원전 종사자의 직무 스트레스 평가 및 관리 기법 개발 - KINS · 2018-01-01 ·...

원전 종사자의 직무 스트레스 평가 및 관리 기법 개발

2012년 11월 1일

이용희a, 이용희b, 장통일

계측제어·인간공학 연구부

원자력발전소의 DGOMS와 작업 요구 특성 분석에 따른 업무량 평가

2

계측제어•인간공학연구부, KAERI

한국원자력연구원

NuPIC 2012

Literature Review

Self-reports of psychosocial work conditions for measuring job stress (Frese and

Zapf, 1988; Kasl, 1978, 1987, 1998; Karasek, 1979; ….)

Stress can contribute to WMSDs (CUPE, 2003)

Multi-factorial to stress and complicated in terms of prevention and treatment

(National research Council and the Institute of Medicine, 2001; Deveraux et al.,

2002)

job stress(Person-environment fit) and accident prediction (Sherry, 1991, Reason

1997, Hartley & Hassani, 1994)

Job stress - 241,800 cases in 2000, 67% of all occupational disease in USA

The total cost of job stress is over 45~54 billion dollars per year including 15~20

billion dollars, compensation cost in USA (BLS, 2001)


3



NuPIC 2012

Problem Statement

1. Job stress increases and becomes a major problem

Computerized system - Complexity of an individual role

2. Unclear etiology of job stress

3. Validation?

psychosocial work conditions for job stress evaluation ?

job stress - physical, psychosocial, environmental and general

factors (Macro Ergonomics Approach)

4. Multi Risk Factors – High Dimensionality


4



NuPIC 2012

Research Background

External pressure

Optimal Pressure

( Yerkes and Dodson, 1908 )

Performance Psychological strain

Person-environment fit

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

P<E P=E P>E

( Caplan, 1998 )


5



NuPIC 2012

job stress evaluation methods

JCQ – Job Contents Questionnaire

(Karaseck, 1985)

GJSQ – Generic Job Stress Questionnaire, NIOSH

(Hurrel and Murphy, 1998)

NIOSH has developed “NIOSH Generic Job Stress Questionnaire” which is

based on the over 25-year efforts to examine the relationship between

working conditions and health consequences



한국원자력연구원 6

NuPIC 2011 Modification of Risk Factors to Job Stress

Physical factors

lack of adjustable rests1), simpler repetitive tasks1)4), proper work surface4), using vibrators4), treatment with heavy things4), needs to put force4),

uncomfortable posture3)4)

Psychosocial factors

Increased need for job vigilance1)3), increased stringent performance standards1)2)3)4), increased job repetition1)2), increased job regimentation1),

increased job boredom1), increased rigid work procedures with high production standards1)2)3), decreased work challenge1)2)3), increased

dehumanisation of job activity1)2)3)4), little identification with and satisfaction from the end products of worker’s job activity1), insufficient number

and length of rest breaks1)3), increased job monotony1), decreased job autonomy1)2)3)4), decreased job security1), decreased career development1)3),

decreased peer cohesion and staff support1)2)3)4), increased strained management/employee relations1)2)3), increased job future uncertainty1)2)3)4),

decreased participation in job decisions1)2)3)4), decreased job/task control by worker1)2)3)4), increased work pace1)2)3)4), increased work

pressure1)2)3)4), increased supervision1), increased role ambiguity1), increased anxiety of computers replacing operator’s role/job, decreased self-

esteem1), evaluation of occupation2)3)4), amount of much tasks2)3)4), not enough time for tasks2)3)4), requirement or demand forcibly from others2)3)4),

knowledge and technology for tasks2)3), needs of creative ability2)3), needs of high technology2)3), various tasks2)4), opportunity of ability

development2)3), a higher officer’s concern about followers’ welfare2)3)4), a higher officer’s concern about followers’ talk2)3)4), a higher officer’s help

for followers’ task2)3)4), a higher officer’s leadership2)3)4), capable colleagues at their fields2), colleagues’ concern2)3), colleagues’ kindness2)3),

colleagues’ friendly help2)3)4), responsibility for colleagues or followers3)4), changed relevant facts with tasks often3)4), fairness of personnel affair

such as duty appraisement, promotion, positioning etc. 3)4), appropriateness of position compared with education and career3)4), job falling short of

expectation3)4), appropriateness of payment reflecting to an effort and achievement3)4), interest of present tasks3)4), uncomfortable dining together3),

task indication without consistency3)4), the atmosphere of the office with vertical authority3), disadvantage from sexual difference3)

