Abas, N H; Blismas, N and Lingard, H (2021) Development of risk assessment tool using damaging energy and argumentation theory for evaluating construction occupational safety and health risks. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(10), pp. 2967-2993. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of a risk assessment model to assess the occupational safety and health (OSH) risks presented by different construction approaches, namely traditional and industrialised building system (IBS). The development process applies the concept of argumentation theory, which helps construction designers integrate the management of OSH risk into the design process. In addition, an energy damage model is used as an underpinning framework for developing the model. Design/methodology/approach: Development of the model was achieved through two phases. Phase I involved collection of data on the activities involved in the construction process and their associated OSH risks, derived from five different case studies, field observation and interviews. Knowledge of design aspects that have the potential to impact on OSH was obtained from document analysis. Using the knowledge obtained in phase I, a model was developed in the form of argument trees (Phase II), which represent a reasoning template with regard to options available to designers when they make judgements about aspects of their designs. Inferences from these aspects eventually determined the magnitude of the damaging energies for every activity involved. Finally, the model was validated by panels of experts, and revisions and amendments were made to the model accordingly. Findings: The risk assessment model development revealed that the concept of argumentation theory and energy damage model is suitable to represent design safety risk knowledge and effectively address the designer's role in making decisions in their designs and further illuminate the level of OSH risk their designs pose. Practical implications: The developed model provides best-practice reasoning support for construction designers, which help them to understand the impact of their designs decisions on worker's safety and health, and thereby assist them to further mitigate the risk to an acceptable level. Originality/value: This study departs from the existing tool in that the model was developed based upon the combination of argumentation theory and energy damage model. The significance of the model is discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | argumentation theory; construction industry; damaging energy; industrialised building system; knowledge processes; occupational safety and health |
| Index terms: | methodology, construction process, model development, design process, interview, reasoning, occupational safety and health, risk assessment, option, construction industry, case study, designer, industrialized building system, document analysis |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, cognitive psychology, building construction, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, research methods, financial risk, analytical methods, data science, profession, data collection methods, design methods |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here