Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to significantly impact various socio-technical systems, offering transformative possibilities for improved interaction between humans and technology. However, their integration poses complex challenges due to the intricate interplay between societal structures, human behaviour, and technological innovation. This research explores these multifaceted challenges, emphasising the need for a human-centered approach in integrating LLMs to ensure that technological advancements are aligned with ethical standards and societal needs. Utilizing a structured methodology comprising a workshop, literature analysis, and expert collaborations, the study uses a multi-dimensional human-centered AI framework to guide the responsible integration of LLMs. Key insights include the importance of inclusive data, considering unintended consequences, maintaining privacy, and respecting intellectual property rights. The paper identifies and advocates for principles like human-in-the-loop, continuous longitudinal studies, proactive awareness campaigns, and regular audits to develop LLMs that are ethically sound, adaptable, and effectively integrated into various socio-technical systems, thus addressing user needs and broader societal impacts. The paper also underlines the importance of collaboration among academia, industry, and policymakers to develop LLMs that are ethically aligned, socially beneficial, and adaptable to future societal needs. The findings offer valuable insights into the strategic integration of LLMs, advocating for a broader research perspective beyond industrial motivations to fully understand and leverage LLMs in socio-technical landscapes.

@en

Safety visualisations and their influences on safety concepts are presented. Visualisations like safety posters show a clear message of fear and guilt. This changes after World War II, due to a more tolerant atmosphere. Latent, organisational factors as decisive elements of accident processes appear in visualisations. An example shows a method to follow accident scenarios in real time.@en

Een internationaal en multidisciplinair consortium onder leiding van onderzoekers van de TU Delft onderzocht de mogelijkheden van ChatGPT om veiligheidsgerelateerde adviezen te geven. De resultaten van dit onderzoek zijn te lezen in het artikel “The risks of using ChatGPT to obtain common safety-related information and advice”1. In wat volgt kan je een samenvatting van dit artikel lezen.@en

COSI-project - Collaboration on safety in (petro)chemical clusters@en

Wetenschappelijk onderzoek gepubliceerd in Engelstalige peer-reviewed tijdschriften is vaak niet laagdrempelig genoeg om door te dringen tot de werkvloer. In deze rubriek wordt een recent verschenen wetenschappelijk artikel samengevat met relevante resultaten voor de preventieadviseur. Volgend artikel wordt besproken: “Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss”1. @en

At the OCI Nitrogen ammonia plant, located at the Chemelot site in Geleen, The Netherlands, a project has been initiated to monitor major accident processes at the site. This contribution answers the question whether indicators can be derived from the barrier system status to provide information about the development and likelihood of the major accident processes in the ammonia production process. The accident processes are visualized as scenarios in bowties. This research focuses on the status of the preventive barriers on the so called ‘left-hand side’ of the bowtie, before a hazard becomes uncontrollable. Both the quality – expressed in reliability/availability and effectiveness – and the activation of the barrier system give an indication of the development of the accident scenarios and the likelihood of the central event. This likelihood is calculated as a loss of risk reduction compared to the original design. The calculation gives in an indicator called “preventive barrier indicator”, which should initiate further action. Based on an example, it is demonstrated which actions should be taken and their urgency.@en

An exponential amount of academic research has been dedicated to the safety culture concept, but still, no consensus has been reached on its definition and content. In general, safety culture research lacks an interdisciplinary approach. Furthermore, although the concept of safety culture is characterised by complexity and multifacetedness, the safety culture concept has been characterised by reductionism, where models and theories simplify the concept in order to better grasp it, leading to confined approaches. In this article, the multifacetedness of safety culture is acknowledged, and the topic is addressed from a safety science perspective, combining insights from multiple academic disciplines. An integrative and comprehensive conceptual framework to assess safety culture in organisations is developed, taking into account the limitations of existing models, as well as the needs of the work field. This conceptual framework is called the ‘Integrated Safety Culture Assessment’ (ISCA), where the ‘assessment’ refers to its practical usability. The practical rendition of ISCA can be used to map the safety culture of an organisation and to formulate recommendations in this regard, with the ultimate goal of bringing about a change towards a positive safety culture. The comprehensiveness of ISCA lies in the inclusion of technological factors, organisational or contextual factors and human factors interacting and interrelating with each other, and in considering both observable or objective safety-related aspects in an organisation, and non-observable or subjective safety-related aspects. When using ISCA, organisational safety culture is assessed in an integrative way by using a variety of research methods involving the entire organisation, and by taking into account the specific context of the organisation.@en