Environmental factors

Nonadjustable work surface height1), storage inappropriate to task1), lack of adjustable and self-controlled task lighting1), lack of easily

reconfigurable interior layout, keyboard height and position nonadjustable1), nonadjustable or lack of document holder1), improper work chair that

lacks swivel, tilt, height adjustment, adjustable backrest, removable armrests, and rolling casters1), nonadjustable shelving1), insufficient size of

work surface and/or lack of additional work surfaces1), lack of natural soft glare-free indirect light1)4), improper seal design (low, soft, <45cm) 1),

improper ventilation with currents of air that blow directly on employee1)4), improper humidity levels (<50% >60%)1)4), improper temp. levels

(<68F or in winter and <73F >81F in summer) 1)4), improper design of keyboard layout shape of key1), improper layout of desk and of terminal1),

lack of, or improper foot support1), improper heal up from under work surface1), improper surface temperature for external contact surfaces1), too

close of proximity to others creates feelings of crowding1)4), improper enclosures that don’t ensure acoustical control of noise disturbances1)4), lack

of enclosure for complex tasks1), increased alienation and isolation from others1), nonadjustable HVAC1), lack of adjustable and self-controlled

task lighting1), lack of easily reconfigurable interior layout1), cleanliness3)4), smoothness of the resources such as the personnel, space, equipment,

instrument, training etc. 3)4), exposure to dangerous materials4)

1) O’Neill 2) Karasek 3) NIOSH 4) IJSQ


7



NuPIC 2012

Research Motivation

1. Job stress evaluation methods in terms of factor classification

- general, psychosocial, physical and environmental factors

=> Needs of an analysis methodology dealing high dimensionality

2. Multi factors - Effective survey analysis methodology

- Data mining Analysis (DA)

- Response Surface Methodology (RSM)


8



NuPIC 2012

An overview of the proposed Procedure

CBFS

RSM

Physical factors x1

INPUT

OUTPUT

Psychosocial factors x2

Environmental factors x3

Job satisfaction

y

• Subset evaluation

• Find significant factors

• Reduce dimensionality

• Integrating DM result

into response surface

methodology (RSM)

•Analysis of variance

• Statistical inferences

Data mining

procedure

Statistical analysis

procedure

BFS

• Relationship between

input factors and

its associated response


9



NuPIC 2012

Data Mining methods

(Association Rule Discovery, Market Basket

Analysis)

(Case-Based Reasoning)

(Cluster Analysis) (Decision Tree)

(Artificial Neural Network)

(Genetic Algorithm)

Data Mining

OLAP (On-Line Analytic Processing) Classification




NuPIC 2011

Data sets

Data sets after factor reduction

Entropy

Information gain

Symmetrical uncertainty

factor-response

x1 x2 … xn-1 xn

response

factor-factor

x1 x2

xn-1 xn….

Evaluation of subset

OPEN

CLOSE

EVS ( ) EVS (BEST )?

Improvement?

start

BEST← start state

= arg max EVS (subset)

next of in OPEN or CLOSE?

Yes

End

Return BEST

NoYes

No

Stop criteria

remove

add

y

An Overview of Correlation Based Feature Selection; (CBFS) method


11



NuPIC 2012

Response Surface Methodology (RSM)

Response Surface Methodology, hereafter abbreviated RSM, is

a collection of mathematical and statistical techniques that

are useful for the modeling and analysis of problems in which

a response of interest is influenced by several variables and

the objective is to optimize (either minimize or maximize) this

response.

The second-order fitted response function

where

xAxaxxTTy 0

ˆˆ

kkkk

k

k

kkˆˆˆ

ˆˆˆ

ˆˆˆ

,

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

,

x

x

x

22

22

22

21

22212

11211

2

1

2

1

Aax




NuPIC 2011

Case Study 1

200 workers

Producing marine switchboards(45%), control console(35%), and

thrusters(20%)

Process – assembly(85%), welding and painting

The result of Pearson’s correlation analysis by the each survey

questionnaire and job satisfaction

Type of questionnaire

Pearson’s coefficient p-value

JCQ 0.217 0.344

GJSQ 0.648** 0.001

IJSQ 0.583** 0.006


13



NuPIC 2012

Survey Method (IJSQ)

General Factors (34 items)

General characteristics : age, weight, size…

Medical conditions : serious illnesses, accidents, depression…

Personal habits : smoking, sports, hobbies…

Work history : salary, a period of work, employment configuration…

Psychosocial factors (50 items)

