Uçak Bakım Teknisyenleri için DEMATEL Yöntemi ile Fiziksel İş Yükü Faktörlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2021, Issue: 28, 1447 - 1453, 30.11.2021

Yaşar Öztürk , Ebru Yazgan , Elif Kılıç Delice

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1010051

Abstract

Uçak bakım teknisyenleri (UBT), ağır ve tekrarlı bir şekilde fiziksel yüklere maruz kalmakta ve bu nedenle UBT’lerin iş yükleri artmaktadır. Uçuşun emniyetli bir şekilde yapılması için UBT’lerin fiziksel iş yüklerinin incelenerek gerekli olduğu noktalarda azaltılması son derece önemlidir. Toplam iş yükü değerlendirmesi fiziksel iş yükü faktörlerine bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan bir Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) problemi olarak ele alınabilir. Bu çalışma kapsamında ise UBT’lerin toplam iş yükü etkenleri içerisinde yer alan fiziksel iş yükü faktörlerinin önceliklendirilmesini hesaplayabilmek için ÇKKV yöntemlerinden biri olan DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Fiziksel iş yükü faktörleri olarak çalışma duruşlarını etkileyen vücut kısımları bel, boyun, omuzlar, sırt, üst kol, ön kol, dirsekler, el bilekleri, kalça, alt bacaklar, ayak bilekleri, dizler ve uyluklar dikkate alınmıştır. Bir uçak bakım organizasyonunda çalışan UBT’ler üzerinde yapılan bu çalışmada en önemli ilk dört faktör bel, sırt, kalça ve dirsekler olarak tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre UBT’lere iş yüklerinin azaltılması için alınması gereken önlemler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

Uçak Bakım Teknisyeni, İş yükü, DEMATEL, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme.

Evaluation of Physical Workload Factors with DEMATEL Method for Aircraft Maintenance Technicians

Abstract

Aircraft maintenance technicians (AMT) are exposed to heavy and repetitive physical loads, and therefore the workloads of AMTs are increasing. In order to make the flight safely, it is extremely important to reduce the physical workloads of AMTs by examining them where necessary. Total workload assessment can be considered as a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem that arises depending on physical workload factors. Within the scope of this study, the DEMATEL (Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method, which is one of the MCDM methods, was used to calculate the prioritization of physical workload factors included in the total workload factors of AMTs. Body parts that affect working postures, waist, neck, shoulders, back, upper arms, forearms, elbows, wrists, hips, lower legs, ankles, knees and thighs were considered as physical workload factors. In this study conducted on AMTs working in an aircraft maintenance organization, the first four most important factors were identified as waist, back, hips and elbows. According to the findings obtained as a result of the study, the measures to be taken to reduce the workloads were presented to the AMTs.

Keywords

Aircraft Maintenance Technician, Workload, DEMATEL, Multi-Criteria Decision Making.