Safety climate and safety culture are important research domains in risk and safety science, and various industry and service sectors show significant interest in, and commitment to, applying its concepts, theories, and methods to enhance organizational safety performance. Despite the large body of literature on these topics, there are disagreements about the scope and focus of these concepts, and there is a lack of systematic understanding of their development patterns and the knowledge domains on which these are built. This article presents a comparative analysis of the literature focusing on safety climate and safety culture, using various scientometric analysis approaches and tools. General development patterns are identified, including the publication trends, in terms of temporal and geographical activity, the science domains in which safety culture and safety climate research occurs, and the scientific domains and articles that have primarily influenced their respective development. It is found that the safety culture and safety climate domains show strong similarities, e.g., in dominant application domains and frequently occurring terms. However, safety culture research attracts comparatively more attention from other scientific domains, and the research domains rely on partially different knowledge bases. In particular, while measurement plays a role in both domains, the results suggest that safety climate research focuses comparatively more on the development and validation of questionnaires and surveys in particular organizational contexts, whereas safety culture research appears to relate these measurements to wider organizational features and management mechanisms. Finally, various directions for future research are identified based on the obtained results@en

Major accidents in Western countries, receiving a lot of media attention in the 1970s, are starting point for research into internal and external domino effects in the chemical and petrochemical sectors and clusters. Initially, these reports are published by government institutions and government-related research centers. With the upcoming quantitative risk analyses in the 1970 and 1980s, the so-called colored books, published in the Netherlands, play a prominent role in quantifying these domino effects. Since the mid-1990s, the second European Seveso Directive encourages scientific research on domino effects, shown in substantial growth of academic publications on the topic. Research in Western countries is dominated by risk assessments, probabilities, and failure mechanisms are calculated for the complex phenomenon of domino effects and its consequences. Previous works are closely related to political, official, and private decision-making.@en

OCI Nitrogen seeks to gain knowledge of (leading) indicators regarding the process safety performance of their ammonia production process. The current sub-study raises the question whether major hazard accidents in the ammonia production process can be predicted from organizational factors, also called management delivery systems. This paper links organizational factors to accident processes and their barrier systems, using the bowtie metaphor. It is shown that organizational factors indirectly impact accident processes as they strongly influence the quality or trustworthiness of the barrier systems. By putting the right focus on organizational factors during audits or reviews, major accident processes get the attention they deserve, and the necessary actions are taken at the right management level. Qualitative and quantitative monitoring of organizational factors can provide a picture of their operation and efficiency. Using an example on retrospective data it is demonstrated that information from organizational factors could have stopped the development of the near-accident prematurely. However, organizational factors should first be qualitatively assessed before they are quantitatively monitored. A quantitative assessment has been worked out for one of the management delivery systems so to provide an example of management indicators. Determining these (management) indicators from threshold values is an intricate matter due to the complicated influence of organizational factors on accident processes, and requires more follow-up research.@en

Wetenschappelijk onderzoek gepubliceerd in Engelstalige peer-reviewed tijdschriften is vaak niet laagdrempelig genoeg om door te dringen tot de werkvloer. In deze rubriek wordt een recent verschenen wetenschappelijk artikel samengevat met relevante resultaten voor de preventieadviseur. Volgend artikel wordt besproken: “Sleep, Health and Wellness at Work: A Scoping Review”1. @en

Geen uiteenzetting van wet- en regelgeving om veiligheid en gezondheid op het werk aan te pakken. Wel een boek – of beter, een praktijkgerichte gids – waarin goede praktijken worden toegelicht om het welzijn op het werk op een geordende en effectieve manier aan te pakken.@en

