Chapter 2:

Methodology

This chapter of the study recounts and examines how the researchers will gather the
data and information that will be essential the study. This chapter will show the method of
method of information gathering, characterization, classification and tools used.

2.1 Data Source

Historical analysis of past workplace accidental events is important because it gives

information about past the accidents and allows an evaluation of the effectiveness of
management and control systems (Fabiano and Currò, 2012). Gathering of the reports that
are drawn up after accidents happen in the Philippines working environments or involving
the workers.

From the year 2014 – 2017 the researchers collected the data in an oil refinery
company operating in the Philippines, to participate in the study. There are 121 incident
and accident reports were provided and to have a better understanding for the analysis of
the research. The researchers will use Root Cause Analysis, Accident Causation Analysis
and Statistical Analysis.

The data considered in this study were taken from company reports and accident
reports inside the specific oil refinery industry and submitted to Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), a Philippine Government Agency that tracks work related illness,
injury and manages the mandatory insurance against work related accidents in a specific
oil refinery industry in the Philippines.

2.2 Data Classification of Accidents and Incidents

In this study, 121 incident and accident reports from a oil refinery company were
analyzed were tabulated into individual characteristics of the factors associated with the
accidents and incidents such as the Item #, Reference #, Description, Type of Accident,
Cause of Accident, Date & Time of Occurrence, Location, Shift, Age and Kind of Error.
This was performed in order to better understand the occurrence of specific accident and
incident types that caused injury.

2.3 Statistical Analysis using Cramer’s V and Chi-Square

The statistical analysis conducted was based in proving the existence of a

relationship of dependence between the different factors associated with the accidents. All
recorded factors were classified into useful categories for frequency distribution and other
analysis. In the study of Kurtz (199) and Lynman et al., (1986), they stated significant
associations between levels of factors were identified by Phi coefficients following the
evaluation between factors with multiple categories (Chi et al., 2006) to test the strength of
association using Cramer’s V.

To process and analyze the data, the researchers used Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS).

2.4 Root Cause Analysis

The term root cause analysis system is used to denote systems that are concerned
with the detailed investigations of accidents with major consequences such as loss of life,
or severe financial or environmental implications (CCPS, 2003). These systems are
characterized by the use of comprehensive, resource-intensive techniques designed to
evaluate both the direct and indirect root causes (Sutton, 2008). Although resource
limitations are less important with RCAS, a clearly structured methodology is nevertheless
needed in order to ensure that investigations are both comprehensive and consistent
(Baybutt, 2014). The requirement for consistency is particularly important if the lessons
learned from accident analyses are to be useful from a comparative basis and for evaluating
trends in underlying patterns of causes over time (Haydon, 2006). As with IRS, an
investigation procedure based on a model of accident causation such as the systems
approach that will provide a systematic framework to ensure that the right questions are
asked during the investigation (Jørgensen et al., 2011).

2.5 Accident Causation Models

Many researchers have tried to understand workplace accidents in industrial

applications by introducing accident causation models. In general, the overall objective of
these models is to provide tools for better industrial workplace accident prevention
programs. Accident prevention has been defined by Heinrich et al. (1980) as “An integrated
program, a series of coordinated activities, directed to the control of unsafe personal
performance and unsafe mechanical conditions, and based on certain knowledge, attitudes,
and abilities.’’ Other terms have emerged that are synonymous with accident prevention
such as loss prevention, loss control, total loss control, safety management, and incidence
loss control, among many others.

2.5.1 Domino Theory

In 1930, research in accident causation theory was pioneered by Heinrich.

Heinrich (1959) discussed accident causation theory, the interaction between man and
machine, the relation between severity and frequency, the reasons for unsafe acts, the
management role in accident prevention, the costs of accidents, and finally the effect of
safety on efficiency.

In addition, Heinrich developed the domino theory (model) of causation, in which

an accident is presented as one of five factors in a sequence that results in an injury. The
label was chosen to graphically illustrate the sequentiality of events Heinrich believed to
exist prior to and after the occurrence of accidents. In addition, the name was intuitively
appealing because the behavior of the factors involved was similar to the toppling of
dominoes when disrupted: if one falls (occurs), the others will too. Heinrich had five
dominoes in his model: ancestry and social environment, fault of person, unsafe act
and/or mechanical or physical hazard, accidents, and injury. This five-domino model
suggested that through inherited or acquired undesirable traits, people may commit
unsafe acts or cause the existence of mechanical or physical hazards, which in turn cause
injurious accidents. Heinrich defined an accident as follows: ‘‘An accident is an
unplanned and uncontrolled event in which the action or reaction of an object, substance,
person, or radiation results in personal injury or the probability thereof.’’ The work of
Heinrich can be summarized in two points: people are the fundamental reason behind
accidents; and management—having the ability—is responsible for the prevention of
accidents (Petersen 1982)