As introduced in this chapter, the introduction of UCD in the mid 1980s resulted in several initiatives that correspond with the underlying fundamentals of this approach. Specifically, these include approaches for integrating the needs of users with disabilities in design referred to as universal or inclus- ive design. The inclusive approach to the design of products, technologies, and systems entails designing for as expansive and varied user population as possible (Preiser and Ostroff, 2001). Problems arise, however, as these design philosophies can result in tension when considered in the context of UCD.
They place greater demand on the requirements gathering process (Newell and Gregor, 2000).
Inclusive design is not wholly inclusive. This approach does not account for end-users who are not included in the scope of the product and task requirements (Coleman et al., 2003). Simply put, and
“designing for all” is not always appropriate in all situations (Norman, 1988). Still, there is a noted lack of progress in the application of inclusive design even in mainstream products and systems. This lack of progress has been attributed to shortcomings in the guidance offered in the practical application of the inclusive design strategies and requirements in terms of real world design constraints and priorities (Cassim and Dong, 2003; Lebbon and Coleman, 2003). As previously discussed, designers and developers of products and systems have to work within several practical and limiting constraints when creating or modifying designs. As such, a more practical approach to the UCD process is needed to help facilitate its actual use in practice.
Inclusive design is a challenging venture in its own and imposes additional requirements on the UCD process. Newell and Gregor (2000) have identified these additional considerations and challenges, which inclusive design impose on the UCD process. They include:
. A much greater spectrum of user characteristics and functionality to be considered
. Developing precise specification of user group characteristics and functionality
. Defining, finding, and recruiting representative users
. Resolution of conflicts between accessibility and ease of use for less disabled individuals and var- ieties of impairments
. Identifying and justifying situations in which universal design may not be appropriate
. The need to provide additional components for a system to afford access to
User-Centered Design of Information Technology 7-35
In truth, considering the needs of users with disabilities merits integration into the priorities of UCD in order to create opportunity for users of all abilities and operate under a variety of contexts to be gain- fully employed and be productive members of society. This is especially true in light of the significant population of aging adults, who will experience the normally anticipated age-related declines in physical, cognitive, and sensory functions. If systems and tools are not usable by a percentage of the population, then this percentage of individuals can never be trained to serve the roles typically associated with a given set of tasks. The design itself may become an impediment to the successful completion of related tasks.
The initiatives driving accessibility agendas such as the Americans with Disabilities Act clearly states the minimum requirements that must be met in the design of systems and products. However, the actual challenge lies in the improvement of existing UCD methods and development of new UCD method that will allow UCD researchers and practitioners to meet these needs and expectations of a highly variable and important population of end-users. This directive should guide the future of UCD and, will hopefully, result in more clearly defined, systematic, and acceptable ways for designers and developers to incorporate the principles of UCD and inclusive design into tangible, practical design solutions.
References
Alexander, I.F. and Stevens, R.,Writing Better Requirements.Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA, 2002.
Apple Computer,Introduction to the Apple Human Interface Guidelines.Retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGuidelines/
index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000957.
Bainbridge, W.S., 2004 User – centered design, inBerkshire Encyclopedia of Human – Computer Inter- action, Bainbridge, W.S., Ed., Vol. 2, Berkshire Publishing Group, Great Barrington, 2004, pp. 763 – 768.
Bekker, M., Beusman, J., Keyson, D., and Lloyd, P., KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children.Interact. Comput., 15 (2), 187 – 202, 2003.
Bevan, N., International standards for HCI and usability.Int. J. Hum. – Comput. Stud., 55 (4), 533 – 552, 2001.
Bevan, N., Bowden, R., Corcoran, R., Curson, I., Macleod, M., Maissel, J. et al.,Usability Context Analy- sis—A practical guide, v4.02. Middlesex: NPL Usability Services, National Physical Laboratory, 1996.
Bevan, N. and Macleod, M., Usability measurement in context.Behav. Inf. Technol., 13, 132 – 145, 1994.
Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K., Apprenticing with the customer.Commun. ACM, 38 (5), 45 – 52, 1995.
Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K.,Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems.Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1998.
Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., and Guest, G., An ethnographic approach to design, inThe Human – Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, Jacko, J.A.
and Sears, A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 964 – 986.
Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., and Jacobson, I.,The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, 1st ed., Addison- Wesley Professional, Boston, MA, 1998.
Caplan, S., Using focus groups methodology for ergonomic design.Ergonomics, 33 (5), 527 – 533, 1990.
Cassim, J. and Dong, H., Critical users in design innovation, inInclusive Design: Design for the whole Population.Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S., and Lebbon, C. Eds., Springer, New York, 2003.
Christel, M.G. and Kang, K.C.,Issues in Requirements Elicitation(Technical Report; CMU/SEI-92-TR-12;
ESC-TR-92 – 012). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992.
Cockburn, A.,Writing Effective Use Cases(1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA, 2000.
Cockton, G., Lavery, D. and Woolrych, A., Inspection-Based Evaluation, inThe Human – Computer Inter- action Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications Jacko, J. A.
and Sears, A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 1118 – 1138.
7-36 Fundamentals and Assessment Tools For Occupational Ergonomics
Cockton, G. and Woolrych, A., Understanding inspection methods: Lessons from an assessment of heur- istic evaluation, inPeople and Computers XV, Blandford, A. and Vanderdonckt, J. Eds., Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2001, pp. 171 – 192.
Coleman, R., Clarkson, J., Lebbon, C., and Keates, S., Introduction: from margin to mainstream, in Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population, Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S., and Lebbon, C. Eds., Springer, New York, 2003.
Cooper, A.,The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity(2nd ed.). SAMS Publishing, Pearson Education, Indianapolis, IN, 2004.
Damodaran, L., User involvement in the systems design process – a practical guide for users.Behav. Inf.
Technol., 15 (6), 363 – 377, 1996.
Damodaran, L., Simpson, A., and Wilson, P.,Designing systems for people.NCC Publications, Manchester, 1980.
Dix, A.J., Finlay, J.E., Abowd, G.D., and Beale, R.,Human – Computer Interaction(2nd ed.). Prentice Hall, London, UK, 1998.
Dourish, P., What we talk about when we talk about context.Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 8 (1), 19 – 30, 2004.
Dumas, J.S., User-Based Evaluations, inThe Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, Jacko, J. A., and Sears, A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 1093 – 1117.
Eason, K.D., User-centred design: For users or by users?Ergonomics, 38 (8), 1667 – 1673, 1995.
Emery, V.K., Jacko, J.A., Sainfort, F. and Moloney, K., Intranet and intra-organizational communication, inThe Handbook of Human Factors in Web Design, Proctor, R.W. and Vu, K.P.L. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2004, pp. 528 – 550.
Gottesdiener, E., 2002Requirements by Collaboration: Workshops for Defining Needs(1st ed.). Addison- Wesley Professional, Boston, MA, 2002.
Grudin, J. and Pruitt, J., Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement. Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (PDC 2002) Computer Pro- fessionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), Malmo¨, pp. 144 – 161, 2002.
Hackos, J.T. and Redish, J.C.,User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1998.
Hall, R., Prototyping for usability of new technology.Int. J. Hum. – Comput. Stud., 55, 485 – 501, 2001.
Holtzblatt, K., Contextual Design, inThe Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evol- ving Technologies and Emerging Applications, Jacko, J. A., and Sears, A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 941 – 963.
Holtzblatt, K. and Jones, S., Contextual inquiry: A participatory technique for system design, inPartici- patory design: Principles and practices, Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- ates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1993, pp. 177 – 210.
IEEE.,EEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications (IEEE Std 830 – 1998). IEE, New York, 1998a.
IEEE.,IEEE Guide for Developing System Requirements Specifications (IEEE Std 1233).IEEE, New York, 1998b.
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9241 – 11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11: Guidance on Usability, 1998.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO),ISO 13407: Human-Centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1999.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO/TR 18529: Ergonomics—Ergonomics of Human – System Interaction—Human-Centred Lifecycle Process Descriptions.International Organ- ization for Standardization, Geneva, 2000.
Jacko, J.A. and Sears, A., The Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2003.
