ECONOMIC IMPLICATION OF RISK LEVELS IN SAFETY MANAGEMENT

STRATEGY IN FLOW–LINE PRODUCTION INDUSTRY IN NIGERIA.

Raheem W.A.1, Ajayeoba A. O2, Akinyemi O. O 3 and Adebiyi K. A.4
1Departmentof Systems Engineering, University of Lagos, Lagos Nigeria
2,4Departmentof Mechanical Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology,
Ogbomoso, Nigeria
3Department of Mechanical Engineering, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria

Corresponding author: wraheem@unilag.edu.ng

Abstract
Occupational injury prevalence and incidences in flow–line production industries do not
come only with consequences on economic activities but as well with emotional and psychological
burdens. The costs of work-related injuries and illnesses can be substantial. Establishing an
accurate overall estimate of the cost to all stakeholders concerning work-related injury and illness
is a complex task. However, this study aimed at evaluating the effects of risk level on the cost of
an accident in a flow-line production setting. A survey method was adopted to get the required
data and Systems dynamic approach was used to model using Vensim PLE Software, which was
validated with real-life data. Exposure to hazardous substances at work contributes significantly
to mortality and morbidity rate. Musculoskeletal disorders or injuries, stress, depression, and
anxiety need to be seen as integral parts of an accident. The risk level is proportional to the
magnitude of an accident hence the cost. Conclusively, an effective safety management scheme
will not only enhance better productivity and motivate worker but also promotes economic growth.
Keywords: Risk level, Safety, Mortality, Morbidity, Musculoskeletal disorders/injuries, Flow –
line.
1. Introduction
A healthy and safe work environment is highly necessary from the perception of the
employees, employers and other stakeholders due to their significant influence on productivity,
and economic growth. Workplace safety increases the effectiveness and productivity of enterprises
by reducing costs resulting from occupational accidents, incidents and diseases and thus,
enhancing workers’ motivation. Likewise, appropriate management of occupational accidents and
illnesses relieves pressure on private, corporate and public social protection and insurance systems.
The challenges of risk level magnitude at the workplace are substantial and need to be addressed
to manage the associated disease burden and increase the productivity of workers and the
competitiveness required of a viable business. Flow–line production industry nowadays operates
in multiple conditions of risks (Adebiyi and Raheem, 2019). Risks to the health and safety of
humans and other resources at the workplace proliferate globally and it is not limited to a zone.
Risk arises out of several factors, amongst which are environmental, employee, employer and other
internal factors of the enterprise (ILO, 2019). Risk factors are usually classified into three main
groups: individual, psychosocial, and physical (Enwerem et al., 2017).
Flow–line production industries across Nigeria like in any other nation have tasks to
upsurge output with high deliverability and springiness. These indeed make industrial jobs more
complex and high accidents prone, consequently, more risks and dangers which are threat to
human life through accidents and injuries are sacrosanct. Moseman (2012) reported risk as the
quantification of economic and losses in terms of the likelihood of an incident happening and the
importance of the damage. It is according to ISO/ IEC Guide 73:2002, a combination of the

