Quaigrain, R A and Issa, M H (2018) Development and validation of disability management indicators for the construction industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 16(1), pp. 81-100.
Abstract
Purpose Support at the organizational and managerial levels defines the degree to which construction workplaces can accommodate disabled and injured workers. There is little empirical evidence about the indicators and practices that can be used by construction organizations to evaluate disability management (DM). This paper aims to develop and validate key indicators and practices of disability/injury management within construction. Design/methodology/approach To achieve this, the research used a two-phase sequential exploratory review of literature, followed by a quantitative phase, using analytic hierarchy process. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) involved recruiting eight health and safety and DM experts to conduct pairwise comparisons of these indicators. Findings The results found return-to-work and disability and injury management practices to be the most important indicators and physical accessibility and claims management practices to be the least important. Practical implications The development of these indicators should help construction organizations develop DM programs that better meet their needs, and benchmark and improve related performance. Social implications The results could also be useful for all stakeholders in general and decision makers in particular involved within construction. Originality/value Such prioritization helps organizations to prioritize their DM practices thereby optimizing performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; analytical hierarchy process; indicators; practices; disability management |
| Index terms: | accessibility, construction organization, key indicator, analytical hierarchy process, construction industry, disabled, injury, health and safety, program, methodology, management practice, validation, evidence, disability |
| Subjects: | decision-making and optimization, industry analysis, health conditions and diseases, sociology, professional development, health safety and environment, research methods, software systems, inclusive design, management, project delivery, organization, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Ethics, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Project Management, Information 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