Howarth, T; Stoneman, G and Hill, C (2000) A review of the construction (design and management) regulations. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
This paper presents a review of the impact and perceived success of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994. Accident statistics are recognised as being frequently utilised as a meaningful evaluative tool of such health and safety regulations. Whilst it is held that there is some value in utilising statistical accident records, it is considered that such statistics are in themselves an inadequate evaluative tool. A review of reactions and responses of practitioners prior to, and post the implementation of the CDM regulations is then presented. This review provides for practitioner reflections upon, and perceptions of the impact and operation of the regulations. This presentation of reflections does not hold claim to generalisation but is intended as study of singularities. The data for this review - questionnaires, case studies and interviews - has been consolidated from a number of studies managed or conducted by the authors. It is concluded that whilst no measurable upturn has been recorded in the industry's accident records as a result of the introduction of the Regulations, numerous benefits are perceived by industry practitioners.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cdm regulation; health and safety; evaluation |
| Index terms: | health and safety, case study, interview, implementation, statistics, practitioner, regulation, questionnaire, reflection |
| Subjects: | political science, professional development, health safety and environment, contractual arrangements, mathematical modelling, data collection methods, practitioner |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Governance, Procurement, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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