Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Loss prevention in turnaround maintenance projects by selecting

contractors based on safety criteria using the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP)
Laith A. Hadidi*, Mohammad A. Khater
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Turnaround maintenance (TAM) is a usual plant shutdown that is done by process industries to perform
Received 21 June 2014 asset inspections, repairs, and overhauls. TAM engineering projects are needed on a periodic basis to
Received in revised form optimize a plant's performance. Process industrial plants usually don't have enough in-house manpower
5 November 2014
to carry out needed TAM jobs; it is not uncommon for a process industrial plant to outsource its TAM
Accepted 25 January 2015
manpower supply to external contractors. This will create a peculiar management challenge regarding
Available online 28 January 2015
how to assure orientation of safety practices for the newly hired labor. Although accidents during process
plant shutdowns may have severe consequences, the safety management systems in place for many
Keywords:
Safety
companies only cover normal operations and few explicitly address TAM projects. Usually, contractors
Turnaround maintenance are evaluated from a safety perspective after handling the project by monitoring safety indicators such as
AHP number of injuries, incidents, etc. This paper emphasizes safety attributes to be included in selecting
Maintenance management contractors at the bidding stage to assure loss prevention and better safety orientation during TAM
Petrochemicals implementation. The paper starts with reviewing TAM literature and defining main needed safety at-
tributes to prequalify contractors. It develops an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model that is applied to
rank TAM contractors' selection. A case study is presented for a petrochemical plant in Saudi Arabia to
demonstrate the AHP model.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction production over-run. Turnaround maintenance (TAM) is a major

Saudi Arabia, as one of the largest oil-producing countries in the
world, has large intensive capital investments in many process
industries. It has business associations with many international
world-class process industrial companies. Indeed, process in-
dustries are the backbone of the economy for many oil-producing
countries. The productivity of their process plants is a funda-
mental element in national and international competition.
Process industrial plants usually run under severe operating
conditions, including extreme pressure and temperature, which
will accelerate equipment deterioration over time. In addition,
many major plants' equipment can't be isolated while the plant is in
normal operation. Hence, the plant needs to stop production and
restore deteriorated equipment to avoid increasing risks for
* Corresponding author. Construction Engineering and Management Depart-
ment, College of Environmental Design, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail address: lhadidi@kfupm.edu.sa (L.A. Hadidi).
periodic comprehensive program that involves all of a plant's de-
partments and personnel when the plant needs to shutdown and
stop production. The significance of TAM projects in process in-
dustries is evident in the literature (Lenhan, 1999, 2006; Livet,
2004). In practice, TAM projects are considered a peculiar chal-
lenge from the health, safety, and environmental (HSE) perspective,
as many catastrophic accidents have occurred during shutdown
and start-up periods. However, in many companies safety man-
agement systems are still deficient to cover TAM operations
(Malmen et al., 2010).
Process industrial plants usually don't have enough in-house
manpower to handle TAM projects. A large number of contract
workers are outsourced to carry out TAM projects through external
contractors. The required number of TAM workers is usually large
and sometimes involves thousands of external workers. As an
example, Chevron has a total workforce that is 90% contracted with
over 3 million hours annually in many diverse project sites around
the world (Sohani and Haugnaess, 2002). The presence of a large
number of contractor workers will have increased imminent

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.01.028
0950-4230/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
116 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126

hazards. In fact, a large portion of the TAM safety management Table 1

system and careful planning should be related to TAM contractors Plant individuals' responsibilities.

to minimize risks. TAM steering committee 1. Take responsibility for setting up the Turn-
Usually, contractors are evaluated from a safety perspective af- around HSE objectives/KPIs and targets.
ter handling the project based on safety indicators such as number Provide leadership in the implementation of
the Turnaround HSE Plan.
of injuries, incidents, etc. Although this practice is widely used in 2. Approve TAM-HSE organizations and ensure
many companies, this safety strategy can be viewed as a reactive provision of all necessary support from
approach. We believe that shifting safety strategy to enforce TAM various groups or departments in the HSE
contractors to be selected based on their safety criteria would team.
3. Monitor progress of HSE activities through
significantly contribute to the safety of TAM projects. This safety
facilitating effective communication and
strategy can be viewed as a proactive approach that would help participation of employees and contractors
process industrial companies with contractor selection and lead to in the HSE program.
better HSE performance during TAM implementation. 4. Ensure effective management of critical is-
The novelty of this paper is to identify critical safety attributes to sues, risks, and subsequent follow-up
actions.
prequalify TAM contractors and use them to build an analytic hi- TAM manager 1. Take over overall responsibilities for all
erarchy process (AHP) model. A case study is presented for a matters relating to the HSE during the TAM
petrochemical plant in Saudi Arabia to demonstrate the usage of period.
the model. The paper also provides necessary knowledge to build a 2. Manage and lead TAM in order to achieve the
set HSE goals during the TAM event.
safety management system for safe TAM implementation.
3. Prepare and execute a detailed discussion
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides with the contractor's management on the
a literature review, Section 3 provides a brief description on some HSE expectations and commitments to
HSE regulating agencies, Section 4 presents safety implementation ensure contractor's HSE Plan is in line with
in TAM phases, and Section 5 discusses TAM safety criteria in the TAM HSE plan.
HSE manager 1. Take responsibility for the HSE Plan devel-
contractor selection. In Section 6, a case study is presented for a opment, effective implementation, and
petrochemical plant in Saudi Arabia, and Section 7 presents verification of the plan.
concluding remarks. 2. Provide assistance and advice to personnel
on hazard control, accident prevention, and
investigations.
3. Facilitate management safety audit as per
2. Literature review plan and discuss findings with audit team
members.
Since the 1970s, growing interest in including safety issues in 4. Identify areas of awareness, training, and
contractor evaluation has been witnessed. However, most of the emphasis.
5. Maintain HSE performance statistics and
literature provides contractor safety evaluation as monitoring online record of all accidents and/or
safety during the job implementation (i.e., after contract award). incidents.
We believe that selecting contractors based on safety criteria at the 6. Review job safety analysis (JSA) and monitor
bidding stage (before awarding the contract) will highly improve its implementation during TAM execution.
7. Collate, record, report, and coordinate
the level of safety during project implementation. This can be seen
investigation of all incidents and/or
as a strategy change from a reactive to a proactive approach in accidents.
safety management. In the following, we provide a brief literature Safety coordinator 1. Monitor all work in the area with emphasis
review of methods to select contractors and criteria for safety on unsafe acts or conditions.
monitoring. 2. Report daily incidents, near misses, and ob-
servations to the HSE Leader.
3. Take immediate steps to correct problems, if
needed.
2.1. Methods for selecting contractors 4. Notify proper levels of supervision of prob-
lems in the field.
5. Identify areas of awareness, training, and
Contractor prequalification is generally considered as a multi-
emphasis.
criteria decision problem that depends on project uncertainty and 6. Audit activities for procedure compliance.
judgment of decision makers. Many multi-criteria decision making 7. Provide support to HSE Leader in the area of
(MCDM) methods for contractor selection decisions depend on expertise.
different contractor assessment tools. The multi-criteria evaluation 8. Coordinate the implementation of the HSE
Plan in their respective areas.
of maintenance contractors may include utility levels, graph theory,
9. Participate & provide his expertise in JSA
matrix methods, or fuzzy set theory (Darvish et al., 2009; Nieto- preparation for the jobs as per set criteria.
Morote and Ruz-Vila, 2012; Plebankiewicz, 2010, 2012; Zavadskas 10. Arrange daily HSE monitoring to achieve
and Vilutiene, 2006). compliance to standard procedures and
other requirements.
MCDM criteria for contractor assessment can be measured on a
11. Liaise with execution team and contractors
qualitative or quantitative basis. In general, quantitative methods to promote safety awareness in work areas
are more mathematically sophisticated than qualitative methods. under their control.
As an example, a mathematical programming model is used as a 12. Arrange and conduct safety induction and
method to select the best project risk response strategies (Zhang training for TAM personnel.
13. Review with the HSE leader the results of
and Fan, 2014). In such models, interpretation and validation of
the management safety audit findings and
the results may require a mathematics background. This can be implement the recommendations.
seen as a limitation of quantitative methods, although it allows for Execution team leader 1. Take responsibility along with Turnaround
objective evaluation of contractors. MCDM qualitative methods are Leader for ensuring the effective imple-
mentation of the EHS Plan in all areas under
more prevalent for use in practice due to their simplicity and
their direct control.
effectiveness.
 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126 117

