Gibb, A; Hide, S; Haslam, R; Gyi, D; Pavitt, T; Atkinson, S and Duff, R (2005) Construction tools and equipment: their influence on accident causality. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 3(1), pp. 12-23. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
This paper presents tools and equipment aspects of the results from a three-year United Kingdom Government-funded research project investigating accident causality (ConCA). The project has used focus groups and studied in detail 100 construction accidents site audits, interviews with involved persons and follow-up along the causal chain. This paper concentrates on the influence of construction tools and equipment which were found to be important contributory factors identified by the research. They have largely been overlooked by previous studies and are not typically acknowledged as accident contributors. This paper argues for further work to confirm these links and for the inclusion of tools and equipment in the list of categories in statutory reporting procedures. This would also require an increased acknowledgement by construction managers of their influence, leading to better design and management of their supply and care on site.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction accident causality; equipment; personal protective equipment; tools |
| Index terms: | interview, personal protective equipment, focus group, contributory factor, audit, construction manager, United Kingdom, construction accident |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, Geography, performance measurement, risk assessment, data collection methods, profession |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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