Comparative analysis of leading and lagging indicators of construction disability management performance: An exploratory study

Quaigrain, R A and Issa, M H (2023) Comparative analysis of leading and lagging indicators of construction disability management performance: An exploratory study. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(7), pp. 1205-1213. ISSN 1562-3599

Abstract

To enable organisations holistically manage work related injuries, the Construction Disability Management Maturity Model (CDM3) and disability management (DM) metrics were developed. The model benchmarks DM and provides strategies to optimize performance. The model was validated on a sample of construction organisations in Manitoba. 12 disability management metrics were developed and used to measure the lagging, or after-the-fact performance, of the organisations. The paper explores the relationship between the leading and lagging indicators of DM performance. Analysis showed that companies with higher maturity scores had relatively lower rates of return, and companies with lower maturity scores had higher rates of return, comparatively. The findings also showed that companies with higher DM maturity had lower recordable injury rates, severity rates and lost time case rates than companies with lower DM maturity. To this end, a more complete implementation of the CDM3 and the developed metrics is the main recommendation of the study. The main implication of the findings of the study is that disability management performance improvement strategies must consider both leading and lagging indicators of performance to bring about sustainable improvements in the construction industry.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: disability management; lagging indicators; leading indicators; maturity model; metrics; performance
Index terms: strategy, exploratory study, comparative analysis, injury, disability, construction organization, maturity model, construction industry, implementation, performance improvement
Subjects: health conditions and diseases, industry analysis, research methods, performance measurement, management, evaluation, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, organization
Topics: Procurement, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Quality Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

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