1
probability of the occurrence of harm and the severity of such harm. Harm is a physical injury or
damage to the health of a man, machine or other facilities. Risk varies from one industry to another,
as the workplace is more hazardous than others. Adebiyi and Raheem (2019) defined risk as an
occurrence that is gratuitous because of its negative effect on the establishment. Risk is the
likelihood of a specific effect within a specified period, and could be evaluated by a complex
function of probability, consequences and vulnerability. Tchielie and Guathier (2016) reported that
risk has a limit that is not conspicuous but can be well understood, using risk management.
According to International Standard Organization, ISO, 3100 (2009) risk management is the effect
of uncertainty on objectives. However, risk management involves hazard identification, risk
assessment and control; these are major components of an effective Safety Management System
(Akyildiz and Mentes, 2016). The main idea of risk management is to easily figure out or identify
hazards related to functional units and their accessories in flow–line production industries, thus,
estimating and evaluating the risks, controlling risks and to follow-up the adequate applicability
by control measures (Raheem, et.al, 2019). Risk management is the conception of processes,
identification, appraisal, and prioritization of risks accompanied by structured technical or
economical resources to reduce, supervise, and control the likelihood and impact of uncertainty
and exploit the bewildering prospect (Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2013). Without mincing
words, risks often have its consequence. The consequence of the flow–line industrial uprising is a
reflection of employee’s health as an issue, workstation safety and health is a moderately
contemporary concept.
However, in the present world, nations are more worried about accident-free workplaces.
The obligation of all stakeholders involved, from the employers to employees towards industrial
practices that would improve the safety culture and in turn efficiency, is an effective and
appropriate safety management. But, scores of management at various levels often are of the notion
that safety is common sense and should not be taken so seriously as a production target. The
production company is adjudged as the third riskiest sector with employed personnel after the
construction industry and private households (Abdul zubair et al., 2014). Jacinto et al. (2016)
reported that about 2.2 million people die of work-related accidents and diseases annually globally
but this has increased also, above 2.3 million employees die of work-related accidents and diseases
annually with a cost effect of $3 trillion on the global economy (HSE, 2018)
Also, an estimated 270 million people suffer from non–fatal work-related accidents that
resulted in at least 3-day absence from work (HSE, 2018), this indeed necessitates appropriate
management. Unfortunately, management’s paramount interest is meeting set production targets
i.e more profit, which always involves risks. However, this study therefore aimed at establishing
economic implications of risk levels on productivity in the flow–line production industry.

2. METHODOLOGY
Investigation on accidents, risk causal factors, safety records, budgeting and general safety
activities were gathered in selected study areas with views of determining the economic
implication of risk level magnitude on safety management in flow–line industry hence effects on
productivity. Identification of accident-causing factors and prevention strategies that influence the
industry safety system were keenly upheld. Models development and performance evaluation were
established using real-life data. Flow–line Industrial safety records were well vetted. A structured
accident investigation register was designed and administered for a pilot study. Subject to the pilot
study outcome, the register was reviewed and updated. The modified accident and health issues
investigation register was employed to capture required data on accident occurrences and health
issues over a study period of three months. Furthermore, data were collected on the following: the
department/cadre of the victim of an accident and or health issues, causes of the incidence, type

