Welcome to Risk Mentor Fatigue Management

Required Operating State - Workers react to signals from fatigue monitoring technology

Technology which monitors the level of alertness of the workers is in place and workers take appropriate action after being detected in a fatigued/distracted state:

Credible Failure Modes

Failing to adequately specify monitoring system requirements, caused by:

  • Not matching the system to the available infrastructure (e.g. data and WiFi capabilities)
  • Devices not suited to the diversity of operators/workers on site – Not matching sensitivity and response times to the task demands of the site

Sensitivity of the detection technology is not matched to the site requirements, leading to excessive numbers of alarms, caused by: – Using sensors that require a single focal point or gaze direction when the task being performed requires area scanning/multiple gaze directions – Brain wave monitoring interrupted by EM radiation in the work area – Variable calibrations for different workers not allowed for:

Specification, monitoring devices or deployed software contributes to failure to detect a fatigued workers, caused by factors including:

  • Calibrating the software detection to minimise nuisance alarming (e.g. matching eye-line detection to the most obscured face)
  • Devices do not detect lapses of workers – Insufficient monitors deployed to provide complete protection:
  1. Maintenance strategy and plant safety file for fatigue monitoring systems
  2. Self diagnostics on fatigue monitoring system

Workers take measures to reduce unwanted nuisance alarms by varying/removing speakers, removing eccentric drive connections (for seat shakers) or removing power to the monitoring system:

  1. Maintenance strategy and plant safety file for fatigue monitoring systems
  2. Operator/worker training in fatigue monitoring system use
A key piece of fatigue monitoring is noting that fatigued workers are most likely to not acknowledge that they are fatigued. If they are not deployed then there will be no triggering of a requirement for a focussed response by a local supervisor:
Fatigued workers, with degraded cognitive functioning, ignore fatigue alarm/alerts, caused by: – presuming the system is in error (i.e. they are too fatigued to process the warning that they are no longer able to perform their tasks) – high noise or ambient light in the work location (i.e. cannot hear the alarm):
Fatigue monitoring could be over-relied on by workers – meaning they report for work in a fatigued state and rely on the monitoring system to provide warnings/alerts to prevent unwanted incidents:

Remotely monitored fatigue systems fail to trigger an escalation, caused by:  – Workers at monitoring station not being aware of escalation requirements (training lapse etc.)  – Insufficient clarity in the fatigue alarm signal received at a remote monitoring facility (e.g. loss of camera feed quality)  – Over-loaded remote monitoring workers (e.g. dispatch worker fails to note the fatigue alarm for an extended period of time):

If the local supervisor does not react to the alert then a fatigued worker could remain deployed when they are no longer fit for their tasks. This could be caused by: – Supervisor being difficult to contact (e.g. working in a location remote from radio range etc.) – Supervisor assuming the alert is a nuisance alarm – Supervisor insufficiently trained/skilled to identify the alarm is a priority:
Operational fault in the fatigue monitoring system, caused by: – Component failure/fault – Maintenance failing (leaving system in a non-serviceable state) – Obscured or defeated sensors due to site working environment (e.g. conductive dusts, etc):
Fatigue alerts do not trigger any system level review, caused by:
  • No trending or tracking of validated high level alarms – Systems not in place to revisit roster arrangements
  • Lack of ownership or involvement by senior managers in the fatigue management system:

Imagine the possibilities?

reach out and let's talk!

Close Bitnami banner