Abstract

The scenario of industrial safety has been shifting significantly within the last 50 years, with the meaning of which is the transition to the design that is inherently safe (ISD) as the most effective tool for preventing hazards. It has been stated statistically that industrial accidents can be reduced by as much as 85 percent through the systematic delivery of the principles of ISD, which are referred to as minimization, substitution, moderation, and simplification. In this paper, we are taking a historical look at the development of ISD since the post-Flixborough period, its integration into the contemporary regulation, and the interaction of technology, human factors, and safety performance. There is a focus on measurable performance indicators, financial value, and life-cycle principles of implementation, through the facility life stages. High technologies, including digital twins, real-time monitoring systems, and predictive analytics, are mentioned as the factors contributing to a more rapid adoption of ISD, whereas human factors engineering is mentioned as one of the key factors ensuring sustained operations safety. In the findings, it was confirmed that the ISD actually enhances the implementation of process safety and regulatory compliance, besides bringing huge savings, lower insurance premiums, and enhancing the emergency process both in terms of cost and time. This study highlights the timelessness of the mission to eradicate hazards at the source as the only foolproof method of ensuring industrial processes are not jeopardised in the age of Industry 4.0 and beyond.

Keywords

  • privacy management
  • perceived risk
  • perceived trust
  • perceived control
  • social media algorithm
  • behavioral intention

References

  1. 1. Amyotte, P. R., & Khan, F. I. (2021). The role of inherently safer design in process safety. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 99(4), 853–871. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.23987
  2. 2. Attaran, M., & Celik, B. G. (2023). Digital Twin: Benefits, use cases, challenges, and opportunities. Decision Analytics Journal, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100165
  3. 3. Aven, T. (2016, August 16). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023
  4. 4. Broby, D. (2022, November 1). The use of predictive analytics in finance. Journal of Finance and Data Science. KeAi Communications Co. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfds.2022.05.003
  5. 5. Brown, K. R., VanBerkel, P., Khan, F. I., & Amyotte, P. R. (2021). Application of bow tie analysis and inherently safer design to the novel coronavirus hazard. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 152, 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.06.046
  6. 6. Choi, G. H., & Loh, B. G. (2017). Control of Industrial Safety Based on Dynamic Characteristics of a Safety Budget-Industrial Accident Rate Model in Republic of Korea. Safety and Health at Work, 8(2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2016.11.002
  7. 7. Dhital, Y. P., & Tang, Q. (2015). Soil bioengineering application for flood hazard minimization in the foothills of Siwaliks, Nepal. Ecological Engineering, 74, 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.11.020
  8. 8. J., González-Gaya, C., & Rosales-Prieto, V. F. (2020). An approach to health and safety assessment in industrial parks. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093646
  9. 9. Fu, G., Xie, X., Jia, Q., Tong, W., & Ge, Y. (2020). Accidents analysis and prevention of coal and gas outburst: Understanding human errors in accidents. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 134, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.11.026
  10. 10. Goode, S. R. (2021). Using a Case Study to Teach Hazard Analysis and Risk Minimization. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(1), 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00127
  11. 11. Glasauer, C. (2023). The PREVENT-Model: Human and Organizational Factors Fostering Engineering of Safe and Secure Robotic Systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111548
  12. 12. Gurtu, A., & Johny, J. (2021). Supply chain risk management: Literature review. Risks. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9010016
  13. 13. Habel, J., Alavi, S., & Heinitz, N. (2023). A theory of predictive sales analytics adoption. AMS Review, 13(1–2), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-022-00252-0
  14. 14. Huang, R., Liu, H., Ma, H., Qiang, Y., Pan, K., Gou, X., … Glowacz, A. (2022). Accident Prevention Analysis: Exploring the Intellectual Structure of a Research Field. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148784
  15. 15. Janošovský, J., Rosa, I., Vincent, G., Šulgan, B., Variny, M., Labovská, Z., … Jelemenský, Ľ. (2022). Methodology for selection of inherently safer process design alternatives based on safety indices. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 160, 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.02.043
  16. 16. Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Suman, R., & Gonzalez, E. S. (2022). Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in improving environmental sustainability. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008
  17. 17. Jones, D., Snider, C., Nassehi, A., Yon, J., & Hicks, B. (2020). Characterising the Digital Twin: A systematic literature review. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 29, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.02.002
  18. 18. Khan, A., Sattari, F., Lefsrud, L., & Tufail, M. (2021). Enhancing regional process safety management. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104444
  19. 19. Kletz, T. A. (2003). Inherently safer design - its scope and future. Process Safety and Environmental Protection: Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Part B, 81(6), 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1205/095758203770866566
  20. 20. Leggett, D. J. (2012). Identifying hazards in the chemical research laboratory. Process Safety Progress, 31(4), 393–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.11518
  21. 21. Mechhoud, E. A., Rouainia, M., & Rodriguez, M. (2016). A new tool for risk analysis and assessment in petrochemical plants. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55(3), 2919–2931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.05.013
  22. 22. Nwankwo, C. D., Theophilus, S. C., & Arewa, A. O. (2020). A comparative analysis of process safety management (PSM) systems in the process industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104171
  23. 23. Pylianidis, C., Osinga, S., & Athanasiadis, I. N. (2021). Introducing digital twins to agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105942
  24. 24. Rivera, A. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2008). Human Factors and Systems Engineering Approach to Patient Safety for Radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 71(1 SUPPL.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.088
  25. 25. Roblek, V., Meško, M., & Krapež, A. (2016). A Complex View of Industry 4.0. SAGE Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016653987
  26. 26. Rusli, R., Shariff, A. M., & Khan, F. I. (2013). Evaluating hazard conflicts using inherently safer design concept. Safety Science, 53, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.09.002
  27. 27. Singh, M., Fuenmayor, E., Hinchy, E. P., Qiao, Y., Murray, N., & Devine, D. (2021). Digital twin: Origin to future. Applied System Innovation. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi4020036
  28. 28. Sun, X., Houssin, R., Renaud, J., & Gardoni, M. (2019). A review of methodologies for integrating human factors and ergonomics in engineering design. International Journal of Production Research. Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1492161
  29. 29. Svertoka, E., Saafi, S., Rusu-Casandra, A., Burget, R., Marghescu, I., Hosek, J., & Ometov, A. (2021, June 1). Wearables for industrial work safety: A survey. Sensors. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21113844
  30. 30. Tao, F., Xiao, B., Qi, Q., Cheng, J., & Ji, P. (2022, July 1). Digital twin modeling. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.06.015
  31. 31. Van Calster, B., McLernon, D. J., Van Smeden, M., Wynants, L., Steyerberg, E. W., Bossuyt, P., … Vickers, A. J. (2019). Calibration: The Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Medicine, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7
  32. 32. Waqar, A., Othman, I., Falqi, I. I., Almujibah, H. R., Alshehri, A. M., Alsulamy, S. H., & Benjeddou, O. (2023). Assessment of Barriers to Robotics Process Automation (RPA) Implementation in Safety Management of Tall Buildings. Buildings, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071663
  33. 33. Xu, L. D., Xu, E. L., & Li, L. (2018). Industry 4.0: State of the art and future trends. International Journal of Production Research, 56(8), 2941–2962. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806
  34. 34. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96