Original Article Iran Occupational Health http://ioh.iums.ac.ir
Iran Occupational Health.2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
Identification and prioritization of industrial organizations’ HSE-MS key performance indicators by fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making approach (FAHP & taxonomy)
ID Reza Ramezanian, (*Corresponding author) Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. [email protected] Seyed Saeed Hasanalhosseini, MA, Department of Industrial Management, Islamic Azad University, Saveh Branch, Saveh, Iran
Abstract Background and aims: Given the ever-expanding growth of science and technology of which the multiplicity, variety, and complexity of industrial processes have been only a part of it, and despite the Keywords many human needs to be met using science and technology, the devastating effects must not be forgotten. These consequences are either due to the unknown dimensions and aspects found in modern Performance evaluation, science and technology or the result of mismanagement, illness and work-related accidents. Among Health, Safety & these effects and consequences are environmental consequences. Research shows that occupational accidents are among the most important consequences of globalization, especially in developing Environment countries. On the other hand, the environment has suffered from the pollution caused by industrial and manufacturing centers to the extent that the pervasive environmental crises such as gradual warming, Management System stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, depletion environmental crises such as gradual global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, depletion of water oxygen and aquatic death, soil degradation (HSE-MS), caused by waste and chemicals and, to some extent, noise pollution, result from unequal confrontation between industry and environment. Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) management is responsible Fuzzy Analytic for planning, implementing, monitoring and optimizing operational processes in the areas of environmental management, health protection and occupational safety. Regulatory requirements play an Hierarchy Process important role in HSE discipline. Considering the threats posed by industry and the imposition of heavy (FAHP), and increasing costs on the economy of human society, and considering the importance and role of Health, Safety, and Environment - Management System (HSE-MS) in protecting these two infrastructure Taxonomy components, and of course, highly influential manpower and the environment in the field of industry and production and more importantly sustainable development, it is imperative to evaluate optimally and realistically its performance in industries and manufacturing centers. The effects and consequences of the devastation caused by the dangers and aspects of the HSE have become so tangible and visible that they have prompted national, and international agencies to respond these issues since the mid-1990s. These reactions occur in many forms, including the creation and dissemination of standards and management systems. The standardization approach in the field of HSE was a response to the needs of organizations and stakeholders that sought to manage HSE in a more sustainable and effective way in order to reduce the number of events (accidents), occupational injuries and diseases, mitigate environmental aspects and consequences. Ranking is a type of qualification criterion based on defined standards and is intended to guarantee the quality and quantity of contractors in providing services and defending the rights of stakeholders and users. Integrated fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and Taxonomy techniques as a method in multi criteria decision making (MCDM) helps decision maker(s) to Received: 28/12/2017 organize and analyze problems, and to rank alternatives. Identification of criteria and indicators, selection of measures and weighting of indicators which with HSE-MS performance evaluation are the Accepted: 31/05/2019 purposes of this study. Then, developed method is applied to rank the 5 actives organizations in boat industry. Methods: This applicable study was done as a descriptive-analytic procedure. Graduates of HSE related fields with career in HSE performance evaluation are the statistical population of this research. The number of samples was 8 experts that according to the sampling method - nonprobability, purposive (or judgmental) and convenience - was in correspondence with the purpose of this paper. To incorporate the experts' knowledge and experience in presenting their opinion, we weigh the experts based on their educational background, HSE experience and HSE performance evaluation and determine their significance coefficients and incorporate these coefficients into the data extracted from the questionnaires. ISO 14001: 2015 (Environmental Management Standard) and ISO 45001: 2018 (Occupational Safety and Health Management) standards and collegiate related courses–industrial safety engineering, occupational hygiene engineering and environment engineering/management - were basement to identify the HSE-MS criteria and indicators. After identification, in order to quantify HSE- MS performance evaluation, some measures were determined and made available for experts. Then, experts weighted them which weighting using FAHP approach with EA method. Finally, performance evaluation of HSE-MS is done by Taxonomy method in 5 actives organizations in boat industry. All experts have experience in the field of HSE performance evaluation. According to the content, approach and goals of the research, the data collection tool is a questionnaire. As ISO 14001 : 2015
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
Ramezanian R, Hasanalhosseini SS
(Environmental Management Standard) and ISO 45001: 2018 (Occupational Safety and Health Management) standards are used to identify indicators and indicators are derived from standard clauses and each standard clause represents a specific topic, so each indicator exclusively represents one of the standard clauses. This is also indicative of the validity of the indicators. The properties of a suitable criterion can be divided into two categories: inner and outer. Internal characteristics are related to the components and internal dimensions of a criterion, while external features refer to the type of relationship between the criteria. A good criterion should have features such as: quantitative, valid, representative, minimal variability of performance measurement results under the same conditions, sensitive to change, cost-effective, understandable to most users Considering the inner and outer criteria while selecting the features will lead to a comprehensive selection that will prevent the selection of additional indefinite features along with full coverage of the HSE-MS dimensions and elements. Based on ISO 14031: 2013 (Environmental Performance Assessment Standard), we considered two types of managerial and operational indicators for the comprehensiveness of HSE-MS performance evaluation. We determined managerial indicators according to the ISO 14001: 2015 (Environmental Management Standard) and ISO 45001: 2018 (Occupational Safety and Health Management) and also operational indicators are set based on key courses of HSE related academic disciplines. To quantify the performance evaluation of the HSE-MS, we need to use quantitative indicators or in other words we should apply a measure for this purpose. The researchers suggested two measures in the HSE Qualitative Questionnaire for each indicator and experts had to select one of the two measures or introduce another one. In terms of weight of experts, the final measure is selected for each feature. In order to determine the effect or weight of each of the indicators on the performance evaluation of HSE-MS, we need to determine a method for weighting. Accordingly, the fuzzy analytic hierarchical process approach was developed to determine weight of the indicators. According to the selected method, a questionnaire called pairwise comparison matrix of indicators / measures was given to the experts based on triangular fuzzy numbers to determine each of the pairwise comparisons between the indicators according to the fuzzy linguistic expression. Results: By reviewing the literature and receiving expert’s opinions, 10 general criteria and 54 indicators were identified so that the total number of identified management performance criteria and indicators are 7 and 28 respectively and also total number of identified operational performance criteria and indicators are 3 and 26 respectively. Management performance criteria include organizational environment, leadership, planning, support, operations, performance evaluation and improvement. Operational performance criteria include safety, health and environment. Nonetheless, the total weight of management and operational performance criteria is 40.5 and 59.5 respectively. Despite the higher number of management performance criteria, weights and importance of operational performance criteria for assessing HSE-MS performance is much more. Three operational performance criteria have largest weights based on experts’ opinions. The three operational performance criteria are assigned the highest weight followed by the management performance criteria. Among the management performance criteria, the improvement criterion is with the highest weight and the criterion of the organizational environment is with the least weight. Also, among the 54 identified indicators, the first six indicators (include product, particles, gases / vapors, machinery and equipment safety, biologically permitted hazardous agents, general safety (5S)) with the highest weight are all operational performance indicators and the last six indicators (include partnership, consultancy, organizational roles, responsibilities and organizational authorities, planning actions to achieve HSE objectives, internal audit, procurement and communications) with the lowest weight are management performance indicators. The obtained results using integrated method revealed that the organization 1 in boat industry has been placed in the top lists. Also, the results showed an influence of indicators weight on ranking of organization that considering this issue in performance evaluation of organizations especially in HSE-MS is the suggestion of this research. Conclusion: While confirming the need for management and operational performance indicators to realistically evaluate the HSE performance of industrial organizations, this study emphasizes that the weight of operational performance indicators is higher than that of management - despite the higher number of management performance indicators. Obtained results showed that the integrated fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and Taxonomy methods can be used to evaluate the performance of Health, Safety, and Environment - Management System successfully. It seems that, performance evaluation with multi criteria decision making methods with employee's collaboration can increasingly leads to effectiveness in using HSE-MS. In order to improve the HSE performance of industrial organizations, the implementation of the relevant standards, including ISO 14001: 2015 and ISO 45001: 2018, must be such as to ultimately eliminate, reduce or contain safety hazards, adverse health factors and environmental consequences.
Conflicts of interest: None Funding: None How to cite this article: Ramezanian R, Hasanalhosseini SS. Identification and prioritization of industrial organizations’ HSE-MS key performance indicators by fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making approach (FAHP & taxonomy). Iran Occupational Health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
*This work is published under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 licence
15
15 Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ http://ioh.iums.ac.ir
دوره 16، ﺷﻤﺎره 5، آذر و دي 1398
ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE در ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻـﻨﻌﺘﻲ ﺑـﺎ روﻳﻜـﺮد ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﭼﻨﺪﺷﺎﺧﺼﻪ ﻓﺎزي (FAHP & Taxonomy)
ID رﺿﺎ رﻣﻀﺎﻧﻴﺎن: (* ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪه ﻣﺴﺌﻮل) داﻧﺸﻴﺎر، ﮔﺮوه ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ، داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺧﻮاﺟﻪ ﻧﺼﻴﺮاﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻃﻮﺳﻲ، ﺗﻬﺮان، اﻳﺮان. [email protected] ﺳﻴﺪﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺣﺴﻦاﻟﺤﺴﻴﻨﻲ: ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ارﺷﺪ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ، داﻧﺸﮕﺎه آزاد اﺳﻼﻣﻲ، واﺣﺪ ﺳﺎوه، ﺳﺎوه، اﻳﺮان
ﭼﻜﻴﺪه
زﻣﻴﻨﻪ و ﻫﺪف: رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﻳﻚ ﻧﻮع ﻣﻌﻴﺎر ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺖﮔﺬاري ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ و ﺑﺮاي ﺗﻀﻤﻴﻦ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺖ و ﻛﻤﻴـﺖ ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻧﻜـﺎران ﻛﻠﻴﺪواژهﻫﺎ در اراﺋﻪي ﺧﺪﻣﺎت و دﻓﺎع از ﺣﻘﻮق ذﻳﻨﻔﻌﺎن و اﺳﺘﻔﺎدهﻛﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎن ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ. روﻳﻜﺮد ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﻓﺮآﻳﻨﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺒﻲ ﻓﺎزي و ﺗﺎﻛﺴﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان روشﻫﺎي ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﭼﻨﺪﻣﻌﻴﺎره، ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎن ﻛﻤﻚ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺸﻜﻼت را ﺳﺎزﻣﺎﻧﺪﻫﻲ و ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ، و ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ را اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﻛﻨﻨﺪ. در اﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺪان ﻣﻐﻨﺎﻃﻴﺴﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮﻛﺎﻧﺲ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ، اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎ و وزندﻫﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE ﭘﺮداﺧﺘـﻪ ﺷـﺪه اﺳـﺖ. در ﺑﻲﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ، ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ، 5 ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﻓﻌﺎل در ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﺷﻨﺎور ﺑﺎ روش ﺗﺎﻛﺴﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ. ﻫﻮرﻣﻮنﻫﺎي ﺗﻴﺮوﺋﻴﺪي، روش ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ: ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ از ﻧﻮع ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻔﻲ- ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ و ﻛﺎرﺑﺮدي اﺳﺖ. ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ آﻣﺎري اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ داﻧﺶآﻣﻮﺧﺘﮕﺎن رﺷﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑـﺎ ﻣﻘﻮﻟـﻪ اﻳﻤﻨﻲ، ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ و ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﻪ ﻛﺎر در زﻣﻴﻨﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ. ﺗﻌﺪاد ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ 8 ﻧﻔﺮ ﺑﻮده ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟـﻪ ﺑـﻪ ﻧـﻮع ﻧﻤﻮﻧـﻪﮔﻴﺮي ﻳﻌﻨـﻲ ﺟﻮﺷﻜﺎري ﻗﻮس اﻟﻜﺘﺮﻳﻜﻲ، ﻏﻴﺮاﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻲ، ﻫﺪﻓﻤﻨﺪ و در دﺳﺘﺮس، اﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﺪاد ﺑﺎ ﻫﺪف ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺳﺎزﮔﺎر ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ISO 14001:2015 و ISO 45001:2018 ﺧﺴﺘﮕﻲ و ﻧﻴﺰ دروس داﻧﺸﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ، ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ ﺣﺮﻓﻪاي و ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ/ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ ﻣﺤـﻴﻂ زﻳﺴـﺖ و ﻫﻤﭽﻨـﻴﻦ اﺳـﺘﻔﺎده از ﻧﻈـﺮات ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن ﻣﺒﻨﺎي ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ و ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ. ﺟﻬﺖ ﻛﻤﻲ ﻧﻤﻮدن ﻫﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ، ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻲﮔﺮدد. ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن ﭘﺲ از اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎ، ﺑﻪ آنﻫﺎ وزن داده ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از روﻳﻜﺮد ﻓﺮآﻳﻨﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺳﻠﺴـﻠﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺒـﻲ ﻓـﺎزي ﺑـﻪ روش واﻛـﺎوي ﺗﻮﺳـﻌﻪاي و ﺑﻜﺎرﮔﻴﺮي ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎت زوﺟﻲ، وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﮔﺮدﻳﺪ. در ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ، ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﻨﺘﺨـﺐ ﺑـﻪ ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد اﻳـﻦ ﻧﻈـﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ در 5 ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﻓﻌﺎل در ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﺷﻨﺎور ﺑﺎ روش ﺗﺎﻛﺴﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ.
ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎ: ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ادﺑﻴﺎت ﻣﻮﺿﻮع و درﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻧﻈﺮات ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن، 10 ﻣﻌﻴـﺎر ﻛﻠـﻲ و 54 ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ ﺷﻨﺎﺳـﺎﻳﻲ ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪ ﺑﻄـﻮريﻛـﻪ ﺗﻌـﺪاد ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و زﻳﺮﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ 7 و 28 ﻣﻮرد و ﺗﻌﺪاد ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و زﻳﺮﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ 3 و 26 ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ، ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ ﺣﺎل ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎت زوﺟﻲ اﻧﺠﺎم ﺷﺪه، ﻣﺠﻤﻮع وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﻣﻌﺎدل 5/40 درﺻﺪ و ﻣﺠﻤﻮع وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ ﻣﻌـﺎدل 5/59 درﺻـﺪ HSE ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﺑﺎ وﺟﻮد ﺗﻌﺪاد ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ، وزن و اﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ در ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ اﺳﺖ. 3 ﻣﻌﻴﺎر ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ اوزان را ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮد اﺧﺘﺼﺎص داده و ﭘﺲ از آن ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﻗﺮار ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ. ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ از ﺑﻴﻦ 54 ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲﺷﺪه، 6 ﺷﺎﺧﺺ اول ﻛﻪ داراي ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ وزن ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻫﻤﮕﻲ از ﻧﻮع ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ و 6 ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ آﺧـﺮ ﻛـﻪ داراي ﻛﻤﺘـﺮﻳﻦ وزن ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﻨﺪ از ﻧـﻮع ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ. ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ روﻳﻜﺮد ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎدي ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن اول در اوﻟﻮﻳﺖ اول ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ. رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ اﺣﺘﺴﺎب اوزان ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و ﺑﺪون اﺣﺘﺴﺎب آنﻫﺎ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺣﻜﺎﻳﺖ از ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ اوزان ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ در رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎ دارد. ﻟﺤﺎظ اﻳـﻦ ﻣﻬـﻢ در ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ درﻳﺎﻓﺖ: 96/10/07 ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎ ﺑﺨﺼﻮص در ﺣﻮزه ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ اﻳﻤﻨﻲ، ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ و ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد ﻣﻲﮔﺮدد. ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪﮔﻴﺮي: ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ اﻧﺠﺎمﺷﺪه ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻣﻲﺗﻮان روش ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎدي ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﺮآﻳﻨﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺒﻲ ﻓـﺎزي و ﺗﺎﻛﺴـﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ را ﺑـﺎ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﭘﺬﻳﺮش: 98/03/10 ﻣﻮﻓﻘﻴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE ﺑﻪﻛﺎر ﮔﺮﻓﺖ. ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲرﺳﺪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از روشﻫـﺎي ﺗﺼـﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴـﺮي ﺑـﻪ ﻫﻤﺮاه ﻣﺸﺎرﻛﺖ ﻧﻴﺮوﻫﺎي اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﻣﻨﺘﺞ ﺑﻪ اﺛﺮﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ اﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺷﻮد.
