Justification for the choice of an expert method for assessing the state of the integrated safety system at industrial enterprises

Introduction. The paper presents an integrated security system (ISS), for which a quantitative measure of the influence of subsystems of industrial and fire safety (IS and FS), labour protection (LP), production structural units (PSU) is obtained.

Goals and objectives. The purpose of the presented paper is to improve the state of the ISS at the enterprise by assessing the influence of personnel (IS and FS; LP; PSU) on it, which performs labour functions to ensure the quality functioning of the system under consideration, it was necessary to solve two problems.

Results. In the course of solving problem No. 1, the substantiation of the preferability of using the method of prioritisation is presented, which together with the Gaussian normal distribution functional, allows solving problems of experts choosing a specific subsystem (IS and FS; LP; PSU) in which there are drawbacks. In the course of solving problem No. 2, an example substantiating the adequacy of the joint application of the considered method in practice is presented.

Conclusions. On the basis of the system analysis of the methods used in practice, the justification for the use of such an expert method is presented, with the help of which quantitative values are displayed in the form of the influence coefficient, which indicates certain deviations and allows to correct the personnel management model (IS and FS; LP; PSU).
An example is demonstrated that allows us to prove the adequacy of using the method of assessing the state of the ISS created at a manufacturing enterprise.
The application of the developed model for the development of the ISS at Russian manufacturing enterprises makes it possible in practice to solve the problem of reducing damage from accidents and fires in the system under consideration, i.e. to solve the problem of important socio-economic importance for Russia.

1. Makhutov N.A., Permyakov V.N., Akhmetkhanov R.S. et al. Risk analysis and ensuring the security of critical facilities of the petrochemical complex : a textbook. Tyumen, TSOGU, 2013; 560. (rus).

2. Gvozdev E.V. Setting a problem on the rational allocation of a resource, intended to ensure integrated enterprise security. Real Estate: Economics, Management. 2023; 2:50-55. DOI: 10.22337/2073-8412-2023-2-50-55

3. Gvozdev E.V. On the assessment of the state of integrated safety at the enterprises of the Russian oil and gas complex. Pozharovzryvobezopasnost’/Fire and Explosion Safety. 2022; 31(1):49-64. DOI: 10.22227/0869-7493.2022.31.01.49-64 (rus).

4. Gvozdev E.V. Development of risk management methodology at explosion- and fire-hazardous facilities of enterprises. Occupational safety in industry. 2023; 8:61-69. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2023-8-61-69 (rus).

5. Gvozdev E.V. Formulation and solution of the task of developing a comprehensive safety system at explosion- and fire-hazardous production facilities of enterprises. Occupational Safety in Industry. 2023; 10:45-53. DOI: 10.24000/­0409-2961-2023-10-45-53 (rus).

6. Gvozdev E.V. Management of complex security of enterprises using the symbolic method. Real Estate: Economics, Management. 2023; 4:48-53. DOI: 10.22337/2073-8412-2023-4-48-53

7. Ghosh S., Zaboli A., Hong J., Kwon J. An integrated approach of threat analysis for autonomous vehicles perception system. IEEE Access, 11. 2023; (99):1-1. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3243906

8. Angermeier D., Wester H., Beilke K., Hansch G., Eichler J. Security risk assessments: modeling and risk level propagation. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems. 2023; 7(1). DOI: 10.1145/3569458

9. Stroykov G.A., Babyr N.V., Ilin I.V., Marchenko R.S. System of comprehensive assessment of project risks in energy industry. International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics. 2021; 34(7). DOI: 10.5829/IJE.2021.34.07A.22

10. Srikrishnan V., Lafferty D.C., Wong T.E., Lamontagne J.R., Quinn J.D., Sharma S. et al. Uncertainty analysis in multi-­sector systems: Considerations for risk analysis, projection, and planning for complex systems. Earth’s Future. 2022; 10(8). DOI: 10.1029/2021EF002644

11. Niazi M.A. Introduction to the modeling and analysis of complex systems : a review. Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling. 2016; 4(1). DOI: 10.1186/s40294-016-0015-x

12. Bjerga T., Aven T., Zio E. Uncertainty treatment in risk analysis of complex systems: The cases of STAMP and FRAM. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2016; 156. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.004

13. Mbuli N., Mathonsi M., Seitshiro M., Pretorius J.H.C. Decomposition forecasting methods : a review of applications in power systems. Energy Reports. 2020; 6. DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.238

14. Kim W., Katipamula S. A review of fault detection and diagnostics methods for building systems. Science and Technology for the Built Environment. 2018; 24(1). DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2017.1318008

15. Witelski T., Bowen M. Methods of mathematical modelling: Continuous systems and differential equations. Methods of Mathematical Modelling: Continuous Systems and Differential Equations. 2015. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-23042-9

16. Judd K.L. Chapter 12. Approximation, perturbation, and projection methods in economic analysis. Handbook of Computational Economics. 1996; 1. DOI: 10.1016/S1574-0021(96)01014-3

17. Han Z.Y., Weng W.G. Comparison study on qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural gas pipeline network. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2011; 189(1-2). DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.02.067

18. Blumberg V.A., Glushchenko V.F. Which solution is better? The method of prioritization. Leningrad, Lenizdat, 1982; 160. (rus).

19. Bapat R.B. A max version of the Perron-Frobenius theorem. Linear Algebra and Its Applications. 1998; 275-276. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3795(97)10057-X

20. Ramalho F.D., Silva I.S., Ekel P.Y., Martins C.A.P. da S., Bernardes P., Libório M.P. Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats. MethodsX. 2021; 8. DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101371

21. Alamdari A.M., Jabarzadeh Y., Adams B., Samson D., Khanmohammadi S. An analytic network process model to prioritize supply chain risks in green residential megaprojects. Operations Management Research. 2023; 16(1). DOI: 10.1007/s12063-022-00288-2

22. Belikov A.B., Simonyan V.V. Mathematical processing of the results of geodetic measurements : a textbook. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. The Federation. National Research. Moscow State University Builds. Un-T. 2nd ed. Moscow, NRU MGSU, 2016; 432. (rus).

23. Dvulit P., Savchuk S., Sosonka I. Accuracy estimation of site coordinates derived from GNSS-observations by non-­classical error theory of measurements. Geodesy and Geodynamics. 2021; 12(5). DOI: 10.1016/j.geog.2021.07.005