2
and site of injury, time of injury, the period of continuous work before the injury, treatment for the
injury or referral if at all, the period of absence from work due to the injury sustained. Also, the
collection of the following data was critical to this study: quantity of pre–safety accidents of each
type experienced, pre–safety health issues of each type experienced, and the accident type recorded
during the safety programme implementation period. Also, the number of health issues called
Musculoskeletal Disorders/Injuries (MSDs/MSIs) types recorded during the implementation of the
safety programme period expenditure on each preventive intervention during the period of the
safety programme and the annual budget for the safety programme were collected. Other
parameters collected were: accident-causing factors, factory risk conditions, and prevention
activities, among other control parameters. These pieces of information were collected from the
clinical workers at the clinic, maintenance, and safety engineers.
The personnel were trained for this purpose and the register’s entries were monitored and
checked three times a week. Besides, thorough records vetting, personal observations and oral
interviews were ensured. A description of the occurrence of the accident risk conditions and the
causes obtained from the injured workers were recorded. These were analyzed using the accident
investigation procedure that utilizes the most effective systematic risk management solution for
reducing complex multiple risk factors by carefully investigating and assessing tasks being
completed. Thereafter, the primary method of risk assessment in an observational checklist was
used during a walk-through review of tasks to identify conspicuous risks of concerns and then
characterized the job functions and constraints of the workers. The checklist, which facilitated the
identification and determination of mismatches of operational procedures especially general
manual material handling responsibilities like forces applied, frequency of lifting, repetitive
motions due to work demand, workplace design and working postures, provides a systematic risk
screening method for the task analysis.
2.1 Modelling
Flow–line production industry is such a complex situation that involves interacting
activities to achieve its designed goal (Adebiyi, 2006; Misiurek and Misiurek, 2016), as a result,
the occurrence of an accident and the prevention activities show a similar trend. Therefore, to
capture the complex nature of the industry via accident occurrence, Musculoskeletal
Disorders/Injuries (MSDs/MSIs), a system dynamics approach finds its usefulness. Systems
Dynamics has repeatedly been demonstrated to be an effective analytical tool in a wide range of
situations. Many applications of systems dynamics involve quantitative assessment of the costs
and other benefits. It has found applications in the management of large projects; management of
software development; simulation of complex biological, biophysical and social systems
(Ajayeoba, 2015 and Bianchini, et al., 2016). The System Dynamics approach was employed to
develop mathematical models which depict the dynamic interaction and relationship of the
components of flow–line production safety activities, health issues and resultant accidents. The
task assigned with features of the industries and employees’ safety culture were examined.
Consequential effects of risk reduction through the identification of risk factors, accident causal
factors and other accident-causing parameters were determined.
The development of the model in this study was based on some assumptions among which are:
operating conditions, government policy throughout the simulation period, the goal of the firm
safety culture and the inflation rate are all constant and stable. Hence, in the determination of the
SD equations, the procedures by Marquis – Favre et al. (2006), Maryani, et al., 2015 and Bianchini,
et al., 2016) were adapted as summarized by four steps:
i. Specification of a set of systems quantities.
ii. Delineation of the causal diagram.

3
 iii. Delineation of the flow diagram.
iv. Determination of model equations from the diagram.
Note that prevented accidents influence risk conditions and levels which in turn affects the
probability of accidents. Furthermore, the probability of accidents affects the rate of accident
causation that is steadily abridged until the target is achieved. Figure 1 showed Flow and Stock
loop using Vensim PLE Software and Table 1 details the set of system quantities.

2.2 Accident Causation

Accident causation is the first state of the stock and its rate is alpha. Alpha is a function of
the accident caused, risk level, accident causation factor and its probability. It is worthy of note
that units of each notation in the following equations were reported in Table 1 above. Alpha is
therefore expressed as:
∫  t 𝜕𝑡 = Ac (1)
But ∝𝑡 = 𝑓(𝐴𝑐 , 𝑅𝐿 𝜌1 , ℎ) (2)
𝑑𝐴𝑐
= ( 𝑅𝐿 − 𝐴𝑐 ) 𝜌1 , ℎ
𝑑𝑡 (3)
The Risk Level ( 𝑅𝐿 ) defines the difference between the Expected Accident (E) and Prevented
Accident (Yt )at an instantaneous period (t) of the safety programme.
i.e. 𝑅𝐿 = 𝑓( 𝐸, 𝑌𝑡 ) (4)

using the principle of dimensional consistency,

𝑅𝐿 = 𝐸 − 𝑌𝑡 (5)
The probability of the accident caused (1) depends on the risk condition Rc, and λi
(expected frequency of injury). Adopting the exponential distribution employed by Adebiyi
(2006) and Akinyemi (2015) the probabilities of accidents caused and prevented accident are given
as:
𝜌 = [1 − (1 − 𝑒 −  (Rc ) )
𝑖 (6)
𝜌2 = 𝐴 − 𝜌𝑖 (7)
Where ρ1 is the probability of experiencing one or more random accident occurrences at
any period t and ρ2 is the probability of averting one or more random accident occurrences at any
period t., and, the expected frequency of injury, λ, is the reciprocal of mean accident experienced
before intervention (Xp) Therefore, Equation 7 becomes:
𝜌2 = (1 + 𝑒 ⋋𝑅𝑐 ) (8)
Substituting equations 5 and 6 into 3, then,
𝑑𝐴𝑐
= [[(𝐸 − 𝑌𝑡 ) − 𝐴𝑐 ] [1- (1 − 𝑒 −λRc )] ℎ] (9)
𝑑𝑡

