Next Article in Journal
Towards the Development of Personalized Drug Delivery Systems Using 3D Printed Magnetically Triggerable Elastomers
Previous Article in Journal
Construction Safety Risk Assessment for Underground Structures in Military Hospital Projects Using Activity-Based Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Risk Analysis on FGH Terminal Using Importance Index and Bowtie Analysis Methods †

by
Mirga Maulana Rachmadhani
,
Mardhiah Gani
*,
Aprisa Rian Histiarini
and
Oki Febiyani Amalia Tuankotta
Department of Industrial Engineering, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sorong, Sorong 98416, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 8th Mechanical Engineering, Science and Technology International Conference, Padang Besar, Perlis, Malaysia, 11–12 December 2024.
Eng. Proc. 2025, 84(1), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025084035
Published: 5 February 2025

Abstract

FGH terminal is an operator that provides container services with an integrated and standardized network system. Activities at the FGH terminal have a high risk. There are accidents of workers being hit by trucks carrying containers, trucks crashing into road dividers, trucks crashing into electric poles, container damage, and even death. Thus, it is necessary to conduct a risk analysis to reduce the risk or even eliminate the existing risks. Risk analysis using the Importance Index (IMPI) method is carried out to assess risks by calculating the Frequency Index and Severity Index values, identifying the causes and consequences of risks that are classified as significant, analyzing the causes and impacts of risks and preventive actions and recovery actions from existing risks, and then will be described in a bowtie diagram. Based on risk identification, there are three variables: machine or equipment, human and environmental variables, and 45 indicators. Risk assessment using the IMPI method found 4 risks classified as significant, 12 risks classified as moderate, and 29 low categories.

1. Introduction

Risk is a combination of the possibilities that occur from an event [1]. Risk management is a method to manage risks and take advantage of opportunities to achieve goals [2]. Risk management is also a systematic approach that includes culture, processes, and structures to determine actions that can reduce risk [3]. The implementation of risk management must be well structured to help organizations or companies in a better system and help organizations or companies in the risk management system to be more efficient and effective [4].
Activities at the FGH terminal have high risks, such as accidents, workers being hit by trucks carrying containers, trucks crashing into road dividers, trucks hitting electric poles, container damage, and death. A work accident is an unexpected and unwanted event that can disrupt the process of an ongoing activity [5]. This risk can cause huge losses for the company because it must be responsible for material damage to death caused by accidents in its work area [6]. Overcoming this risk and loss requires a system that can control risk, namely, risk management.
A study by [7] analyzed occupational safety and health using the bowtie method at PT X. The study’s results showed three significant risk variables: employees exposed to hot iron, employees inhaled/exposed to chemicals and noise, and two high variables: employees exposed to hot steam and employees exposed to bursts of fire.
The study conducted by [8] analyzed the risk of work accidents using the bowtie analysis method on the One Galaxy Surabaya project. The results of this study indicate that there are dominant work accident risks, namely, piling work with the hazard of lifting piles using TC, the risk of breaking each other, casting work with the hazard of casting at height, and workers falling from a height.
This study uses two methods, the Importance Index, which assesses risks, and the bowtie analysis, to describe the causes and impacts of risks as well as actions to prevent and mitigate them. This method provides a strategy to control these risks both preventively based on the causes of risk and recovery based on the consequences of risk [9].

