Smith, L J (2000) The need for a pro-active methodology to reduce health and safety inefficiencies within a construction organization. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
The construction industry delivers projects that are unpredictable in terms of time, cost and quality, whilst at the same time trying to ensure a zero accident rate. The Author aims to develop a model that will identify inefficiencies within a construction organisation, through an integrated project process, to achieve sustained improvement. This will ultimately increase value for the customer to meet the targets set by Latham and Egan. Methodologies have been used in other industries to identify areas of weakness but none of these are directly applicable in the construction environment. The Total Loss Control theory, originally used for safety analysis, will be adapted to reduce inefficiencies within an organisation, by providing a pro-active and predictive approach. The model which is in the form of a questionnaire, has been field tested with respect to site-based activities and it was concluded that, although inefficiencies were highlighted, many questions were not sufficiently targeted to the project. The next stage of the research is therefore to utilise a filtering matrix to obtain a more targeted and accurate response to the questionnaire.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | continuous improvement; failures; inefficiency; quality; health and safety |
| Index terms: | Latham, health and safety, construction organization, continuous improvement, questionnaire, methodology, construction industry |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, organization, industry analysis, industry policy reports, health safety and environment, performance measurement, research methods |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Governance |
| 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