曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

a science in itself, however, it can be simplified sufficiently for routine use in risk management decisionmaking
even at the lowest organizational levels. Some fiscal accuracy will be lost in this process of
simplification, but the result of the application will be a much better selection of risk controls than if the
procedures were not used. Budget personnel are usually trained in these procedures and can add value to
the application. The process involves the following steps:
Step 1. Measure the full, lifecycle costs of the risk controls to include all costs to all involved parties. For
example, a motorcycle helmet standard should account for the fact that each operator will need to pay for
a helmet.
Step 2. Develop the best possible estimate of the likely lifecycle benefits of the risk control package to
include any non-safety benefits expressed as a dollar estimate. For example, an ergonomics program can
be expected to produce significant productivity benefits in addition to a reduction in cumulative trauma
injuries.
Step 3. Let your budget expert’s fine-tune your efforts.
Step 4. Develop the cost benefit ratio. You are seeking the best possible benefit-to-cost ratio but at least 2
to 1.
Step 5. Fine-tune the risk control package to achieve an improved “bang for the buck”. The example at
Figure 4.1A illustrates this process of fine-tuning applied to an ergonomics-training course (risk control).
FAA System Safety Handbook, Appendix F
December 30, 2000
F-51
Figure 4.1A Example Maximizing Bang for the Buck
Anyone can throw money at a problem. A manager finds the optimum level of resources producing
an optimum level of effectiveness, i.e. maximum bang for the buck. Consider an ergonomicstraining
program involving training 400 supervisors from across the entire organization in a 4-hour
(3 hours training, 1-hour admin) ergonomics-training course that will cost $30,500 including
student time. Ergonomics losses have been averaging $300,000 per year and estimates are that the
risk control will reduce this loss by 10% or $30,000. On the basis of a cost benefit assessment over
the next year (ignoring any out year considerations), this risk control appears to have a one year
negative cost benefit ratio i.e. $30,000 in benefit, versus a $30,500 investment, a $500 loss.
Apparently it is not a sound investment on a one-year basis. This is particularly true when we
consider that most decision-makers will want the comfort of a 2 or 3 to 1 cost benefit ratio to insure
a positive outcome. Can this project be turned into a winner?
We can make it a winner if able to access risk information concerning ergonomics injuries/illnesses
from loss control office data, risk management concepts, and a useful tool called “Pareto’s Law”.
Pareto’s Law, as previously mentioned, essentially states that 80% of most problems can be found
in 20% of the exposure. For example, 80% of all traffic accidents might involve only 20% of the
driver population. We can use this law, guided by our injury/illness data, to turn the training
program into a solid winner. Here is what we might do.
Step 1. Let’s assume that Pareto’s Law applies to the distribution of ergonomics problems within
this organization. If so, then 80% of the ergonomics problem can be found in 20% of our
exposures. Our data can tell us which 20%. We can then target the 20% (80 students) of the
original 400 students that are accounting for 80% of our ergonomics costs ($240,000).
Step 2. Lets also assume that Pareto’s Law applies to the importance of tasks that we intend to
teach in the training course. If the three hours of training included 10 tasks, lets assume that two of
those tasks (20%) will in fact account for 80% of the benefit of the course. Again our data should
be able to indicate this. Lets also assume that by good luck, these two tasks only take the same time
to teach as the other eight. We might now decide to teach only these two tasks which will require
only 36 minutes (20% of 180 minutes). We will still retain 80% of the $240,000 target value or
$192,000.
Step 3. Since the training now only requires 36 minutes, we will modify our training procedure to
conduct the training in the workshops rather than in a classroom. This reduces our admin time from
1 hour (wash up, travel, get there well before it actually starts, and return to work) to 4 minutes.
Our total training time is now 40 minutes.
Summary. We are still targeting $192,000 of the original $300,000 annual loss but our cost factor
is now 80 employees for 40 minutes at $15/hour, with our teaching cost cut to 1/5th of the $6000
(80 students instead of 400) which is $1200. We still have our staff cost so the total cost of the
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：System Safety Handbook系統(tǒng)安全手冊(cè)下(104)