A decision making tool based on ontologies for risks evaluation and systems integration

CIB2007-380

A decision making tool based on ontologies for risks evaluation and

systems integration

Forcada N., Casals M., Gangolells M., Roca X., Fuertes A.

Technical University of Catalonia.

Department of Construction Engineering.

C/ Colom, 11 Ed. TR5. 08222 Terrassa (Barcelona). Spain.

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The building and construction sector has always been referred to as a traditional and conservative industry. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the XXI century technological advances have changed the way of working.

Market changes, new technologies and the increase of client expectations are stimulating radical revisions on how the construction industry works and how to give value to its processes.

Many SMEs usually use quality management systems on site; they sometimes apply safety and environmental management systems but seldom, if ever, apply integrated management systems. It leads to a waste of money and human resources, which is avoidable by an application of a correct working methodology.

This paper will expose an integrated management tool, especially to analyse both environmental and health and safety risks along the life cycle of a construction project, with the aim to increase competitivity by optimizing management systems of a construction company.

To do so, a common understanding of the structure of information for all the systems should be used. Then, an ontology to define a common vocabulary for researchers who need to share information in this domain will be defined. It will include definitions of basic concepts in the domain and relations among them.

This tool will facilitate decision-making and continuous improvement with an integrated conception of the completely constructive process.

KEYWORDS: Systems Integration, Ontology, Risks, Evaluation, Knowledge Management.

1 INTEGRATION OF QUALITY, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS

Construction companies are experimenting great changes in all their apects, both technologically and in managerial aspects. This means they need to adapt to new situations to maintain their competitivity.

Currently, there are different management models that companies are adopting to increase their competitivity. From one side, ISO 9000 are a reference point for Quality Management and the basis of the majority of the companies to satisfy customers’ needs.

On the other side, ISO 14000 are also the basis of Environmental Management aspects to minimise environmental impacts and are developed following the previous one.

Finally, the new regulation on risk prevention OHSAS 18001, is inspired on the quality management aspects, continuous improvement and the preventive actions of the business policies.

Quality, Environmental and Safety & Health (QES) management systems are generally considered to be an integration of ISO 9000, ISO 14000 and OHSAS 18001 regulations. They are an approach to doing business that attempts to maximize the competitiveness of an organization through the continual improvement of its products, services, people and environment by emphasizing customer focus (internal and external), long- term commitment, and teamwork.

Many research projects focus on the evaluation of the level of use of quality, environmental and/or health and safety management systems in the construction sector (Ofori G. et al, 2002, Lam K.C. and Ng S. T , 2006, Shohet I.M., and Frydman S., 2003, Cheung S.O. et al, 2004, Pheng L.S., and Tan J.H.K., 2005, Koehn E., and Datta N.K. 2003, Guerra J.F., and Moy D. 2003, Mackau D., 2003, Zeng S.X., et al, 2005, Shen Y.J. and Walker D.H.T., 2001, Pheng L.S. and Pong C.Y., 2003). They also focus on how they integrate the systems, but in general, when talking about system integration

• it only refers to quality and environmental aspects

• is limited to documental integration which only means policies, manuals, procedures and registers unification

1.1 Common aspects to different management systems

Following there are some common aspects to the different management systems.

• Affect all phases of the project, from the design until the conclusion of the construction.

• Affect the efficiency of the company.

• Require effort and vigilance of all agents involved in the stages of the construction process, including subcontractors

• An error in one of the aspects can be devastating to the organization.

• The absence or diminish of accidents, defects and pollution, affects the increase of benefits of the organization.

• Years later problems with one of the aspects, may arise.

• Nonconformities in general reflect negatively in productively directly, but

indirectly in the moral of the workers and in the organization's image.

• The detriment in productivity derived from nonconformities have their origin in human errors and/or adverse conditions like bad design, poor management, bad equipment, lack of training, etc.

• Benefits of the correct implementation of each QES system can be analysed through historic statistics.

The integration line of the management systems should be oriented to the policies unification, manuals, procedures and records depending on the type of organization.

A comparison among ISO 9000:2000, ISO 14000 and OSHAS 18000 in Table 1 makes clear the integration is feasible, as there appear to be common elements that serve similar purposes in the three standards. The benefits for integrating the management systems include an optimized management system, increased competitiveness, better utilization of resources, etc. However, while it is feasible to integrate ISO 9000:2000, ISO 14000 and OSHAS 18000 in the documentation sense, it is unclear if such integration would be received positively by the construction industry (Pheng L.S. and Pong C.Y., 2003).

Both ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 are voluntary. They share a common structure and terminology but there are also some differences such as their aim. Quality management systems focus on the organisation and their customers while environmental management systems have a greater impact and affect the relation with the entire environment.

