# Comprehensive Evaluation on Employee Satisfaction of Mine Occupational Health and Safety Management System Based on Improved AHP and 2-Tuple Linguistic Information

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Mine Occupational Health and Safety Management System Employee Satisfaction Indicators

_{1}(decrease loss output) + B

_{2}(increment output). In the formula, B

_{1}(decrease loss output) = ∑ (decrease loss increment) = early loss (before safety measures)-later loss (after safety measures); B

_{2}(increment output) = productivity contribution × GDP. According to the statistics of the financial department of the mining industry, the safety benefit from 2009 to 2010 was 958.321 and 923.672 10-thousand Yuan (without the introduction of OHSAS18001), while the safety benefit from 2011 to 2015 was 1231.514, 1472.079, 1261.509, 1805.606, and 2136.734 10-thousand Yuan (with the introduction of OHSAS18001). It can be concluded that OHSAS18001 has promoted the development of the safety benefit.

#### 2.1. Individual Development of OHSAS

#### 2.2. Effectiveness of OHSAS

#### 2.3. Economic Efficiency of OHSAS

#### 2.4. Social Efficiency of OHSAS

#### 2.5. Environmental Efficiency of OHSAS

## 3. Indicator Weight of Mine Occupational Health and Safety Management System Based on Improved AHP Model

#### 3.1. Evaluation Weight Set

- The ‘1–9’ scales method would make the accuracy rate low.
- The method would make the connection of levels confused.
- The method would make data processing cumbersome.

#### 3.2. Consistency Checking

- (1)
- Multiply the judgments of indicators by line ${u}_{ij}={\displaystyle \prod _{j=1}^{n}{b}_{ij}}$
- (2)
- The nth root of the resultant product ${u}_{i}=\sqrt[n]{{u}_{ij}}$
- (3)
- Normalize the root mean square vector and get the feature vector ${w}_{i}=\frac{{u}_{i}}{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}{u}_{i}}}$
- (4)
- (5)
- Calculate CR = CI/RI = (λ − n)/(n − 1)/RI, where RI set value is shown as follows.

## 4. The Employee Satisfaction Model of Mine Occupational Health and Safety Management System Based on 2-Tuple Linguistic Information

#### 4.1. 2-Tuple Linguistic Information

**Definition**

**1**

**Definition**

**2**

_{1}= s

_{j}, b

_{2}= s

_{i}.

**Definition**

**3**

**Definition**

**4**

^{−1}to achieve the basic conversion of 2-tuple linguistic information. $\Delta (\beta )=({s}_{k},{a}_{k}),k=Round(\beta )$. Round means to round up and round down number operator. ${a}_{k}=\beta -k;{\Delta}^{-1}({s}_{k},{a}_{k})=k+{a}_{k}=\beta $.

**Definition**

**5**

**Example**

**1**

#### 4.2. The T-OWA Operator

_{i}of vector $C=[{c}_{1},{c}_{2},\mathrm{...},{c}_{m}]$ represents the one of the first i bit in the set $\{{\Delta}^{-1}({s}_{i},{a}_{i}),i=1,2,\mathrm{...},m\}$, which is in accordance with the order of large to small. c represents the weight vector of each expert.

#### 4.3. The Definition of Fuzzy Operator Q(r)

_{i}= i/m, where i = 1, 2, …, m; m = number of experts.

#### 4.4. 2-Tuple Linguistic Information after Integration of the Second Grade Indictor

_{jk}is the kth weight of second grade indicator of the jth first indicator, and j = 1, 2, …, q; k = 1, 2, …, l.

#### 4.5. Comprehensive 2-Tuple Linguistic Information of First Grade Indicator

## 5. Case Study

#### 5.1. The Indicator Weight and Consistency Test

_{i}; ${w}_{i}=\frac{{u}_{i}}{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}{u}_{i}}}$ = 0.225, 0.199, 0.190, 0.205, 0.181, where 1.000 means the sum of W

_{i}; ${\lambda}_{\mathrm{max}}={\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\frac{{(AW)}_{i}}{{(nW)}_{i}}}$ = 5.015, where 5.015 means the average of AW

_{i}/W

_{i}; CR = CI/RI = (λ − n)/(n − 1)/1.24 = 0.003 < 0.1, Thus, the result has passed the consistency test.

#### 5.2. Semantic Comments on the Employee Satisfaction Evaluation Indicator

#### 5.3. Employee Satisfaction Evaluation Indicator Score and Corresponding 2-Tuple Linguistic Judgment Matrix

_{1}, e

_{2}, e

_{3}, e

_{4}, and e

_{5}are randomly selected to comprehensively evaluate the semantic grade of Table 6.