Table 1 (continued ) Table 3

EHSS plan during TAM.
2. Prepare/Review JSA for the jobs under his
area and control as per set criteria. EHSS tools Checklists to be used
3. Analyze hazards associated with the work Frequency of inspections
and ensure implementation of remedial ac- Team members
tions as specified in the approved JSA form. Action of inspection findings
4. Ensure strict adherence to safety regulations EHSS team members EHS member
and procedures by all the workers under his Contractor's Safety Officer
supervision. Area Engineer and/or Coordinator
5. Monitor normal hand tools and equipment
to ensure they are safe for use through
inspection.
6. Report and investigate all accidents Table 4
involving work under supervision. TAM weekly audit.
7. Participate in the Management Safety Audit,
as per plan. Audit procedure 1. HSE representative will send a calendar note to owner
8. The HSE leader has the right to review cur- management member, contractor management, and
riculum vitae (CVs) of Contractor's Safety department managers to participate in audit.
Officers and approve them in order to ensure 2. Audit topic shall be coordinated with TAM activities.
that competent persons are in place. 3. TAM leader will communicate the final audit schedule
with contractor management.
4. Safety audit report to be issued within 24 h after the
completion of the audit.
2.2. Safety criteria Audit types 1. Active work permits. Audited every shift.
2. Contractor field activities. Audited every shift.
3. General HSE audits, led by the owner member with
Safety criteria are usually measured through different indices to operation or technical discipline.
monitor safety during job implementation. They cover project cost,

Table 2
Contractor individuals' responsibility.
Contractor's managers
Contractor safety officers
Turnaround workforce
1. Ensure compliance with safety rules and
regulations in all areas under their direct
control.
2. Comply with HSE Procedures unless explic-
itly agreed in writing by TAM manager or
lead.
3. Ensure Safety Induction and training is con-
ducted for all workers prior to commence-
ment of TAM work.
4. Participate in the Management Safety Audit
as per plan.
5. Prepare JSA as per assigned work scope and
job.
1. Take responsibility for all matters pertaining
to HSE.
2. Attend daily briefing meeting organized by
HSE team.
3. Conduct daily HSE monitoring of work area
and participate in safety inspections.
4. Ensure that all workers work within the
safety guidelines.
5. Chair and conduct the daily HSE talk with all
workers.
6. Contractor's Safety Officers are required to
have a basic orientation about work culture
and expectations.
7. Conduct incident investigations and imple-
ment recommended actions of these
investigations.
1. Take responsibility for their own safety;
ensure their actions do not endanger other
workers at the site.
2. Cooperate and work safely at all times and
adhere to work procedures, safety rules, and
regulations.
3. Report unsafe acts and conditions and all
incidents/accidents to immediate area
supervisor.
4. Reserve the right not to work at an unsafe
location or in unsafe conditions.
5. In case of emergency, stop all work activities
safely, respond, and evacuate to the nearest
assembly area.
6. Take responsibility to ensure that only
approved tools and equipment are used for
the work.
schedule, quality, injuries, damages, and claims. These indices may
be grouped in the form of a multi-attribute value for monitoring
performance (Heins and Rolling, 1995). Safety indices may have
other usages; they can be extended to represent the safety levels of
instrument design or work conditions (Grattan and Nicholson,
2010). Proper design for safety indicators will help decision mak-
ing to minimize operations risks (Qingfeng et al., 2011; Shu and
Zhao, 2014). It also helps decision makers to enhance the organi-
zational safety learning culture (Gerbec, 2013). Such culture will
undergo continuous revision through lessons learned from inves-
tigating incidents, monitoring preventive safety activities, identi-
fying safety outcomes including root-cause analysis, and
comparing activities with outcomes to prove relationships. Safety
criteria in process industries enable decision makers to reduce
technological and organizational complexities while enhancing
maintenance decisions, multivariate analysis, and risk assessment
(Aqlan and Ali, 2014; Azadeh et al., 2014; Elhdad et al., 2013). Safety
criteria also help to recommend independent safety barriers in
Table 5
Possible employee safety TAM competency.
Employee competency
Job safety analysis (JSA) Personal protection equipment
(PPE)
Process hazard analysis (PHA) Working at height
Health risk assessment (HRA) Work permit
Environmental assessment Confined space
Pre-startup safety review (PSSR) Excavation
Safe use of utility stations, utilities Emergency response
& chemical hoses
General HSE rules Illumination
(Traffic safety, plant she rules,
identification signs)
Handling and storage of flammable Hazard communication
liquids
Safe handling of nitrogen, steam & Carcinogen control
air
Handling & storage of compressed Ionizing radiation safety
gas cylinders
Electrical safety Hazardous waste management
Safe lifting practices Security standards
Tools handling Process safety
118 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126