2. Method

In addition to questionnaires and direct observation, this study also uses interview techniques that involve expert judgment, ranging from business processes to proposed improvements. Expert judgment is considered an organizational asset because it can provide input to plan and estimate important project activities [10].
The subjects were managers of management systems, HSSE, Customer Development, operations, and engineering support. The data used in this study were primary and secondary. Primary data consisted of observations, interviews, and questionnaires, while secondary data consisted of risk management books, risk analysis journals, company history, and organizational structure.
The data collection technique involves direct interviews, observations in the field, and questionnaire distribution to related parties. The study flow is as follows:
Risk management aims to coordinate activities and control and manage the organization based on risk orientation [11]. Risk is an inseparable part of the growth factor of an organization/company, whether it comes from internal or external factors [12]. A risk is an event that leads to uncertainty that occurs within a specific time span that causes a loss, both small and large, which affects a company’s survival [13]. The types of risks include strategic and policy, operational, compliance, fraud, and financial risks, which can be seen in Figure 1.
Risk assessment is a process to determine work activities, estimate work actions, determine whether they have a fatal impact, and make decisions to overcome these causes [14]. Data processing uses the Importance Index (IMPI) method for risk assessment by calculating the Frequency Index and Severity Index. The Frequency Index is the percentage value of the probability or frequency of occurrence of a risk calculated based on respondents’ answers [9]. The Frequency Index value can be calculated using the following formula and Frequency scale in Table 1:
FI   ( % ) = 1 5 a i n i 5 N × 100
Means:
FI: Frequency Index
a i : The score given by the respondent with value i
a i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
n i : Number of respondents who answer with value i
N : Number of respondents
The Severity Index is the percentage value of the impact of the occurrence of a risk in terms of losses experienced [9]. The Severity Index value can be calculated with the following formula and Severity scale in Table 2:
SI   ( % ) = 1 5 a i n i 5 N × 100
Means:
SI: Severity Index
a i The score given by the respondent with value i
a i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
n i : Number of respondents who answer with value i
N : Number of respondents
Importance Index (IMPI) is a risk assessment method that refers to the Frequency Index and Impact Index of risk occurrence [15]. The formula for this method is as follows:
SI   ( % ) = 1 5 a i n i 5 N × 100
Means:
FI: Frequency Index
SI: Severity Index
Risks that need to be mitigated are those classified as significant and high. The classification in risk assessment is as follows in Table 3:
The bowtie analysis method describes the causes and impacts of risks and preventive and recovery actions. The bowtie analysis is a bowtie-shaped diagram that describes or visualizes risk events [16]. The bowtie analysis is a combination of two techniques, namely, the fault tree analysis (FTA) technique and the event tree analysis (ETA) technique [16]. The bowtie method considers barriers to prevent accidents, such as safety measures, training, and equipment design [17]. The bowtie analysis diagram is shown in Figure 2.
Bowtie’s analysis focuses on the barriers between causes and risks, as well as risks and their consequences. The input of bowtie analysis is an understanding of the causes and consequences of risk and the constraints and controls that can prevent, reduce, and stimulate the risk. The output of bowtie analysis is a simple diagram image that shows the main path of risks and obstacles to prevent or reduce unwanted consequences or stimulate and promote desired consequences [19].

3. Findings and Discussion

The following Table 4 are risk identification methods based on the actual conditions at the FGH terminal, which have three variables and 45 indicators.
The risk assessment questionnaire was given to the Management System Manager, HSSE and Customer Care, one operation support person, and one engineering person. After distributing questionnaires to get the Importance Index value, it is necessary to calculate the Frequency Index and Severity Index of each risk first, which can be seen in Table 5.
Means:
X1: Respondent 1
X2: Respondent 2
X3: Respondent 3
  • Calculation of Frequency Index code F1:
    FI   ( % ) = 1 5 a i n i 5 N × 100
    FI   ( % ) = 1 5 1 × 0 + 2 × 0 + 3 × 2 + 4 × 1 + ( 5 × 0 ) 5 × 3 × 100
    FI   ( % ) = 10 15 × 100
    FI   ( % ) = 66.67 %
  • Calculation of Severity Index code F1:
    SI   ( % ) = 1 5 a i n i 5 N × 100
    SI   ( % ) = 1 5 1 × 0 + 2 × 0 + 3 × 2 + 4 × 1 + ( 5 × 0 ) 5 × 3 × 100
    SI   ( % ) = 10 15 × 100
    SI   ( % ) = 66.67 %
  • Calculation of Importance Index code F1:
    IMPI = F I % × S I ( % ) 100
    IMPI = 66.67 × 66.67 100
    IMPI = 44.44
The following is a recap of the Importance Index assessment of each risk, which can be seen in Table 6.
The Risk Description:
Significant: At risk, which requires immediate action in order to reduce or even eliminate the negative impact on organizational goals.
Moderate: Moderate risk, which requires SOP monitoring so that the risk does not develop into a serious risk.
Low: Low risk, the consequences of the risk are very small or manageable.
Based on Table 6, there are 29 low categories, 12 moderate categories, and 4 significant categories, namely, code F1 (container damage during unloading, stacking, or transferring to trucks), code F4 (loading and unloading equipment is damaged), code F29 (lack of lighting during loading and unloading at night), and H2 (different loading and unloading fields).
Proposed improvements using bowtie diagram analysis. Discussions with experts determine the significance of mitigation. Risks classified as significant are depicted in the bowtie analysis diagram because they can significantly impact the goals, success, or safety of a project or organization in reputation, finance, and human safety. After determining the cause and impact of existing risks, what will be analyzed next is determining preventive and recovery actions. Preventive action is used to stop the cause, while recovery action is used to stop the impact.
Bowtie diagrams of each significant category risk, namely, code F1 (container damage during unloading, stacking, or transferring to trucks), code F4 (damaged loading and unloading equipment), code F29 (lack of lighting during loading and unloading at night), and code H2 (dusty loading and unloading field), can be seen in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.