User-Centered Design of Information Technology 7-37
Javahery, H., Seffah, A., and Radhakrishnan, T., Beyond power: Making bioinformatics tools user- centered.Commun. ACM, 47 (11), 58 – 63, 2004.
Johnson, C.M., Johnson, T.R. and Zhang, J., A user-centered framework for redesigning health care inter- faces.J. Biomed. Informatics, 38 (1), 75 – 87, 2005.
Karat, J., Karat, C.-M. and Ukelson, J., Affordances, motivations, and the design of the user interface.
Commun. ACM, 43, 49 – 51, 2000.
Karwowski, W., Achieving compatibility in human-computer interface design and evaluation, in The Human – Computer Interaction Handbook, Jacko, J.A. and Sears, A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 1226 – 1238.
Kirlik, A., The design of everyday life environments, inA Companion to Cognitive Science, Bechtel, W. and Graham, G. Eds., Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK, 1998, pp. 702 – 712.
Kontio, J., Lehtola, L., and Bragge, J., Using the Focus Group Method in Software Engineering: Obtaining Practitioner and User Experiences. Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2004), Redondo Beach, CA, pp. 271 – 280, 2004.
Kontogiannis, T. and Embrey, D., A user-centred design approach for introducing computer-based process information systems.Appl. Ergon., 28 (2), 109 – 119, 1997.
Kotonya, G. and Sommerville, I.,Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques.John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1998.
Koubek, R., Benysh, D., Buck, M., Harvey, C., and Reynolds, M., The development of a theoretical frame- work and deisgn tool for process usability assessment.Ergonomics, 46 (1 – 3), 220 – 241, 2003.
Kovitz, B.L.,Practical Software Requirements: A Manual of Content and Style.Manning Publications Co., Greenwich, CT, 1998.
Kulak, D. and Guiney, E., Use Cases: Requirements in Context (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc., (Addison-Wesley), Boston, MA, 2004.
Law, C., Keeping designers up with the times. . .projects for enabling the rapid development of univer- sally accessible IT by industry.Proceedings of the Inclusion by Design — Planning a Barrier — Free World, An International World CongressMontreal, Canada, 2001.
Lebbon, C. and Coleman, R., A design-centered approach, inInclusive design: Design for the Whole Popu- lation, Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S. and Lebbon, C. Eds., Springer, New York, 2003, pp. 500 – 518.
Leonard, V.K., Jacko, J.A., Yi, J., and Sainfort, F., Human Factors & Ergonomic Methods, inHandbook of Human Factors & Ergonomics, Salvendy, G. Ed., (3rd ed., pp. in press). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 2005.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., and Butler, J.,Universal Principles of Design: 100 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influ- ence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design.Rockport Publishers, Inc., Gloucester, MA, 2003.
Maguire, M., Methods to support human-centred design.Int. J. Hum. – Comput. Stud., 55 (4), 587 – 634, 2001.
Mao, J.-Y., Vrendenberg, K., Smith, P.W., and Carey, T., User-centered design methods in practice: A survey of the state of the art.Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the IBM Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research (CASCON ’01), IBM Press, Toronto, pp. 12 – 24, 2001.
Marcus, A., User-centered design in the enterprise.Interactions, 12, 18 – 23, 2005.
Mayhew, D.J.,The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner’s Handbook for User Interface Design(1st ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1999.
Mayhew, D.J., Requirements Specifications Within the Usability Engineering Lifecycle, in The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Appli- cations, Jacko, J.A. and Sears, A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 913 – 921.
Microsoft Corporation,Microsoft Tablet PC — Visual Design Guidelines (Microsoft Tablet PC).Retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url¼/library/en-us/
tpcsdk10/html/whitepapers/designguide/tbcontpcvisualdesignguidelines.asp, 2004.
7-38 Fundamentals and Assessment Tools For Occupational Ergonomics
Muller, M.J., McClard, A., Bell, B., Dooley, S., Meisky, L., Meskill, J.A. et al., Validating an extension to participatory heuristic evaluation: Quality of work and quality of life. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’95), ACM Press, Denver, CO, pp. 115 – 116, 1995.
