Volume 15, Issue 2 (7-2025)
J Health Saf Work 2025, 15(2): 288-308 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Torbatian Mashhadi F, Ahmadi O. Selection, validation and prioritization of leading indicators of process safety performance: A case study on hydrocarbon liquid storage tanks. J Health Saf Work 2025; 15 (2) :288-308
URL: http://jhsw.tums.ac.ir/article-1-7159-en.html
URL: http://jhsw.tums.ac.ir/article-1-7159-en.html
1- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran ,o.ahmadi@modares.ac.ir
2- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran ,
Abstract: (1631 Views)
Introduction: Measuring and monitoring the process safety management system is essential to reduce the risk of accidents in process industries. For this purpose, lagging and leading process safety performance indicators are utilized. The aim of the present study is to select, validate and prioritize the leading indicators of process safety performance.
Material and Methods: First, the leading indicators associated with risk factors affecting hydrocarbon liquid tanks were identified and selected based on the guidelines provided by the CCPS, HSE UK, OGP, and relevant scholarly articles. After choosing the appropriate indicators, the content validity of the indicators was studied. In the next step, indicators with acceptable content validity were studied by experts in terms of applicability and importance using fuzzy weighting.
Results: Out of 18 performance indicators related to risk factors influencing the performance of operating personnel, 3 indicators were eliminated due to content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) scores below acceptable levels. The remaining 15 indicators advanced to the next stage of the study. All 4 indicators related to the performance of maintenance personnel achieved acceptable CVR and CVI scores and were also included in the next stage. Of the 13 indicators defined for equipment performance, 3 were excluded due to low CVR or CVI scores, and 10 progressed to the subsequent phase. For firefighters, 9 indicators were identified, of which 2 were eliminated due to low CVR or CVI, and 7 advanced to the next stage. In this stage, all 36 indicators achieved acceptable applicability scores and were subsequently weighted.
Conclusion: The 36 final indicators presented in this study can be used to measure process safety performance in the oil industry. Although the present study was a case study on liquid hydrocarbon tanks, most of the indicators presented can be applied to other sectors of the oil industry. In addition, the weights specified for each of these indicators can be used to prioritize the indicators.
Material and Methods: First, the leading indicators associated with risk factors affecting hydrocarbon liquid tanks were identified and selected based on the guidelines provided by the CCPS, HSE UK, OGP, and relevant scholarly articles. After choosing the appropriate indicators, the content validity of the indicators was studied. In the next step, indicators with acceptable content validity were studied by experts in terms of applicability and importance using fuzzy weighting.
Results: Out of 18 performance indicators related to risk factors influencing the performance of operating personnel, 3 indicators were eliminated due to content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) scores below acceptable levels. The remaining 15 indicators advanced to the next stage of the study. All 4 indicators related to the performance of maintenance personnel achieved acceptable CVR and CVI scores and were also included in the next stage. Of the 13 indicators defined for equipment performance, 3 were excluded due to low CVR or CVI scores, and 10 progressed to the subsequent phase. For firefighters, 9 indicators were identified, of which 2 were eliminated due to low CVR or CVI, and 7 advanced to the next stage. In this stage, all 36 indicators achieved acceptable applicability scores and were subsequently weighted.
Conclusion: The 36 final indicators presented in this study can be used to measure process safety performance in the oil industry. Although the present study was a case study on liquid hydrocarbon tanks, most of the indicators presented can be applied to other sectors of the oil industry. In addition, the weights specified for each of these indicators can be used to prioritize the indicators.
Type of Study: Research |
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