#### 5.4. The Weight Vector and 2-Tuple Linguistic Information of the Second Grade Indicator

_{11}in accordance with the order from large to small is calculated as follows: $C=[5,4,3,3,2]$; According to Formula (1), it can be calculated as follows: $(\stackrel{-}{s},\stackrel{-}{a})=\mathsf{\Phi}(({s}_{1},{a}_{1}),({s}_{2},{a}_{2}),\mathrm{...}({s}_{5},{a}_{5}))=\Delta (\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{\mathsf{\Sigma}}})=3.100$, According to Definition 3, the 2-tuple linguistic information after the aggregation of u

_{11}is obtained as follows: (s3, 0.100); In the same way, the 2-tuple linguistic information after the aggregation of other second grade indicators can be obtained as in Table 7. According to the Formula (4), the 2-tuple linguistic information after integration of the second grade indictor as follows:

## 6. Discussion and Suggestion

## 7. Conclusions

## Acknowledgments

## Author Contributions

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Tian, S.S. Evaluation research of employee satisfactory degree based on two-tuple semantic meaning. J. Henan Inst. Sci. Technol.
**2010**, 9, 12–16. [Google Scholar] - Delgado, M.; Verdegay, J.L.; Vila, M.A. Linguistic decision-making models. Int. J. Intell. Syst.
**1992**, 7, 479–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Delgado, M.; Verdegay, J.L.; Vila, M.A. A model for linguistic partial information in decision-making problems. Int. J. Intell. Syst.
**1994**, 9, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Delgado, M.; Verdegay, J.L.; Vila, M.A. On aggregation operations of linguistic labels. Int. J. Intell. Syst.
**1993**, 8, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Carlsson, C.; Fullér, R. Benchmarking in linguistic importance weighted aggregations. Fuzzy Sets Syst.
**2000**, 114, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Herrera, F.; Martínez, L. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.
**2000**, 8, 746–752. [Google Scholar] - Du, Q. Benefit Analysis of Safety Investment in Coal Mine Based on DEA; Kunming University of Science and Technology: Kunming, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Extremera, N.; Rey, L. Ability emotional intelligence and life satisfaction: Positive and negative affect as mediators. Person. Individ. Differ.
**2016**, 102, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baptista, R.C.; Paiva, L.A.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Oliveira, L.M.; Pereira, M.F.; Martins, J.C. Satisfaction and gains perceived by nursing students with medium and high-fidelity simulation: A randomized controlled trial. Nurse Educ. Today
**2016**, 46, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Stathopoulou, A.; Balabanis, G. The effects of loyalty programs on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty toward high- and low-end fashion retailers. J. Bus. Res.
**2016**, 69, 5801–5808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Agyeiwaah, E.; Adongo, R.; Dimache, A.; Wondirad, A. Make a customer, not a sale: Tourist satisfaction in Hong Kong. Tour. Manag.
**2016**, 57, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Malinen, O.; Savolainen, H. The effect of perceived school climate and teacher efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal study. Teach. Teach. Educ.
**2016**, 60, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anderson, E.W.; Fornell, C.; Lehmann, D.R. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. J. Mark.
**1994**, 58, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zehrer, A.; Raich, F. The impact of perceived crowding on customer satisfaction. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.
**2016**, 29, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Oliver, R.L. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. J. Retail.
**1981**, 57, 25–48. [Google Scholar] - General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of People’s Republic of China. National Standards of the People’s Republic of China, GB/T28001–2011 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Requirements. Available online: http://wenku.baidu.com/link?url=91fpXA_DrfdnyDXePMFpo32DLb9OtkMPtkdzRBLXHLk_5fHTdv0oxp10vsxB5gzNR1owWzwS35O2M5Q_Hh0_rziuhTeL5FoaBkS1SVeOsCC (accessed on 16 January 2017). (In Chinese)
- Thomas, L.S. Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng.
**2005**, 14, 1–36. [Google Scholar] - Azadeh, A.; Zadeh, S.A. An integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making simulation approach for maintenance policy selection. Simulation
**2016**, 1, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, S.J.; Hua, Y. AHP on the basis of index number scale and its usage. J. Nantong Inst. Technol. (Nat. Sci.)
**2004**, 3, 4–7. [Google Scholar] - Wu, D.T.; Li, D.F. Shortcomings of analytical hierarchy process and the path to improve the method. J. Beijing Normal Univ. (Nat. Sci.)
**2004**, 12, 264–267. [Google Scholar] - Wei, C.P.; Zhang, Z.M. An algorithm to improve the consistency of a comparison matrix. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract.
**2000**, 20, 62. [Google Scholar] - Wang, Y.M. An overview of priority methods of comparison matrix. J. Manag. Sci. China
**1995**, 5, 101. [Google Scholar] - Bao, J.D.; Zhang, J.D.; Li, F.; Liu, C.Y.; Shi, S.P. Social benefits of the mine occupational health and safety management systems of mines in China and Sweden based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A comparative study. J. Intell.Fuzzy Syst.
**2016**, 31, 3113–3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, S.; Yang, G.F. Eco-environmental quality appraisal of yellow river delta wetland using the improved AHP method. South-to-North Water Divers. Water Sci. Technol.
**2011**, 9, 99–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bao, J.D.; Johansson, J.; Zhang, J.D. Occupational Disease Assessment of Mine Industry Occupational Health and Safety Management System based on FMEA and Improved AHP Model. Sustainability.
**2017**, 9, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Le Nguyen, T.; Quyen, H.A.; Nguyen, N.A. Application of fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process algorithm and fuzzy load profile for load shedding in power systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
**2016**, 77, 178–184. [Google Scholar] - Chaudhary, P.; Chhetri, S.K.; Joshi, K.M.; Shrestha, B.M.; Kayastha, P. Application of an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the GIS interface for suitable fire site selection: A case study from Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal. Socio -Econ. Plan. Sci.
**2016**, 53, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Song, Z.H.; Ma, Q.M. The application of Excel in establishing evaluation index system based on AHP method. Stat. Decis.
**2012**, 21, 104–105. [Google Scholar] - Herrera, F.; Martinez, L. A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multi-granularity hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision-making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
**2001**, 31, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Herrera, F.; Herrera-Viedma, E. Aggregation operators for linguistic weighted information. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst.
**1997**, 27, 646–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, X.R.; Fan, Z.P. A method for group decision making problems with different forms of preference information. J.Northeast. Univ. (Nat. Sci.)
**2003**, 24, 178–181. [Google Scholar] - Mechanism. Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913. Available online: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10100a.htm (accessed on 16 January 2017).
- Chen, H. Ecological philosophy: A new Philosophical View of Ecological Existentialism. Hebei Acad. J.
**2005**, 6, 113–119. [Google Scholar]