Job demand (7) : stringent performance standards…

Job control (7) : job autonomy…

Social support (8) : supervisor’s concern…

An organization (5) : task indication without consistency…

Organization culture (5) : uncomfortable dining together…

Appropriate compensation (5) : appropriateness of position…

Job instability (5) : possibility to lose a job

Physical factors (7 items)

Adjustable rests

simpler repetitive tasks, using vibrators…

Environmental factors (13 items)

Recreation facilities

Public traffic with easy

Insufficient parking lots

Air condition…


14



NuPIC 2012

Data Mining Results using Weka


15



NuPIC 2012

Data mining results

Selected

Evaluator

The response

attribute Job Satisfaction

Merit of best

subset 0.85

Selected attributes

Physical

factors Improper work surface ( x7 )

Psychosocial factors

Decreased superior support (x1)

Decreased peer cohesion (x3)

Increased job future uncertainty (x4)

Not up to the expectation of occupation (x6)

Environmental factors

Danger of accident (x2)

Insufficient workers, space facilities and

equipments for tasks (x5)

Search

method

Search

method Best First

Search Direction Forward


16



NuPIC 2012

Response Surface Methodology (RSM)

R2 = 89.1%

x1, x2, x3, x5, x6 , and x7 are significantly affected

x1*x5, x3*x4, and, x3*x5 are also significant

x1: decreased superior support

x2: danger of accident

x3: decreased peer cohesion

x4: increased job future uncertainty

x5: insufficient workers, space facilities and equipments for tasks

x6: not up to the expectation of occupation

x7: improper work surface, respectively


17



NuPIC 2012

The second-order fitted response function

AxxaxxTTy 1851.2ˆ

0434.00321.00154.00083.00040.00045.00016.0

0321.00216.00404.00018.00069.00398.00347.0

0154.00404.00141.00154.00686.00091.00662.0

0083.00018.00154.00403.00893.00350.00268.0

0040.00069.00686.00893.00585.00049.00407.0

0045.00398.00091.00350.00049.00335.00038.0

0016.00347.00662.00268.00407.00038.00228.0

and,

0917.0

1542.0

1576.0

0086.0

2529.0

1099.0

1170.0

,

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Aax

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Where,

In terms of model fitness, the response model is adequate to utilize a

response function since it has 89.1% R-sq


18



NuPIC 2012

Correlation analysis between significant factors and each factors

Insufficient workers,…

Superior leadership

Peer cohesion Danger of accident

Improper work surface

Expectation of occupation

Future uncertainty

Q9 0.530 G 0.506 Q18 0.622 Q8 0.540

a 0.602

Q2 0.570

Q34 0.537

Q29 0.505 Q35 0.455 Q19 0.558 Q13 0.619

Q11 0.500

Q11 0.471

Q35 0.458

Q40 0.543 Q40 0.513

Q22 0.441

m4 0.634

Q13 0.534 Q23 0.537

En1

(12)

0.481

M1

(13)

0.518

En1

(8)

0.730 En1

(13)

0.661

En1

(5)

0.457

* Insufficient workers, space facilities, equipments for tasks Q9: a sufficient rest

Q29: smoothly work corporation with other departments

Q40: uncomfortable dinner engagement

En1: Noise

* Lack of superior leadership G: Concern about a follower’s well-being

Q35: appropriate salary

Q40: uncomfortable dinner engagement

M1: improper work posture


19



NuPIC 2012

CBFS

RSM, CA

System factors x1

INPUT

OUTPUT

Psychosocial factors x2

Environmental factors x3

Organizational Culture

y

• Subset evaluation

• Find significant factors

• Reduce dimensionality

• Integrating DM result

into response surface

methodology (RSM)

• Correlation Analysis

• Statistical inferences

Data mining

procedure

Statistical analysis

procedure

BFS

• Relationship between

input factors and

its associated response

Significant Factors

Redundancy Factors

Surrogate

An overview of the Robust Organizational Culture System


20



NuPIC 2012

Conclusions and Discussion

Advanced methodology of job stress analysis

Found significant factors reducing dimensionality using DM

RSM was conducted to provide statistical relationships among stress factors from

DM

Surrogate variable based on job stress analysis

Approached enhanced job stress evaluation and management

Establishment of Robust Safety-Quality Evaluation and Control Platform

Robust Safety Culture Management

Robust Organizational Culture Management

원전 종사자의 직무 스트레스 평가 및 관리 기법 개발 - KINS · 2018-01-01 ·...

Documents

Transcript of 원전 종사자의 직무 스트레스 평가 및 관리 기법 개발 - KINS · 2018-01-01 ·...