PCA-I and AHP Methods: Unavoidable Arguments in Accident Scenario Classification
- PDF / 329,633 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 53 Downloads / 193 Views
TECHNICAL ARTICLE—PEER-REVIEWED
PCA-I and AHP Methods: Unavoidable Arguments in Accident Scenario Classification Hefaidh Hadef . Me´barek Djebabra
Submitted: 29 August 2018 ASM International 2019
Abstract Risk mapping is the foundation of the risk prevention strategy. It allows for the understanding of all factors that may affect the activities. It is a collective decision based on negotiation between the actors. Argument-based negotiation accelerates the negotiation process and converges it toward a final and common decision. It is in this context that this paper aims to illustrate the contribution of the improved PCA and AHP tools, considered as arguments, to the classification of major accident risks. Keywords Risks Cartography Accident Scenario Classification
Introduction The term ‘‘mapping’’ is commonly associated with the concept of risk, because risk mapping capitalizes spatial characteristics of risk dimensions (severity and frequency). It highlights an organization’s ability to manage its risks in order to promote efficiency [1]. Villneuves [2] qualified risk mapping as a modern tool for the graphic, synthetic and hierarchical representation of an organization’s risks to improve their productive performance and production in complete safety. According to [3], risk mapping participates in overall risk management to ensure protection and business H. Hadef LRPI Laboratory, Applied Engineering Department, Institute of Technology, University of Ouargla, Ouargla, Algeria M. Djebabra (&) LRPI Laboratory, University of Mostefa Benboulaid-Batna 2, Health and Safety Institute, 05200 Fesdis-Batna, Batna, Algeria e-mail: [email protected]
continuity. It makes it possible to involve the different managers to improve the risk level supported by the company. For Merad et al. [4], risk mapping in the area of risk management is used not only to visualize risks, but also to serve as a discussion interface between prevention actors and stakeholders. This risk mapping, commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk matrix’’, is a decision support tool for prioritizing scenarios that may lead to a major accident and, consequently, defining preventive and protective measures to control these major accident risks [5, 6]. Therefore, risk mapping should be governed by the negotiation concept for a better definition of risk acceptability. In this respect, we recall that the definition of risk acceptability is a collective decision, which, in certain circumstances, causes divergences between the actors involved in the risk assessment [4, 7–9]. The resolution of these divergences requires the search for a compromise accepted by the actors. In this context, the negotiation leads to reach common agreement through using of resources and methods, which considered as arguments [10]. Indeed, argument-based negotiation is able to convince the actors and, consequently, accelerates convergence toward the final decision. Several arguments can be used for better risk mapping. In classifying accident scenario, the most obvious is the
Data Loading...