First-Grade Indicator | Second-Grade Indicator |
---|---|

U_{1} Individual development of OHSAS | u_{11} Training opportunities |

u_{12} People-oriented | |

u_{13} Information openness | |

u_{14} Access to development opportunities | |

U_{2} Effectiveness of OHSAS | u_{21} Continuous improvement |

u_{22} Communication | |

u_{23} Coordination and cooperation of work | |

u_{24} Effectiveness of management | |

U_{3} Economical efficiency of OHSAS | u_{31} Safety performance |

u_{32} Health performance | |

u_{33} Operating performance | |

u_{34} Economic structure | |

U_{4} Social efficiency of OHSAS | u_{41} Related party |

u_{42} Safety culture | |

u_{43} Organizational performance and culture | |

u_{44} Social culture | |

U_{5} Environmental efficiency of OHSAS | u_{51} Environment and safety |

u_{52} Environment and health | |

u_{53} Ecological management cost | |

u_{54} Environmental sustainable development |

**Table 2.**The experts scoring table of the importance among indicators of the traditional and new scale.

9/9–9/1 (Intensity of Importance) | 1–9 (Intensity of Importance) | Definition |
---|---|---|

9/9 | 1 | Equal importance |

9/8 | 2 | Equal to moderate importance |

9/7 | 3 | Moderate importance |

9/6 | 4 | Moderate to strong importance |

9/5 | 5 | Strong importance |

9/4 | 6 | Strong to very strong importance |

9/3 | 7 | Very strong importance |

9/2 | 8 | Very to extremely strongly importance |

9/1 | 9 | Extreme importance |

Reciprocals | The judgement of parameter i compared with parameter j is a_{ij}, then the one of parameter j compared with parameter i is a_{ji} |

n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.9 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 |

U_{1} | U_{2} | U_{3} | U_{4} | U_{5} | u_{ij} | u_{i} | W_{i} | AW_{i} | AW_{i}/W_{i} | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

U_{1} | 9/9 | 9/8 | 9/8 | 9/8 | 9/7 | 1.831 | 1.129 | 0.225 | 1.126 | 5.002 |

U_{2} | 8/9 | 9/9 | 9/9 | 9/8 | 9/9 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.199 | 1.001 | 5.017 |