Whitepaper in samenwerking met WISE, Vandeputte safety experts en Prebes.@en

Wetenschappelijk onderzoek gepubliceerd in Engelstalige peer-reviewed tijdschriften is vaak niet laagdrempelig genoeg om door te dringen tot de werkvloer. In deze rubriek wordt een recent verschenen wetenschappelijk artikel samengevat met relevante resultaten voor de preventieadviseur. Volgend artikel wordt besproken: “Falls from Height in the Construction Industry: A Critical Review of the Scientific Literature”. @en

In 2017, the Journal of Integrated Security Science was founded at the Safety and Security Science section at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. Now, in 2021, we are happy to announce that we are rebranding the journal by taking it into an adjusted thematic and theoretical avenue: with a new journal name, a revised scope and updated editorial board, we aim for the journal to become an established value within the field of security and safety science, that guarantees high quality standards. In this editorial, we will elaborate upon the implemented changes, and our goals for the future.@en

OCI Nitrogen wants to gain knowledge of (leading) indicators regarding the process safety performance of their ammonia production process. This paper answers the question whether indicators can be derived from the barrier system status to provide information about the development and likelihood of the major accident processes in the ammonia production process. The accident processes are visualized as scenarios in bowties. This research focuses on the status of the preventive barriers on the left-hand side of the bowtie. Both the quality – expressed in reliability/availability and effectiveness – and the activation of the barrier system give an indication of the development of the accident scenarios and the likelihood of the central event. This likelihood is calculated as a loss of risk reduction compared to the original design. The calculation results in an indicator called “preventive barrier indicator”, which should initiate further action. Based on an example, it is demonstrated which actions should be taken and what their urgency is.

