This study presents a web-based Safety Culture Maturity Assessment Platform designed to overcome limitations of conventional assessment practices based on paper forms or generic online questionnaires. Traditional approaches often suffer from delayed data consolidation, data loss, discontinuous progress monitoring, and limited analytical capability. The proposed platform supports role-based access control for assessors, assessment administrators, and super users. It enables continuous data recording, centralized data management, real-time monitoring of assessment progress, and presentation of results through interactive dashboards and automated summary reports.
        The platform was developed using React.js for the user interface, Node.js with Express for application logic and API services, and MySQL for centralized relational data storage. This technology stack was selected to support role-based access control, scalable form handling, structured data management, and real-time dashboard reporting in a web environment. To extend the analysis beyond conventional Likert-scale score summaries, this research applies the Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART) to the assessment workflow. Questionnaire responses are linked to grouped Error Producing Conditions (EPCs), and assessment scores are transformed into Assessed Proportion (AP) values to generate a HEART-based comparative risk index for analysis across organizations and operational conditions. In this study, twenty questionnaire items are consolidated into six EPC groups: Time Pressure, Operational Uncertainty, Stress, Training/Preparedness, Human-Machine Interface/Equipment, and Communication.
        The platform was evaluated using pilot sample data representing 90 scenario-based cases from three oil transportation organizations, with 30 cases per organization and 10 cases assigned to each condition within each organization. The assessment covered three conditions: normal, wartime, and post-war. The results show a consistent pattern across all scenarios: wartime conditions produced the highest HEART-based comparative risk index, followed by post-war conditions, while normal conditions produced the lowest. In addition, the results indicate that Company C showed the highest relative risk, followed by Company B and Company A.