Establishing a risk free workplace and reducing environmental pollution are important aspects of the integration. Above all, unity of purpose of employees, and employee involvement and empowerment are vital for a successful program (Koehn E. and Datta N., 2003). Due to the great interest in Environmental and Safety & Health integration, the project we are exposing in this paper deals with the integrated evaluation and analysis of Environmental and Safety & Health Risks with the aim to control safety risk and reduce their impact.

The coloured boxes in Table 1. are the aspects that will be integrated in the developed tool.

Table 1.1 Integration between management systems

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM QUALITY

ISO 9000/ 2000

ENVIRONMENTAL

ISO 14000 SAFETY&HEALTH OHSAS 18001 5. MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY

5.1. Man. commitment 5.2. Customer focus 5.3. Quality policy 5.4. Planning 5.5. Responsibility, authority and communication

4.3.1. Environmental aspects 4.3.3. Aims and objectives 4.2. Environmental policy 4.3.4. Environmental Management Programme 4.3.2. Legal and other requirements

4.3.3. Objectives 4.2. OHS policy 4.3. Planning 4.3.2. Legal and other requirements

5.6. Man. review 4.6. Man. review

6. RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

6.1. Provision of resources

6.2. Human resources

4.4.1. Structure-responsibilities 4.4.2. Training, awareness and competence

4.4.1. Structure- responsibilities

4.4.2. Training, awareness and competence

6.3. Infrastructure 6.4. Work environment

4.4.4. Documentation 4.4.3. Consultation and communication

4.4.4. Documentation 4.4.5. Document and data control

4.4.3. Consultation and communication

7. PRODUCT REALIZATION

7.1. Planning of product realization

7.2. Customer-related processes

7.3. Design and development

4.4.7. Emergency plans and response capacity

4.3.1. Planning for risks identification 4.4.7. Emergency

preparedness and response

8. MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS AND IMPROVEMENT

8.1. General 8.2. Monitoring and measurement 8.3. Control of product

4.5. Verification and corrective actions

4.5.1. Monitoring and measurement

4.5.2. Accidents, incidents and nonconformities.

4.5. Verification and corrective actions

4.5.1. Performance

measurement and monitoring 4.5.2. Accidents, incidents and nonconformities.

8.4. Analysis of data 4.5.3. Records 4.5.3. Records and records management

8.5. Improvement 4.5.4 . Audit 4.5.4. Audit

2 AIM AND METHODOLOGY

The aim of this paper is to present a project which is currently being developed to help the construction sector to increase competitively by optimizing management systems resources of the construction companies.

The majority of these companies usually use Quality management systems on site; they sometimes apply Safety & Health and Environmental management systems but seldom, if ever, apply integrated management systems. It leads to a waste of money and human resources, which is avoidable by an application of a correct working methodology.

The specific objectives of this project are:

• To develop an ontology to interrelate Environmental and Health and Safety Risks. To do so, different evaluation methods will be analysed.

• To develop a decision making tool, based on the previous ontology, to integrally analyse Environmental and Health and Safety risks along the life cycle of a construction project and define technical solutions and preventive measures.

Therefore, this project will focus on Environmental and Health and Safety risks being compatible with Quality standards.

3 ONTOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Recently, ontology engineering has been applied to a wide range of sectors and purposes, including semantic integration of heterogeneous databases, content-based retrieval of product catalogues, and management of corporate memory. In the construction sector, ontologies and other semantic resources (vocabularies, taxonomies, etc.) have been used to facilitate communication and to improve understanding among the various stakeholders operating on a project.

An ontology defines a common vocabulary for researchers who need to share information in a domain. It includes machine-interpretable definitions of basic concepts in the domain and relations among them. The aims to develop an ontology are:

• To share common understanding of the structure of information among people or software agents

• To enable reuse of domain knowledge

Although differences exist between ontologies, general agreement exists about several issues related with the structure and behaviour of real world objects (Chandrasekaran, B. et al, 1999).

• There are objects in the world.

• Objects have properties or attributes that can take values, i.e. they can be represented as triplets (Object – Attribute – Value).

• Objects can exist in various relations with each other.

• Events occurs at different time instants.

• There are processes that occur over time in which objects participate.

• The world and its objects can be in different states.

• Events can cause other events or states as effects.

• Objects can have parts.

The establishment of relationships between concepts is the first step towards defining an ontology.

A concept can only be fully defined through identifying its interface with other concepts.

This research effort focuses on the interoperability between both Environmental and Safety & Health Risks evaluation with the aim to develop a Decision Making tool.

3.1 Ontology Domain

It is impossible to develop a single ontology that fully covers a domain or will satisfy the needs and preferences of each user (Gruber T., 1996). This research attempts to develop an ontology focused on the Environmental and Safety and Health Risks domain and it allows for future extension. The starting point in this research was the analysis of different Environmental and Safety & Health evaluation methods.