Table 6
Proficiency safety evaluation for job maps.

Employee competency

Process Security Hazardous Ionizing Carcinogen Hazard Illumination Emergency Confined Work Working
safety standard waste radiation control communication response space and permit height
management safety excavation

Assessor Group P P SP SP SP SP SP SP P P SP

Job Mapping Operators A A K A A S A K K K K

Technician A A A A A A K K K K K
General Labor K A A A A A S K K K K
Engineer A A A K A A A K A K A
Specialist K A K A A K A K S S S
Others as
required

process industry procedures to minimize maintenance hazards
(Okoh and Haugen, 2013; Landucci et al., 2014; Saleh et al., 2014).
2.3. Summary
TAM contract is a term commonly used in all process industries.
It refers to the period of time during which the plant will shutdown
to undergo major maintenance. The risk level appears to increase
during TAM project execution for the following reasons. First, most
TAM activities are done through external contractor workers who
are usually entering the plant for the first time and are not familiar
with the plant's layout and its potential hazards. Second, TAM
projects are usually conducted with a large number of workers who
need to deliver tasks in a relatively short duration (several weeks)
characterized by area size limitation (plant site). In many cases,
contractors work around the clock, in eight-to 12-h shifts, to
expedite the necessary maintenance and meet tasks' due dates.
Therefore, heavy workload and pressure of time often create con-
ditions in which workers are exposed to considerable safety risks,
increasing the likelihood of having more injuries. This identifies the
need for more specialized safety standards during the TAM period.
There is a keen need for efficient selection of experienced,
serious, and mature contractors who are ready to identify safety
issues immediately and efficiently. The literature has recom-
mended MCDM tools to be used in contractor prequalification and
selection. AHP is a common MCDM method that is used to handle
subjective or objective criteria. The hierarchical structure of the
AHP model enables decision makers to visualize the problem sys-
tematically in terms of criteria and subcriteria.
people were injured. This accident prompted the formation of the
Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and in turn the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE), which enforce occupational health and
safety as regulatory entities within the United Kingdom
(Hemmatian et al., 2014).
3.2. International Labour Organization
The United Nations has established the International Labour
Organization (ILO) agency, which represents governments, em-
ployers, and workers. The ILO receives and registers complaints, but
it does not impose sanctions on governments. The ILO is a major
provider of labor statistics, which allows monitoring of the progress
toward improving labor and safety standards. According to the ILO,
every 15 s 160 workers have work-related accidents worldwide.
The ILO compiles statistics for each country by year and publishes
this information for the public on its website.
3.3. Occupational Safety and Health
In the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) is an agency within the Department of La-
bor that monitors and enforces workplace safety. Some of OSHA's
standards include hazard communication standard, 29 CFR
1910.1200, obligating the host employer to advise contractors of
any chemical hazards that may be encountered in their work on
plant premises (Counts, 1997).
4. Safe TAM implementation

3. HSE regulating agencies
Organizational safety bodies place the responsibility for
workers' safety on the shoulders of the host plant, not the
contractor, although TAM jobs are carried out by external
contractor workers. For example, the legal rules in the United States
penalize petrochemical plants for accident costs. It follows that
accident rates in the petrochemical industry would be reduced if
host plants take responsibility for the safety training and supervi-
sion of contractor employees (Rebitzer, 1995). In the following, we
provide a brief description on some safety organizational bodies,
namely the Health and Safety Commission (HSC), International
Labour Organization (ILO), and Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA).
3.1. Health and Safety Executive
In 1974, an explosion occurred at a major chemical plant in the
United Kingdom in which 28 people were killed and another 36
A TAM project is usually divided into several sequential phases
that may be cascaded to more detailed steps to achieve an effective
TAM project. The phases' definition may dissents among different
authors (Lenahan, 1999, 2006; Duffuaa and Ben-Daya, 2004, 2009;
Duffuaa et al., 1999; Levitt, 2004). In the following, we present HSE
issues by TAM phase, namely Phase I, preturnaround; Phase II, TAM
execution; and Phase III, post-turnaround.
4.1. Phase I: preturnaround
The period prior to starting of the work by TAM contractors is
defined as the preturnaround phase and includes the contractor
bidding period. In this phase, a kickoff meeting is conducted with
contractors to reveal safety expectations and discuss the contrac-
tor's HSE plan. The HSE plan provides general instructions on
implementing various elements including a worker safety program,
environmental protection program, field safety representative
program, work permit system, and auditing program (Huckaby,
1994). The Turnaround HSE Plan is designed to provide clarity
 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126 119

Employee competency

PPE Tools Safe lifting Electrical Handling and Safe handling Handling and General Safe use of PSSR (pre- Environmental HRA PHA JSA
(personal handling practices safety storage of of nitrogen, storage of EHS utilities and startup assessment (health risk (process (job
protection compressed stream and Flammable rules chemical safety assessment) hazard safety
equipment) Gas cylinders air liquids hoses Review) analysis analysis)

SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP P P P SP
S K A K K S K K S A A K A K
K K A S A A K K NA A A K NA K
K K A S A A K K NA K A K K K
K A NA K S A K K NA K A K K K
S S K S S S S S K K K A K S

and commitment on the expectations, targets, mechanisms, re-
quirements, and processes to achieve the HSE common goal. It also
should include a clear organizational safety chart for the plant's
TAM management and contractors. TAM management includes the
steering committee, TAM manager, HSE manager, safety coordi-
nator, and execution team leader. The contractor's chart includes
the contractor's managers, safety officers, and TAM workers. Re-
sponsibilities also have to be identified to ensure effective imple-
mentation of the HSE program and safe execution of all TAM
activities. Tables 1 and 2 show suggested role responsibilities for
the plant's management and contractors, respectively.
4.2. Phase II: execution phase
Execution includes the actual project implementation. The focus
will be on monitoring the contractor's safe, conformant, and on-
time performance. The plant can monitor performance by
defining different metrics of key performance indicators (KPIs).
Periodic site safety evaluations should be conducted to verify
contractor performance. Unsatisfactory site evaluations may result
in required corrective actions by the contractor, contract suspen-
sion, or contract termination. HSE inspections play an important
role in the identification of workplace hazards and development of
control measures. Table 3 shows environment, health, safety, and
security (EHSS) tools and members. Daily safety inspection and
audits throughout the plant area should be carried out. In addition,
all findings should be discussed during daily HSE management
meeting.
TAM projects should also include an HSE audit program. Table 4
shows suggested procedures and types of HSE audits.
4.3. Phase III: post-turnaround phase
This phase will serve as close-out report of the performance of
the TAM project. This should include the outcome of each
contractor separately, with HSE issues addressed and final perfor-
mance evaluation given based on KPIs. Feedback on accident in-
vestigations should be given at two levels: feedback to update the
safety management system and feedback on safety planning for
future TAM projects (Chua and Goh, 2004).
5. TAM safety criteria
This section addresses safety criteria that should be used in
selecting TAM contractors. In the following, we propose four safety
criteria, namely: work history, employee competency, technical
competency, and HSE plan.
5.1. Work history
Work history is a convenient way to select a possible contractor;
the plant's management should review the contractor's entire pro-
file pertaining to its previous experience. The contractor's reliability
to complete the job on time should be judged by reviewing the
contractor's documented experience with the plant or other well-
known process industrial plants. The contractor's workers should
be reliable enough to ensure the maximum amount of compliance
with governmental laws pertaining to work practices and HSE
concerns. A new contractor for the plant must be assessed on the
basis of previous record of experience, organizational structure,
managerial capability, and financial stability to ultimately deter-
mine his reliability to carry out a TAM project. The previous incident
rates of the contractor's workers are calculated in order to show the
level of injuries relative to those of its competitors. Performance of
work that has been performed previously is an essential element in
predicting future performance of contractors.
5.2. Employee competency
The contractor's employee competency should be considered to
avoid incidents that are detrimental to occupational health. HSE
employees' competency is required to mitigate the risks related to
people in the workplace. It must be ensured that people are
competent to do their jobs by evaluating HSE and job competencies.
A consistent methodology for ensuring HSE competency for a
contractor's employees based on a hazard identification program
(HIP) would provide assurance to improve employees' safety per-
formance. Job competencies can be improved by training, which
should consist of orientation, initial training, and job-specific re-
quirements and training, if applicable. Worker competencies will
be assessed for each function. Competencies are the minimum re-
quirements without which the employees cannot work alone
without direct supervision. Table 5 shows examples of possible
worker competencies in TAM projects.
Job mapping should be done to group similar positions with
regard to an exposed risk. The grouping should be made based on
similarity of competence level requirement. Each job map will be
evaluated against employee competency at different levels: aware
(A), knowledgeable (K), skillful (S), or non-applicable (NA). The
evaluation should be done by a supervisor (Sp) or a pool of asses-
sors (P). Table 6 shows an example of a job proficiency evaluation.
5.3. Technical competency
The technical competency of contractors is another criterion
that has to be acknowledged by the plant. The following should be
considered in assessing contractors' technical competencies:
120 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126

Financial penalties that have been levied as a result of failure of
previous contracts.

Possible reconsideration of previous contractors who have been
terminated.

Inspection of the contractor's workers may help in technical
assessment.

Reviewing experience and qualifications of contractors' em-
ployees are important to assess technical competence.

Staffing level of the contractor.

Details of work, addresses, and names of the work performed
previously by the contractor.
Proper controls are prepared by contractors prior to execution
(preturnaround phase). If a TAM project includes hazardous ma-
terials, contractors are evaluated based on the ability to develop,
implement, and adhere to an HIP plan. This process must describe
how contractors will prepare and implement the HIP before
commencement of any work. The HIP shall list all tasks/activities
associated with the contracted work, potential hazards of each
activity, and control measures to mitigate these hazards.
5.4. HSE plan
Contractors are required to prepare an HSE plan for the intended
TAM project. The HSE plan should be aligned with the plant's HSE
policies. The following points are suggested to be included in the
Fig. 1. AHP contractor selection.
HSE plan:
1. The entire safety strategy is defined in order to lessen the overall
risks of TAM activities.
2. The actions that are required for the overall improvement of the
HSE plan are defined.
3. Evidence of good HSE practices is provided.
4. A contract owner, contract engineer, and contract holder are
appointed by TAM contractors.
5. Contractors need to show their international certifications if
any, i.e., OSHA, National Examination Board in Occupational
Safety and Health (NEBOSH), which will be considered as an
advantage over their competitors.
6. TAM contractor selection: a case study
Government and corporate decision makers widely face com-
plex MCDM problems, some of which are intangible, risky, or highly
uncertain. A tradeoff is required to choose the optimal decision.
AHP helps decision makers to break down a complex decision into
various subparts to select the best alternative based on decision
criteria. To cover problem complexity, wide participation of in-
dividuals is encouraged. At first, AHP makes use of pairwise judg-
ment between selection criteria. Secondly, AHP defines specific
priorities based on the level of fulfillment of selection criteria. AHP
will be utilized for contractors' selection depending on four safety
 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126 121

Table 7
Importance rating.