Applying the principle of integration factor to Equation 9,

𝐴𝑐 = ℎ𝑡(𝐸 − 𝑌𝑡 )(−𝑒 −λhtRc ) + 𝐴0 𝑒 −λhtRc (10)

4
 Figure1: Flow and Stock loop

Table 1: Set of System Quantities

S/N Notation Definitions Unit
1. Xp Pre – Safety Programme Accident Q
2. β Budgeting Factor [N] / [Q]
3. P Proportion of planned budget Dimensionless
4. B Planned Budget N
5. Ac Accident Caused Q
6. α Rate of Accident [Q][T]-1
7. h Accident Causation Factor 1/hr
8. CB Cost Saving / Benefit [Q]
9. IK Effectiveness Index [Q] / [N]
10. T Reduction Target Dimensionless
11. TD Target Decision [Q]
12. hv Intervened Accident Prevented factor 1/hr
13. ɣ Rate of Prevented Accident [Q][hr]-1
14. Yt Accident Prevented [Q]
15. ρo Probability of pre safety accident Dimensionless
16. ρ1 Probability of accident caused Dimensionless
17. ρ2 Probability of accident prevented Dimensionless
18. ρ3 Probability of injury occurrence Dimensionless
19. Rc Risk Condition [Q]
20. Tq Total Workforce Dimensionless
21. Hr Hazard rate [Q][hr]-1
22. A Unity Dimensionless
23. Qt Lagged time [hr]-1

2.3 Accident Prevention

The accident Prevention rate is a function of target decision, accident prevention, accident
prevention factor and probability of accident prevented, thus
 t = f ( TD, Yt ,  2 , hv ) (11)
The accident prevented can therefore be mathematically presented as;

5
 ∫ 𝛾𝜕𝑡 =Yt (12)
dYt
t = = (TD − Yt )  2 hv (13)
dt
But the target decision of preventable accidents depends on the accident reduction target,
the effectiveness index of the safety system and the programme budget. Based on system dynamics
principles as depicted in Figure 3.2, TD becomes:
TD = Ik × B × T (14)
Where 𝐵 = 𝑓(𝐸,  , 𝑃)
Thus, 𝐵 = 𝐸 × 𝛽 × 𝑃 (15)
Equation (14) becomes:
TD = Ik × E × P ×  × T (16)

Where 𝐸 = 𝜌𝑜 × xp (17)
Thus,
𝑑𝑌𝑡
= (𝐼𝑘 × 𝜌𝑜 × 𝑋𝑝 × 𝑃 × 𝛽 × 𝑇 − 𝑌𝑡 )(1 + 𝑒 −𝜆𝑅𝑐 )ℎ𝑣 (18)
𝑑𝑡
Applying the principle of integration factor to Equation 18, then
 −  Rc  −  Rc 

Yt = hvt (X pTPI k ) 1 +  −  + Y −

  o (19)
2.4 Human-Related Factor ( 𝑯𝑹𝒇 )
The human-related risk factor is another state which is directly proportional to the prone
hazards rate in the factory. This is the product of the number of shifts of operation, total man-hours
of the workforce, lagged time and individual risk index of the employees in such a factory. This
individual risk index is a function of the probability of injury sustained, actual individual man-hours
and magnitude of health issues recorded. Thus given as
𝐻𝑅𝑓 = (𝐿𝑖 × 𝑃𝑖 × 𝐻𝑖 × 𝑚𝑎 × 𝑁𝑠 × 𝑄𝑡 ) ( (𝑇𝑞 𝑓 − 𝑌𝑡) (20)

2.5 Technical related factor ( 𝑻𝑹𝒇)

It is a function of equipment failure and the probability of breakdown of machinery in use
on the production floor. It is represented as;
𝑂𝑇
𝑇𝑅𝑓 = (𝐸𝑞𝑓 − 𝑌𝑡 )( 1 − 𝑒 − λ ) w × t (21)