3.2 Competency questions

This is a very effective and widely used means for validating ontologies (Gruninger M. and Fox MS., 1995). During the development of the system a set of questions was used to assure comprehensive and consistent inclusion of all concepts. For example, the following is a partial listing of the competency questions investigated:

• What Environmental aspects should be taken into account when evaluationg environmental risks?

• What Safety & Health aspects should be taken into account when evaluationg Safety & Health risks?

• What are the common aspects between Environmental and Safety &

Health evaluations?

• What affect the Environmental valoration?

• What affect the Safety & Health ponderation?

The rigorous application of competency questions provides means to assure comprehensive coverage of concepts.

3.3 Terms and Classes

For the ontology the terms that will be considered are: life cycle, Construction, Environmental evaluation, Safety & Health evaluation and Risks.

The Classes will be: an environmental aspect class, an activity class, a risk class and a sensibility class.

3.4 Conceptual schema

The main structure of the proposed ontology is represented in Fig. 1.1. The core concept in this system is the Term Risk which includes four major Classes: Type of environmental aspect, Type of Risk, Working activity and Responsible. Each class has different Properties to define and analyse the characteristics of the risk in terms of Environmental aspects and Safety and Health aspects. Finally, different limitations/instances are defined.

Fig. 1.1 also includes one example of how to define an integrated (Environmental and Safety & Health risk)

Figure 1.1 Conceptual schema

4. DECISION-MAKING TOOL DEVELOPMENT

The ontology defined previously serves as a basis for the development of a Decision Making tool oriented to analyse and evaluate both Environmental and Safety & Health risks along the life cycle of a construction project, with

0..*

1 1

0..*

0

1

0..*

S

Soocciiaall vvaalloorraattiioonn (s(seennssiibbllee // nnoonn sseennssiibbllee ))

0..

W Whhoo (

(vveehhiicclleess aanndd mmaacchhiinneerryy))

I I nn

ww h h i i cc h h

ww o o rr k k i i nn g g a a c c t t ii v v i i tt y y (( e e q q uu i i p p mm e e n n tt s s uu p p p p ll y y ) )

W

Woorrkkiinngg ppllaaccee (s(siittee)) TT

y y p p ee o o ff

rr i i s s kk ( ( s s uu b b s s tt a a n n cc e e

tt h h aa t t cc a a n n b b e e i i n n hh a a l l aa t t e e dd S S e e nn s s i i bb i i ll i i t t yy ( ( d d ii s s t t aa n n c c ee t t oo

tt hh e e t t o o ww n n

) ) ) ) S S ee v v e e r r i i tt y y (( e e y y ee s s

ii r r rr ii t t aa t t i i oo n n ) ) P P rr o o b b aa b b i i ll i i tt y y (( m m e e dd i i uu mm ) ) S S a a f f ee t t y y vv a a ll o o r r aa t t i i oo n n (( T T o o ll e e r r aa b b l l ee ) ) E E nn v v i i rr o o n n mm e e nn t t a a ll vv a a l l oo r r a a tt i i oo n n (( N N o o S S ii g g n n ii f f . . )) W W h h aa t t r r i i ss k k (( e e m m ii s s s s ii o o n n o o f f c c oo m m b b uu s s t t ii b b l l ee g g aa s s e e ss ) ) T T y y pp e e o o f f E E nn v v i i rr o o n n mm e e nn t t a a ll A A s s pp e e cc t t (( a a t t mm o o s s pp h h ee r r i i cc a a l l ll y y

ee m m i i ss s s i i oo n n ) ) MM a a g g nn i i t t uu d d ee ( ( mm a a c c hh i i n n ee r r y y C C O O 22 e e mm i i s s ss i i oo n n s s // m m 22 o o ff c c oo n n s s tt r r . . s s uu p p . . [ [ K K gg / / m m 22 ] ] T e r m C l a s s

L i m i t a t i o n s /

i n s t a n c e s P r o p e r t i e s

the aim to increase competitivity by optimizing management systems of a construction company.

This tool will facilitate decision-making and continuous improvement with an integrated conception of the whole constructive process.

Depending on the stakeholders (I.e. Client, constructor, designer, etc.), and the specifications of the tool, the life cycle of a project can be adapted to the necessities of each circumstance.

From the constructors point of view the life cycle of a construction project can be divided into: Study, Planning, Preparation and Production.

For the moment, the Decision Making tool will be oriented to constructors but probably, it can be extended to other stakeholders with the consequent adaptation to the new context.

It is planned that in each stage of the life cycle one or many operational controls should be carried out. This means, to analyse the risks in an integrated way. The Decision Making tool will provide an integrated Environmental and Health & Safety analysis to evaluate both risks in conjunction and will be able to extract technical solutions and preventive measures considering both risks.