@en

Kenmerkend voor bedrijven die in een cluster gelegen zijn, zijn de onderlinge risico’s waarbij de risico’s van één bedrijf aanleiding kunnen geven tot nieuwe risico’s bij een aangrenzend of een nabijgelegen bedrijf. Daarbij gaat het om de mogelijkheid op domino-effecten, keteneffecten, of nadelige effecten (letsel/schade). Voor (petro)chemische bedrijven die geografisch nabij andere bedrijven liggen, is het bijgevolg noodzakelijk om (proces)veiligheid niet aan te pakken als een geïsoleerd bedrijf, maar in samenwerking met de nabijgelegen bedrijven, om zo ook de onderlinge risico’s optimaal te beheersen. Samenwerking tussen bedrijven wordt dus gezien als dé sleutel tot het doelmatig aanpakken van onderlinge risico’s. Deze studie heeft als doel om deze samenwerking tussen geclusterde bedrijven te faciliteren, meer concreet te maken, en te optimaliseren. Om dit te bewerkstelligen is een praktische tool ontwikkeld. Een (sub)cluster van (petro)chemische bedrijven kan de tool gezamenlijk gebruiken om op een optimale en onderbouwde manier samenwerkingsinitiatieven op te zetten om de onderlinge risico’s te beheersen, en om zo de (cluster)veiligheid te verhogen. Ten minste twee bedrijven die geografisch dicht bij elkaar gevestigd zijn, kunnen aan de slag gaan met de tool. Minstens één bedrijf heeft hierbij een BRZO-status. Verder is de tool bruikbaar voor zowel BRZO-bedrijven met en zonder een domino-effect aanwijzing, voor bedrijven die (net) onder de BRZO-drempel vallen, en voor niet-(petro)chemische bedrijven. In de praktische tool (in de vorm van een Excel-file) zijn verschillende algemene veiligheidsparameters opgenomen en daarbij horend meer specifieke veiligheidsinitiatieven. Hierbij gaat het om initiatieven die bedrijven samen kunnen opzetten om de onderlinge risico’s te beheren en te beheersen. In de tool ligt de focus op zowel proactieve als reactieve veiligheidsparameters. Er zijn vijf proactieve veiligheidsparameters geformuleerd waarbij de focus ligt op het voorkomen van ongewenste gebeurtenissen: -Het uitwisselen van veiligheidsinformatie -Het beoordelen en beheersen van onderlinge risico’s op clusterniveau -Leren van elkaar -Uniformiteit en standaardisatie van veiligheid -De cluster van bedrijven als collectief Er zijn twee reactieve veiligheidsparameters geformuleerd waarbij de focus ligt op het mitigeren van de gevolgen als er toch een ongewenste gebeurtenis plaatsvindt: -Gedeelde calamiteitenuitrusting en -faciliteiten -Gezamenlijke noodorganisatie en crisiscommunicatie Deze veiligheidsparameters zijn in de tool uiteengezet in verschillende meer specifieke veiligheidsinitiatieven. De (sub)cluster van bedrijven die aan de slag gaat met de tool zal voor alle specifieke veiligheidsinitiatieven gezamenlijk de huidige prestatie (stap 1) en de haalbaarheid scoren (stap 2). In stap 1 scoren de bedrijven de huidige prestatie, gaande van een optimale prestatie tot een suboptimale prestatie of de afwezigheid van samenwerking wat betreft het te scoren veiligheidsinitiatief. In stap 2 scoren de bedrijven de haalbaarheid van de veiligheidsinitiatieven. Aan de hand van meerdere criteria (zoals onder meer risicoreductie potentieel, kosten, concurrentiegevoeligheid, en invloed van het (moeder)bedrijf) wordt er door de bedrijven een inschatting gemaakt van de haalbaarheid van de veiligheidsinitiatieven. Vervolgens worden op basis van een achterliggend algoritme de veiligheidsinitiatieven automatisch gerangschikt naargelang potentiële veiligheidswinst. Men krijgt dus als uitkomst een prioriteitsstelling van veiligheidsparameters, waarbij de hoogst gerankte veiligheidsparameters de meeste veiligheidswinst kunnen opleveren voor een bepaalde cluster. Door het toekennen van de huidige prestatie en de haalbaarheid houdt de rangschikking rekening met de reeds aanwezige (geïnstitutionaliseerde) veiligheidsparameters, en met de specifieke context van een bepaalde cluster. De tool is uniek in die zin dat er gefocust wordt op gezamenlijkheid. De prioriteitsstelling van de veiligheidsparameters zal toelaten om op een onderbouwde en optimale manier te bepalen waarop men als (sub)cluster van bedrijven samen kan inzetten om tot veiligheidswinst te komen m.b.t. onderlinge risico’s. De tool kan gezien worden als het startpunt om een hoger gezamenlijk veiligheidsniveau te bereiken, waarbij de uitkomst van de tool het vertrekpunt kan zijn om concrete veiligheidsinitiatieven (verder) vorm te geven. De tool focust op het aanpakken van onderlinge risico’s, waardoor de veiligheid van de gehele cluster geoptimaliseerd wordt. Hierbij zal ook de omgevingsveiligheid geoptimaliseerd worden, aangezien het gehele gebied waarin de geclusterde bedrijven functioneren veiliger wordt als de onderlinge risico’s beter beheerst worden.@en

Safety and security are often considered in complimentary or opposing terms. Discussions on their conceptual meaning have been put forward, and calls for an increased integration of these domains have been made. Nevertheless, there is currently no high-level empirical comparison of the development and contents of these research domains. In this article, the broad scientific literature of safety and security research obtained from Web of Science is analysed, aiming to obtain comparative insights in these respective fields, with a specific focus on the themes, topics and scientific areas where increased integration can be fruitful. Scientific publications are analysed in terms of research trends and geographic distribution, journals’ distribution, scientific categories, and focus topics of safety and security research in 2019. The results indicate a rapidly growing publication trend in both research domains, with an exponential growth since the 1990s. Safety research focuses on medicine/drug safety, patient safety and disease-related safety, with occupational health and safety and safety in socio-technical systems comparatively smaller research domains. Security research focuses on internet of things, physical layer security and cybersecurity/information security. Journals and scientific categories where significant contributions to both safety and security research are made relate mostly to industrial and transport safety and security, food safety, and public, environmental and occupational health. Apart from providing insights to academics and practitioners to the scope and focus areas of safety and security research, the findings also support delineating the scope and focus of the Journal of Integrated Security and Safety Science (JISSS), which aims to bolster connections and integration between these domains. Based on the findings, a focus on safety and security in industrial plants, transportation contexts, and industrially relevant aspects of public, environmental and occupational health, is found to be an appropriate target area for JISSS.@en