Transport and mining machinery cabins' ergonomic evaluation as a path to its redesign.

Transport and mining machinery cabins are still not well adapted to their users, while checklists for their evaluation are not common in the literature. This article proposes a new checklist for ergonomic evaluation and tests its universality empirically with a sample of 96 transport and mining machine operators. The objective of the article is two-fold. First, the article checks whether there are anthropometric dimension differences between different machines' operators. Second, statistical significance testing regarding items in the proposed checklist is performed to check its universality. Significant differences have not been found between anthropometric dimensions of transport and mining machine operators. Group comparisons prove that mining machines have better ergonomics characteristics of the chair, manual controls and vision field. The recommendation for crane designers is to examine mining machines solutions and analyze the possibility of adapting these solutions, due to anthropometric fit. Wide usage of the checklist is recommended.

Managers safety attitudes as organizational factors and pressure equipment risk predictor.

BACKGROUND: Change in current approach to develop methodologies for process risk assessment, where it is commenced from the process industry and exclusively hazardous materials are dealt with, into the approach where it will be commenced from pressure equipment within any context and both technical and organizational aspects are considered, can lead to the orientation of a more comprehensive approach to risk assessment, and thereby to better results in this area. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study implies the creation of a universal measurement instrument that will measure and quantify organizational factors impact on the risk of pressure equipment exploitation. METHODS: The research instrument was drawn from previous research and tested by the multivariate statistical methods using the sample size of 253. RESULTS: The confirmatory factor analysis conducted shows that the most influencing organizational factor is 'subcontractors for works from other enterprises' with maximum value of 104, whereas the factors 'maintenance/inspection', 'safety and health at work' and 'human error' are by 10% to 20% less influencing. There then follow 'training and competence of employees for crisis situations', communication', 'potentially hazardous materials and equipment' and 'organizational change management' and the factor 'conducting investigation after accidents' with the lowest value of 29. Pareto analysis indicates that the factors 'communication', 'subcontractors for works from other enterprises', 'organizational changes management', 'potentially hazardous materials and equipment', and 'training and competence of employees for crisis situations' participate with 80%, and they should be given special attention in practice. CONCLUSION: The instrument offered can ensure proactive information on the influence of organizational factors as risk predictors of pressure equipment operation, before given influences lead to accidents with severe consequences.

Differences in attitudes of operators and managers on risk management of pressure equipment.

Objectives. Previous research indicates that models for risk assessment of pressure equipment have not sufficiently or adequately integrated indicators of human factors and organizational factors. Methods. The goal of this article is to check the differences in attitudes of operators and managers engaged in the area of pressure equipment risk management. A questionnaire was designed and data were then collected from 253 operators and managers working with the same pressure equipment in Serbia. By applying a paired t test, differences in their attitudes were checked for issues described by the constructs of communication (COM), potentially hazardous materials and equipment (PHME), process safety (PS), safety and health at work (SHW), organizational change management (OCM), maintenance/inspection (MI) procedures, human error (HE), trainings and competences of employees for crisis situations (TCECS) and conducting research after accidents (CRAA). Results. It is statistically evident that the coincidence of attitudes accounted for less than 20% of questions. The highest coincidence is shown for PHME and TCECS, where one-half of the dimensions of the given constructs indicate that there are no statistically significant differences. Conclusions. The differences found could be used as an explanation for high-risk levels of pressure equipment exploitation and how they influence it.