4. Conclusions

Activities at the FGH terminal have high risks, such as accidents, workers being hit by trucks carrying containers, trucks crashing into road dividers, trucks hitting electricity poles, container damage, and death. This risk can cause enormous losses for the company because it must be responsible for material damage and death caused by accidents in its work area.
This study aims to reduce and eliminate existing risks. Prevention and handling of risks at the FGH terminal are contained in a bowtie diagram, where when handling risk code F1, risk codes F2 and F3 can be handled, then by preventing risk code F4, risk codes F5, F6, F7, F26, F27, and G11 can also be handled.
Based on the identification results above, the conclusion is that there are 3 variables and 45 indicators. The machine/equipment variable has 29 indicators with risk codes F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25, F26, F27, F28, and F29. The human variables have 13 indicators with risk codes G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8, G9, G10, G11, G12, and G13. There are 3 indicators of environmental variables with risk codes H1, H2, and H3. The results of data processing are that using the Importance Index (IMPI) method there are four significant category risks, namely, code F1, container damage during unloading, stacking, or transferring to trucks; code F4, namely, damaged loading and unloading equipment (broken and bent); code 29, namely, lack of lighting when loading and unloading at night; and code H2, namely, the dusty loading and unloading field. Risk prevention and handling can be seen in the bowtie diagram, which is expected to be applied to the FGH terminal to reduce or eliminate existing risks.

Author Contributions

M.M.R.: Conceptualization, methodology, and validation. O.F.A.T.: formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing. M.G.: visualization and supervision. A.R.H.: project administration and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Institute of Research and Innovation of Universitas Muhammadiyah Sorong, grant number: 2.03.02.16.1.02.03.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study is available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the research team for their contributions, their assistance in every aspect of our research, and their support in writing this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Utamajaya, J.N.; Afrina, A.; Fitriah, N. Analisis manajemen risiko teknologi informasi pada perusahaan toko ujung pandang grosir penajam paser utara menggunakan framework iso 31000:2018. J. Sebatik 2021, 25, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sahraen, A.N.; Andri, A.J.; Sundari, S. Analisis risiko pada supply chain management menggunakan framework iso 31000: 2009 (studi kasus: PT. XYZ). J. Ilm. Tek. Ind. 2020, 4, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. MRachmadhani, M.; Immawan, T.; Mansur, A.; Choi, W. Risk management framework design based on iso 31000 and scor model. Spektrum Ind. 2023, 21, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kanantyo, P.; Papilaya, F.S. Analisis risiko teknologi informasi menggunakan iso 31000 (learning management system smpn 6 salatiga). J. Tek. Inform. Sist. Inf. 2021, 8, 1896–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ramisdar, I.O. Analisis Risiko Kecelakaan Kerja pada Proses Bongkar Muat Dengan Metode Job Safety Analysis (JSA) dan Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOPs) di PT. Pelindo IV (Persero) Terminal Petikemas Makassar. 2019. Available online: http://repositori.uin-alauddin.ac.id/id/eprint/16370 (accessed on 21 March 2024).
  6. Hotmauly, H. Gambaran Pelaksanaan Manajemen Risiko Keselamatan Terminal Peti Kemas Koja (TPK Koja), Tanjung Priuk, Jakarta Periode Juni 2012. Depok. 2012. Available online: https://lib.ui.ac.id/detail?id=20319795&lokasi=lokal (accessed on 21 March 2024).
  7. Permata, E.G.; Hamdy, M.I.; Ardi, M.F. Analisis risiko keselamatan dan kesehatan kerja menggunakan metode bow tie di pt. x. Identifikasi J. Keselam. Kesehat. Kerja Lindungan Lingkung. 2021, 7, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Astuti, F.W.D. Analisis Risiko Kecelakaan Kerja Menggunakan Metode Bowtie pada Proyek One Galaxy Surabaya. 2017. Available online: http://repository.its.ac.id/id/eprint/44441 (accessed on 21 March 2024).
  9. Tobing, Y.O.L.; Sari, D.P.; Wicaksono, P.A. Analisis risiko proyek konstruksi dengan importance index dan bow tie analysis. Ind. Eng. Online J. 2018, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hermawansyah, A.; Tristiyanto, T.; Prabowo, R. Aplikasi multi bank sampah berbasis web. J. Pepadun 2022, 4, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Buganová, K.; Šimíčková, J. Risk management in traditional and agile project management. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 40, 986–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ariyanto, N.T. Analisis Mitigasi Risiko pada Rantai Pasok Perusahaan Kayu Lapis Dengn Metode House of Risk (HOR). 2018. Available online: https://dspace.uii.ac.id/handle/123456789/12392 (accessed on 21 March 2024).
  13. Afifah, L.; Adji, S.; Farida, U. Analisis dan perbaikan manajemen risiko pada rantai pasok produk tepung tapioka PT. Budi Starch & Sweetener. TBK Ponorogo dengan menggunakan metode house of risk (HOR). J. Ekon. Manaj. Akunt. 2021, 5, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Putra, M.R. Analisis Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja Menggunakan Metode Importance Index dan Bowtie pada Proyek Pembangunan Al-Fatih Islamic Center. 2021. Available online: https://repository.uin-suska.ac.id/57708/ (accessed on 21 March 2024).
  15. Shah, Z.P.; Sharma, N.D.; Rathod, H.A. Risk assessment for ppp based road infrastructure projects. Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2018, 6, 774–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alijoyo, A.; Wijaya, B.; Jacob, I. Bow Tie Analysis; CRMS: Carbondale, CO, USA, 2021; Available online: https://webdev.lspmks.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bow-Tie-Analysis.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2024).
  17. Fajrisa, D.; Hariyono, W.; Sulistyawati, S. Workplace accident risk analysis using the bowtie method in the construction industry: A literature review. J. EduHealth 2024, 15, 546–556. [Google Scholar]
  18. Alizadeh, S.; Moshashaei, P. The bowtie method in safety management system: A literature review. Sci. J. Rev. 2015, 4, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sumarsono, N.P.R.; Saptadi, S. Metode failure mode and effect analysis (fmea) dan bow tie analysis untuk mengetahui risiko pada program pesawat n219 (Studi kasus pt. dirgantara indonesia). Ind. Eng. Online J. 2019, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Study flow chart.
Figure 1. Study flow chart.
Engproc 84 00035 g001
Figure 2. Bowtie diagram [18].
Figure 2. Bowtie diagram [18].
Engproc 84 00035 g002
Figure 3. Bowtie diagram F1.
Figure 3. Bowtie diagram F1.
Engproc 84 00035 g003
Figure 4. Bowtie diagram F4..
Figure 4. Bowtie diagram F4..
Engproc 84 00035 g004
Figure 5. Bowtie diagram F29.
Figure 5. Bowtie diagram F29.
Engproc 84 00035 g005
Figure 6. Bowtie diagram H2.
Figure 6. Bowtie diagram H2.
Engproc 84 00035 g006
Table 1. Frequency scale.
Table 1. Frequency scale.
ScaleCategoryCriteria
1Extremely rareOccurs <2 times
2RareOccurs 2–3 times
3SometimeOccurs 3–4 times
4OftenOccurs 4–5 times
5FrequentOccurs >5 times
Table 2. Severity scale in AS/NZS 4360 standard [14].
