## 4 Results
The evaluation of the current status of introduced measures on particular machines of the operation I are graphically shown in Figure 4.  
The analysis of the evaluation showed that in operation I, there was no machinery that would meet all safety requirements (see Figure 3). Each machine met on average only 52% of requirements, where measures were implemented and followed. For almost 39% of the requirements, safety measures were introduced but not followed. Figure 4: Evaluation of current measures status on machines of operation I (source: own design). Figure 3: Evaluations of the safety measures status on machines in operation I in [%] (source: own design). For each \(k\)-th machinery equipment, the requirement fulfillment efficiency \(\Delta_{k}\) was determined according to the relation (1). The total level of measures efficiency \(\Delta\) in operation I (marked \(\Delta_{I}\)) was determined according to the relation (3). Graphical illustration of the current measures efficiency level on 17 machines of operation I are shown in Figure 5. The red horizontal line represents the average value of the total efficiency of current measures in the operation (\(\Delta_{I}\ =\ 69.66\%\)). Three criteria were analyzed and evaluated in a similar way (criteria, \(\Delta_{k}\), \(\Delta\)) in two further operations: operation II (20 machines) and operation III (23 machines). The basic descriptive statistics of total efficiency of current measures \(\Delta\) in particular operations are shown in Table 4.  
The analysis showed that the total evaluation of the current applied safety measures in operation I reached a value of 69.66% of the total efficiency rate, which represented the _middle-efficiency level_ of the current safety measures. Operation II reached a value of 75.66% of the total efficiency rate, which represented the _high-efficiency level_ of measures. On each machine of operation II, there were on average only 62% of requirements, where the measures were introduced and followed. For almost 27% of the requirements, measures were only introduced but not followed. Operation III reached only 53.89% of the total efficiency level, which meant it was on the lower borderline of the middle level of measures efficiency. On each machine of operation III, there was on average only 18% where the required measures were introduced \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Operation** & **Number** & **Average** & **Max** & **Min** & **Range** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Stand.** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **95\%** \\ **Conflidence** \\ **Interval** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline I & 17 & 69.66 & 78.95 & 63.16 & 15.79 & 4.57 & (67.24, 72.02) \\ II & 20 & 75.66 & 78.95 & 47.37 & 31.58 & 6.77 & (72.49, 78.83) \\ III & 23 & 53.89 & 81.58 & 52.63 & 28.95 & 6.03 & (51.28, 56.50) \\ \hline Complex & & & & & & \\ efficiency of & 60 & 65.61 & 81.58 & 47.37 & 34.21 & 11.25 & (48.66, 68.52) \\ organization & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of the total efficiency of measures \(\Delta\) in operations [%]. Figure 5: Total efficiency of current measures \(\Delta_{I}\) in operation I [in %] (source: own design). and followed. For almost 71% of the requirements, the measures were only introduced but not thoroughly followed. The results of the evaluation of the current status of measures in the whole organization (a total of 60 machines) are shown in Table 5.  
It can be seen from the results of the evaluation that as much as 98.3% (59 out of 60 machines) of machines within the organization met safety requirements SR7 and SR14. On the contrary, safety requirements SR17 and SR18 were not met on any machine in the whole organization, i.e., the requirements for the application of LOTO for machinery were not fulfilled.