ﺗﻌﺎرض ﻣﻨﺎﻓﻊ: ﮔﺰارش ﻧﺸﺪه اﺳﺖ. ﺑﻊ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﻛﻨﻨﺪه: ﺣﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﺪاﺷﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ.
ﺷﻴﻮه اﺳﺘﻨﺎد ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ: Ramezanian R, Hasanalhosseini SS. Identification and prioritization of industrial organizations’ HSE-MS key performance indicators by fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making approach (FAHP & taxonomy). Iran Occupational Health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
*اﻧﺘﺸﺎر اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت دﺳﺘﺮﺳﻲ آزاد ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺑﺎ CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 ﺻﻮرت ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE در ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ
ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ اﺧﺘﻼط ﮔﺎزﻫﺎيﻫـﺎي ﻣﺘﺼـﺎﻋﺪ ﺷـﺪه از اﺣﺘـﺮاق ﻧـﺎﻗﺺ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ رﺷﺪ روز اﻓﺰون و ﭘﺮﺷـﺘﺎب ﻋﻠـﻢ و ﻓﻨـﺎوري ﺳﻮﺧﺖﻫﺎي ﻓﺴﻴﻠﻲ و ﺑﺎران)، ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻏﻠﻈﺖ اﻛﺴﻴﮋن آب ﻛﻪ ﺗﻌﺪد، ﺗﻨﻮع و ﭘﻴﭽﻴـﺪﮔﻲ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨـﺪﻫﺎي ﺻـﻨﻌﺘﻲ، ﺗﻨﻬـﺎ و ﻣﺮگ آﺑﺰﻳﺎن (ﻧﺎﺷﻲ از ﭘﺴـﺎبﻫـﺎي ﺻـﻨﻌﺘﻲ)، ﺗﺨﺮﻳـﺐ ﺗﺒﻠﻮر ﺑﺨﺸﻲ از آن ﺑﻮده و ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺎ وﺟﻮد ﺗﺄﻣﻴﻦ ﺑﺴـﻴﺎري از ﺧﺎك (ﻧﺎﺷﻲ از زﺑﺎﻟـﻪﻫﺎ و ﻣـﻮاد ﺷـﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ) و ﺗـﺎ ﺣـﺪي ﻧﻴﺎزﻫﺎي ﺑﺸﺮ از اﻳﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ، ﻧﺒﺎﻳﺪ آﺛﺎر و ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺮب آﻟﻮدﮔﻲ ﺻﻮﺗﻲ، ﺣﺎﺻـﻞ ﺗﻘﺎﺑـﻞ ﻧـﺎﺑﺮاﺑﺮ ﺻـﻨﻌﺖ و ﻣﺤـﻴﻂ در ﭘﻲ آن را ﻓﺮاﻣﻮش ﻧﻤﻮد ﻛـﻪ اﻟﺒﺘـﻪ اﻳـﻦ ﭘﻴﺎﻣـﺪﻫﺎ، ﻳـﺎ زﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﺴﻮب ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ (8). ﻧﺎﺷﻲ از ﻧﺎﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﺎﻧﺪن اﺑﻌـﺎد و زواﻳـﺎي ﭘﻴـﺪا و ﭘﻨﻬـﺎن ﺑﺮ اﺳـﺎس آﻣـﺎر ﻣﻨﺘﺸـﺮه از ﺳـﻮي ﻣﺮﻛـﺰ آﻣـﺎر اﻳـﺮان ﻋﻠﻮم و ﻓﻨﺎوريﻫﺎي ﻧﻮﻳﻦ ﺑﻮده و ﻳﺎ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺳﻮء ﻣـﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ. ﺑﺮﮔﺮﻓﺘـﻪ از ﺗﺮازﻧﺎﻣـﻪ اﻧـﺮژي وزارت ﻧﻴـﺮو؛ ﻣﻘـﺪار اﻧﺘﺸـﺎر ﺑﻴﻤﺎريﻫﺎ و ﺣـﻮادث ﻧﺎﺷـﻲ از ﻛـﺎر و ﭘﻴﺎﻣـﺪﻫﺎي زﻳﺴـﺖ ﮔﺎزﻫﺎي آﻻﻳﻨﺪه و ﮔﻠﺨﺎﻧـﻪاي از ﺑﺨـﺶ ﺻـﻨﻌﺖ ﻛﺸـﻮر و ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ از ﺟﻤﻠﻪ اﻳـﻦ آﺛـﺎر و ﭘﻴﺎﻣـﺪﻫﺎ ﺑـﻮده ﻛـﻪ ﺟﻬـﺖ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎي اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ آن در ﺳﺎل 1391 ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮح ﺟـﺪاول ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ و ﺗﺮﺳﻴﻢ ﺑﻬﺘـﺮ ﻣﻮﺿـﻮع، آﻣـﺎر و ارﻗـﺎﻣﻲ در اﻳـﻦ 1 و 2 ﮔﺰارش ﮔﺮدﻳﺪه اﺳﺖ (9). ﺧﺼﻮص اراﺋﻪ ﻣﻲﮔﺮدد. ﺣﺎل ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻬﺪﻳﺪات ﻳﺎد ﺷﺪه از ﺳـﻮي ﺻـﻨﻌﺖ و ﭘﮋوﻫﺶﻫــﺎ ﻧﺸــﺎن ﻣﻲدﻫــﺪ ﺣــﻮادث ﺷــﻐﻠﻲ در ﺻــﺪر ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎي ﺳـﻨﮕﻴﻦ و روزاﻓـﺰون آن ﺑـﺮ اﻗﺘﺼـﺎد ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎي ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲﺳﺎزي ﺑﺨﺼﻮص در ﻛﺸﻮرﻫﺎي ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﺸـﺮي، و ﺑـﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﻳـﺖ ﺑـﻪ اﻫﻤﻴـﺖ و ﻧﻘـﺶ ﻧﻈـﺎم در ﺣﺎل ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺑﺸﻤﺎر ﻣﻲآﻳﻨﺪ (1). ﺑﻄﻮريﻛـﻪ ﺣـﻮادث ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ اﻳﻤﻨﻲ، ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ و ﻣﺤـﻴﻂ زﻳﺴـﺖ (HSE-MS) ﻧﺎﺷــﻲ از ﻛــﺎر ﻣﻨﺠــﺮ ﺑــﻪ ﻣــﺮگ 2 ﻧﻔــﺮ در دﻗﻴﻘــﻪ (2) و در ﺻﻴﺎﻧﺖ از اﻳﻦ دو ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻪ زﻳﺮﺑﻨـﺎﻳﻲ و ﺑﻲﺑـﺪﻳﻞ و اﻟﺒﺘـﻪ آﺳﻴﺐﻫﺎ و ﺑﻴﻤﺎريﻫـﺎي ﻧﺎﺷـﻲ از ﻛـﺎر ﻧﻴـﺰ ﺑـﻪ ﻣـﺮگ 2 ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﮔﺬار ﻧﻴﺮوي اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ و ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ در ﻋﺮﺻﻪ ﻣﻴﻠﻴــﻮن ﻧﻔــﺮ در ﺳــﺎل (3) ﻣﻲاﻧﺠﺎﻣــﺪ. ﺑــﺮ اﺳــﺎس آﻣــﺎر ﺻﻨﻌﺖ و ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ و ﻣﻬﻢﺗـﺮ از آن ﺗﻮﺳـﻌﻪ ﭘﺎﻳـﺪار، ﺿـﺮوري ﺳــﺎزﻣﺎن ﺟﻬــﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻬﺪاﺷــﺖ و ﺳــﺎزﻣﺎن ﺑﻴﻦاﻟﻤﻠﻠــﻲ ﻛــﺎر، اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺤﻮي ﻣﻄﻠـﻮب و واﻗﻊﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧـﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد آن در ﺑﻴﻤﺎريﻫﺎ و آﺳﻴﺐﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ 5-7 درﺻﺪ ﻓﻮت در ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ و ﻣﺮاﻛﺰ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪي ﻣﻮرد ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻗﺮار ﮔﻴﺮد (10) ﻛﻪ ﻛﺸــﻮرﻫﺎي ﺻــﻨﻌﺘﻲ ﺑــﻪ ﺷــﻤﺎر ﻣﻲروﻧــﺪ (4). ﻫﻤﭽﻨــﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﺄﺳﻔﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪه اﺳـﺖ. ﺟﻬـﺖ ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﺑﻴﻦاﻟﻤﻠﻠﻲ ﻛﺎر ﻧﺴـﺒﺖ آﺳـﻴﺐﻫﺎ و ﺑﻴﻤﺎريﻫـﺎي اﻳــﻦ ﻣﻨﻈــﻮر ﻳﻌﻨــﻲ ارزﻳــﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜــﺮد اﺑﺘــﺪا ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴــﺖ
ﻧﺎﺷﻲ از ﻛـﺎر را 7/6 درﺻـﺪ ﻛـﻞ آﺳـﻴﺐﻫﺎ و ﺑﻴﻤﺎريﻫـﺎ ﺟﺪول 1- ﻣﻘﺪار اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﮔﺎزﻫﺎي آﻻﻳﻨﺪه و ﮔﻠﺨﺎﻧﻪاي در ﺑﺨﺶ ﺻـﻨﻌﺖ در ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ زده اﺳﺖ (5). اﻳﻦ ﺳـﺎزﻣﺎن ﻫﺰﻳﻨـﻪ ﺑﻴﻤﺎريﻫـﺎ و ﺳﺎل 1391 (ﺗﻦ) (9) آﺳــﻴﺐﻫﺎي ﻧﺎﺷــﻲ از ﻛــﺎر ﺑــﺮاي ﻛﺸــﻮرﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠــﻒ را ﺣﺎﻣﻞ N2O SPM CH4 CO SO3 CO2 SO2 NOX ﻣﻌــﺎدل 8/1-6 درﺻــﺪ ﺗﻮﻟﻴــﺪ ﻧﺎﺧــﺎﻟﺺ داﺧﻠــﻲ و ﺑﻄــﻮر اﻧﺮژي/ﮔﺎز ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ 4 درﺻﺪ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻧﺎﺧﺎﻟﺺ داﺧﻠﻲ ﺟﻬـﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻌـﺎدل ﻧﻔﺖ ﺳﻔﻴﺪ 9 41 ------44267 2 --- 0/4 8/2 ﺗﺮﻳﻠﻴﻮن دﻻر ﺑﺮآورد ﻧﻤﻮده اﺳﺖ (6). اﻳﻦ در ﺣـﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﻔﺖ ﻛﻮره 35222 11373694165314 2525 13 441 3522 88 اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ 9/3 درﺻﺪ ﺣﻮادث ﺷﻐﻠﻲ در دﻧﻴﺎ و ﻛﻤﺘـﺮ ﻧﻔﺖ ﮔﺎز 11767 36948 6631140 471 471 268 3530 54 از 1 درﺻــﺪ آن در ﺟﻨــﻮب ﺷــﺮق آﺳــﻴﺎ ﺑــﻪ ﺳــﺎزﻣﺎن ﮔﺎز ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ 120562 246 76148220 --- 4789 1357 10141 136 ﺑﻴﻦاﻟﻤﻠﻠﻲ ﻛﺎر ﮔﺰارش ﻣﻲﮔﺮدد (7). ﮔﺎز ﻣﺎﻳﻊ 146 --- 223233 --- 97 4 --- 0/35 از ﺳﻮﻳﻲ دﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ ﻧﻴﺰ از آﻟﻮدﮔﻲﻫﺎي ﻧﺎﺷـﻲ از ﻣﺮاﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ و ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪي ﺑﻲ ﻧﺼﻴﺐ ﻧﺒﻮده ﺗﺎ ﺟﺎﻳﻲ ﻛـﻪ ﺟﺪول 2- ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎي اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﮔﺎزﻫﺎي اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ از ﺑﺨﺶ ﺻـﻨﻌﺖ در ﺑﺤﺮانﻫﺎي ﻓﺮاﮔﻴﺮ زﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ از ﺟﻤﻠـﻪ ﮔـﺮم ﺷـﺪن ﺳﺎل 1391 ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﺎﻧﻚ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ و ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ ﺗﺪرﻳﺠﻲ زﻣـﻴﻦ (ﻧﺎﺷـﻲ از اﺛـﺮ ﮔﻠﺨﺎﻧـﻪاي)، ﺗﺨﺮﻳـﺐ ازن ﺑﻪ ﻗﻴﻤﺖﻫﺎي ﺳﺎل 1381 (ﻣﻴﻠﻴﺎرد رﻳﺎل) (9) اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻮﺳــﻔﺮي (ﺑــﻪ ﻃــﻮر ﻋﻤــﺪه ﻧﺎﺷــﻲ از ﮔﺎزﻫــﺎي SPM CH4 CO CO2 SO2 NOX 593 3 22 7568 2958 807 ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻠﻮروﻛﺮﺑﻦ (CFCs))، ﺑﺎرانﻫـﺎي اﺳـﻴﺪي (ﻧﺎﺷـﻲ از
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2-20 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29. 17
رﺿﺎ رﻣﻀﺎﻧﻴﺎن و ﻫﻤﻜﺎر
ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE-MS را ﺷﻨﺎﺳــﺎﻳﻲ ﻧﻤــﻮد ﻛــﻪ اﻳــﻦ • ISIRI 13000 ﺗﺪوﻳﻦ ﺷـﺪه از ﺳـﻮي ﺳـﺎزﻣﺎن ﻣﻠـﻲ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ در اﻗـﺪاﻣﻲ ﺑـﻲ ﺑـﺪﻳﻞ، دو اﺳـﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﻣـﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد اﻳﺮان در ﺳﺎل 1389. ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴـﺖ ISO 14001:2015 و ﻣـﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ اﻳﻤﻨـﻲ و روﻳﻜﺮد اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﺳﺎزي در ﺣﻮزه HSE ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﭘﺎﺳـﺦ ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ ﺣﺮﻓﻪاي ISO 45001:2018 را ﻣﺒﻨﺎي اﻳﻦ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻴﺎز ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎ و ﺳﻬﺎﻣﺪاراﻧﻲ ﺑﻮد ﻛﻪ در ﭘـﻲ ﻣـﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﻗﺮار داده و در اداﻣﻪ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺎ وزندﻫﻲ آنﻫﺎ، ﻣﻴـﺰان ﺗـﺄﺛﻴﺮ HSE ﺑﻪ ﻧﺤﻮي ﭘﺎﻳﺪارﺗﺮ و ﻣـﻮﺛﺮﺗﺮ و در راﺳـﺘﺎي ﻛـﺎﻫﺶ ﻫﺮ ﻳـﻚ از ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ در ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد HSE-MS را ﺗﻌﻴـﻴﻦ ﺗﻌــﺪاد روﻳــﺪادﻫﺎ (ﺣــﻮادث، ﺷــﺒﻪ ﺣــﻮادث)، آﺳــﻴﺐﻫﺎ و ﻧﻤﻮده اﺳﺖ. ﻧﻜﺘﻪ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑـﻪ آن ﺗﻮﺟـﻪ ﻛـﺮد آن ﺑﻴﻤﺎريﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ، ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎ و ﭘﻴﺎﻣـﺪﻫﺎي زﻳﺴـﺖ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ آﮔﺎﻫﻲ از ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE ﺑـﺮ ﺟـﻮ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ و در ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ (12). ﺑﺎ وﺟـﻮد اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ (11). اﻳﻦ رﺷﺪ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺘﺎب HSE-MS، ﻫﻴﭻ ﻣـﺪرك ﻗﻄﻌـﻲ دال ادﺑﻴﺎت ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ را ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮور و ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺗﻲ ﭼـﻮن؛ ﺑــﺮ ﺗــﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻳــﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻣــﺎت و اﺳــﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎ در ﭘﻴﺸــﮕﻴﺮي و اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻳﻜـﻲ از ﻣﻨـﺎﺑﻊ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات و روﻳﺪادﻫﺎي ﺷـﻐﻠﻲ و ﻧﻴـﺰ ﺟﻨﺒـﻪﻫﺎ و ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE-MS، اﻧـﻮاع و وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫـﺎي ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎي زﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ وﺟﻮد ﻧـﺪارد. ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽـﻪ ﻧﺘـﺎﻳﺞ ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE-MS، روشﻫــﺎي ارزﻳــﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜــﺮد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت و ﺑﺮرﺳﻲﻫﺎي ﻣﻮﺳﺴﻪ ﻛﺎر و ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ ﻛﺎﻧﺎدا3 ﻧﻴﺰ HSE-MS و ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﺘﻮن ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺑـﻪ ﻋﻨـﻮان ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪي ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﻋﺎ اﺳﺖ (13). ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع اﺧﺘﺼﺎص دادهاﻳﻢ. اﻧﻮاع ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE-MS: ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE-MS اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ HSE: آﺛﺎر و ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎي ﺗﺨﺮﻳﺐ را از زواﻳﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻲ ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻗـﺮار داد ﻛـﻪ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ از ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات و ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺑﻮط ﺑﻪ ﺣﻮزه HSE ﺑـﻪ ﺷــﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻬﺘــﺮﻳﻦ راه ورود ﺑــﻪ اﻳــﻦ ﺑﺤــﺚ، ﻣــﺮور اﻧــﻮاع ﺣﺪي ﻣﺤﺴﻮس، ﻣﺸﻬﻮد و ﻣﻠﻤﻮس ﮔﺮدﻳﺪ ﻛـﻪ از اواﺳـﻂ ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨﺪي آنﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ. دﻫﻪ 1990 ﻣﻴﻼدي، ﻣﺠﺎﻣﻊ ﻣﻠﻲ، ﻓﺮاﻣﻠﻲ و ﺑﻴﻦاﻟﻤﻠﻠﻲ را ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨــﺪي ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﺑــﺮ اﺳــﺎس ﺳــﻄﻮح وادار ﺑﻪ واﻛﻨﺶ ﻧﻤﻮد. اﻳﻦ واﻛﻨﺶﻫﺎ در اﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔـﻲ (ﻛﺎرﻛﺮد) ﺳﺎزﻣﺎﻧﻲ: اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ زﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄـﻲ - ﺑﺮوز ﻧﻤﻮده ﻛـﻪ ﺧﻠـﻖ و اﻧﺘﺸـﺎر اﺳـﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎ و ﻧﻈﺎﻣـﺎت ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد زﻳﺴـﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄـﻲ - راﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫـﺎ ISO ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﻳﻜﻲ از ﻣﻬﻢﺗـﺮﻳﻦ آنﻫﺎﺳـﺖ ﻛـﻪ از آن ﺟﻤﻠـﻪ 14031:2013، ﻣﺒﻨﺎي اﻳﻦ ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺑﻮده ﻛﻪ ﺑـﺎ ﺗﻮﺟـﻪ ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﺑﻪ اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ذﻳﻞ اﺷﺎره ﻧﻤﻮد: ﺑﻪ ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻛﻠﻲ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر و ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ آن ﺑﺎ ﻣﺒﺎﺣـﺚ اﻳﻤﻨـﻲ و • HSE-MS ﺗﺪوﻳﻦ ﺷﺪه از ﺳـﻮي اﻧﺠﻤـﻦ ﺑﻴﻦاﻟﻤﻠﻠـﻲ ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ ﻛﺎر، ﺑﻪ ﺣﻮزه HSE ﺑﺴﻂ داده ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ. ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪﻛﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎن ﻧﻔﺖ و ﮔﺎز1 در ﺳﺎل 1994. ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ4؛ اراﺋﻪ دﻫﻨﺪه اﻃﻼﻋـﺎﺗﻲ از ﺗﻼشﻫـﺎي • BS 8800 ﺗﺪوﻳﻦ ﺷـﺪه از ﺳـﻮي اﻧﺠﻤـﻦ اﺳـﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﻳـﻚ ﺳـﺎزﻣﺎن را ﺗﺤـﺖ ﺑﺮﻳﺘﺎﻧﻴﺎ2 در ﺳﺎل 1996. ﺗـﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻗـﺮار ﻣﻲدﻫــﺪ. ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ ﻋﻤﻠﻜــﺮد ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ5؛ ﻧﻴــﺰ • OHSAS 18001 ﺗــﺪوﻳﻦ ﺷــﺪه از ﺳ ــﻮي اﻧﺠﻤــﻦ اﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﻲ درﺑﺎره ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت ﻳﻚ ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن اراﺋﻪ اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﺑﺮﻳﺘﺎﻧﻴﺎ در ﺳﺎل 1999 و وﻳﺮاﻳﺶ ﺷﺪه در ﺳﺎل ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ. ﺷﺎﺧﺺ وﺿﻌﻴﺖ؛ اﻃﻼﻋـﺎﺗﻲ را درﺑـﺎره وﺿـﻌﻴﺖ HSE .2007 ﺟﻬﺖ درك ﺑﻬﺘﺮ آﺛﺎر و ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎي ﻧﻬﻔﺘﻪ ﻳﺎ آﺷـﻜﺎر • ILO-OSH-2001 ﺗــﺪوﻳﻦ ﺷــﺪه از ﺳــﻮي ﺳــﺎزﻣﺎن ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات و ﺟﻨﺒـﻪﻫﺎي HSE و در ﻧﺘﻴﺠـﻪ ﻃﺮحرﻳـﺰي و ﺑﻴﻦاﻟﻤﻠﻠﻲ ﻛﺎر در ﺳﺎل 2001. اﺳــﺘﻘﺮار ارزﻳــﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜــﺮد HSE اراﺋــﻪ ﻣﻲدﻫــﺪ (14). • ISO 14001 ﺗﺪوﻳﻦﺷﺪه از ﺳﻮي ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﺑﻴﻦاﻟﻤﻠﻠـﻲ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪي ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ دﻳﮕـﺮي ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ را ﺑـﻪ دو دﺳـﺘﻪ اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد در ﺳﺎل 1996 و وﻳـﺮاﻳﺶ ﺷـﺪه در ﺳـﺎلﻫﺎي راﻧﺸﻲ و ﭘﺎﻳﺸﻲ ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﻧﻤﻮده ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴـﺐ ﻣﻌـﺎدل 2004 و 2015. ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ و ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ (15 • ISO 45001 ﺗﺪوﻳﻦﺷﺪه از ﺳﻮي ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﺑﻴﻦاﻟﻤﻠﻠـﻲ و 16). اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد در ﺳﺎل 2018. ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس زﻣﺎن ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺑـﺮ
3 Canadian Institute For Work And Health 4 Management Performance Indicator (MPI) 1 International Association Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) 5 Operational Performance Indicator (OPI) 2 British Standards Institution (BSI)
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29. 18
ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE در ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ
ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد: ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ دﻳﮕﺮي ﺳـﻪ روﻳﻜـﺮد اﺻـﻠﻲ در ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎﺳﺖ (24). ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد HSE وﺟـﻮد دارد؛ روﻳﻜـﺮد ﻣﺒﺘﻨـﻲ ﺑـﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻋﻼوه ﺑـﺮ وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫـﺎي دروﻧـﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴـﺖ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ، روﻳﻜﺮد ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ اﻧﻄﺒـﺎق6 و روﻳﻜـﺮد ﻣﺒﺘﻨـﻲ ﺑـﺮ داراي وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي ﺑﻴﺮوﻧﻲ ﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛـﻪ ﻋـﺪم واﺑﺴـﺘﮕﻲ، ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ. در روﻳﻜﺮد ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ، ﺑﻄـﻮر ﺻـﺮف ﻧﺘـﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﺮﻗــﺮاري اﺻــﻞ ﺗﻌــﺎدل ﺑــﻴﻦ دو ﻣﻔﻬــﻮم ﻧﻤﺎﻳــﺎﻧﮕﺮي و ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻣﻮرد اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﻗﺮار ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮد. روﻳﻜـﺮد ﻣﺒﺘﻨـﻲ اﻣﻜﺎنﭘﺬﻳﺮي و ﻧﻴﺰ اﺻﻞ ﺗﻌﺎدل دروﻧـﻲ در ﻣﻨـﺎﻇﺮ ﻛـﺎرت ﺑﺮ اﻧﻄﺒﺎق ﺑﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ اﻧﻄﺒﺎق ﻧﻈﺎم ﺑﺎ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎت ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎري اﻣﺘﻴﺎزي ﻣﺘﻮازن از ﺟﻤﻠﻪ آنﻫﺎﺳﺖ. ﻋﺪم واﺑﺴـﺘﮕﻲ ﺑـﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ و روﻳﻜﺮد ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ اﺛﺮﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ دو ﻳﺎ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎي داﺧﻠﻲ ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﻲﭘﺮدازد. ﻫـﺮ روﻳﻜـﺮد ﻧﻴـﺰ ﺑـﻪ ﺑﺮ دادهﻫﺎي ﻳﻜﺴﺎن و ﻳﺎ در ﻳﻚ زﻧﺠﻴﺮه ﻋﻠـﺖ و ﻣﻌﻠـﻮﻟﻲ اﻗﺘﻀــﺎي ﻛــﺎرﺑﺮدش، ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺑــﻮط ﺑــﻪ ﺧــﻮد را ﻧﺒﺎﺷﻨﺪ. ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪﮔﻲ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﺎزﺗـﺎب ﻛـﺎﻓﻲ وﺿـﻌﻴﺖ واﻗﻌـﻲ ﻣﻲﻃﻠﺒﺪ. ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد واﻛﻨﺸﻲ (ﭘﻴـﺮو، ﺧﺮوﺟـﻲ ﻧﻈﺎم، و اﻣﻜﺎنﭘﺬﻳﺮي ﻳﻌﻨـﻲ ﺷـﺪﻧﻲ ﺑـﻮدن ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ اﻳـﻦ ﻳﺎ ﻣﻨﻔﻲ)7 در روﻳﻜﺮدﻫﺎي ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺑﻜـﺎر رﻓﺘـﻪ و ﺗﻌﺪاد ﺷﺎﺧﺺ (25). ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻛـﺎرت اﻣﺘﻴـﺎزي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻛﻨﺸﻲ (ﭘﻴﺸﺮو، ﭘﻴﺶﺑﻴﻨﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪه ﻳـﺎ ﻣﺘﻮازن ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ از ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﻨـﺎﻇﺮ ﻣـﺎﻟﻲ، ﻣﺜﺒﺖ)8 ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮد ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﺳـﺎﺧﺘﺎري9 ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎي داﺧﻠﻲ، ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي و رﺷﺪ، و ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻳﺎن، ﺗﻌـﺎدل و ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﺪ ﺑـﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴـﺐ در دروﻧﻲ وﺟﻮد داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ (26). روﻳﻜﺮدﻫﺎي ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑـﺮ اﻧﻄﺒـﺎق و ﻓﺮاﻳﻨـﺪ ﺑﻜـﺎر ﻣﻲروﻧـﺪ ﻣﺪ ﻧﻈـﺮ ﻗـﺮار دادن وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫـﺎي دروﻧـﻲ و ﺑﻴﺮوﻧـﻲ در (17). ﺣﻴﻦ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ اﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑﻲ ﺟـﺎﻣﻊ و ﻣـﺎﻧﻊ وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫـــﺎي ﻳـــﻚ ﺷـــﺎﺧﺺ ﻣﻨﺎﺳـــﺐ HSE-MS: ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪاي ﻛﻪ در ﻛﻨﺎر ﭘﻮﺷﺶ ﻛﺎﻣـﻞ اﺑﻌـﺎد و وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي ﻳﻚ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ را ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﺑﻪ دو دﺳـﺘﻪ ﻋﻨﺎﺻــﺮ HSE-MS، از اﻧﺘﺨــﺎب ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي اﺿــﺎﻓﻲ و وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫـــﺎي دروﻧـــﻲ و ﺑﻴﺮوﻧـــﻲ ﺗﻘﺴـــﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪي ﻧﻤـــﻮد. ﺑﻴﻬﻮده ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮي ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ آﻣﺪ. وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي دروﻧﻲ ﻣﺮﺑﻮط ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎ و اﺑﻌﺎد دروﻧﻲ ﻳـﻚ روشﻫﺎ و اﺑﺰارﻫﺎي ﻣﻨﺘﺨﺐ اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد: SE ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺑﻮده در ﺣﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫـﺎي ﺑﻴﺮوﻧـﻲ ﺑـﻪ ﻧـﻮع ﺑﻄﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ روشﻫﺎ و اﺑﺰارﻫﺎي ﻣﺘﻨـﻮﻋﻲ ﺑـﺮاي ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ ارﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ اﺷﺎره دارد. ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE و ﺑﺨﺼﻮص اﻳﻤﻨـﻲ وﺟـﻮد دارد ﻛـﻪ از آن ﺑﺮﺧــﻲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌــﺎت وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫــﺎي (دروﻧــﻲ) ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ را ﺟﻤﻠــﻪ ﻣﻲﺗــﻮان ﺑــﻪ روش ﻋﻨﺼــﺮ اﻳﻤﻨــﻲ، اﺑــﺰار ارزﻳــﺎﺑﻲ ﻣﺒﺘﻨــﻲ ﺑــﺮ ﺳــﺮواژه SMART & D ﻣﺨﻔــﻒ واژﮔــﺎن ﻓﺮاﮔﻴــﺮ، اﺑــﺰار ﺧﻮدﺗﺸﺨﻴﺼــﻲ OHS، دﻟﺘــﺎي ﺳــﻪ ﭘﺎﻳــﻪ، ﻣﺸــﺨﺺ، ﻗﺎﺑــﻞ اﻧــﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي، ﻗﺎﺑــﻞ دﺳــﺘﻴﺎﺑﻲ، ﻣــﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ اﻗﻠﻴﻢ اﻳﻤﻨﻲ اﺷﺎره ﻧﻤﻮد. ﭘﮋوﻫﺸـﻲ، 3 (واﻗﻊﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﺎ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ)، زﻣﺎنﺑﻨـﺪيﺷـﺪه و داراي ﭘﺎﻳﮕـﺎه روش اول را از ﺣﻴﺚ 6 وﻳﮋﮔﻲ؛ ﭼﺎرﭼﻮب ﻧﻈﺮي، اﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎت دادهﻫﺎ ﻋﻨـﻮان ﻣﻲدارﻧـﺪ (21-17). ﻣﺘـﻮن دﻳﮕـﺮي ﻧﻴـﺰ ﺟـــﺎﻣﻊ، رواﻳـــﻲ روش، ﺗﺨﺼـــﺺﻫﺎي ﻣـــﻮرد ﻧﻴـــﺎز، ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪﻧـــﺪ ﻳـــﻚ ﺷـــﺎﺧﺺ ﺧـــﻮب ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴـــﺖ داراي اﻧﻌﻄﺎفﭘﺬﻳﺮي، اﻧﮕﻴﺰش ﺑـﺮاي ﺑﻬﺒـﻮد ﺑـﻪ ﺑﻮﺗـﻪ آزﻣـﺎﻳﺶ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺎﺗﻲ از ﻗﺒﻴﻞ؛ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖ اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي (ﻛﻤﻲ)، ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ، ﻛﺸﺎﻧﺪ. اﻳﻦ واﻛﺎوي ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛـﻪ ﻫـﻴﭻ ﻳـﻚ از روشﻫـﺎ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪه، ﺣﺪاﻗﻞ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﭘﺬﻳﺮي ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد داراي ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي ﻳﺎد ﺷﺪه ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺑـﺎ اﻳـﻦ ﺣـﺎل در ﺷــﺮاﻳﻂ ﻳﻜﺴــﺎن، ﺣﺴــﺎس ﺑــﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴــﺮ، داراي ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ اﻳﻦ وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎ، ﻣﺒﻨـﺎي ﺧـﻮﺑﻲ ﺑـﺮاي ﮔـﺰﻳﻨﺶ روشﻫـﺎي ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ-اﺛﺮﺑﺨﺸﻲ، ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴـﺖ درك ﺑـﺮاي اﻏﻠـﺐ ﻛـﺎرﺑﺮان را ﻣﻮﺟﻮد و ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﮔﺴﺘﺮش آنﻫﺎ ﻓﺮاﻫﻢ ﻣﻲآورد (27). داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ (22 و 23). ﻣـﺮﺗﺒﻂ، ﭘﺎﻳـﺎﻳﻲ، ﻗﻴﺎسﭘـﺬﻳﺮي، ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع: ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻣﺘﻮن ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻮﺿـﻮع ﭘﺎﻳﺪاري، ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖ ﻓﻬـﻢ، ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨـﺪﮔﻲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴـﺖ ﻧﻴـﺰ ﺣﺎﺻـﻞ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ را ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻗﺎﻟـﺐ (ﻛﺘـﺎب، ﻣﻘﺎﻟـﻪ و ﭘﺎﻳﺎنﻧﺎﻣـﻪ)، آﺧـــﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌـــﺎت در زﻣﻴﻨـــﻪ وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫـــﺎي دروﻧـــﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع، ﻣﺤﻞ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ، روش رﻳﺎﺿﻲ و ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﮕﺮ و ﺳـﺎل ﭼﺎپ ﻃﻲ ﺟﺪول 3 ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﻧﻤﻮدﻳﻢ.
6 Compliance-Based Approach 7 Reactive (Lagging, Outcome or Negative) Performance Indicators 8 Proactive (Leading, Predictive or Positive) Performance Indicators (PPI) 9 Structural Performance Indicators (SPI) 19
19 Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
رﺿﺎ رﻣﻀﺎﻧﻴﺎن و ﻫﻤﻜﺎر
ﺟﺪول 3- ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﻣﺤﻞ روش ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﮕﺮ، ﺳﺎل ﻛﺘﺎب ﻛﺎرﺑﺮد روشﻫﺎي ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎره در ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ MCDM ﻧﺒﻲﺑﻴﺪﻫﻨﺪي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1391 ﻛﺘﺎب ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖﺳﻨﺠﻲ اﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎي ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎره در ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﮔﺮدﺷﮕﺮي ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ MCDM ﻣﺤﺮمﻧﮋاد و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1392 زﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎي ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎره در ﺣﻮزه ﺳﻼﻣﺖ ﺑﻴﻤﺎرﺳﺘﺎن MCDM ﺑﻬﺎدري و ﻣﺤﻤﺪزاده، 1393 ﻛﺘﺎب ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ ﻛﺎر ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ ﻧﻔﺖ و ﮔﺎز --- ﭘﮋﻣﺎنﺛﺎﻧﻲ و ﺣﺴﻴﻨﻲ، 1393 ﻛﺘﺎب ﻛﺎرﺑﺮد روشﻫﺎي ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎره در ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ MCDM ﺟﻮزي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1393 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻧﻜﺎران ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ آﻣﺎري ﺟﻌﻔﺮي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1392 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻣﻮﻓﻘﻴﺖ HSE ﻣﭙﻨﺎ اﻧﺘﮕﺮال ﭼﻮﻛﻮﺋﺖ ﻫﻤﺖﺟﻮ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1392 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ --- آرشاﺗﻮر و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1393 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻧﻜﺎران ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ ﭘﺘﺮوﺷﻴﻤﻲ آﻣﺎري ﺷﻔﺎﺋﻲﻏﻼﻣﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1393 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﺑﻨﺎدر درﻳﺎي ﺧﺰر آزﻣﻮن ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎت ﻃﺎﻫﺮي و ﻳﺤﻴﻲﺗﺒﺎر، 1393 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد راﻫﺒﺮدي HSE ﻧﻴﺮوﮔﺎه BSC ﻧﺎﺻﺮي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1393 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE و رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺮﻛﺖﻫﺎ ﺷﺮﻛﺖﻫﺎي ﮔﺎز TOPSIS ﻣﻨﺼﻮري و ﻋﻈﻴﻤﻲﺣﺴﻴﻨﻲ، 1394 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ و اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﺷﻐﻠﻲ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ و FTOPSIS ﻳﺎراﺣﻤﺪي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1394 ﺳﺎز ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد واﺣﺪ HSE ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ ذوب Fuzzy ﺷﻤﺎﻳﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران، 1396 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ اﺑﺰار ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ HSE ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ Mohmmadfam et al., 2012 AHP ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ و رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ Sadoughi et al., 2012 FTOPSIS ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ و رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي زﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ Yarahmadi & Sadoughi, FTOPSIS 2012 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSEE ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ DEA, PCA و ﺗﺎﮔﻮﭼﻲ ,Azadeh & Sheikhalishahi 2014 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ --- Kokic Arsic & Misic, 2014 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ Pirzadeh & Darestani, 2014 FVIKOR & FANP ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻧﻜﺎران ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ ﭘﺘﺮوﺷﻴﻤﻲ آﻣﺎري ,.Shafaei Gholami et al 2014 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎن آزﻣﻮن ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎت Ghasemi et al., 2015 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSEMS ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻧﻜﺎران ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ ﭘﺘﺮوﺷﻴﻤﻲ آﻣﺎري Gholami et al., 2015 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ رﻧﮓ --- Musyoka et al., 2015 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSEMS ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻧﻜﺎران ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ آﻣﺎري Nassiri, 2015 ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي OSH-MS ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ Podgórski, 2015 AHP ﭘﺎﻳﺎنﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و وزﻧﺪﻫﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSEE و ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﭘﺎﻻﻳﺸﮕﺎه ﮔﺎز ﺳﺎﻣﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﺧﺒﺮه ﻓﺎزي ﺧﺸﻨﻮد، 1385 ﭘﺎﻳﺎنﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSEE ﺷﺮﻛﺖ اﻧﺘﻘﺎل ﮔﺎز ﺷﺒﻜﻪ ﻋﺼﺒﻲ ﻓﺎزي، ﺳﺎﻣﺎﻧﻪ ﺟﻴﺮﻳﺎﻳﻲﺷﺮاﻫﻲ، 1390 اﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﻲ، ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﭘﺎﻳﺎنﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﺑﺎرﻳﺖ ﻓﻼت اﻳﺮان ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺖ ﻓﺎزي ﺣﺴﻴﻦﭘﻮر، 1392
روش ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ، ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ ﺣﺮﻓﻪاي، ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ/ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳـﻲ در اﻳﻦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺜﻲ ﭼﻮن؛ روش ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ، ﺟﺎﻣﻌـﻪ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ و ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE ﻛﻪ ﺑـﺮ ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد آﻣﺎري، ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﮔﻴﺮي، اﺑـﺰار ﮔـﺮدآوري و ﻓﺮاﻳﻨـﺪ ﭘـﮋوﻫﺶ HSE اﺷﺮاف دارﻧﺪ، ﺗﺸـﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﻲدﻫﻨـﺪ. ﺑـﺮ اﻳـﻦ اﺳـﺎس ﺧﻮاﻫﻴﻢ ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ. ﺟﻬﺖ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﮔﻴﺮي از روشﻫـﺎي ﻫﺪﻓﻤﻨـﺪ و در دﺳـﺘﺮس روش و ﻃﺮح ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑـﻪ ﻣﺤﺘـﻮا و ﻛـﺎرﺑﺮد، از ﻛﻪ ذﻳﻞ روش ﻏﻴﺮاﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ ﺑﻬﺮه ﺑﺮدﻳﻢ (28). ﻧﻮع ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ و ﻛﺎرﺑﺮدي ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﺪ. ﺟﺎﻣﻌـﻪ آﻣـﺎري اﻳـﻦ ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن 8 ﻧﻔﺮ ﺑﻮده ﻛﻪ ﺗﺨﺼـﺺ ﻣـﻮرد ﻧﻴـﺎز ﭘـﮋوﻫﺶ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ را داﻧﺶآﻣﻮﺧﺘﮕﺎن رﺷﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳـﻲ اﻳﻤﻨـﻲ (ﻳﻌﻨــﻲ اﺷــﺮاف ﺑــﺮ ارزﻳــﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜــﺮد HSE-MS) دﻟﻴــﻞ
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29. 20
ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE در ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ
ﻣﻌﺪود ﺑﻮدن اﻳﺸﺎن ﺑﻮده ﻛﻪ اﻳـﻦ ﻣﻮﺿـﻮع ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴـﺖ در روش ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﺑﺨﺼﻮص ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎت زوﺟﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈـﻮر ﭘﻴﺸﮕﻴﺮي از ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ آراء، رﻋﺎﻳﺖ ﮔـﺮدد. ﺟﻨﺴـﻴﺖ ﻫﻤـﻪ ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن ﻣﺬﻛﺮ اﺳﺖ. از اﻳﻦ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻳـﻚ ﻧﻔـﺮ داراي ﻣـﺪرك دﻛﺘﺮي، ﻳﻚ ﻧﻔﺮ داراي ﻣﺪرك ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ و ﺑﻘﻴـﻪ داراي ﻣﺪرك ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ارﺷﺪ در رﺷﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ. ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﺧﺒﺮﮔـﺎن داراي ﺳـﺎﺑﻘﻪ ﻛـﺎر در ﺣـﻮزه ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ. ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟـﻪ ﺑـﻪ ﻣﺤﺘـﻮا، روﻳﻜـﺮد و اﻫــﺪاف ﭘــﮋوﻫﺶ، اﺑــﺰار ﮔــﺮدآوري دادهﻫــﺎ و اﻃﻼﻋــﺎت، ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﺑــﺮاي ﺷﻨﺎﺳــﺎﻳﻲ ﺳــﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎ ﭘﺮﺳﺸــﻨﺎﻣﻪاي ﺑــﺮ اﺳــﺎس ﺑﻨــﺪﻫﺎي دو اﺳــﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﻣــﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﻣﺤــﻴﻂ زﻳﺴــﺖ ISO 14001:2015 و ﻣــﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ اﻳﻤﻨــﻲ و ﺑﻬﺪاﺷــﺖ ﺣﺮﻓــﻪاي ISO 45001:2018 ﺗﻨﻈـﻴﻢ ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪ ﻛـﻪ ﻣﺘﺸـﻜﻞ از 10 ﻧﻤﻮدار 1- ﻓﺮآﻳﻨﺪ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻣﻌﻴﺎر و 54 ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﺑﺮاي ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻫـﺮ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ دو ﺳﻨﺠﻪ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد ﮔﺮدﻳﺪه ﻛﻪ ﺧﺒﺮه ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴـﺖ ﻳﻜـﻲ از ﺳﻨﺠﻪ (ﺑﺪون اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺳﻨﺠﻪ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ) ﺑـﻮد. ﺑـﺮاي اﻧﺘﺨـﺎب آنﻫﺎ را اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﻧﻤـﻮده و ﻳـﺎ ﺳـﻨﺠﻪ دﻳﮕـﺮي را ﻣﻌﺮﻓـﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻲ ﺳـﻨﺠﻪ، از ﻣﺠﻤـﻮع وزﻳـﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳـﺎت در ﻗﺒـﺎل ﻫـﺮ ﻧﻤﺎﻳــﺪ. ﺧﺒﺮﮔــﺎن ﭘــﺲ از اﻧﺘﺨــﺎب ﺳــﻨﺠﻪ، ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴــﺖ ﺳﻨﺠﻪ ﺑﺎ اﺣﺘﺴﺎب وزن ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ ﺷـﺪ. ﺑـﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ را دو ﺑﻪ دو ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻧﻤـﻮده و ﺑـﺮ اﺳـﺎس اﻳﻦ اﺳﺎس ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻳﻲ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﺤﺮز ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ ﺑﻮد. واژﮔﺎن زﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ اﻋﺪاد ﻓـﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜـﻲ، اﻣﺘﻴـﺎزدﻫﻲ ﻓﺮآﻳﻨﺪ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ: در اﻳﻦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ، ﻣﺴـﻴﺮ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪ. ﻟﺬا ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎي ورودي، ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎت ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن ﺷـﺎﻣﻞ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎرﺗﻲ ﻧﻘﺸﻪ راه ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺧﻮاﻫﻴﻢ ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ. ﻣﻴﺰان ﺗﺤﺼﻴﻼت، ﺳﺎﺑﻘﻪ ﻛﺎر در ﺣﻮزه HSE و ﺳﺎﺑﻘﻪ ﻛﺎر اﻧﺘﺨﺎب و وزندﻫﻲ ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن: اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس در ﺣــﻮزه ارزﻳــﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜــﺮد HSE ﺑــﻮده و ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫــﺎي روش ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﮔﻴﺮي ﻫﺪﻓﻤﻨﺪ و در دﺳـﺘﺮس ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﺪ. اﻣـﺎ ﺧﺮوﺟﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ 54 ﻣﻌﻴـﺎر ﺷﻨﺎﺳـﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨـﺪي ﺷـﺪه ﺟﻬﺖ ﻟﺤﺎظ داﻧـﺶ و ﺗﺠﺮﺑـﻪ اﻳﺸـﺎن در اراﺋـﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﺷـﺎن، ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮدي HSE اﺳﺖ. ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن را ﺑـﺮ اﺳـﺎس ﻣﻘﻄـﻊ ﺗﺤﺼـﻴﻠﻲ، ﺳـﺎﺑﻘﻪ ﻛـﺎر در ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ اﻳﻨﻜﻪ از اﺳـﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ISO 14001:2015 زﻣﻴﻨﻪ HSE و ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE وزﻧﺪﻫﻲ و ﺑﺮاﻳﺸـﺎن و ISO 45001:2018 ﻣﺒﻨـــﺎي ﺷﻨﺎﺳـــﺎﻳﻲ ﺷـــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﺿــﺮﻳﺐ اﻫﻤﻴــﺖ ﺗﻌﻴــﻴﻦ ﻧﻤــﻮده و اﻳــﻦ ﺿــﺮاﻳﺐ را در اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺷﺪه و ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ از ﺑﻨﺪﻫﺎي اﺳـﺘﺎﻧﺪارد دادهﻫﺎي اﺳﺘﺨﺮاﺟﻲ از ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎ ﻟﺤﺎظ ﻣﻲﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ. ﺑﻮده و ﻫﺮ ﻳـﻚ از ﺑﻨـﺪﻫﺎي اﺳـﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﻣﺒـﻴﻦ ﻣﻮﺿـﻮﻋﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺳــﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫــﺎ و ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE: ﺑــﺮ اﺳــﺎس ﺧﺎص ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ از اﻳﻦ رو ﻫﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻄﻮر اﻧﺤﺼـﺎري اﺳــﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ارزﻳــﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜــﺮد زﻳﺴــﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄــﻲ ISO ﺑﻴﺎﻧﮕﺮ ﻳﻜﻲ از ﺑﻨـﺪﻫﺎي اﺳـﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﺑـﻮده و اﻳـﻦ اﻣـﺮ ﻧﻴـﺰ 14031:2013 دو ﻧﻮع ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ ﻣـﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ و ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ را ﺣﻜﺎﻳﺖ از رواﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ دارد. ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺑـﺎ ﺗﻮﺟـﻪ ﺑـﻪ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻴﺖ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE-MS ﻣﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻗـﺮار ﺑﻬﺮهﮔﻴﺮي از روشﻫﺎي ﻏﻴﺮ آﻣﺎري (ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي) ﺟﻬﺖ دادﻳــﻢ. ﻣﺒﻨــﺎي ﺷﻨﺎﺳــﺎﻳﻲ ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣــﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ را واﻛﺎوي دادهﻫﺎ، ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻲ اﺳﺖ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺮرﺳـﻲ ﭘﺎﻳـﺎﻳﻲ اﺑـﺰار اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ ISO14001:2015 ﮔﺮدآوري، روشﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺳﻮم آﻣﺎري ﻣﻄﺮح ﻧﻤﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ. ﺑـﺎ و ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ اﻳﻤﻨﻲ و ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ ﺣﺮﻓﻪاي ISO 45001:2018 اﻳﻦ وﺟﻮد از آﻧﺠﺎﻳﻲ ﻛـﻪ ﺑـﺮاي ﻫـﺮ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ دو ﺳـﻨﺠﻪ و ﻣﺒﻨﺎي ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ را دروس ﻛﻠﻴـﺪي ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد ﮔﺮدﻳﺪ و از ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن ﺧﻮاﺳﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﺑـﺮاي ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ رﺷﺘﻪﻫﺎي داﻧﺸﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ HSE در ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻴﻢ. ﻫﺮ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ ﻳﻜـﻲ از دو ﺳـﻨﺠﻪ را اﻧﺘﺨـﺎب و ﻳـﺎ ﺳـﻨﺠﻪ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺳـﻨﺠﻪ: ﺟﻬـﺖ ﻛﻤﻲﺳـﺎزي ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد دﻳﮕﺮي را ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ آن اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﻳﻜﻲ از دو HSE-MS ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴــﺖ از ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛ ﻤ ــﻲ و ﻳــﺎ ﺑــﻪ 21
21 Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
رﺿﺎ رﻣﻀﺎﻧﻴﺎن و ﻫﻤﻜﺎر
ﺟﺪول 4- واژﮔﺎن زﺑﺎﻧﻲ و اﻋﺪاد ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻲ ﻣﻌﺎدل واژه زﺑﺎﻧﻲ اﻋﺪاد ﻓﺎزي ﻣﻌﻜﻮس اﻋﺪاد ﻓﺎزي اﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﻳﻜﺴﺎن The Same Importance (1،1،1) (1 ،1، 1) ﻧﭽﻨﺪان ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ No Matter More Important (1،2،3) (1 ،0/5، 0/33) ﻛﻤﻲ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ Slightly More Important (2،3،4) (0/5 ،0/33، 0/25) ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎً ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ Relatively More Important (3،4،5) (0/33 ،0/25، 0/2) ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ More Importantly (4،5،6) (0/25 ،0/2، 0/17) ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ Much More Important (5،6،7) (0/2 ،0/17، 0/14) ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ Very Much More Important (6،7،8) (0/17 ،0/14، 0/13) ﻓﻮقاﻟﻌﺎده ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ Incredibly Important (7،8،9) (0/14 ،0/13، 0/11) ﺑﻲﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ Infinitely More Important (8،9،10) (0/13 ،0/11، 0/1)
ﻋﺒــﺎرﺗﻲ ﺳــﻨﺠﻪ اﺳــﺘﻔﺎده ﻧ ﻤ ــﺎﻳﻴﻢ. ﺟﻬــﺖ اﻳــﻦ ﻣﻨﻈــﻮر ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪه ﺑﺎ اﻟﮕﻮﺳﺎزي درﺧﺖ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺐ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﮕﺮ ﻃﻲ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻛﻴﻔﻲ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎي HSE ﻛﻪ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺎﻧﮕﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎي ﺗﺼـﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي اﺳـﺖ ﺑﺮاي ﻫﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ، 2 ﺳﻨﺠﻪ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد ﻧﻤﻮده و ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن ﻧﻴﺰ ﻛﺎر ﺧﻮد را آﻏﺎز ﻣﻲﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ. ﭘﺲ از ﻳﻚ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎت ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ ﻳﻜﻲ از 2 ﺳﻨﺠﻪ را اﻧﺘﺨﺎب و ﻳﺎ ﺳﻨﺠﻪ دﻳﮕﺮي زوﺟــﻲ، ﺑــﻴﻦ ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و ﮔﺰﻳﻨــﻪﻫﺎ، وزن ﻫــﺮ ﻳــﻚ از را ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ اﻳـﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠـﻪ ﺑـﺎ اﻧﺘﺨـﺎب ﻳﻜـﻲ از 2 ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و در ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ ﺗﻌﻴـﻴﻦ ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪه ﻛـﻪ ﺑـﺮ ﺳﻨﺠﻪ و ﺑﺪون ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺠﻪ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻃﻲ ﺷﺪ و ﺑـﺎ ﻟﺤـﺎظ اﺳﺎس آن ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ آﻣﺪ. وزن ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن، ﺳﻨﺠﻪ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻲ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﻣﻲﮔﺮدد. از ﺳــﻮﻳﻲ اﺳــﺘﺎد ﻟﻄﻔﻌﻠــﻲ رﺣﻴﻢاوﻏﻠــﻮ ﻋﺴــﻜﺮزاده وزندﻫﻲ و وزنﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ / ﺳـﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎ (FAHP): رﻳﺎﺿﻲدان (ﻣﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﺑﺎﻛﻮ، داﻧﺶآﻣﻮﺧﺘـﻪ اﻳـﺮان ﺗـﺎ ﻣﻘﻄـﻊ ﺑﺮاي اﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﻴﺰان ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻳـﺎ ﺑـﻪ ﻋﺒـﺎرﺗﻲ وزن ﻫـﺮ ﻳـﻚ از ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ و ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﮕﺮ آﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎﻳﻲ)، در ﺳﺎل 1962 ﺑـﺮاي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ در ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE-MS ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﮔـﺮدد اوﻟﻴﻦ ﺑﺎر در ﻣﺠﻠﻪ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ، واژه ﻣﻨﻄـﻖ ﻓـﺎزي10 را ﺑـﺮ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ روﺷﻲ ﺟﻬﺖ وزنﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ. ﺑـﺮ اﻳـﻦ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎت ﻣﺎﻛﺲ ﺑﻠﻚ11 ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮف آذرﺑﺎﻳﺠـﺎﻧﻲ و ﺟـﺎن اﺳﺎس روﻳﻜـﺮد ﻓﺮاﻳﻨـﺪ واﻛـﺎوي ﺳﻠﺴـﻠﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺒـﻲ ﻓـﺎزي ﻟﻮﻛﺎﺳﻴﻪوﻳﺞ12 ﻣﻨﻄﻖدان ﻟﻬﺴﺘﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻜـﺎر ﺑـﺮد. ﺑـﺮ اﺳـﺎس (FAHP) ﺑــﻪ روش واﻛــﺎوي ﺗﻮﺳــﻌﻪاي (EA) ﺟﻬــﺖ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ او، ﻛﻠﻤﺎت درﺳﺖ و ﻧﺎدرﺳﺖ (ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﻠـﻪ و ﺧﻴـﺮ) وزنﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ اﻧﺘﺨـﺎب ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪ. ﺑـﺎ ﺗﻮﺟـﻪ ﺑـﻪ روش واژﮔﺎن ﭼﻨﺪان ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﻲ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﺎﺷﻴﻦ و راﻳﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ از ﺻـﻔﺮ اﻧﺘﺨــﺎﺑﻲ، ﭘﺮﺳﺸــﻨﺎﻣﻪاي ﺑــﺎ ﻋﻨــﻮان ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴــﺎت زوﺟــﻲ و ﻳﻚ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺴـﺘﻨﺪ و ﺑـﻪ ﺟـﺎي آن ﺑﺎﻳـﺪ از (وزندﻫﻲ) ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ/ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎ در اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﺧﺒﺮﮔـﺎن ﻗـﺮار ﻋﺒﺎرت درﺟﻪ درﺳﺘﻲ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺷﻮد (29). ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﺟﺪول اﻋﺪاد ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻲ (ﺟـﺪول 4) از ﺳــﺎل 1983 ﺗﻼشﻫــﺎﻳﻲ ﺑــﺮاي ﻓﺎزيﺳــﺎزي AHP ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ از ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎت دو ﺑﻪ دو ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﻋﺒـﺎرت ﺻﻮرت ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ روشﻫﺎي ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﻲ ﮔﺮدﻳﺪ ﻛـﻪ زﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺧﻮد را اﺧﺘﺼﺎص دﻫﻨﺪ. ﻫــﺮ ﻳــﻚ داراي وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫــﺎﻳﻲ ﻫﺴــﺘﻨﺪ. روش واﻛــﺎوي روﻳﻜﺮد FAHP ﺑﻪ روش EA: ﻓﺮآﻳﻨﺪ واﻛـﺎوي ﺳﻠﺴـﻠﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪاي (EA) ﻳﻜﻲ از اﻳـﻦ روشﻫﺎﺳـﺖ ﻛـﻪ در ﺳـﺎل ﻣﺮاﺗﺒـــﻲ (AHP)، ﻳﻜـــﻲ از ﻣﻌﺮوفﺗـــﺮﻳﻦ روشﻫـــﺎي 1996 ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﭼﺎﻧﮓ اﺑﺪاع ﮔﺮدﻳﺪ. اﻋﺪاد ﻣﻮرد اﺳﺘﻔﺎده در ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻪ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻮﺳـﻂ ﺗﻮﻣـﺎس ال. اﻳﻦ روش، اﻋﺪاد ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ. ﺳﺎﻋﺘﻲ در دﻫﻪ 1970 ﻣﻴﻼدي اﺑﺪاع ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪ. اﻳـﻦ روش ﺑﺮﺗﺮي روش ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ واﻛﺎوي ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺒـﻲ ﻓـﺎزي ﺑـﺮ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﺑﺎ ﭼﻨﺪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ و ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ دﻳﮕﺮ روشﻫﺎي ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي، ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺗﻠﻔﻴـﻖ ﻣﺰاﻳـﺎي ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي روﺑﺮو اﺳﺖ، ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﻣﻔﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﻨــﺪ ﻛﻤــﻲ ﻳــﺎ ﻛﻴﻔــﻲ ﺑﺎﺷــﻨﺪ. اﻳــﻦ روش ﺑــﺮ ﭘﺎﻳــﻪ Fuzzy Logic 10 11 Max black ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴــﺎت زوﺟــﻲ ﺑﻨــﺎ ﮔﺮدﻳــﺪه اﺳــﺖ. در اﻳــﻦ روش Jan Lukasiewicz 12
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29. 22
ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE در ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ
AHP و ﻣﻨﻄـــﻖ ﻓـــﺎزي اﺳـــﺖ. AHP روﺷـــﻲ اﺳـــﺖ اﻧﻌﻄﺎفﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﻛﻪ اﻓﺮاد و ﮔﺮوهﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ وﺳﻴﻠﻪ آن، ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺗﺸـﺎن را ﺷﻜﻞ داده، ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ را ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎت ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻛـﺮده و در ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻮاب ﻣﻄﻠـﻮب ﻣﻲرﺳـﻨﺪ. ﺑﻄـﻮر ﺧﻼﺻـﻪ ﮔﺎم دوم: ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ارزش ﻫﺮ ﻳـﻚ از ﺳـﻄﺮﻫﺎي ﻣـﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ ﻣﺰاﻳــﺎ و ﺑﺮﺗــﺮي AHP را ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﺑــﻪ دﻳﮕــﺮ روشﻫــﺎي ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎت زوﺟﻲ (S): ﺗﺼــﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي را ﻣﻮﺗــﻮان ﻣــﻮاردي ﭼــﻮن؛ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒــﻲ از ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ارزش ﻫﺮ ﺳﻄﺮ از راﺑﻄﻪ 2 اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻧﻤﻮده روﻳﻜﺮدﻫﺎي ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻲ و اﺳﺘﻘﺮاﻳﻲ، ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ذﻫﻨﻲ ﻛﻪ در اﻳﻦ راﺑﻄﻪ، k ﺑﻴﺎﻧﮕﺮ ﺷﻤﺎره ﺳﻄﺮ، i ﻧﺸـﺎن دﻫﻨـﺪه اﻧﺴﺎن و ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖ ﻓﻬﻢ، ﻟﺤﺎظ ﻧﻤﻮدن واﺑﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ و j ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺎﻧﮕﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ اﺳﺖ. اﺟـــﺰاء، ﺗﺮﻛﻴـــﺐ ﻗﻀـــﺎوتﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠـــﻒ در راﺳـــﺘﺎي ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي واﺣﺪ، وﺣﺪت روﻳﻪ در ﺣﻞ ﻣﺴـﺎﺋﻞ، ﺗﻜـﺮار ﭘﺬﻳﺮي در ﻋﻴﻦ اﻧﻌﻄﺎفﭘﺬﻳﺮي ﺑﺮﺷﻤﺮد. از اﻳـﻦ رو AHP ﺣﺘﻲ در ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴﺮي ﮔﺮوﻫﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺮ روشﻫـﺎﻳﻲ ﭼـﻮن؛ اﺳﻤﻲ، دﻟﻔﻲ و ﻃﻮﻓﺎن ﻣﻐـﺰي (داراي ﻣﻌـﺎﻳﺒﻲ ﻫﻤﭽـﻮن؛ ﮔﺎم ﺳﻮم: ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ درﺟﻪ ﺑﺰرﮔﻲ ارزش ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ از ﺳﻄﺮﻫﺎ زﻣﺎن، ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ و ﺟﻤﻮد ﻓﻜﺮي) ﺑﺮﺗﺮي داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻟﺤﺎظ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ :(V) ﺑﺮﺧﻮرداري از ﻣﻨﻄﻖ رﻳﺎﺿﻲ، ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴـﺖ ﺗﻠﻔﻴـﻖ ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫـﺎي اﺑﺘﺪا ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ درﺟﻪ ﺑﺰرﮔﻲ ارزش ﺳﻄﺮﻫﺎ را دو ﺑﻪ دو ﻛﻤـﻲ و ﻛﻴﻔـﻲ را ﺑــﺮاي ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴـﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺘﻌــﺪد در ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻧﻤﻮد. ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻲ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﻦ دو ﻳﺎ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻋﺪد ﺑﺮدارد (30). ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻲ، ﻋﺪدي ﺑﺰرﮔﺘﺮ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺳـﻪ رﻗـﻢ آن از ﺑﺮ اﺳـﺎس ﻧﻈﺮﻳـﻪ ﻓـﺎزي، ﻛﻠﻤـﺎت درﺳـﺖ و ﻧﺎدرﺳـﺖ ارﻗﺎم ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮش در دﻳﮕﺮ اﻋﺪاد ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻲ ﺑﺰرﮔﺘﺮ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ (ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﻠﻪ و ﺧﻴﺮ) واژﮔﺎن ﭼﻨﺪان ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﻲ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﺎﺷـﻴﻦ ﻛﻪ اﻳﻦ اﻣﺮ ﺑﻪ زﺑﺎن رﻳﺎﺿﻲ ﻃﻲ راﺑﻄـﻪ 3 ﺑﻴـﺎن ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪه و راﻳﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ از ﺻﻔﺮ و ﻳﻚ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻨﺪ و ﺑـﻪ اﺳﺖ. در ﻏﻴﺮ اﻳﻦ ﺻﻮرت راﺑﻄﻪ 4 ﺗﻌﻴـﻴﻦ ﻛﻨﻨـﺪه درﺟـﻪ ﺟﺎي آن ﺑﺎﻳﺪ از ﻋﺒﺎرت درﺟﻪ درﺳﺘﻲ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺷـﻮد. ﺑـﻪ ﺑﺰرﮔﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ دو ﻋﺪد ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. در اداﻣﻪ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻋﺒﺎرت دﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎزي ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻘﻲ اﺳﺖ از ﻣﻨﻄـﻖ ﺳـﻨﺘﻲ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ درﺟﻪ ﺑﺰرﮔﻲ ﻫﺮ ﻋﺪد ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻲ از دﻳﮕﺮ اﻋـﺪاد ارﺳﻄﻮﻳﻲ (ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ و ﻏﻠﻂ ﺑﻮدن ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ) و ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻓﺎزي ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻲ از راﺑﻄﻪ 5 ﺑﻬﺮه ﺧﻮاﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺮد: اﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻت، ﺑﺪون اﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﺐ آنﻫﺎ را در ﺑﺮداﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷـﺪ .(29) ﺑﺮﺗﺮيﻫﺎي ﻳﺎد ﺷﺪه ﻣﺰاﻳﺎي ﻋﺎم FAHP ﺑﻮده، اﻣﺎ دﻟﻴﻞ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب آن ﺑﺮاي اﻳﻦ ﭘـﮋوﻫﺶ، ﺑﻬﺮهﻣﻨـﺪي از ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴـﺎت زوﺟﻲ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد در اﻳﻦ روش اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ اﻣﻜﺎن ﻟﺤﺎظ ﺗـﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﺑﺮ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ را داده ﻛـﻪ اﻳـﻦ ﻣﻬـﻢ ﻧﻴـﺰ ﮔﺎم ﭼﻬﺎرم: ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ اوزان ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ:(W) ﺑﺎﻋﺚ اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻴﺖ و دﻗـﺖ اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨـﺪي و وزﻧـﺪﻫﻲ اﺑﺘﺪا از راﺑﻄﻪ 6 ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ وزن ﻧﺎﺑﻬﻨﺠﺎر ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ و ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد. ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﺮاي ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ وزن ﺑﻬﻨﺠﺎر ﻳﺎ ﺑﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ از در روش EA ﺑﺮاي ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ FAHP ﭼﻬﺎر ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﭘﻴﺶ راﺑﻄﻪ 7 ﺑﻬﺮه ﺧﻮاﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺮد (30): رو دارﻳﻢ: ﮔﺎم اول: ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻖ دادهﻫﺎي اراﺋﻪ ﺷﺪه از ﺳﻮي ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن: اﺑﺘﺪا ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از راﺑﻄﻪ 1 ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﺎن ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻫﻨﺪﺳﻲ اﺳﺖ، دادهﻫﺎي اراﺋـﻪ ﺷـﺪه از ﺳـﻮي ﺧﺒﺮﮔـﺎن را ﺗﻠﻔﻴـﻖ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎ (ﺗﺎﻛﺴـﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ): ﺑـﺮاي ﻣﻲﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ، در اﻳﻦ راﺑﻄﻪ wE ﺿﺮﻳﺐ اﻫﻤﻴـﺖ ﻧﻈـﺮ ﺧﺒـﺮه ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE 5 ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﻓﻌﺎل در ﻋﺮﺻﻪ ﺳـﺎﺧﺖ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ: ﺷﻨﺎور از ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﻮزون ﺣﺎﺻﻠﻪ از ﻣﺮﺣﻠـﻪ ﻗﺒـﻞ در ﻗﺎﻟﺐ روش ﺗﺎﻛﺴﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﻬﺮه ﺧﻮاﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺮد. 23
23 Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
رﺿﺎ رﻣﻀﺎﻧﻴﺎن و ﻫﻤﻜﺎر
ﺗﺎﻛﺴــﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ: روش واﻛــﺎوي ﺗﺎﻛﺴــﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ از ﻣﻬﻢﺗــﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﺑﻴﻦ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ را ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ و ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺳﻄﺮ روشﻫﺎي درﺟﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ از ﻧﻈﺮ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﮕﻲ اﺳﺖ را ﺑﺎ ﻧﻤﺎد (dr) ﻣﺸﺨﺺ و ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ و اﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎر آن را ﻛﻪ ﺑﻄﻮر ﮔﺴﺘﺮده در ﻋﻠﻢ ﺟﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺎ ﻣﻄـﺮح ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﺪ. اﻳـﻦ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﻧﻤﻮد. ﺣﺎل ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﺑـﺎ اﺳـﺘﻔﺎده از رواﺑـﻂ 10 و روش اوﻟﻴﻦ ﺑﺎر در ﺳﺎل 1763 ﺗﻮﺳﻂ آدﻧﺴـﻮن ﻣﻄـﺮح و 11 ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺣﺪ ﺑﺎﻻ (Ur) و ﺣﺪ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ (Lr) را ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ در ﺳﺎل 1950 ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﮔﺮوﻫﻲ از رﻳﺎﺿﻲداﻧﺎن ﺑﺴـﻂ داده و (dr) ﺧﺎرج از اﻳـﻦ ﺑـﺎزه را در ﺻـﻮرت وﺟـﻮد ﺣـﺬف و ﺷﺪ. در ﺳﺎل 1968 ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻫﻮﻟﻴﻨﮓ در ﻳﻮﻧﺴﻜﻮ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ ﻗﺒﻠﻲ را ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺮاي ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺤـﺪود در ﺣـﺪود ر و ﺷ ــﻲ ﻣﻬــﻢ در ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨــﺪي ﺗﻮﺳــﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﮕﻲ ﺑ ــﻴﻦ ﻣﻠــﻞ ﺑﺎﻻ و ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﺗﻜﺮار ﻧﻤﻮد. ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻄﺮح ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪ و اﻣـﺮوزه در رﺷـﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠـﻒ ﻋﻠــﻮم ﻛﺸــﺎورزي، زﻣﻴﻦﺷﻨﺎﺳــﻲ، ﺻــﻨﺎﻳﻊ، داﻣﭙﺰﺷــﻜﻲ و ﭘﺰﺷﻜﻲ ﻣﻄﺮح ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﺗﺎﻛﺴﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ ﻋﺪدي ﻳﻜﻲ از اﻧـﻮاع ﺗﺎﻛﺴﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻬﺖ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷﺒﺎﻫﺖ ﺑﻴﻦ واﺣـﺪﻫﺎ و درﺟﻪﺑﻨــﺪي آنﻫــﺎ ﺑﻜــﺎر ﻣ ــﻲرود. در ا ﻳ ــﻦ روش ﻳ ــﻚ ﮔﺎم ﭼﻬﺎرم: ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ اﻟﮕﻮ ﻳﺎ ﺳﺮﻣﺸﻖ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺑﻪ زﻳﺮﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻫﺎي ﻛﻢ و ﺑﻴﺶ ﻫﻤﮕـﻦ ﺗﻘﺴـﻴﻢ (Cio): ﺷﺪه و ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮل ﺑﺮاي ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ و ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻣﻴﺰان در اﻳﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ از ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ (Zij) از ﻣﻘﺪار ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﮕﻲ ﻧﻮاﺣﻲ در اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪرﻳﺰان ﻗﺮار ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ. اﻳﺪهآل ﻣﺜﺒﺖ (DOj) ﻃﻲ راﺑﻄـﻪ 12 ﺗﻌﻴـﻴﻦ ﺷـﺪه ﻛـﻪ اﻳﻦ روش ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ واﻛﺎوي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي از ﭘﻴﺶ ﺗﻌﻴـﻴﻦ ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ، ﻣﺒﻴﻦ ﺗﻮﺳـﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﮕﻲ ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪ و ﺑـﺮﻋﻜﺲ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻼوه ﺑﺮ اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨـﺪي ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪﻫﺎ، آنﻫـﺎ را ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ ﺑﻮد. درﺟﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻲﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ. ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ ﺗﺎﻛﺴﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ: (xij) ﮔـﺎم اول: ﺗﺸـﻜﻴﻞ ﻣـﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ دادهﻫـﺎ و ﻣﺤﺎﺳـﺒﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ (µj) و اﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎر(σj) ﮔﺎم ﭘﻨﺠﻢ: رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﻣﻴﺰان ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﮕﻲ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ: ﮔﺎم دوم: ﺑﻲﻣﻘﻴﺎسﺳﺎزي دادهﻫﺎي ﻣﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ :(Zij) ﭘﺲ از ﺑـﻪ دﺳـﺖ آوردن ﺣـﺪ ﺑـﺎﻻي ﺗﻮﺳـﻌﻪ (Co) از ﺑﺮاي اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﺳﺎزي (ﺑﻲﻣﻘﻴﺎسﺳﺎزي) دادهﻫﺎ از راﺑﻄﻪ ﻃﺮﻳــﻖ راﺑﻄــﻪ 13، ﺑــﺎ اﺳــﺘﻔﺎده از راﺑﻄــﻪ 14 ﻣﻴــﺰان 8 ﺑﻬﺮه ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻳﻢ: ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﮕﻲ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ را ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﻣﻲﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ:
ﭘــﺲ از اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﺳــﺎزي ﻳــﺎ ﺑﻲﻣﻘﻴﺎسﺳــﺎزي دادهﻫــﺎ، ﺑﺰرﮔﺘﺮﻳﻦ داده ﻫﺮ ﺳﺘﻮن را در اﻧﺘﻬﺎي آن ﺳـﺘﻮن ﺗﺤـﺖ ﻫﺮ ﭼﻪ Fi ﻛﻮﭼﻚﺗﺮ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ آن ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﺗﺮ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﻘﺪار اﻳﺪهآل ﻣﺜﺒﺖ (DOj) ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻲﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ. ﺑﻮده و در ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ ﮔﺎم ﺳﻮم: ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ (ﻫﻤﮕﻦﺳﺎزي ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ): ﺷﺪ (30). ﻣﻨﻈــﻮر از ﺗﺤﺪﻳــﺪ ﻳــﺎ ﻫﻤﮕﻦﺳــﺎزي ﮔﺰﻳﻨــﻪﻫﺎ، ﺣــﺬف
ﮔﺰﻳﻨــﻪﻫﺎي ﭘــﺮت (داراي ﻓﻮاﺻــﻞ ﺑ ﺴ ــﻴﺎر ز ﻳ ــﺎد از دﻳﮕــﺮ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ) ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر اﺑﺘﺪا ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴـﺖ ﻓﺎﺻـﻠﻪ ﻛﻨﻜﺎش و ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ISO 14001:2015 و ﻣﺮﻛـﺐ ﺑـﻴﻦ ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪﻫﺎ (اﺧــﺘﻼف ﻫـﺮ ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪ را از دﻳﮕــﺮ ISO 45001:2018 و دروس ﻛﻠﻴــــﺪي رﺷــــﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ) را ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از راﺑﻄﻪ 9 ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ. داﻧﺸﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ HSE ﺑﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ 10 ﻣﻌﻴـﺎر و 54 ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻣﻨـﺘﺞ ﮔﺮدﻳـﺪ. 7 ﻣﻌﻴـﺎر و 28 ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ، از ﻧـﻮع ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ و 3 ﻣﻌﻴـﺎر و 26 ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ، از ﺟـﻨﺲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ. ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن ﻃﻲ ﭘﺮﺳﺸـﻨﺎﻣﻪ اﻧﺘﺨـﺎب ﺳـﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎي در ﻧﺘﻴﺠــﻪ ﻣﺤﺎﺳــﺒﺎت ﺑــﺎﻻ ﻣﻲﺗــﻮان ﻣــﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ ﻓﻮاﺻــﻞ HSE، ﺑﺮاي ﻫﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻨﺠﻪ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﻧﻤﻮدﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29. 24
ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE در ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ
ﺟﺪول 5- ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎ، زﻳﺮﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎ، ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪه و ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎي HSE اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺷﺪه ﻣﻌﻴﺎر زﻳﺮﻣﻌﻴﺎر ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺷﻤﺎره ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﻨﺘﺨﺐ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ 1 ﻣﺤﻴﻂ 1-1 درك ﻧﻴﺎزﻫﺎ و اﻧﺘﻈﺎرات ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن و 1 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺗﻌﺪاد ﻧﻴﺎزﻫﺎ و اﻧﺘﻈﺎرات ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪه ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن و ﻃﺮفﻫﺎي ذﻳﻨﻔﻊ در ﺣﻮزه HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻧﻴﺎزﻫﺎ و اﻧﺘﻈﺎرات ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﻃﺮفﻫﺎي ذﻳﻨﻔﻊ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن و ﻃﺮفﻫﺎي ذﻳﻨﻔﻊ در ﺣﻮزه HSE 2 رﻫﺒﺮي 2-1 رﻫﺒﺮي و ﺗﻌﻬﺪ 2 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﺪﻳﺮان داراي ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺖﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ HSE ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺪﻳﺮان 2-2 ﺧﻂﻣﺸﻲ 3 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد در ﺧﻂﻣﺸﻲ HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺑﺎﻳﺴﺘﻪ 2-3 ﻧﻘﺶﻫﺎ، ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺖﻫﺎ و اﺧﺘﻴﺎرات ﺳﺎزﻣﺎﻧﻲ 4 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ 2-4 ﻣﺸﺎرﻛﺖ، ﻣﺸﺎورت و ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪﮔﻲ 5 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن ﻣﺸﺎرﻛﺖ ﻛﻨﻨﺪه / ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد دﻫﻨﺪه در ﺣﻮزه HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن 3 ﻃﺮحرﻳﺰي 3-1 ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات و ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎي HSE 6 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات و ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎي HSE ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ، ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ و ﺛﺒﺖ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات و ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎي HSE 3-2 ﺗﻌﻬﺪات ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ 7 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺗﻌﻬﺪات ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ HSE ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻛﺎرﺑﺮد ﺷﺪه در واﺣﺪﻫﺎ / ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺖﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻌﻬﺪات ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ HSE 3-3 اﻫﺪاف HSE 8 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ اﻫﺪاف ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺷﺪه HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ اﻫﺪاف HSE 3-4 ﻃﺮحرﻳﺰي اﻗﺪاﻣﺎت ﺟﻬﺖ دﺳﺘﻴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ 9 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ اﻗﺪاﻣﺎت دﺳﺘﻴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ اﻫﺪاف HSE ﺑﺎ وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي ﺑﺎﻳﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ اﻗﺪاﻣﺎت دﺳﺘﻴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ اﻫﺪاف HSE اﻫﺪاف HSE 4 ﭘﺸﺘﻴﺒﺎﻧﻲ 4-1 ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ 10 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ رﻳﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﺄﻣﻴﻦ ﺷﺪه ﺑﺮاي HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺑﺎﻳﺴﺘﻪ HSE 4-2 ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺖ 11 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن داراي ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺖ ﺑﺮوز رﺳﺎﻧﻲ ﺷﺪه ﺑﺮاي ﺷﻐﻞ ﻣﺤﻮﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن 4-3 آﮔﺎﻫﻲ 12 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻧﻔﺮ ﺳﺎﻋﺖ آﻣﻮزش دﻳﺪه در ﺣﻮزه HSE ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﺮ ﺳﺎﻋﺖ ﻧﻴﺎز ﺳﻨﺠﻲ ﺷﺪه در ﺣﻮزه HSE 4-4 ارﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎت 13 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻃﺮفﻫﺎي ذﻳﻨﻔﻊ اﻃﻼع رﺳﺎﻧﻲ ﺷﺪه درﺧﺼﻮص ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت HSE ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻮع ارﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻃﺮفﻫﺎي ذﻳﻨﻔﻊ 4-5 اﻃﻼﻋﺎت ﻣﺪون 14 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ HSE ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺪ و ﺑﺮوز رﺳﺎﻧﻲ ﺷﺪه و ﺗﺤﺖ ﻛﻨﺘﺮل ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ HSE (ﻃﺒﻖ ﺑﻨﺪ 5-7) 5 ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت 5-1 ﻃﺮحرﻳﺰي و ﻛﻨﺘﺮل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت (ﻋﺎدي) 15 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎتﻫﺎي داراي ﻛﺎرﺑﺮگ ﺑﺎزﺑﻴﻨﻲ و ﻛﻨﺘﺮل ﺷﺪه از ﺣﻴﺚ HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎتﻫﺎي ﻧﻴﺎزﻣﻨﺪ ﻛﻨﺘﺮل از ﺣﻴﺚ HSE 5-2 ﻃﺮحرﻳﺰي و ﻛﻨﺘﺮل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت ﺧﻄﺮﻧﺎك 16 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ اﻧﻮاع ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت ﺧﻄﺮﻧﺎك ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ اﻧﻮاع ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت ﺧﻄﺮﻧﺎك ﻣﻮﺟﻮد 5-3 ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ 17 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات اﻧﺠﺎم ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﭘﺲ از اﺧﺬ ﻣﺠﻮز ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات اﻧﺠﺎم ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻧﻴﺎزﻣﻨﺪ ﻣﺠﻮز ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ 5-4 ﺗﻬﻴﻪ و ﺗﺪارك ﻛﺎﻻ 18 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎﻻ، ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰات و ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﺎت ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷﺪه از ﺣﻴﺚ HSE ﭘﻴﺶ از ﺧﺮﻳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎﻻ، ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰات و ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﺎت ﺧﺮﻳﺪاري ﺷﺪه 5-5 ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻧﻜﺎران 19 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺷﺮﻛﺖﻫﺎي ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻧﻜﺎري و ﺗﺄﻣﻴﻦ ﻛﻨﻨﺪه ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷﺪه از ﺣﻴﺚ HSE (ﻗﺒﻞ و ﺣﻴﻦ ﻗﺮارداد) ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺮﻛﺖﻫﺎي ﻧﻴﺎزﻣﻨﺪ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ 5-6 ﻃﺮﺣﺮﻳﺰي آﻣﺎدﮔﻲ و واﻛﻨﺶ در وﺿﻌﻴﺎت 20 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ رزﻣﺎﻳﺶﻫﺎي اﺟﺮا ﺷﺪه درﺧﺼﻮص وﺿﻌﻴﺎت اﺿﻄﺮاري ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺪاد اﻧﻮاع وﺿﻌﻴﺎت اﺿﻄﺮاري ﻣﺤﺘﻤﻞ اﺿﻄﺮاري 6 ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ 6-1 ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE 21 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ دﻓﻌﺎت ﭘﺎﻳﺶ، اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي، واﻛﺎوي و ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﺑﻪ دﻓﻌﺎت ﭘﺎﻳﺶ، اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي، واﻛﺎوي و ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﺑﺎﻳﺴﺘﻪ 6-2 ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ اﻧﻄﺒﺎق 22 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺗﻌﻬﺪات ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ رﻋﺎﻳﺖ ﺷﺪه HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻌﻬﺪات ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ HSE 6-3 ﻣﻤﻴﺰي داﺧﻠﻲ 23 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ اﻗﺪاﻣﺎت ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺷﺪه ﻣﺮﺑﻮط ﺑﻪ ﻣﻤﻴﺰيﻫﺎي HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ اﻗﺪاﻣﺎت ﺻﺎدره از ﻣﻤﻴﺰيﻫﺎي HSE 6-4 ﺑﺎزﻧﮕﺮي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ 24 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﺼﻮﺑﺎت ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺷﺪه ﻣﺮﺑﻮط ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎزﻧﮕﺮيﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺼﻮﺑﺎت ﺻﺎدره از ﺑﺎزﻧﮕﺮيﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE 7 ﺑﻬﺒﻮد 7-1 ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ روﻳﺪادﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ 25 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ روﻳﺪادﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ (ﺣﻮادث و ﺷﺒﻪ ﺣﻮادث ﻧﺎﺷﻲ از ﻛﺎر) ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ، ﺛﺒﺖ و ﮔﺰارش ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ روﻳﺪادﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ 7-2 ﭘﻴﮕﻴﺮي روﻳﺪادﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ 26 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ روﻳﺪادﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﺖﻳﺎﺑﻲ و رﻓﻊ ﻋﻠﺖ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ روﻳﺪادﻫﺎي ﺷﻐﻠﻲ رﺧﺪاده 7-3 ﻋﺪم اﻧﻄﺒﺎق و اﻗﺪام اﺻﻼﺣﻲ 27 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ اﻗﺪاﻣﺎت ﻛﺎﻫﻨﺪه (ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات و ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎي HSE داراي اﻟﺰام ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻲ و ﺑﺎرز) و اﺻﻼﺣﻲ (ﻋﺪم اﻧﻄﺒﺎقﻫﺎي ﻣﻤﻴﺰي و ...) ﻣﺤﻘﻖ و ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ اﺛﺮﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ 7-4 ﺑﻬﺒﻮد ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ 28 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ دﻓﻌﺎت ارﺗﻘﺎء ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ دﻓﻌﺎت ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ 2 دوره ﻣﺘﻮاﻟﻲ
ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ اﻫﻤﻴﺖ اﻳﺸـﺎن ﺳـﻨﺠﻪ ﻣﻨﺘﺨـﺐ ﺗﻌﻴـﻴﻦ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ و ﺑﺪون اﺣﺘﺴﺎب ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ اﻧﺠﺎم ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺖ ﻛـﻪ ﮔﺮدﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ آن در ﺟﺪول 5 ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﻣﻲﺷﻮد. ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ آن در ﺟﺪول 7 ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﻣﻲﺷﻮد. ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ وزندﻫﻲ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ از ﺳﻮي ﺧﺒﺮﮔﺎن و ﻣﺤﺎﺳـﺒﻪ اوزان آنﻫــﺎ، ﺑــﺎ روﻳﻜــﺮد ﻓﺮاﻳﻨــﺪ ﺳﻠﺴــﻠﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺒــﻲ ﻓــﺎزي ﺑﺤﺚ و ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪﮔﻴﺮي (FAHP) ﺑﻪ روش واﻛﺎوي ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪاي (EA) در ﺟـﺪول 6 ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ را از زواﻳـﺎي ﮔﻮﻧـﺎﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﻣﻲﺗـﻮان ﻣـﻮرد ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه اﺳﺖ. ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ و ﻣﺪاﻗـﻪ ﻗـﺮار داد ﻛـﻪ در ﭘـﻲ ﺑـﻪ ﺑﺨﺸـﻲ از آن ﺑــﺮ اﺳــﺎس ﻧﺘــﺎﻳﺞ ﺣﺎﺻــﻠﻪ از ﻣﺮﺣﻠــﻪ ﻗﺒــﻞ (ﻳﻌﻨــﻲ ﺧﻮاﻫﻴﻢ ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ. ﻫﻤﺎﻧﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ در ﺑﺨﺶﻫﺎي ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻦ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﻮزون HSE) ﺑـﻪ ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد HSE 5 اﺷﺎره ﮔﺮدﻳﺪ ﺗﻌﺪاد ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎ و ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣـﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﺑـﻪ ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﻓﻌﺎل در ﻋﺮﺻﻪ ﺳـﺎﺧﺖ ﺷـﻨﺎور ﭘـﺮداﺧﺘﻴﻢ. اﻳـﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴــﺐ 7 و 28 ﻣــﻮرد و ﺗﻌــﺪاد ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫــﺎ و ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﺎت ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ روش ﺗﺎﻛﺴﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﺎ اﺣﺘﺴـﺎب اوزان ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ 3 و 26 ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﺪ ﺑـﺎ اﻳـﻦ ﺣـﺎل 25
25 Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
رﺿﺎ رﻣﻀﺎﻧﻴﺎن و ﻫﻤﻜﺎر
ﺟﺪول 5- اداﻣﻪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎر زﻳﺮﻣﻌﻴﺎر ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺷﻤﺎره ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﻨﺘﺨﺐ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ 8 اﻳﻤﻨﻲ 8-1 اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ (S5) 29 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺖ / ﺣﺠﻢ ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار از ﻧﻈﺎم آراﺳﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺖ / ﺣﺠﻢ ﻛﻞ 8-2 اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎن 30 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺖ / ﺣﺠﻢ ﺳﺎزه اﻳﻤﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺖ / ﺣﺠﻢ ﻛﻞ ﺳﺎزهﻫﺎ 8-3 اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﺑﺮق 31 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﺎت و دﺳﺘﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﺑﺮﻗﻲ اﻳﻤﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﺎت و دﺳﺘﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﺑﺮﻗﻲ 8-4 اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﺣﺮﻳﻖ 32 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺣﺮﻳﻖﻫﺎي ﺑﻤﻮﻗﻊ اﻋﻼم / اﻃﻔﺎء ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺣﺮﻳﻖﻫﺎ 8-5 اﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﻣﺎﺷﻴﻦ آﻻت و ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰات 33 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﺎﺷﻴﻦ آﻻت / ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰات اﻳﻤﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎﺷﻴﻦ آﻻت / ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰات PPE 6-8 34 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻛﻨﻨﺪه از PPE ﺑﻄﻮر ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن ﻧﻴﺎزﻣﻨﺪ PPE 9 ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺖ 9-1 ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور 9-1-1 ﺻﺪا 35 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﺻﺪاي ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﺻﺪا ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻜﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز 9-1-2 ارﺗﻌﺎش 36 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ارﺗﻌﺎش ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ارﺗﻌﺎش 9-1-3 روﺷﻨﺎﻳﻲ 37 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار از روﺷﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻄﻠﻮب ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن 9-1-4 ﭘﺮﺗﻮ 38 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﭘﺮﺗﻮ ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﭘﺮﺗﻮ 9-1-5 ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ 39 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار از ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺟﻮي (دﻣﺎ، رﻃﻮﺑﺖ و ﺟﺮﻳﺎن ﻫﻮا) ﻣﻄﻠﻮب ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن ﺟﻮي 9-1-6 ﻓﺸﺎر ﻫﻮا 40 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻓﺸﺎر ﻫﻮاي ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻓﺸﺎر ﻫﻮاي ﻧﺎﻣﺘﻌﺎرف 9-2 ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور 9-2-1 ﺟﺎﻣﺪات 41 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﺟﺎﻣﺪات ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﺟﺎﻣﺪات ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز 9-2-2 ﻣﺎﻳﻌﺎت 42 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻣﺎﻳﻌﺎت ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻣﺎﻳﻌﺎت ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ 9-2-3 ﮔﺎزﻫﺎ / 43 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﮔﺎزﻫﺎ / ﺑﺨﺎرات ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﮔﺎزﻫﺎ / ﺑﺨﺎرات ﺑﺨﺎرات ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ 9-2-4 ذرات 44 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ذرات ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ذرات ﺷﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻲ 9-3 ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور زﻳﺴﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز 45 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور زﻳﺴﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور زﻳﺴﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ 9-4 ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور ارﮔﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز 46 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور ارﮔﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور ارﮔﻮﻧﻮﻣﻲ 9-5 ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور رواﻧﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز 47 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور رواﻧﻲ ﻣﺠﺎز ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن در ﻣﻌﺮض ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور رواﻧﻲ 9-6 ﻃﺐ ﻛﺎر (ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻨﺎت و آزﻣﺎﻳﺶﻫﺎي ﭘﺰﺷﻜﻲ 48 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻨﻪ و آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ ﺑﺪو اﺳﺘﺨﺪام و دورهاي ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﻨﺎن اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻲ و ﻣﻮﺟﻮد ﺑﺪو اﺳﺘﺨﺪام و دورهاي) 10 ﻣﺤﻴﻂ 10 - 1 ﻫﻮا 49 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻫﻮاي ﭘﺎك (ﻏﻴﺮآﻟﻮده) ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮه ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻫﻮاي ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮه ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ زﻳﺴﺖ 10 - 2 آب 50 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ آب ﺳﺎﻟﻢ (ﻏﻴﺮ آﻟﻮده) ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮه ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ آب ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮه ﺑﻪ آبﻫﺎي ﺟﺎري ﻳﺎ زﻳﺮ زﻣﻴﻨﻲ 10 - 3 ﺧﺎك 51 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﺴﻤﺎﻧﺪ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪي ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﺎزﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻣﺠﺪد ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﭘﺴﻤﺎﻧﺪ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪي 10 - 4 اﻧﺮژي 52 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ اﻧﺮژي ﻣﺼﺮﻓﻲ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ اﻧﺮژي ﻣﺼﺮﻓﻲ 10 - 5 ﻣﻮاد 53 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﻮاد ﻣﺼﺮﻓﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﺎزﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮاد ﻣﺼﺮﻓﻲ 10 - 6 ﻣﺤﺼﻮل 54 ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﺤﺼﻮﻻت ﺑﺪون ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات و ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎي HSE ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺤﺼﻮﻻت
ﻣﺠﻤﻮع وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﻣﻌﺎدل 5/40 درﺻﺪ و ﻋﻤﻠﻜــﺮد اﺳــﺖ ﻛــﻪ ﻧﻴﺎزﻣﻨــﺪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫــﺎ و ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮع وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﻣﻌـﺎدل 5/59 درﺻـﺪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE-MS ﻧﻴـﺰ از اﻳـﻦ ﻗﺎﻋـﺪه ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ اﻳﻦ ارﻗﺎم ﺣـﺎﻛﻲ از آن اﺳـﺖ ﻛـﻪ ﺑـﺎ وﺟـﻮد ﻣﺴﺘﺜﻨﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ وﻟﻲ آﻧﭽﻪ ﻣﻬﻢ اﺳﺖ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎ و ﺗﻌﺪاد ﺑﻴﺸـﺘﺮ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣـﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ، وزن و در ﻧﺘﻴﺠـﻪ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ و ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ در ﻛﻨـﺎر ﻫـﻢ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﺪ اﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ در ارزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد HSE ﻛﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮي واﻗﻌﻲ از ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE-MS ﺳـﺎزﻣﺎن اراﺋـﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ اﺳﺖ. در ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎي HSE، 3 ﻣﻌﻴﺎر ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ. ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ وﺟﻮد، اﻳـﻦ ﺷـﺮط ﻻزم اﺳـﺖ اﻣـﺎ ﻛـﺎﻓﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ اوزان را ﺑﻪ ﺧـﻮد اﺧﺘﺼـﺎص داده و ﭘـﺲ از آن ﻧﻴﺴﺖ. ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎرت دﻳﮕـﺮ اﻳـﻦ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻴﻔـﻲ ﻓﻘـﻂ ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﻗﺮار ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ (ﻧﻤﻮدار 2). ﻋﺒــﺎراﺗﻲ ﻣــﺒﻬﻢ و ﺳﺮﺑﺴــﺘﻪ اراﺋــﻪ ﻣﻲدﻫــﺪ ﻛــﻪ ﺟﻬــﺖ ﻧﻤــﻮدار 3 ﺷــﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ را ﺑــﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴــﺐ وزن و ﻓــﺎرغ از ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎت درون و ﺑﺮون ﺳﺎزﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﺎرﺑﺮد ﭼﻨﺪاﻧﻲ ﻧﺪارد. از ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪي ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎ، ﺟﻬﺖ درك ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﻫـﺮ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ اﻳﻦ رو ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ ﺑﺮاي ﺳـﻨﺠﺶ وﺿـﻌﻴﺖ ﻫـﺮ ﺷـﺎﺧﺺ، در ﺑﻴﻦ دﻳﮕﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﮔﺬارده اﺳـﺖ. ﻫﻤـﺎن ﺳﻨﺠﻪاي ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻧﻤﻮد ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻛﻤﻲ اراﺋﻪ دﻫﺪ ﻛﻪ اﻳـﻦ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﻬﻮد اﺳﺖ 6 ﺷﺎﺧﺺ اول ﻛﻪ داراي ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ اﻣﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻫـﺮ ﺳـﺎزﻣﺎن در ﺑﺎزهﻫـﺎي زﻣـﺎﻧﻲ وزن ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻫﻤﮕـﻲ از ﻧـﻮع ﺷـﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ و 6 ﻣﺘﻔﺎوت ﻛﻤﻚ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ اﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﺿﻌﻒ آن، ﻋـﺪم ﻛـﺎرﺑﺮد ﺷﺎﺧﺺ آﺧﺮ ﻛـﻪ داراي ﻛﻤﺘـﺮﻳﻦ وزن ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﻨﺪ از ﻧـﻮع در ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﺑﻴﻦ دو ﻳـﺎ ﭼﻨـﺪ ﺳـﺎزﻣﺎن ﺑـﺎ وﺟـﻮد ﺷﺎﺧﺺه اي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ. ﺗﻔﺎوت ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ. اﻳﻦ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﺿﻌﻒ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺴـﺒﻲ ﺑﻄﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد ﺑﺨـﺶ ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺗﻲ ﻣـﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﻛﺮدن ﺳﻨﺠﻪﻫﺎ ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪاي ﻛـﻪ دﺳـﺖ
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29. 26
ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE در ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ
ﺟﺪول 6- رﺗﺒﻪ و وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE ﺷﻤﺎره رﺗﺒﻪ وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺷﻤﺎره رﺗﺒﻪ وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺧﺎم ﺑﻲﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺧﺎم ﺑﻲﻣﻘﻴﺎس 0/01652 0/48595 32 28 0/00933 0/27431 46 1 0/02969 0/87331 6 29 0/02102 0/61823 24 2 0/01852 0/54492 27 30 0/01235 0/36316 40 3 0/02603 0/76565 13 31 0/00579 0/17029 50 4 0/02613 0/76863 11 32 0/00649 0/19097 49 5 0/03071 0/90336 4 33 0/01400 0/41172 37 6 0/02261 0/66504 21 34 0/01377 0/40501 39 7 0/01641 0/48256 33 35 0/01409 0/41460 36 8 0/00935 0/27492 45 36 0/00536 0/15756 51 9 0/01797 0/52854 31 37 0/01078 0/31699 41 10 0/02353 0/69218 19 38 0/01445 0/42515 34 11 0/01872 0/55066 26 39 0/01880 0/55288 25 12 0/00691 0/20322 48 40 0/00054 0/01579 54 13 0/00917 0/26975 47 41 0/01047 0/30807 42 14 0/01392 0/40945 38 42 0/01025 0/30143 43 15 0/03108 0/91433 3 43 0/01846 0/54295 29 16 0/03393 0/99802 2 44 0/02180 0/64134 22 17 0/03056 0/89881 5 45 0/00393 0/11554 53 18 0/02138 0/62882 23 46 0/01413 0/41564 35 19 0/02888 0/84951 8 47 0/01849 0/54382 28 20 0/01824 0/53651 30 48 0/02788 0/82014 9 21 0/02439 0/71758 17 49 0/00986 0/29001 44 22 0/02611 0/76805 12 50 0/00501 0/14727 52 23 0/02616 0/76956 10 51 0/02271 0/66788 20 24 0/02491 0/73260 16 52 0/02906 0/85468 7 25 0/02573 0/75696 15 53 0/02585 0/76048 14 26 0/03400 1 1 54 0/02382 0/70053 18 27
ﺟﺪول 7- ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ و ﺑﺪون اﺣﺘﺴﺎب اوزان ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎ اﻟﮕﻮي ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﮕﻲ (Cio) ﻣﻴﺰان ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﮕﻲ (Fi) رﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن
ﻫﺎ ﺑﺪون اﺣﺘﺴﺎب اوزان ﺑﺎ اﺣﺘﺴﺎب اوزان ﺑﺪون اﺣﺘﺴﺎب اوزان ﺑﺎ اﺣﺘﺴﺎب اوزان ﺑﺪون اﺣﺘﺴﺎب اوزان ﺑﺎ اﺣﺘﺴﺎب اوزان 1 1 0/864 0/950 44/629 49/796 1 2 3 0/884 0/960 45/650 50/321 2 3 2 0/917 0/954 47/385 49/957 3 4 4 0/943 0/970 48/705 50/822 4 5 5 0/968 0/993 50/010 52/040 5
ﻛﻢ، ﺗﻔﺎوت ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎ از ﺣﻴﺚ اﻧﺪازه، ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮي در ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴـﻪ ﻣﻲزﻧﺪ، ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺖﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ اﺳـﺖ ﻫـﺮ ﭼﻨـﺪ ﻛـﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد آنﻫﺎ ﻧﺨﻮاﻫﺪ ﮔﺬاﺷﺖ. ﺑﺮﺧﺎﺳــﺘﻪ از روﻳﻜﺮدﻫــﺎ و ﻛﺎرﻛﺮدﻫــﺎي ﻣــﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ ﺑﺎﺷــﺪ. اﻳــﻦ ﭘــﮋوﻫﺶ ﺿــﻤﻦ ﺗﺄﻳﻴــﺪ ﻻزم و ﻣﻠــﺰوم ﺑــﻮدن ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺮاي ارﺗﻘﺎء ﺳﻄﺢ ﻋﻤﻠﻜـﺮد HSE ﺳـﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ و ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﺮاي ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ واﻗﻊﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﺻـــﻨﻌﺘﻲ، ﭘﻴﺎدهﺳـــﺎزي و ﻋﻤﻠﻴـــﺎﺗﻲ ﻛـــﺮدن ﻣﻔـــﺎد ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ، ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ اﺳـﺘﺎﻧﺪاردﻫﺎي ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻃـﻪ از ﺟﻤﻠـﻪ ISO 14001:2015 و ﺑﻮدن وزن ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ، - ﺑﺎ ISO 45001:2018 ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺤﻮي ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ در ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑـﻪ وﺟﻮد ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻮدن ﺗﻌﺪاد ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺘﻲ – ﺣﺎﻛﻲ ﺣﺬف، ﻛﺎﻫﺶ و ﻳﺎ ﻣﻬﺎر ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮات اﻳﻤﻨﻲ، ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ زﻳﺎنآور از آن اﺳﺖ آﻧﭽﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد HSE را ﺑﻴﺶ از ﻫﺮ ﭼﻴﺰ ﻣﺤﻚ ﺑﻬﺪاﺷﺘﻲ و ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎي زﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﻛﺎر اﻧﺠﺎﻣﺪ. 27
27 Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29.
رﺿﺎ رﻣﻀﺎﻧﻴﺎن و ﻫﻤﻜﺎر
ﻧﻤﻮدار 2- اوزان ﻣﻌﻴﺎرﻫﺎي HSE
ﻧﻤﻮدار 3- اوزان ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي HSE
trends, and strategies. Scand J Work Environ Health. References 2009;35(15). 1. Hämäläinen P. The effect of globalization on 6. Morrell S, Kerr C, Driscoll T, Taylor R, Salkeld G, occupational accidents. Safe Sci. 2009;47(6):733- Corbett S. Best estimate of the magnitude of 742. mortality due to occupational exposure to hazardous 2. Yarahmadi R, Shakouhi F, Taheri F, Moridi P. substances. Occup Environ Med. 1998;55(9):634- Prioritizing occupational safety and health indexes 641. based on the multi criteria decision making in 7. Hämäläinen P, Takala J, Saarela KL. Global construction industries. Iran Occup Health. Feb-Mar estimates of occupational accidents. Safe Sci. 2016;12(6). [Persian] 2006;44(2):137-156. 3. Gholami PS, Nassiri P, Yarahmadi R, Hamidi A, 8. Golkar F, Farahmand AR. Environmental Mirkazemi R. Assessment of Health Safety and Pollution, Tehran: Mandegar, 2010. [Persian]. Environment Management System function in 9. Iran Statistics Center. Thematic Statistics, contracting companies of one of the petro-chemistry Environment, 2012. http://www.amar.org.ir/Default. industries in Iran, a case study. Safe Sci. 2015 Aug aspx?tabid=96&agentType=ViewType&PropertyTy 31;77:42-7. peI=13 (Access on 2015.09.04). [Persian]. 4. Takala J, Hämäläinen P, Saarela KL, Yun LY, 10. Peysepar S, Gholamnia R, Hossein Matin A. Manickam K, Jin TW, et al. Global estimates of the Developing a new model for assessing and ranking burden of injury and illness at work in 2012. J Occup of organizations’ HSE performance. Iran Occup Environl Hyg. 2014;11(5):326-337. Health. 2017-2018;14(5). [Persian]. 5. Takala J, Urrutia M, Hämäläinen P, Saarela KL. 11. Ahmadi Marzaleh M, Vosoughi S, Kavousi A, Global and European work environment—Numbers, Jameh Bozorg H. Investigating the relation between
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2020 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29. 28
ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ و اوﻟﻮﻳﺖﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ HSE در ﺳﺎزﻣﺎنﻫﺎي ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ
level of awareness in health, safety and environment Measur Bus Excell. 2010;14(2):66-76. management system and its effects on employee 25. Rodriguez RR, Saiz JJA, Bas AO. Quantitative safety climate in Kermanshah oil refinery in 2015. relationships between key performance indicators for Iran OccupHealth. 2017;14(3). [Persian] supporting decision-making processes. Comput 12. Podgórski D. Measuring operational performance Indust. 2009;60(2):104-113. of OSH management system–A demonstration of 26. Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The balanced scorecard: AHP-based selection of leading key performance measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev. indicators. Saf Sci. 2015;73:146-166. 1992;70(1):71-9. 13. Robson LS, Clarke JA, Cullen K, Bielecky A, 27. Sgourou E, Katsakiori P, Goutsos S, Manatakis E. Severin C, Bigelow PL, et al. The effectiveness of Assessment of selected safety performance occupational health and safety management system evaluation methods in regards to their conceptual, interventions: a systematic review. Safe Sci. methodological and practical characteristics. Safe 2007;45(3):329-353. Sci. 2010;48(8):1019-1025. 14. ISO (International Organization for 28. Irannezhad Parizi M. Principles of dissertation Standardization), Environmental Management - writing (from selection to final defense), Tehran: Environmental Performance Evaluation - Guidelines Modiran, 2013. [Persian]. (ISO 14031:2013). ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. 29. Yousefi A, Hadi-Vencheh A. An integrated group 15. Reiman T, Pietikäinen E. Indicators of safety decision making model and its evaluation by DEA culture–selection and utilization of leading safety for automobile industry. Expert Syst Appl. 2010 Dec performance indicators. Finland: VTT, 2010. 1;37(12):8543-56. 16. Reiman T, Pietikäinen E. Leading indicators of 30. Azar A, Rajabzadeh A. Applied Decision Making, system safety–monitoring and driving the MADM Approach, Tehran: Neghah Danesh, 2012. organizational safety potential. Safe Sci. [Persian]. 2012;50(10):1993-2000. Shamaii A, Omidvari M, Hossein zadeh F. 17. Cambon J, Guarnieri F, Groeneweg J. Towards a Presenting of pattern of HSE unit performance new tool for measuring safety management systems assessment in the steel industries. Iran Occup Health. performance. In: Rigaud, E., Hollnagel, E. (Eds). 2017;14(3). [Persian] Proceedings of the Second Resilience Engineering Symposium, 8-10 November. 2006. Antibes-Juan-
les-Pins, France, Mines Paris, Les presses, Paris, 2005:53-62. 18. HSE (Health and Safety Executive), A Guide to Measuring Health & Safety Performance. Health and Safety Executive, UK, 2001.
Iran Occupational health. 2019-2-20 (Dec-Jan);16(5):14-29. 29