2.6. Risk Condition

According to Adebiyi and Ajayeoba (2012), and Akinyemi (2015) the number of accidents
occurrence depends on the number of employees in an establishment. Therefore, the complexity
of operations and workload demand risk in flow–line production systems have been identified as
risk conditions. Furthermore, in this specific case, the risk condition is a function of human-related
risk factors, technical-related factors and prevented accidents. Thus;
𝑅𝑐 = 𝑓(𝐻𝑟𝑓 , 𝑇𝑟𝑓 , 𝑌𝑡 ) (22)
Using the principle of dimensional consistency
Rc = Hrf . × Trf − Y t (23)
After expansion 𝑅𝑐 thus becomes:
𝑂𝑇
𝑅𝑐 = (𝐿𝑖 × 𝑃𝑖 × 𝐻𝑖 × 𝑚𝑎 × 𝑁𝑠 × 𝑄𝑡 ) ( (𝑇𝑞 𝑓 − 𝑌𝑡) + ((𝐸𝑞𝑓 − 𝑌𝑡 )( 1 − 𝑒 − λ ) w× t (24)
w
1 B
= 
w s =1 RLs
(25)

6
Where B = Budget during the safety period
s = Safety period
w = duration of safety period (length of safety period)
RL= Risk level

From the stock and flow; cost-benefit i.e cost saving /loss is thus derived as
λ(Li∗Pi∗ λi∗Ns∗.Tq.∗Qt )t + (Eqf (1 – 𝑒−𝑜𝑇/λ ) )
𝐶𝐵 = ℎ𝑣 𝑡 (𝑇 × β × P × 𝑋𝑝 × 𝜌𝑜 𝐼𝑘 )(1- 𝑒 −𝑒− ) +
4

 (N × C ) E ×  × P - SN
−𝑜𝑇/λ ) )
−𝑒−λ(Li∗Pi∗ λi∗Ns∗.Tq.∗Qt )t + (Eqf (1 – 𝑒
Yo𝑒 i it (26)
n =1

further simplification of equation 26,

CB = B – Vit and let let 𝑌𝑜 = 0 then; CB which is cost saving/loss becomes:

λ(Li∗Pi∗ λi∗Ns∗.Tq.∗Qt )t + (Eqf (1 – 𝑒−𝑜𝑇/ λ ) )

𝐶𝐵 = ℎ𝑣 𝑡 (𝑇𝐼𝑘 )( 1 - 𝑒 −𝑒− ) (27)

3.0 Results and Discussion

The safety records showed the average number of accident occurrences for the six review
years as 50, 49, 54, 57, 63 and 55 in the six review years, with the budgeting strength of N17.1,
N10.35, N7.9, N7.4, N7.3 and N7 million, respectively. The general safety activities showed that
the staff strength of the establishment was 200 permanent employees with their ages ranged
between 18 to 58 years. The establishments operate three shifts: with the employees’ safety culture
above average, an instance of habitual putting on appropriate clothing and anti-slip boots. Table 2
revealed other salient information identified from the record vetted.

Table 2: Summary of the Case Study Data

Total number of the workforce 200
(Persons)
Number of shifts 3
Working hours per day 8
Number of working days/year 241 days
Identified risk factors Human, technical, environmental and
Organizational, others are
Systemic and economic.
Level of expertise of the employee Above average
Type of equipment/tools Commonly pneumatics and semi-
(Manual, Semi-Automatic, Automatic) automatic
Welfare and Compensation Package Relatively effective

3.1 Accident causal factors

Several records Vetting of these companies during the investigation showed that the causes
of the accidents were due to several factors but broadly summarized into six which are:
(i) Human-related risk factors (this include: cutting corners, overconfidence, carelessness, loss
of situation awareness, panic, errors, and negligence as well as frustration),
(ii) Technical-related risk factors (example of this: inappropriate maintenance practices,
inferior/inappropriate spare parts used, abnormal power surge)

7
 (iii) Environmental risk factors (such as poor housekeeping practices, extreme weather
conditions: too hot/cold, pollution, noise irritation, insects, etc.)
(iv) Economic risk factors (like the use of inferior safety equipment, poor safety culture or
inappropriate tools/equipment)
(v) Organizational risk factors (like inappropriate policy, ineffective training or engaging
unskilled employee due to cost implication, poor motivation, poor supervision, unsafe
workplace design, safety culture, inefficient safety management)
(vi) Systemic risk factor (poor operational procedure, defects safety culture)
These are similar to earlier findings of Adebiyi (2006); Adebiyi et al., (2007); Kines et al.,
(2013); Swuste et al., (2013); Ersoy (2013); Jian et al., (2014); Sarshar et al., (2015) as well as
Althaqafi and Elssy (2015).
Results from this study showed that the production processes involve in the flow-line
industry are one of the phases in the life cycle of a product that directly consumes resources,
produces ecological menace informs of environmental pollution emissions and causes
occupational health and safety challenges. Industrial development is complemented by the
magnitude of growth and incidences of accidents connected with scores of causal factors. Fatal
and serious accidents often resulted in high mortality and morbidity rates, significant resource loss,
and severe ecological consequences. Prevention of significant incidences of accidents rate and
restriction of their consequences at either industrial or domestic levels where dangerous substances
are present, required elaboration of the method for the analysis of hazard and risk causal factors.
It was also noted that some safety strategies were effective but not cost-effective and therefore not
appropriate because, for accident and musculoskeletal disorders/injuries to be minimum or
negligible, the stakeholder must see safety activity as a business. Figure 3 showed that risk level
is relatively directly proportional to incidences while sensitivity analysis revealed that Risk level
– Risk condition – Accident caused and prevented – Cost benefit are linked and each affects others.
3.2 Model Validation
The developed model was validated using the real-life data collected and it performs
satisfactorily. Among the successes of the developed model is that it actually depicted reality,
where risk conditions and risk levels for both the accidents and identified health issues were
proportional in the relationship as risk conditions increase, so the decrease of the risk level.
Interestingly, Human related risk factors against technical risk-related factors exhibit direct
proportionate although at a conspicuous magnitude difference. Others that displayed direct
proportionate relationships were human-related risk factors and risk conditions as well as
technical-related risk factors and risk conditions. Human risk-related factor was almost double that
of other while cost benefit in the core displayed the same scenario as it was established in Figure
3 – 6. It can therefore be deduced here that despite the fact that musculoskeletal disorders were
more than real accidents, the effect may not be prominent on time.

8
 Risk Level Vs Accident HRF Vs Rc
100000
Occurrence

Occurences (Qty)
80000
60000
Occurence (qty)

40000
20000
0
time (months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
time (months)

Figure 3: Risk level against incidences.

Figure 4: Human risk factor Vs Risk condition

Rc Vs TRF
60000
HRf Vs TRF(Health issues)
Occurences (Qty)

40000
20000 5
Occurences (Qty)

0 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314
3
Time (months)
2

TRf Rc 1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
HRf Time (months)
TRf
Figure 5: Risk condition Vs Technical risk factor Figure 6: Human related risk factor Vs technical
related risk factors