References

• Bureau of LaborStatistics, 2016. ScheduledAirTransportation - OES Industry-Specific
• SHGM Faaliyet Raporu (2019) http://web.shgm.gov.tr/documents/sivilhavacilik/files/pdf/kurumsal/faaliyet/2019.pdf.
• Fontela, E. ve Gabus, A. (1974). DEMATEL, innovative methods. Report no. 2 structural analysis of the world problematique, Battelle Geneva Research Institute, Geneva, Switzerland, 67-69.
• Li, C., & Tzeng, G. (2009). Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a semiconductor intellectual property mall. Expert Syst. Appl., 36, 9891-9898.
• C. W. Hsu, T. C. Kuo, S. H. Chen, and A. H. Hu. (2013). Using DEMATEL todevelop a carbonmanagement model of supplierselection in greensupplychainmanagement, Journal of CleanerProduction, vol. 56, pp. 164–172.
• Tseng, M. L., & Lin, Y. H. (2009). Application of fuzzy DEMATEL to develop a cause and effect model of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 158(1-4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0601-2
• Hu, H., Lee, Y., Yen, T., & Tsai, C. (2009). Using BPNN and DEMATEL to modify importance-performance analysis model - A study of the computer industry. Expert Syst. Appl., 36, 9969-9979.
• Shieh, J., Wu, H.H., Huang, K.K. (2010), A DEMATEL Method in Identifying Key Success Factors of Hospital Service Quality, Knowledge-Based Systems, Volume 23, Issue 3, April 2010, 277-282
• Baykasoglu, A., Kaplanoglu, V., Durmusoglu, Z. D. U., & Sahin, C. (2013). Integrating fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS methods for truck selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(3), 899–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.046
• Akay, D., Kurt, M. & Dağdeviren, M. (2013). Çalişma Duruşlarinin Ergonomik Analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (3), Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gazimmfd/issue/6657/88995
• Crawford, J. O. (2007). The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. Occupational Medicine-Oxford, 57(4), 300–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqm036
• Güneş, Ü, Ceylan, B. (2016). Akademisyen Hemşirelerin Bilgisayarli Çalişma Ortamindaki Ergonomik Koşullarinin Ve Buna Bağli Ortaya Çikan Kas-İskelet Sistemi Rahatsizliklarinin İncelenmesi. Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, 32 (2), 61-74. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/egehemsire/issue/49330/630105
• Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3000–3011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.162
• Lin, R. J. (2013). Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 32-39.
• Rajesh, R., & Ravi, V. (2015). Modeling enablers of supply chain risk mitigation in electronic supply chains: A Grey-DEMATEL approach. Comput. Ind. Eng., 87, 126-139.
• Tsai, W., & Chou, W. (2009). Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: A novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Syst. Appl., 36, 1444-1458.
• Aksakal, E.& Dağdeviren.M. (2021). ANP ve DEMATEL yöntemleri ile personel seçimi problemine bütünleşik bir yaklaşım. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4), 905–913.
• Bureau of LaborStatistics, 2015.NonfatalOccupationalInjuriesandIllnessesRequiring
• Chae, D.H. and Kim, J. H. (2005). Risk factors for musculoskeletal symptoms in aviation maintenance technicians. Korean Journal of Occupational Environment Medicine. 17(3):173-185.
• Zungu, L.I., Nigatu, E.S., (2015). A Comparative Study of the Prevalence and Risk Factors of Lower Back Pain among Aircraft Technicians in Ethiopian Airlines. In: Occupational Health Southern Africa. Vol. 21. SASOM (The South African Society of Occupational Medicine), https://journals.co.za/doi/10.10520/EJC169017
• Irwin, E., & Streilein, K. (2015). Use of Field-based Motion Capture to Augment Observational data in ergonomic Assessment of Aircraft Maintenance. Procedia
• Rodriguez, H. A. F., & Ortiz Mayorga, V. A. (n.d.) (2016). Characterization of low back pain in pilots and maintenance technicians on a commercial airline. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 87(9), 795–799. https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.4384.2016
• Nogueira, H. C., Diniz, A. C., Barbieri, D. F., Padula, R. S., Carregaro, R. L., & de Oliveira, A. B. (2012). Musculoskeletal disorders and psychosocial risk factors among workers of the aircraft maintenance industry. Work (Reading, Mass.), 41 Suppl 1, 4801–4807. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0767-4801
• Asadi, H., Yu, D., & Mott, J.H. (2019). Risk factors for musculoskeletal injuries in airline maintenance, repair & overhaul. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 70, 107-115.
• Yazgan, E, Ozkan, N.F ve Ulutaş, B.H. (2021). A Questionnaire-based musculoskeletal disorder Assessment for aircraft maintenance technicians. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, DOI 10.1108/AEAT-03-2021-0076.
• CAA, Civil Aviation Authority (2002), CAP 715: an introduction to aircraft maintenance engineering human factors for JAR 66., https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/ 33/CAP715.PDF (accessed 02 Ekim 2021).