A construction project is always subjected to changes taking into account costs, time and risks aspects. This Decision Making tool will then help constructors taking risks decisions.

Fig. 1.2 shows the general layout of the decision making tool for Environmental and Safety and Health Risks management.

Figure 1.2 General layout of the decision making tool for Environmental and Safety and

Health Risks management Study

R Reeuussaabbllee k knnoowwlleeddggee

Planification

S S

S

Preparation Production

S E S

S

S E

E

S E

R Reeuussaabbllee k knnoowwlleeddggee

R Reeuussaabbllee k knnoowwlleeddggee

R Reeuussaabbllee k knnoowwlleeddggee Leargning

Risks’ evaluation Operational

Control Technical solutions /

Preventive measures Negotiation +

Evaluation + Decision

Preventive measures + Evaluation + Corrective measures

-

-Propose technical solutions and preventive measures

-

-Knowledge capture of the project to be used

in other projects

Moreover, this tool will capture all the decisions and situations from each project and be able to reuse this information into other projects and/or in other stages of the same project. Therefore, the evaluation method is based on the quality principles of Plan-Do-Check-Act.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This research project presented here is developing an ontology to define a common vocabulary for researchers and users who need to share information in the domain of Risks Management and more concretely Environmental and Safety & Health Risks. The ontology will be based on the analysis of different existing evaluation systems.

To that end, the ontology will be used as the interoperability platform for a Decision Making tool for constructors to evaluate risks and get technical solutions and preventive measures with the aim to increase competitivity by optimizing the management systems of the company.

This tool will facilitate decision making and continuous improvement with an integrated conception of the whole constructive process.

The main applications of this tool will be to improve construction projects results by evaluating and analysing in an integrated way the risks of the project. From the results of this analysis the tool would generate technical solutions and preventive measures to be applied in the following stages of the project. Therefore, improvements in the project overall objectives such as time, cost, quality and client satisfaction will be obtained.

For the moment, the tool is still being developed but it is expected that in the near future validation and verification by analyzing different case studies will be carried out.

Once this tool is implemented, the next step would be to generate a data warehouse with all the information from the different projects, technical solutions, preventive measures, case studies, etc. to be able to reuse this information in other projects for the continuous improvement of the company.

Another possible step would be to include quality management and project management in the analysis of risks with the consequent improvement of the Decision Making Tool.

6. REFERENCES

Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R. and Benjamins V. R., "What are ontologies, and why do we need them?," Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, IEEE [see also IEEE Intelligent Systems], vol. 14, no. 1, 1999, pp. 20-26.

Cheung S.O., Suen H.C.H., Cheung K.K.W. (2004). “CSHM: Web-based safety and health monitoring system for construction management”.

Journal of Safety Research. Volume 35, Issue 2, pp. 159-170.

Guerra J.F., Moy D. (2003). “The new performance evaluation methodology and its integration with management systems”. TQM Magazine. Volume 15, Issue 1, pp. 25-29.

Gruber T, (1996) “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications”, Knowledge System Laboratory, Technical Report KSL 92- 71, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford California,USA.

Gruninger M, Fox MS, (1995) Methodology for the Design and Evaluation of Ontologies, Technical Report, University of Toronto.

Koehn E., Datta N.K. (2003). “Quality, Environmental, and Health and Safety Management Systems for Construction Engineering”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Volume 129, Issue 5, pp.

562-569.

Lam K.C., Ng S.T. (2006)“A cooperative Internet-facilitated quality management environment for construction”. Automation in Construction.

Volume 15, Issue 1.

Mackau D. (2003). “SME integrated management system: a proposed experiences model”. TQM Magazine. Volume 15, Issue 1, pp. 43-51.

Ofori G., Gang G., Briffett C. (2002). “Implementing environmental management systems in construction: lessons from quality systems”.

Building and Environment. Volume 37, Issue 12, pp. 1397-1407.

Pheng L.S., Tan J.H.K. (2005). “Integrating ISO 9001 Quality Management System and ISO 14001 Environmental Management System for Contractors”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.

Volume 131, Issue 11, pp. 1241-1244.

Pheng L.S., Pong C.Y. (2003). “Integrating ISO 9001 and OHSAS 18001 for Construction”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.

Volume 129, Issue 3, pp. 338-347.

Shen Y.J., Walker D.H.T. (2001). “Integrating OHS, EMS amd QM with constructability principles when construction planning – a design and construct project case study”. TQM Magazine. Volume 13, Issue 4, pp.

247-259.

Shohet I.M., Frydman S. (2003). “Communication Patterns in Construction at Construction Manager Level”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Volume 129, Issue 5, pp. 570-577.

Zeng S.X., Tian P., Shi J.J. (2005). “Implementing integration of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 for construction”. Managerial Auditing Journal. Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 394-407.