Artificial Bee Colony Optimization to Reallocate Personnel to Tasks Improving Workplace Safety

  • Beatrice Lazzerini
  • Francesco PistolesiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10710)


Worldwide, just under 5,800 people go to work every day and do not return because they die on the job. The groundbreaking Industry 4.0 paradigm includes innovative approaches to improve the safety in the workplace, but Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) – which represent 99% of the companies in the EU – are often unprepared to the high costs for safety. A cost-effective way to improve the level of safety in SMEs may be to just reassign employees to tasks, and assign hazardous tasks to the more cautious employees. This paper presents a multi-objective approach to reallocate the personnel of a company to the tasks in order to maximize the workplace safety, while minimizing the cost, and the time to learn the new tasks assigned. Pareto-optimal reallocations are first generated using the Non-dominated Sorting artificial Bee Colony (NSBC) algorithm, and the best one is then selected using the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). The approach was tested in two SMEs with 11 and 25 employees, respectively.


Bee colony algorithm Occupational safety and health Multi-objective optimization Personnel reallocation Risk perception TOPSIS 



This research was supported by the PRA 2016 project “Analysis of Sensory Data: from Traditional Sensors to Social Sensors”, funded by the University of Pisa.


  1. 1.
    International Labour Organization Statistics Database (ILOSTAT).
  2. 2.
    Bandini, S., Manzoni, S., Sartori, F.: Case-based reasoning to support work and learning in small and medium enterprises. In: 21st IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 253–260 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouyer, M., Bagdassarian, S., Chaabanne, S., Mullet, E.: Personality correlates of risk perception. Risk Anal. 21(3), 457–465 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chauvin, B., Hermand, D., Mullet, E.: Risk perception and personality facets. Risk Anal. 27(1), 171–185 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer, Heidelberg (1981). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cococcioni, M., Lazzerini, B., Pistolesi, F.: A semi-supervised learning-aided evolutionary approach to occupational safety improvement. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costa-Font, J., Mossialos, E., Rudisill, C.: Optimism and the perception of new risks. J. Risk Res. 12(1), 27–41 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deb, K., Kalyanmoy, D.: Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Chichester (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Health, Safety Executive: Reducing error and influencing behaviour. HSE Books (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horswill, M.S., McKenna, F.P.: The effect of perceived control on risk taking. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29(2), 377–391 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein, C.T.F., Helweg-Larsen, M.: Perceived control and the optimistic bias: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Health 17(4), 437–446 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lazzerini, B., Pistolesi, F.: Profiling risk sensibility through association rules. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(5), 1484–1490 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lazzerini, B., Pistolesi, F.: Classifying workers into risk sensibility profiles: a neural network approach. In: 8th European Modelling Symposium, pp. 33–38 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lazzerini, B., Pistolesi, F.: An integrated optimization system for safe job assignment based on human factors and behavior. IEEE Syst. J. (2017). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lazzerini, B., Pistolesi, F.: Multiobjective personnel assignment exploiting workers’ sensitivity to risk. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. (2017). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peters, E., Slovic, P.: The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26, 1427–1428 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rakshit, P., Sadhu, A.K., Bhattacharjee, P., Konar, A., Janarthanan, R.: Multi-robot box-pushing using non-dominated sorting bee colony optimization algorithm. In: Panigrahi, B.K., Suganthan, P.N., Das, S., Satapathy, S.C. (eds.) SEMCCO 2011. LNCS, vol. 7076, pp. 601–609. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sjöberg, L.: Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal. 20(1), 1–12 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Slovic, P.: Perception of risk. Science 236(4799), 280–285 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations