The article presents an integrated safety system established at explosion- and fire-hazardous plants; the system requires continuous improvement and development. The transition of the system to a qualitatively new level is possible via using a justified expert method to determine the quantitative value (measure) of the influence of subsystems of industrial and fire safety, labor protection, and production structural units. This allows to detect significant gaps, develop measures to correct the deviations detected, and monitor the dynamics of improvement of influence factors within the established period for each subsystem (industrial and fire safety, labor protection, and structural production units).
The article aims to improve the condition of the integrated safety system at an enterprise via the assessment of the influence of personnel (industrial and fire safety, labor protection, and structural production units) performing their labor functions to ensure the high-quality functioning of the system. To achieve the goal, two problems had to be solved.
In the course of solving problem № 1, the justification for using the prioritizing method was provided; the method has a distinct advantage over the other expert methods of assessment, as it has no limits for boundary expansion in order to obtain adequate results. It has been demonstrated that the application of the prioritizing method and the Gaussian normal distribution function in conjunction enables solving problems by choosing a specific subsystem by experts (industrial and fire safety, labor protection, and structural production units) deviations of which, due to its flaws (errors), have caused the primary factors of damage from accidents and fires.
In the course of solving problem № 2, an example confirming the adequacy of the application of the prioritizing method together with the Gaussian normal distribution function was demonstrated.
Based on the systemic analysis of methods used in practice, the justification of application of the expert method that enables obtaining quantitative values displayed as the influence coefficient was obtained, which indicates certain deviations and enables the correction of the personnel management model (industrial and fire safety, labor protection, and structural production units).
2. Gvozdev E.V. Setting a problem on the rational allocation of a resource, intended to ensure integrated enterprise security. Available at: https://n-eu.iasv.ru/index.php/neu/article/view/134/256 (accessed: December 27, 2023).
3. Gvozdev E.V. The assessment of the integrated safety of Russian oil and gas enterprises. Pozharovzryvobezopasnost = Fire and Explosion Safety. 2022. Vol. 31. № 1. pp. 49–64. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22227/0869-7493.2022.31.01.49-64
4. Gvozdev E.V. Development of the Risk Management Methodology at the Fire Explosive Facilities of the Enterprises. Bezopasnost truda v promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2023. № 8. pp. 61–69. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2023-8-61-69
5. Gvozdev E.V. Setting and Solving the Problem of Developing an Integrated Safety System at the Explosion- and Fire-hazardous Production Facilities of the Enterprise. Bezopasnost truda v promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2023. № 10. pp. 45–53. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2023-10-45-53
6. Ghosh S., Zaboli A., Hong J., Kwon J. An Integrated Approach of Threat Analysis for Autonomous Vehicles Perception System. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=10041909 (accessed: December 27, 2023).
7. Blyumberg V.A., Glushchenko V.F. Which solution is better? The prioritizing method. Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1982. 160 p. (In Russ.).
8. Angermeier D., Wester H., Beilke K., Hansch G., Eichler J. Security Risk Assessments: Modeling and Risk Level Propagation. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems. 2023. Vol. 7. Iss. 1. DOI: 10.1145/3569458
9. Stroykov G.A., Babyr N.V., Ilin I.V., Marchenko R.S. System of comprehensive assessment of project risks in energy industry. International Journal of Engineering. 2021. Vol. 34. Iss. 7. рр. 1778–1784. DOI: 10.5829/IJE.2021.34.07A.22
10. Bapat R.B. A max version of the Perron-Frobenius theorem. Linear Algebra and Its Applications. 1998. Vol. 275–276. рр. 3–17. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3795(97)10057-X
11. Ramalho F.D., Silva I.S., Ekel P.Y., Martins C.A.P. da S., Bernardes P., Libório M.P. Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats. MethodsX. 2021. Vol. 8. DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101371
12. Belikov A.B., Simonyan V.V. Mathematical processing of the results of geodetic measurements: study manual. 2-e izd. Мoscow: NIU MGSU, 2016. 432 р. (In Russ.).
13. Alamdari A.M., Jabarzadeh Y., Adams B., Samson D., Khanmohammadi S. An analytic network process model to prioritize supply chain risks in green residential megaprojects. Operations Management Research. 2023. Vol. 16. № 9. рр. 141–163. DOI: 10.1007/s12063-022-00288-2
14. The normal probability distribution law. Available at: http://www.mathprofi.ru/normalnoe_raspredelenie_veroyatnostei.html (accessed: December 27, 2023). (In Russ.).
15. Dvulit P., Savchuk S., Sosonka I. Accuracy estimation of site coordinates derived from GNSS-observations by non-classical error theory of measurements. Geodesy and Geodynamics. 2021. Vol. 12. Iss. 5. рр. 347–355. DOI: 10.1016/j.geog.2021.07.005