Newell, A.F. and Gregor, P., “User sensitive inclusive design” — In search of a new paradigm.Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability (CUU ’00), ACM Press, Arlington, VA, pp. 39 – 44, 2000.
Nielsen, J.,Usability Engineering(1st ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1993.
Nielsen, J., Heuristic Evaluation, inUsability Inspection MethodsNielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. Eds., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994, pp. 25 – 62.
Nielsen, J.,Durability of Usability Guidelines.Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://www.useit.com, 2005.
Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L.,Usability Inspection Methods.John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1994.
Nielsen, J. and Molich, R., Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces.Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’90), ACM Press, Seattle, WA, pp. 249 – 256, 1990.
Norman, D.A.,The Psychology of Everyday Things(reprint ed.). Basic Books (Perseus), New York, 1988.
Norman, D.A.,The Design of Everyday Things(1st ed.). Basic Books (Perseus), New York, 2002.
Noyes, J. and Barber, C.,User-Centred Design of Systems.Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 1999.
Nuseibeh, B. and Easterbrook, S., Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap. Proceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 00), ACM Press, Limerick, pp. 35 – 46, 2000.
Ostroff, E., Universal Design: The New Paradigm, inUniversal Design Handbook, Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. Eds., McGraw Hill, Boston, MA, 2001, pp. 1.3 – 1.12.
Oulasvirta, A., Finding Meaningful Uses for Context-Aware Technologies: The Humanistic Research Strategy.CHI Lett., 6 (1), 247 – 254, 2004.
Polson, P., Lewis, C., Rieman, J. and Wharton, C., Cognitive walkthroughs: A method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces.Int. J. Man– Machine Stud., 36, 741 – 773, 1992.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. and Carey, T.,Human-Computer Interaction:
Concepts And Design(1st ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1994.
Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E.,Universal Design: The New Paradigm.McGraw Hill, MA, Boston, 2001.
Pruitt, J. and Grudin, J., Personas: Practice and Theory.Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (DUX2003), ACM Press, San Francisco, pp. 1 – 15, 2003.
Psephos Corporation., 2005Butterfly ballot voting machine.Retrieved February 22, 2005, from http://
www.xeniashopper.com/psephos_voting_machine.htm
Ransley, P.,White Paper: A Primer on Requirements Engineering, 2003.
Introducing Beavers Requirements Engineering Services Capability, Beaver Computer Consultants, Ltd, Essex, UK.
Rasmussen, J.,Information Processing and Human – Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engin- eering.North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.
Robertson, S. and Robertson, J., Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA, 1999.
Rosenberg, L.,Requirements Engineering: A Methodology for Writing High Quality Requirement Specifica- tion and for Evaluating Existing Ones.Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://www.stc-onli- ne.org/cd-rom/1999/slides/MethWrit.pdf, 1999.
Rouse, W.B., Design for Success: A Human-Centered Approach to Designing Successful Products and Systems.John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1991.
Rubin, J.,Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests.John Wiley &
Sons., New York, 1994.
Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. and Booch, G.,The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual(2nd ed.).
Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA, 2004.
Saferstein, B., Ethnomethodology, inA Companion to Cognitive Science, Bechtel, W. and Graham, G. Eds., Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK, 1998, pp. 391 – 401.
User-Centered Design of Information Technology 7-39
Samaras, G.M. and Horst, R.L., A systems engineering perspective on the human-centered design of health information systems.J. Biomed. Informatics, 38(1), 61 – 74, 2005.
Sears, A. and Hess, D., Cognitive walkthroughs: Understanding the effect of task description detail on evaluator performance.Int. J. Hum. – Comput. Interact., 11 (3), 185 – 200, 1999.
Sears, A., Lin, M., Jacko, J.A., and Xiao, Y., When Computers Fade. . .Pervasive Computing and Situa- tionally-Induced Impairments and Disabilities, in Human – Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice (Part II), Stephanidis, C. and Jacko, J.A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 1298 – 1302.
Sharp, H., Finkelstein, A. and Galal, G., Stakeholder Identification in the Requirements Engineering Process.Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Database & Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), IEEE Computer Society, Florence, pp. 387 – 391, 1999.
Shepherd, A., HTA as a framework for task analysis, inTask Analysis, Annett, J. and Stanton, N.A. Eds., Taylor and Francis, New York, 2000, pp. 9 – 24.
Shepherd, A.,Hierarchical Task Analysis.Taylor & Francis, Inc., New York, 2001.
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., and Rodrick, D., Human Factors and Ergonomics Standards, inHandbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Salvendy, G. Ed., (3rd ed., pp. in press). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2005.
Shneiderman, B.,Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction(3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc., Reading, MA, 1998.
Sommerville, I. and Sawyer, P.,Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide.John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1997.
Stanton, N.A. and Young, M.S.,A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics.Taylor & Francis., New York, 1999.
Stewart, T. and Travis, D., Guidelines, Standards, and Style Guides, inThe Human – Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, Jacko, J.A. and Sears, A. Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 991 – 1005.
Sugar, W.A., What is so good about user-centered design: Documenting the effect of usability sessions on novice software designers.J. Res. Comput. Educ., 33 (3), 235 – 250, 2001.
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Section 8.3: Methods, in MIL-HDBK-46855A: Department of Defense Handbook: Human Engineering Program Processes and Procedures1999, pp. 113 – 174.
Van Natta, D., Jr. and Canedy, D., The 2000 Elections: The Palm Beach Ballot. Florida Democrats Say Ballot’s Design Hurt Gore. The New York Times, p. A1, 2000.
Vicente, K.J.,Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah, NJ, 1999.
Vredenburg, K., Isensee, S., and Righi, C.,User-Centered Design: An Integrated Approach.Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002.
W3C., 2004Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (W3C Working Draft).Retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20 – 20040224/
Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C. and Polson, P., The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A Practitioner’s Guide, in Usability Inspection Methods, Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. Eds., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994, pp. 105 – 141.
Wiegers, K.E., 2000 When Telepathy Won’t Do: Requirements Engineering Key Practices. Retrieved February 22, 2005, from http://www.processimpact.com/articles/telepathy.pdf
Wiegers, K.E.,Software Requirements(2nd ed.). Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2003.
Wixon, D., Evaluating usability methods: Why the current literature fails the practitioner.ACM Interact., 10 (4), 28 – 34, 2003.
Young, R.R.,Effective Requirements Practices.Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA, 2001.
Young, R.R.,The Requirements Engineering Handbook.Artech House, Inc., Norwood, MA, 2004.
7-40 Fundamentals and Assessment Tools For Occupational Ergonomics
8
Application of Risk Theory in Man– Machine – Environment Systems
Juraj Sinay Hana Pacˇaiova´
Melichar Kopas Milan Oravec
Technical University of Kosice
8.1 Relation between Safety and Technical Risk . . . 8-2 8.2 Evaluation of Technical Risk . . . 8-2
Example 1 † Example 2
8.3 Complex Method of Risk Evaluation
in the Workplace . . . 8-5
Application and Purpose †Procedure for Risk Evaluation † Example 3
8.4 Application of Risk Management in Maintenance . . . 8-8
All activities in the man – machine – environment system also create the risk state. Risk state influences health and safety, for example, health injury due to accident or due to long-time influences to the health. At the same time risk causes economical loses due to failures of machines or due to mechanical accidents/explosions, fire, destructions. The main goal of all activities of risk management is to control the risk, to minimize all negative influences, for example, illness, health injury, death and also technical consequences or major industrial accidents.
All necessary demands on the technical safety are integrated into two basic legislation products of EU:
– Direction 391/89/EU:1Increasing safety and health protection in working conditions
– Direction 392/89/EU:2together with 93/44/EU, 93/68/EU — Machine safety, approximation of member states legislation
According to the first Direction, it is necessary to evaluate all possible risks in the working process to perform measures for protection. This is the duty of the employer, who must take into consider- ation all-important influences and conditions, that is, organization of working process, working conditions, hazardous situations and many others. For such a process, one must know all methods for the identification, analysis and classification of risk, which is an integrated part of the complex system of risk.
In the Slovak Republic these directions are integrated into the Law “Safety and Health Protection at Work” (Law No. 330/1996).
8-1