The developed model was applied to a conglomerate consumer flow–line process company and
revealed that the model performed creditably well by effectively managing the accident and health
issues. This study showed the cost-benefit for total accidents and health issues as ₦4,718,358.00
and ₦18,141,273.00 respectively. It can be deduced that these cost benefits will not only reduce
general running and production expenditures like gross reduction in medical bills, increase
production and gain but these savings can as well be added to the input (capital base) which will
significantly enhance performance and output
It is prominent that the results revealed that MSDs / Injuries were more prominent than renowned
accidents, therefore, acknowledging health-related issues as an integral part of accidents especially
musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) or musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) is very essential. It was noted
during this study that some employees have never been victims of any accident before but found
out that some of them in one way or the other were suffering from diverse degrees of
musculoskeletal disorders or injuries. These generally called degenerative diseases were noted and
reported to have been due to the nature of their jobs, this situation is not acceptable and should be
seen as an integral part of accidents if it goes beyond a certain limit. On the other hand, some
industries claimed to have good control of accident occurrence in their company but indirectly
9
experiencing a higher rate of health issues especially musculoskeletal disorders or injuries. MSDs
affect the musculoskeletal system and can be noticed in the tendons, blood vessels, nerves,
muscles, joints, and back. Symptoms may include pain, discomfort, numbness and tingling in the
affected area which can differ in severity from mild and periodic to severe, chronic and
degenerating conditions thus, MSDs can be multi-factorial. Physical workplace risk factors
contributed to MSD prevalence in the study area and this is in line with the result of HSE (2014).
It is also important to note that psychosocial factors, the level of autonomy of staff and job
dissatisfaction should often be considered and managed at an organizational level. MSDs were
seen as a massive drain on the resources of the employer, as they incurred some expenses due to
their prevalence, this agrees with the study by Abdulzubair et al. (2014). These expenses could be
medical bills, loss of production resources, legal and injury benefits. However, they also represent
a significant opportunity for cost reduction, since they are manageable and preventable. A business
case for adopting a risk management approach in tackling MSDs in the workplace may be
supported specifically relating to injuries due to manual handling. Manual material handling
commonly refers to as MMH, despite its relative cheapness, if not appropriately utilized and
managed could be a serious accident causal factor.
4. Conclusion
This study developed an integrated model for risk management, dynamic safety evaluation
and the effect of risk level on productivity. The model will serve as a veritable tool for enhancing
higher profitability and reducing the expenditure on safety programme in the flow-line
manufacturing industry. The model could be applied to other production sectors and it is therefore
recommended that possibly, ergonomic assessment tools may be incorporated into the system.

REFERENCES
Abdulzubar, H., Visagavel, K., Deepak Raja, V. and Mohan, A. (2014). Occupational Health and
Safety Management in Manufacturing Industries Journal of Scientific and Industrial
Research 73: 381 -386
Accident Analysis and Prevention (2013) available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.019
Retrieved on 27th October, 2017.
Adebiyi K. A., Charles-Owaba, O.E. and Waheed M. A. (2007). Safety Performance Evaluation
Models: A Review. Disaster Prevention and Management, an International Journal.
16(2):178 – 18
Adebiyi K. A. (2006). The Development of Manufacturing Safety Programme Simulator.
Unpublished, Ph.D Thesis. Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Ibadan, Ibadan
Adebiyi, K.A and Ajayeoba, A.O. (2012). Determination of Effective Manufacturing Safety
Strategy using Artificial Neural Network International Journal of Science and Technology
2(7):447 – 454
Adebiyi, K.A and Ajayeoba, A.O. (2015). Investigate Integration Modelling of Manufacturing
Safety Interventions Planning and Management Industrial Engineering Letters 5(8):34
– 39
Adebiyi, K.A. and Raheem, W.A. (2019) Human and Technical Risk Factors Consideration in
Safety Planning and Management in Manufacturing Industry: A System Dynamic
Approach. First International Mechatronic Engineering Conference, Oye – Ekiti,
Nigeria. Conference Proceedings on the Capacity Building and Globalization in
Mechatronic World(CBGMW-2019)