Numerical rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Verbal judgment Equally Equally to Moderately Moderately Strongly Strongly to very Very strongly Very strongly Extremely
preferred moderately preferred to strongly preferred strongly preferred to extremely preferred

Note: Intensities 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, … etc. can be used for elements that are very close in importance.

criteria, namely work history, employee competency, technical
competency, and the contractor's HSE management plan. Fig. 1
shows the selection tree and decision criteria to evaluate three
TAM contractors, Contractor 1, Contractor 2, and Contractor 3. A
case study was implemented in a petrochemical complex of several
process plants in Saudi Arabia that produces methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) with a capacity of 1,500,000 metric tons per year and
other process plants that produce 1,140,000 metric tons of poly-
propylene per year.
6.1. Analytic hierarchy process
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a structured technique
for analyzing multi-criteria decisions. It was developed by Thomas
L. Saaty in the 1970s and has been extensively studied and refined
since then. In general, AHP has three steps: (1) make pairwise
comparison (criteria and attribute), (2) synthesize judgment, and
(3) check for consistency.
6.1.1. Make pairwise comparisons
The AHP method evaluates its various elements by comparing
them in pairs. In making the comparisons, the decision makers
typically use their judgments about the elements' relative impor-
tance. Pairwise comparison includes judgment rating to define the
level of importance one element has over another. AHP judgment
follows the rating shown in Table 7 (Saaty, 1994).
AHP method has two types of comparison, comparison of
criteria and comparison of each alternative (Contractors 1, 2, and 3).
We will begin by comparing the alternatives (Contractors 1, 2 and
3) with respect to their strengths in meeting each of the criteria,
work history (WH), employee competency (EC), technical compe-
tency (TC), and HSE plan. Then we will compare the criteria with
respect to their importance to reaching the goal (selecting the best
TAM contractor from the HSE perspective).
a. Make pairwise comparison for TAM contractors

Table 8
Contractor health, safety, environmental (HSE) evaluation checklist.
122 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126

Table 9
Contractors' pairwise comparison.

Work history (WH) Judgment

Contractor 1 1.5 Contractor 2 1 Contractor 1 has an advantage in (WH) with a longer experience.
contractor 1 (WH) is preferred equally to moderately than contractor 2.
Weight ¼ 1.5
Contractor 1 1 Contractor 3 4 Contractor 3 is moderately to strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 4
Contractor 2 1 Contractor 3 6 Contractor 3 is strongly to very strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 6

Employee competency (EC) Judgment

Contractor 1 3 Contractor 2 1 Contractor 1 is moderately preferred. Weight ¼ 3

Contractor 1 7 Contractor 3 1 Contractor 1 is very strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 7
Contractor 2 2 Contractor 3 1 Contractor 1 is preferred equally to moderately. Weight ¼ 2

Technical competency (TC) Judgment

Contractor 1 1 Contractor 2 4 Contractor 2 is moderately to strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 4

Contractor 1 1 Contractor 3 7 Contractor 3 is very strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 7
Contractor 2 1 Contractor 3 5 Contractor 3 is strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 5

HSE plan Judgment

Contractor 1 5 Contractor 2 1 Contractor 1 is strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 5

Contractor 1 7 Contractor 3 1 Contractor 1 is very strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 7
Contractor 2 4 Contractor 3 1 Contractor 2 is moderately to strongly preferred. Weight ¼ 4

TAM management required evaluating the contractors with

respect to WH, EC, TC, and HSE plan. For each contractor, a profile
Table 11
matrix was filled as shown in Table 8. A panel of experts was Criteria pairwise comparison.
formed to evaluate and qualify contractors' profiles. The panel
consisted of six participants who met and communicated their Work history (WH) 1 Employee 2 (EC) matters because
competency (EC) the job needs to be
knowledge and information about safety issues. The participants done correctly. (WH) is
included one academic, whose research studies have mainly important because this
focused on maintenance management, two technicians, and three can be seen as a
managers involved in the TAM processes. The panel worked for a validation of
contractors capability
period of about three weeks, and the sessions were planned to
to perform job up to the
investigate a contractor's documents. Each participant in the panel standard. (EC) is equally
filled his judgment rating for each contractor (on a scale between to moderately more
0 and 9). For each criterion in Table 8, a score of 0 typically indicated important than (WH).
failure to meet expectations for that specific criterion, while a Weight: 2
Work history (WH) 1.5 HSE plan 1 HSE plan is important
higher score was indicative of level of excellence (9 indicates because it gives a clear
exceptional). Each contractor had multiple scores for each criterion agenda of precautions
(based on the panel's members' different ratings). These scores to avoid incidents. In
were averaged in order to calculate the contractors' averages for general, (WH) is equally
to moderately more
important than (HSE
plan). However, this
Table 10 judgment was
Contractors' matrix. controversial among
participants about
Contractors' Work history determination the
Matrices Work Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 difference level.
History Contractor 1 1.00 1.50 0.25 Weight: 1.5
Contractor 2 0.67 1.00 0.17 Work history (WH) 2 Technical 1 (TC) is important to
Contractor 3 4.00 6.00 1.00 competency (TC) complete job
Summation 5.67 8.50 1.42 requirements.
Employee competency However, this can
Employee Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 generally be inferred by
competency Contractor 1 1.00 3.00 7.00 reviewing (WH), hence,
Contractor 2 0.33 1.00 2.00 (WH) is more
Contractor 3 0.14 0.50 1.00 important. Weight: 2
Summation 1.48 4.50 10.00 Employee 2 HSE plan 1 (EC) can be seen as
Technical competency competency (EC) more important as
Technical Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 competency is needed
Competency Contractor 1 1.00 0.25 0.14 to concur a good HSE
Contractor 2 4.00 1.00 0.20 plan. Weight: 2
Contractor 3 7.00 5.00 1.00 Employee 4 Technical 1 (EC) is moderately to
Summation 12.00 6.25 1.34 competency (EC) competency (TC) strongly more
HSE plan important than (TC).
HSE Plan Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 Weight: 4
Contractor 1 1.00 5.00 7.00 Technical 1 HSE plan 6 (HSE plan) is Strongly
Contractor 2 0.20 1.00 4.00 competency (TC) to very strongly more
Contractor 3 0.14 0.25 1.00 important than (TC).
Summation 1.34 6.25 12.00 Weight: 6
 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126 123

