Handa, V K and Rivers, D (1983) Downgrading construction incidents. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 109(2), pp. 190-205. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The financial losses resulting from various incidents on typical building construction sites are reported. Field data was collected on three sites over a period of nine months. Incidents were recorded by three observers on a daily basis including data on the cause of the event, the direct losses incurred and the contractors involved. The 658 incidents reported were analyzed to determine the general characteristics of incidents, the level of field control possible and the incident costs. Overall losses on the individual sites are compared while combined results for all three projects are examined. Particular attention is paid to safety-related incidents. Limitations of the monitoring program are discussed. The results indicate that downgrading incidents are responsible for a substantial loss on construction projects, however, the observations show that most losses could be eliminated through up-graded on-site management. Recommendations are made for reducing the losses by improving such management functions as planning, scheduling, follow-up, equipment maintenance and problem documentation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | monitoring, building construction, documentation, site management, construction project, construction incident, program, scheduling |
| Subjects: | production management, building construction, construction operations, professional development, health risk and incident analysis, software systems, control systems, operations research |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Digital Applications, Information Management, Time Control, Project Management, Construction Technology, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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