10
 Akinyemi, O.O. (2015). The Development of Predictive Models for Planning and Managing
Runway Safety Unpublished, PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty
of Engineering and Technology, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso
Akyildiz, H. and Mentes, A. (2016). An Integrated Risk Assessment Based on Uncertainty
Analysis for Cargo Vessel Safety. Safety Science 92: 34–43
Althaqafi, T. and Elssy, B. (2015). Integrating Occupational Health and Safety Systems’ into a
Project Management System. International Journal of Research in Management and
Bussiness Studies IJRMBS2(2): 2348 -6503
Bianchini, A. Donini, F. Pellegrini, M, and Saccani, C. (2016). An Innovative Methodology for
Measuring the Effective Implementation of an Occupational Health and Safety
Management System in the European Union. Safety Science 92: 26 – 33
Enwerem, G. C. Ajayeoba A. O., Raheem W. A., Adebiyi K. A. and Aliyu S. O. (2017)
“Ergonomic, Risk and Cardiovascular Strain Assessment of Building Construction
Workers in Selected Areas in Southwestern Nigeria”. Advances in Multidisciplinary
Research Journal.3 (3), 105 – 115.
Enwerem, G. C. Ajayeoba A. O., Raheem W. A., Adebiyi K. A. and Aliyu S. O. (2017)
“Ergonomic, Risk and Cardiovascular Strain Assessment of Building Construction
Workers in Selected Areas in Southwestern Nigeria”. Advances in Multidisciplinary
Research Journal.3 (3), 105 – 115
Ersoy, M. (2013). The Role of Occupational Safety Measures on Reducing Accidents in Marble
Quaries of Iscehiar Region. Journal of Safety Science 57: 293 – 302
HSE, Health and Safety Executive, 2014. Musculoskeletal Disorders in Great Britain. Available
from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/Statistics/causdis/ musculoskeletal/msd.pdf. Retrieved on
April 6th, 2018
International Labour Organization, ILO, (2013) (http://www.labour.gov.za/mediadesk/media-
statements/2007/unreported-workplace-accidents-a-misery-2013-minister-tells-safety-
day-rally) retrieved on April 16th, 2019
Jacinto, C. Santos, F.P, Soares, C.G and Silva, S.A. (2016). Assessing the Coding Reliability of
Work Accidents Statistical Data: How Coders Make a Difference. Journal of Safety
Research
Jacinto, C. Santos, F.P, Soares, C.G and Silva, S.A. (2016). Assessing the Coding Reliability of
Work Accidents Statistical Data: How Coders Make a Difference. Journal of Safety
Research
Jian, A.Y., Ng, P.K, Tan, K.S, Chin, T.S and Lim, W.Y. (2014). Effects of Stress, Repetition,
Fatigue and Work Environment on Human Error in Manufacturing Industries. Journal
of Applied Sciences 14: 3464 - 3471
Kines P., Andersen D., Andersen L.P. Nielsen, K. and Pedersen L. (2013). Improving safety in
small enterprises through an integrated safety management intervention. Journal of
Safety Research. 44: 87–95
Marquis – Favre, W., Bideaux, E. and Scavarda, S. (2006). A planar Mechanical Library in the
AMES Simulation Software. Part I: Formulation of Dynamics Equations Simulation
Practice and Theory.14: 25-46.
Misiurek, K. and Misiurek, B. (2016). Methodology of improving occupational safety in the
construction industry on the basis of the TWI program, Safety Science 92: 225–231
Moseman, J., (2012). New risk acceptance criteria for process safety. Process Safety.
Programme.31 (1), 6–8.

11
Raheem W. A., Ajayeoba A. O., Adebiyi K. A., Oyetunji O. R. and Ayeyemi O. E. (2019)
Ergonomic Evaluation of Base Transceiver Station Maintenance Personnel in Nigeria,
Journal of Engineering And Engineering Technology (Futajeet), 13:1
Sarshar, S., Haugen, S., and Skjerve, A.B. (2015). Factors in Offshore Planning that Affect the
Risk for Major Accidents. Journal of Loss Prev. Process Ind. 33: 188–199.
Swuste, P., Gulijk, C.V, Zwaard, W. and Oostendorp, Y. (2013). Occupational Safety Theories,
Models and Metaphors in the three decades since world War II is the United States, Britain
and the Netherlands: A Literature Review. Safety Science. 48:1000–1018

12