Table 12 6.1.2. Synthesize judgments

TAM safety criteria matrix. After making the pairwise comparisons, the AHP proceeds to
Criteria Work Employee Technical Planning calculate the priority of each criterion (WH, EC, TC, and HSE plan) in
matrix history competency competency HSE terms of its contribution to the overall goal of selecting a TAM
Work history 1.00 0.50 2.00 1.50 contractor. Mathematically speaking, priorities are the values in the
Employee 2.00 1.00 4.00 2.00
competency
matrix's principal right eigenvector. These values can be calculated
Technical 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.17 in many ways, such as by hand, with a spreadsheet program, or by
competency using specialized AHP software. The following steps show how to
Plan HSE 0.67 0.50 6.00 1.00 derive criterion priorities:
Summation 4.17 2.25 13.00 4.67

a. Sum values in each column of pairwise comparison matrix (in

Table 12).
each criterion. Then the panel met to discuss their ratings in a full-
day workshop that included plant management, safety officers, and WH sum ¼ 1.00 þ 2.00 þ 0.50 þ 0.67 ¼ 4.17.
a representative from each plant department to validate results. If EC sum ¼ 0.50 þ 1.00 þ 0.25 þ 0.50 ¼ 2.25.
there was a need, a second evaluation round would be conducted TC sum ¼ 2.00 þ 4.00 þ 1.00 þ 6.00 ¼ 13.00.
(to review further documents). Finally, each contractor would have HSE Plan sum ¼ 1.50 þ 2.00 þ 0.17 þ 1.00 ¼ 4.67.
an average rating based on panel judgment ratings (WH, EC, TC, and
HSE plan). This judgment methodology is an appropriate research b. Divide each element by its column total (to give a normalized
design that permits individual opinions to be obtained within a pairwise comparison matrix).
structured group.
The panel then began relative judgment of contractors by con-
ducting four pairwise comparisons: Contractors 1 and 2, 1 and 3,
Normalized pairwise Work Employee Technical Planning
and 2 and 3 with respect to the criterion under consideration. For comparison matrix history competency competency HSE
the work history criterion, suppose the contractors scores were as Work history 0.24 0.22 0.15 0.32
follows: Contractor 1 ¼ 2, Contractor 2 ¼ 4/3, and Contractor 3 ¼ 8 Employee 0.48 0.44 0.31 0.43
(panel averages, Table 8). For contractor comparison, the relative competency
Technical 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.04
ratings can be normalized (divide ratings by the least value, i.e., 4/
competency
3). Hence, the least competent contractor for each criterion will be Plan HSE 0.16 0.22 0.46 0.21
given a weight of 1. For the work history criterion, the relative
normalized performance for Contractor 1 versus Contractor 2 will
be 1.5:1; for Contractor 1 versus Contractor 3 will be 1:6; and for
Contractor 2 versus Contractor 3 will be 1:4; Table 9 shows the
contractors' pairwise comparison.
The next step is to transfer the weights to a matrix, as shown in c. Compute the average of elements in each row (to give an esti-
Table 10. For each pairwise comparison, the weights and their re- mate of relative priorities of elements being compared; see
ciprocals are transferred to represent criteria's relative importance. Table 13).
For example, if Contractor 1 and Contractor 2 are compared against
WH criteria and have judgment values of Contractor 1 ¼ 2 and Similarly, the priorities for contractors are derived from the
Contractor 2 ¼ 1, as shown in Table 9, then the matrix should show judgments as entered into the contractors' four matrices (Table 10).
that Contractor 1 has twice Contractor 2's importance (value ¼ 2) The contractors' priorities are shown in Tables 14 and 15.
and Contractor 2 has half Contractor 1's importance (the reciprocal
of that value ¼ 1/2). The criterion in relation with itself will have
the value of 1 (matrix diagonal value ¼ 1).
6.1.3. Check for consistency
b. Make pairwise comparison for criteria A key step in the making of several pairwise comparisons is
considering the consistency of the pairwise judgments. (For
The decision makers' judgment was used to determine the example, if A compared to B ¼ 3 and B compared to C ¼ 2, then A
relative rankings of the four criteria: work history, employee compared to C should ¼ 3  2 ¼ 6. If it wasn't, some inconsistency
competency, technical competency, and HSE plan (Tables 11 and would occur). With AHP, we can measure the degree of consistency;
12). and if unacceptable, we should revise pairwise comparisons. The
The weights and their reciprocals are transferred to represent inconsistency factor can be computed by any specialized AHP
contractors' relative importance in four matrices as shown in software used to process the data. Consistency analysis is shown in
Table 12. Appendix A. The derived priorities in Tables 13 and 15 are
consistent.

Table 13
Criteria weights.

Normalized Work Employee Technical Planning Criteria priorities

Criteria matrix history competency competency HSE
Work history 0.24 0.22 0.15 0.32 Average (work history) 0.23
Employee competency 0.48 0.44 0.31 0.43 Average (employee competency) 0.42
Technical competency 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.04 Average (technical competency) 0.09
Plan HSE 0.16 0.22 0.46 0.21 Average (plan HSE) 0.26
Summation 1.00
124 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126

Table 14
Contractors' priorities.

