy of performance influencing factors for human reliability analysis of emergency tasks 1998Human error identification techniques for risk assessment of high risk systems—Part 1: review and evaluation of techniques

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.