U_{3} | 8/9 | 9/9 | 9/9 | 7/9 | 9/8 | 0.778 | 0.951 | 0.190 | 0.952 | 5.020 |

U_{4} | 8/9 | 8/9 | 9/7 | 9/9 | 9/8 | 1.143 | 1.027 | 0.205 | 1.030 | 5.026 |

U_{5} | 7/9 | 9/9 | 8/9 | 8/9 | 9/9 | 0.615 | 0.907 | 0.181 | 0.906 | 5.008 |

5.014 | 1.000 | 5.015 |

Semantic Identity | Semantic Grade | Assessment Score | Grading Instruction |
---|---|---|---|

s_{1} | W | 50 below | worse |

s_{2} | B | 50–60 | bad |

s_{3} | N | 60–70 | normal |

s_{4} | G | 70–80 | good |

s_{5} | E | 80–90 | excellent |

s_{6} | VG | 90–100 | very good |

First-Grade Indicator | Second-Grade Indicator | e_{1} | e_{2} | e_{3} | e_{4} | e_{5} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

U_{1} | u_{11} | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) |

u_{12} | N/(s_{3}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | |

u_{13} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | |

u_{14} | N/(s_{3}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | |

U_{2} | u_{21} | N/(s_{3}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | B/(s_{2}, 0) | B/(s_{2}, 0) |

u_{22} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | |

u_{23} | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | |

u_{24} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | |

U_{3} | u_{31} | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) |

u_{32} | E/(s_{5}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | |

u_{33} | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | |

u_{34} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | |

U_{4} | u_{41} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) |

u_{42} | E/(s_{5}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | |

u_{43} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | |

u_{44} | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | |

U_{5} | u_{51} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) |

u_{52} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | |

u_{53} | N/(s_{3}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) | |

u_{54} | G/(s_{4}, 0) | E/(s_{5}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | G/(s_{4}, 0) | N/(s_{3}, 0) |

First-Grade Indicator | Weight | Second-Grade Indicator | Weight | β Value of Second Grade Indicator | 2-Tuple Linguistic Information of Second-Grade Indicator | Comprehensive β Value of Second-Grade Indicator | Comprehensive 2-Tuple Linguistic Information of Second-Grade Indicator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

u_{1} | 0.292 | u_{11} | 0.236 | 3.100 | (s_{3}, 0.100) | 3.330 | (s_{3}, 0.330) |

u_{12} | 0.458 | 3.200 | (s_{3}, 0.200) | ||||

u_{13} | 0.131 | 3.800 | (s_{4}, −0.200) | ||||

u_{14} | 0.175 | 3.600 | (s_{4}, −0.400) | ||||

u_{2} | 0.204 | u_{21} | 0.186 | 2.600 | (s_{3}, −0.400) | 3.740 | (s_{4}, −0.260) |

u_{22} | 0.323 | 4.200 | (s_{4}, 0.200) | ||||

u_{23} | 0.224 | 4.200 | (s_{4}, 0.200) | ||||

u_{24} | 0.267 | 3.600 | (s_{4}, −0.400) | ||||

u_{3} | 0.188 | u_{31} | 0.215 | 4.200 | (s_{4}, 0.200) | 4.090 | (s_{4}, 0.090) |

u_{32} | 0.249 | 4.600 | (s_{5}, −0.400) | ||||

u_{33} | 0.224 | 3.800 | (s_{4}, −0.200) | ||||

u_{34} | 0.312 | 3.800 | (s_{4}, −0.200) | ||||

u_{4} | 0.200 | u_{41} | 0.153 | 3.600 | (s_{4}, −0.400) | 3.750 | (s_{4}, −0.250) |

u_{42} | 0.322 | 3.800 | (s_{4}, −0.200) | ||||

u_{43} | 0.224 | 4.000 | (s_{4}, 0.000) | ||||

u_{44} | 0.301 | 3.600 | (s_{4}, −0.400) | ||||

u_{5} | 0.115 | u_{51} | 0.349 | 3.600 | (s_{4}, −0.400) | 3.330 | (s_{3}, 0.330) |

u_{52} | 0.152 | 2.600 | (s_{3}, −0.400) | ||||

u_{53} | 0.198 | 3.000 | (s_{3}, 0.000) | ||||

u_{54} | 0.301 | 3.600 | (s_{4}, −0.400) |

© 2017 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Bao, J.; Johansson, J.; Zhang, J.
Comprehensive Evaluation on Employee Satisfaction of Mine Occupational Health and Safety Management System Based on Improved AHP and 2-Tuple Linguistic Information. *Sustainability* **2017**, *9*, 133.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010133

**AMA Style**

Bao J, Johansson J, Zhang J.
Comprehensive Evaluation on Employee Satisfaction of Mine Occupational Health and Safety Management System Based on Improved AHP and 2-Tuple Linguistic Information. *Sustainability*. 2017; 9(1):133.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010133

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Bao, Jiangdong, Jan Johansson, and Jingdong Zhang.
2017. "Comprehensive Evaluation on Employee Satisfaction of Mine Occupational Health and Safety Management System Based on Improved AHP and 2-Tuple Linguistic Information" *Sustainability* 9, no. 1: 133.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010133