建模综合风险评估(MOIRA):荷兰铁路发车过程的实验

Katja Schuitemaker, G. M. Bonnema
{"title":"建模综合风险评估(MOIRA):荷兰铁路发车过程的实验","authors":"Katja Schuitemaker, G. M. Bonnema","doi":"10.1109/SYSOSE.2019.8753828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Risk assessment is mostly document-based at this moment. In this paper, we present a study to compare two ways of integral risk assessment of the Dutch railway departure process. First, a document-based risk assessment about the departure process executed by NS in 2011. Second, a risk assessment about this same departure process with modelling of integral risk assessment (MOIRA). The aim is to measure and compare four key performance indicators: (1) validity of the risk assessment elements, (2) consistency of the data processing, (3) clarity of the boundaries, and (4) comprehension of the overall safety architecture. For this purpose, we have designed experiments that included direct, detailed observations in which we controlled the execution of performing risk assessment tasks. In total, twelve test sessions were performed, with in total 42 participants. Data was collected through the month of January 2019. In the end, we compare the two, to see if there are any objective differences, and also, we validate their usability by surveying the findings of the participants, resulting in a fifth KPI.","PeriodicalId":133413,"journal":{"name":"2019 14th Annual Conference System of Systems Engineering (SoSE)","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modelling Integral Risk Assessment (MOIRA): Experiments on the Dutch Railway Departure Process\",\"authors\":\"Katja Schuitemaker, G. M. Bonnema\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SYSOSE.2019.8753828\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Risk assessment is mostly document-based at this moment. In this paper, we present a study to compare two ways of integral risk assessment of the Dutch railway departure process. First, a document-based risk assessment about the departure process executed by NS in 2011. Second, a risk assessment about this same departure process with modelling of integral risk assessment (MOIRA). The aim is to measure and compare four key performance indicators: (1) validity of the risk assessment elements, (2) consistency of the data processing, (3) clarity of the boundaries, and (4) comprehension of the overall safety architecture. For this purpose, we have designed experiments that included direct, detailed observations in which we controlled the execution of performing risk assessment tasks. In total, twelve test sessions were performed, with in total 42 participants. Data was collected through the month of January 2019. In the end, we compare the two, to see if there are any objective differences, and also, we validate their usability by surveying the findings of the participants, resulting in a fifth KPI.\",\"PeriodicalId\":133413,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2019 14th Annual Conference System of Systems Engineering (SoSE)\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2019 14th Annual Conference System of Systems Engineering (SoSE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2019.8753828\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 14th Annual Conference System of Systems Engineering (SoSE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2019.8753828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目前,风险评估主要是基于文档的。在本文中,我们提出了一项研究,比较两种方法的整体风险评估的荷兰铁路发车过程。首先,对2011年NS执行的离职流程进行了基于文件的风险评估。其次,用整体风险评估模型(MOIRA)对相同的离开过程进行风险评估。目的是衡量和比较四个关键绩效指标:(1)风险评估要素的有效性,(2)数据处理的一致性,(3)边界的清晰度,以及(4)对整体安全架构的理解。为此,我们设计了实验,包括直接的、详细的观察,在这些观察中,我们控制了执行风险评估任务的执行情况。总共进行了12次测试,总共有42名参与者。数据收集到2019年1月。最后,我们对两者进行比较,看看是否有任何客观差异,同时,我们通过调查参与者的发现来验证它们的可用性,从而产生第五个KPI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Modelling Integral Risk Assessment (MOIRA): Experiments on the Dutch Railway Departure Process
Risk assessment is mostly document-based at this moment. In this paper, we present a study to compare two ways of integral risk assessment of the Dutch railway departure process. First, a document-based risk assessment about the departure process executed by NS in 2011. Second, a risk assessment about this same departure process with modelling of integral risk assessment (MOIRA). The aim is to measure and compare four key performance indicators: (1) validity of the risk assessment elements, (2) consistency of the data processing, (3) clarity of the boundaries, and (4) comprehension of the overall safety architecture. For this purpose, we have designed experiments that included direct, detailed observations in which we controlled the execution of performing risk assessment tasks. In total, twelve test sessions were performed, with in total 42 participants. Data was collected through the month of January 2019. In the end, we compare the two, to see if there are any objective differences, and also, we validate their usability by surveying the findings of the participants, resulting in a fifth KPI.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信