The future of safety science

Swuste, Paul; Groeneweg, Jop; Gulijk, Coen van; Zwaard, Walter; Lemkowitz, Saul; Oostendorp, Yvette

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104593

Cited by 42 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, Figure 8 showed that driving collision, safety signs comprehensibility and environmental safety have been the main hotspots in the last four years of safety signs research. Analysis on research themes, hotspots and scientific categories indicated that safety signs, as a major topic of safety science, is multi-disciplinary, which is the same as Paul et al’s previous research conclusion [ 40 ]. The analysis of research themes and hotspots in the field of safety signs can provide help for scholars to better understand the research traits and developments rules of safety signs, provide reference basis for sign designers or relevant standard makers and provide a reference for future researchers to determine research topics.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Scientometric Analysis of Safety Sign Research: 1990–2019

Gao

Luo

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the research themes and hotspots of safety signs research between 1990 and 2019 through the scientometric analysis method. In total, 3102 articles of literature from the Web of Science core database were analyzed by the CiteSpace visualization tool and the results were displayed in mapping knowledge domains. The overall characteristics analysis showed that safety sign is an emerging research field in a rapid development stage—81.4% of the literature works were published in the past ten years, and the United States was in the leading position, followed by China and Canada. The keyword co-occurrence analysis indicated that traffic signs and driving safety were the most popular research topics and have been combined with simulation technology in recent years, whereby individual mental health has been added as an influential factor. The journals and category co-citation analysis showed that the safety signs research involved many subjects, mainly engineering, transportation and public safety. The results indicated that the safety signs research is multi-disciplinary, and it will continue to develop in various scientific domains in the future. The conclusions can provide help and reference for potential readers, as well as help with the sustainable development of safety signs research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Scientometric Analysis of Safety Sign Research: 1990–2019

Gao

Luo

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From a SbD perspective, experience can be of great importance for creating an inherently safer environment. As SbD encourages stakeholder involvement [ 8 ], more discussion and engagement between relevant parties is invited, and more experience is brought in to anticipate potential risks [ 31 ]. As a broad range of stakeholders can share their vision and perspectives, measures could be designed collectively that would anticipate a wide range of potential risks.…”

Section: Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Value Conflicts in Designing for Safety: Distinguishing Applications of Safe-by-Design and the Inherent Safety Principles

Bouchaut

Asveld

Hanefeld

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although both the Inherent Safety Principles (ISPs) and the Safe-by-Design (SbD) approach revolve around the central value of safety, they have a slightly different focus in terms of developing add-on features or considering initial design choices. This paper examines the differences between these approaches and analyses which approach is more suitable for a specific type of research—fundamental or applied. By applying the ISPs and SbD to a case study focusing on miniaturized processes using Hydrogen Cyanide, we find that both approaches encounter internal value-conflicts and suffer from external barriers, or lock-ins, which hinder implementation of safety measures. By applying the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), we gain insight in the matureness of a technology (thereby distinguishing fundamental and applied research) and the extent of lock-ins being present. We conclude that the ISPs are better able to deal with lock-ins, which are more common in applied research stages, as this approach provides guidelines for add-on safety measures. Fundamental research is not subject to lock-ins yet, and therefore SbD would be a more suitable approach. Lastly, application of either approach should not be associated with a specific field of interest, but instead with associated known or uncertain risks.

show abstract

“…Lack of knowledge in CI implementation (Ahmad et al, 2017) Survey (Sola and Mota, 2020;Message Costa et al, 2020) Lean Manufacturing tool (Ahmad et al, 2017) Literature review (Swuste et al, 2020)…”

Section: B1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of knowledge sharing culture among employees (Lodgaard et al, 2016) Survey (Sola and Mota, 2020) Case study (Lodgaard et al, 2016;Jing et al, 2020) Literature review (Swuste et al, 2020)…”

Section: B1mentioning

confidence: 99%

An integrated fuzzy framework for analyzing barriers to the implementation of continuous improvement in manufacturing

Tavana

Shaabani

Naser

2020

IJQRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeDelivering premium services and quality products are critical strategies for success in manufacturing. Continuous improvement (CI), as an underlying foundation for quality management, is an ongoing effort allowing manufacturing companies to see beyond the present to create a bright future. We propose a novel integrated fuzzy framework for analyzing the barriers to the implementation of CI in manufacturing companies.Design/methodology/approachWe use the fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) and a fuzzy Shannon's entropy to identify and weigh the most significant barriers. We then use fuzzy multi-objective optimization based on ratio analysis (MOORA), the fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and fuzzy simple additive weighting (SAW) methods for prioritizing and ranking the barriers with each method. Finally, we aggregate these results with Copeland's method and extract the main CI implementation barriers in manufacturing.FindingsWe show “low cooperation and integration of the team in CI activities” is the most important barrier in CI implementation. Other important barriers are “limited management support in CI activities,” “low employee involvement in CI activities,” “weak communication system in the organization,” and “lack of knowledge in the organization to implement CI projects.”Originality/valueWe initially identify the barriers to the implementation of CI through rigorous literature review and then apply a unique integrated fuzzy approach to identify the most important barriers based on the opinions of industry experts and academics.

show abstract

The future of safety science

Cited by 42 publications

References 44 publications

Scientometric Analysis of Safety Sign Research: 1990–2019

Scientometric Analysis of Safety Sign Research: 1990–2019

Value Conflicts in Designing for Safety: Distinguishing Applications of Safe-by-Design and the Inherent Safety Principles

An integrated fuzzy framework for analyzing barriers to the implementation of continuous improvement in manufacturing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About