Normalized Contractors' Matrices Work history Contractors' priorities

Work History Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 (WH)
Contractor 1 0.18 0.18 0.18 Average (contractor 1) 0.18
Contractor 2 0.12 0.12 0.12 Average (contractor 2) 0.12
Contractor 3 0.71 0.71 0.71 Average (contractor 3) 0.71
Summation 1.00
Employee competency Contractors' priorities
Employee competency Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 (EC)
Contractor 1 0.68 0.67 0.70 Average (contractor 1) 0.68
Contractor 2 0.23 0.22 0.20 Average (contractor 2) 0.22
Contractor 3 0.10 0.11 0.10 Average (contractor 3) 0.10
Summation 1.00
Technical competency Contractors' priorities
Technical Competency Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 (TC)
Contractor 1 0.08 0.04 0.11 Average (contractor 1) 0.09
Contractor 2 0.17 0.16 0.17 Average (contractor 2) 0.20
Contractor 3 0.29 0.80 1.00 Average (contractor 3) 0.71
Summation 1.00
HSE plan Contractors' priorities
HSE Plan Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 (HSE Plan)
Contractor 1 0.74 0.80 0.58 Average (contractor 1) 0.71
Contractor 2 0.15 0.16 0.33 Average (contractor 2) 0.21
Contractor 3 0.11 0.04 0.08 Average (contractor 3) 0.08
Summation 1.00

Individual petrochemical plants have existing plans for selecting

Table 15 TAM contractors usually are based on contractor's competency to
Contractors' fulfillment of each criterion. carry out the needed TAM jobs. Most of them do not include
Final step: contractors' ranking

WH EC TC HSE plan

Contractor 1 0.18 0.68 0.08 0.71

Contractor 2 0.12 0.22 0.21 0.21
Contractor 3 0.71 0.10 0.71 0.08
Summation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

6.2. Contractor selection

Finally, the last step will be to develop the overall priority

ranking by multiplying the contractor matrix (Table 15) by the
criteria matrix (Table 13) as follows:

2 3
2 3 0:23 2 3
0:16 0:68 0:08 0:71 6 0:42 7 0:518
4 0:14 0:22 0:21 5 6
0:21  4 7 ¼ 0:192 5
4
0:09 5
0:70 0:10 0:71 0:08 0:289
0:26
Table 16 ranks the three contractors based on their fulfillment of
TAM safety criteria.
Contractor 1, with a priority of 0.511, was the most suitable
candidate. Contractor 3, with a priority of 0.292, was second, and
Contractor 2, with a priority of 0.196, was third. TAM management
was advised to select Contractor 1. It was also advisable to revali-
date AHP analysis (judgment rating) in a second round of analysis
and make changes if appropriate. Details of the analysis could be
verified with consultants, other departments, shareholders, or
anyone else who might be concerned with the selection. Fig. 2
provides a summary of the AHP method.

Table 16
Contractors final evaluation.

Rank 1 Contractor 1 0.518

Rank 2 Contractor 3 0.192
Rank 3 Contractor 2 0.289
Fig. 2. AHP summary.
 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126 125

predicting safety performance before awarding the contract. The CI

advantages of the proposed strategy in this paper i.e., selecting CR ¼ ;
RI
contractors based on safety criteria at the bidding stage (before
awarding the contract) will allow plants to rank contractors based RI is the random index and it can be found from the below table
on predicting their safety levels before the actual award of the (n is the number of elements, if n ¼ 3 then RI ¼ 0.58).
contract. This will highly improve the level of safety during project
implementation. This can be seen also as a shift in strategy from
reactive to a proactive approach in safety management.
n 3 4 5 6 7 8

RI 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41

7. Conclusions

HSE planning should start in an early stage of TAM when con-

Standard Rule states: If CR  0.10, consistency is acceptable.
tractors are carefully chosen based on their work performed in the
Numerical calculations:
past, workers' expertise, and technical planning along with their
HSE plan. The need to integrate contractors with plant safety pro-
cedures in the process industries has been addressed in depth. This
paper is suggested for use by process plants to devolve their own Work history
HSE plans for each TAM shutdown. In addition, the work man-
agement process should consist of an integrated set of tools and Step 1: Finding weighted sum vector for WH criterion
procedures designed to assist TAM managers. It is recommended
that planning and scheduling start six weeks ahead of work
execution in order to prepare all required resources. As future 2 3 2 3 2 3
research avenues, the following are suggested: 1 1:5 0:25 0:18 0:52
Future research. 4 0:67 1 0:17 5  4 0:12 5 ¼ 4 0:35 5
4 6 1 0:70 2:12

The scope of this study is limited to the hosting company site
where logistics and transportation are not considered. Future
research studies may include logistics and transportation during
TAM shutdowns. Step 2: Finding weighted sum vector divided by priorities

TAM plant shutdown safety planning may take advantage of
plant loss incidents occurring while the plant is in normal
operation. The link between TAM planning and lessons learned 2 3 2 3
from effective incident investigations during operation would 0:52=0:18 3
4 0:35=0:12 5 ¼ 4 3 5
be of great help to new contractors to improve their safety
precautions during a TAM shutdown. The investigation results 2:12=0:70 3
should be tailored to the initial competencies of workers.

Acknowledgments Step 3: find lmax(Average of values found in Step 2)

The authors thank King Fahd University of Petroleum and lmax ¼ 3

Minerals for the support and facilities that made this research
possible. The authors are also thankful to the anonymous reviewers Step 4: Find (CI)
for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Appendix A
lmax  n 3  3
CI ¼ ¼ ¼0
Finding consistency of the pairwise judgments. n1 2

C Step 1: Multiply pairwise comparison matrix by relative

priorities Step 5: Find (CR)
C Step 2: Divide weighted sum vector elements by associated
priority value
C Step 3: Compute average of elements resulted from step 2
(denoted lmax) CI 0
C Step 4: Compute consistency index (CI) CR ¼ ¼ ¼0
RI 0:58

lmax  n Since CR < 0.1 then the values are consistent.

CI ¼ In the following, consistency ratio is calculates for the rest of
n1
comparisons. All the calculations are consistent. Table A.1 shows
consistency of contractors' comparison based on WH, EC, TC, and
HSE plan. Table A.2 shows consistency of criteria comparison.
C Step 5: Compute consistency ratio (CR)
126 L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 34 (2015) 115e126

Table A.1 Darvish, M., Yasaei, M., Saeedi, A., 2009. Application of the graph theory and matrix
Consistency ratio for contractors, n ¼ 3, RI ¼ 0.58 (Lambda ¼ lmax). methods to contractor ranking. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (6), 610e619.
Duffuaa, S.O., Ben-Daya, M., 2004. Turnaround maintenance in petrochemical in-
Priority Weighted sum (WSV)/Priority dustry: practices and improvement. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 10 (3), 184e190.
vector (WSV) Duffuaa, S., Ben-Daya, M., 2009. Turnaround maintenance. In: Ben-Daya, M.,
Duffuaa, S.O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Mainte-
WH Contractor 1 0.18 0.529412 3.00
nance Management and Engineering. Springer, London, pp. 223e235.
Contractor 2 0.12 0.352941 3.00 Duffuaa, S.O., Raouf, A., Campbell, J.D., 1999. Planning and Control of Maintenance
Contractor 3 0.71 2.117647 3.00 System, Modeling and Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., USA.
Summation 1.00 Lambda 3.00 Elhdad, R., Chilamkurti, N., Torabi, T., 2013. An ontology-based framework for
CI 0.00 process monitoring and maintenance in petroleum plant. J. Loss Prev. Process
CR 0.00 Ind. 26 (1), 104e116.
Priority Gerbec, M., 2013. Supporting organizational learning by comparing activities and
EC Contractor 1 0.68 2.047790 3.01 outcomes of the safety-management system. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26 (6),
Contractor 2 0.22 0.648387 3.00 1113e1127.
Contractor 3 0.10 0.307971 3.00 Grattan, D., Nicholson, S., 2010. Integrating switchgear breakers and contractors
Summation 1.00 Lambda 3.00 into a safety instrumented function. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 23 (6), 784e795.
CI 0.00 Heins, W., Rolling, M., 1995. Application of multiattribute theory in a safety monitor
for the planning of maintenance jobs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 86 (2), 270e280.
CR 0.00
Hemmatian, B., Abdolhamidzadeh, B., Darbra, R.M., Casal, J., 2014. The significance
Priority
of domino effect in chemical accidents. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29 (1), 30e38.
TC Contractor 1 0.08 0.231429 3.02 Huckaby, C., 1994, August. Developing and implementing a contractor safety pro-
Contractor 2 0.21 0.662246 3.09 gram. American Society of Safety Engineers. Report no. (25070388). Int. Necular
Contractor 3 0.71 2.315792 3.26 Inf. Syst. 25 (23).
Summation 1.00 Lambda 3.13 Landucci, G., Lovicu, G., Barontini, F., Guidi, L., Nicolella, C., 2014. Safety issues
CI 0.06 related to the maintenance operations in a vegetable oil refinery: a case study.
CR 0.10 J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 30, 95e104.
Priority Lenahan, T., 1999. Turnaround Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
HSE plan Contractor 1 0.71 2.315792 3.26 Lenahan, T., 2006. Turnaround Shutdown and Outage Management: Effective
Contractor 2 0.21 0.662246 3.09 Planning and Step-by-step Execution of Planned Maintenance Operations.
Contractor 3 0.08 0.231429 3.02 Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
Summation 1.00 Lambda 3.13 Levitt, J., 2004. Managing Maintenance Shutdowns and Outages. Industrial Press,
New York, NY, U.S.
CI 0.06
Malmen, Y., Nissil, M., Virolainen, K., Repola, P., 2010. Process chemicals: an ever
CR 0.10
present concern during plant shutdowns. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 23 (2),
249e252.
Nieto-Morote, A., Ruz-Vila, F., 2012. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model
for construction contractor prequalification. Autom. Constr. 25, 8e19.
Table A.2
Okoh, P., Haugen, S., 2013. Maintenance-related major accidents: classification of
Consistency ratio for criteria, n ¼ 4, RI ¼ 0.9 (Lambda ¼ lmax). causes and case study. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26 (6), 1060e1070.
Priority Weighted sum (WSV)/Priority Plebankiewicz, E., 2010. Construction contractor prequalification from polish cli-
ents' perspective. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 16 (1), 57e64.
vector (WSV)
Plebankiewicz, E., 2012. A fuzzy sets based contractor prequalification procedure.
Work history 0.23 1.01 4.31 Autom. Constr. 22, 433e443.
Employee competency 0.42 1.54 3.70 Qingfeng, W., Wenbin, L., Xin, Z., Jianfeng, Y., Qingbin, Y., 2011. Development and
Technical competency 0.09 0.35 4.09 application of equipment maintenance and safety integrity management sys-
Plan HSE 0.26 1.29 3.78 tem. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 24 (4), 321e332.
Summation 1.00 Lambda 3.86 Rebitzer, J., 1995, January. Job safety and contract workers in the petrochemical
industry. Ind. Relat. 34 (1), 40e57.
CI 0.05
Saaty, T.L., 1994. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the
CR 0.05
Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications.
Saleh, J., Marais, K., Favaro , F., 2014. System safety principles: a multidisciplinary
engineering perspective. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29 (1), 283e294.
Shu, Y., Zhao, J., 2014. A simplified Markov-based approach for safety integrity level
References verification. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29 (1), 262e266.
Sohani, S., Haugnaess, T., 2002. Contractor management by integration into the
Aqlan, F., Ali, E., 2014. Integrating lean principles and fuzzy bow-tie analysis for risk safety management system. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Interna-
assessment in chemical industry. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29 (1), 39e48. tional Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration
Azadeh, A., Madine, M., Haghighi, S., Rad, E., 2014. Continuous performance and Production, 20e22 March, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
assessment and improvement of integrated HSE and maintenance systems by Zavadskas, E.K., Vilutiene, T., 2006. A multiple criteria evaluation of multi-family
multivariate analysis in gas transmission units. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 27 (1), apartment block's maintenance contractors: Idmodel for maintenance
32e41. contractor evaluation and the determination of its selection criteria. Build.
Chua, D., Goh, Y., 2004. Incident causation model for improving feedback of safety Environ. 41, 621e632.
knowledge. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 130 (4), 542e555. Zhang, Y., Fan, Z., 2014. An optimization method for selecting project risk response
Counts, J., 1997, June. The importance of contractor safety. Med. Sci. Occup. Health strategies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (3), 412e422.
Saf. 66 (6), 18e83.