Table 2. Severity scale in AS/NZS 4360 standard [14].
ScaleDescriptionMean
1InsignificantNo injury, little financial loss
2MinorMinor injury, little financial loss, disruptive to health
3ModerateModerate injury, medical treatment required moderate financial loss
4MajorSevere injury, major loss, production interruption
5CatastrophicFatal, huge losses and far-reaching impacts, cessation of all activities
Table 3. Risk score classification [9].
Table 3. Risk score classification [9].
No.CategoryCriteria
1Low0–20
2Moderate21–40
3Significant41–60
4High61–100
Table 4. Risk identification of FGH terminal.
Table 4. Risk identification of FGH terminal.
VariableCodeIndicator
Machine/EquipmentF1Container damage during unloading, stacking, or transfer to truck
F2Container contents fall or spill during the transfer process
F3Refer container damaged by electrical short circuit
F4Loading and unloading equipment damaged (broken, scratched, bent, etc.)
F5Uncontrolled loading and unloading equipment when lifting containers
F6RTG sling broke
F7Sling CC (container crain) broke
F8Truck crashes guardrail
F9Truck crashes container
F10Truck crashes into electricity pole
F11Truck crashes into the entrance/exit gate
F12Truck/other equipment fell into the sea
F13Truck/other equipment overturned while loading and unloading
F14Reach stacker crashes the container
F15Reach stacker crashes into an electricity pole
F16Reach stacker crashes into a guardrail
F17Forklift crashes into road divider
F18Forklift crashes container
F19Forklift crashes electricity pole
F20Fire due to an electrical short circuit
F21Inadequate RTG that slows down loading and unloading activities
F22Inadequate CC that slows down loading and unloading activities
F23Inadequate head trucks that slow down loading and unloading activities
F24Inadequate reach stacker that slows down loading and unloading activities
F25Inadequate forklifts that slow down loading and unloading activities
F26Machine capacity that does not match the workload
F27Inadequate machine maintenance, thus the tools used experience a decrease in performance
F28Inadequate fuel for loading and unloading machinery/equipment
F29Lack of lighting when loading and unloading at night
HumanG1Worker falls from the CC (container crain)
G2Worker falls from t the top of container
G3Worker crushed by a container
G4Worker crushed by equipment
G5Worker hit by a forklift
G6Worker crushed by the truck
G7Worker crushed by reach stacker
G8Worker crushed by RTG
G9Worker crushed by CC
G10Worker electrocuted due to short circuit
G11Worker behavior is not following existing SOPs
G12Worker hit by equipment falling from a top
G13lack of manpower
EnvironmentH1Docks that are dirty or cause environmental pollution from container contents
H2A dusty loading and unloading yard
H3Potholed and muddy loading and unloading yards
Table 5. Frequency survey results and Severity Index.
Table 5. Frequency survey results and Severity Index.
Code FI SI
X1X2X3X1X2X3
F1343433
F2111313
F3111322
F4334433
F5211221
F6111232
F7111323
F8323222
F9323322
F10323333
F11333332
F12111332
F13111332
F14111233
F15332232
F16232342
F17232222
F18111222
F19111231
F20233323
F21322434
F22111222
F23212223
F24111222
F25111333
F26112232
F27122233
F28112333
F29112432
G1333434
G2111343
G3111434
G4111444
G5211444
G6111333
G7111334
G8111434
G9111334
G10111334
G11111434
G12434232
G13111333
H1223322
H2222122
H3344333
Source: Result of data processing.
Table 6. The calculation results of the Importance Index.
Table 6. The calculation results of the Importance Index.
CodeFI (%)SI (%)IMPIDescription
F166.6766.6744.44Significant
F220.0046.679.33Low
F320.0046.679.33Low
F466.6766.6744.44Significant
F526.6733.338.89Low
F620.0046.679.33Low
F720.0053.3310.67Low
F853.3340.0021.33Moderate
F953.3346.6724.89Moderate
F1053.3360.0032.00Moderate
F1160.0053.3332.00Moderate
F1220.0053.3310.67Low
F1320.0053.3310.67Low
F1453.3346.6724.89Moderate
F1546.6760.0028.00Moderate
F1646.6740.0018.67Low
F1720.0040.008.00Low
F1820.0040.008.00Low
F1953.3353.3328.44Moderate
F2046.6773.3334.22Moderate
F2120.0040.008.00Low
F2233.3346.6715.56Low
F2320.0040.008.00Low
F2420.0060.0012.00Low
F2526.6746.6712.44Low
F2633.3353.3317.78Low
F2726.6760.0016.00Low
F2826.6760.0016.00Low
F2960.0073.3344.00Significant
G120.0066.6713.33Low
G220.0073.3314.67Low
G320.0080.0016.00Low
G426.6780.0021.33Moderate
G520.0060.0012.00Low
G620.0066.6713.33Low
G720.0073.3314.67Low
G820.0066.6713.33Low
G920.0066.6713.33Low
G1020.0073.3314.67Low
G1173.3346.6734.22Moderate
G1220.0060.0012.00Low
G1346.6746.6721.78Moderate
H140.0033.3313.33Low
H273.3360.0044.00Significant
H373.3353.3339.11Moderate
Source: Result of data processing.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rachmadhani, M.M.; Gani, M.; Histiarini, A.R.; Tuankotta, O.F.A. Risk Analysis on FGH Terminal Using Importance Index and Bowtie Analysis Methods. Eng. Proc. 2025, 84, 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025084035

AMA Style

Rachmadhani MM, Gani M, Histiarini AR, Tuankotta OFA. Risk Analysis on FGH Terminal Using Importance Index and Bowtie Analysis Methods. Engineering Proceedings. 2025; 84(1):35. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025084035

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rachmadhani, Mirga Maulana, Mardhiah Gani, Aprisa Rian Histiarini, and Oki Febiyani Amalia Tuankotta. 2025. "Risk Analysis on FGH Terminal Using Importance Index and Bowtie Analysis Methods" Engineering Proceedings 84, no. 1: 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025084035

APA Style

Rachmadhani, M. M., Gani, M., Histiarini, A. R., & Tuankotta, O. F. A. (2025). Risk Analysis on FGH Terminal Using Importance Index and Bowtie Analysis Methods. Engineering Proceedings, 84(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025084035

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop