Stanton, W A and Willenbrock, J H (1990) Conceptual framework for computer-based construction safety control. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(3), pp. 383-398. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The construction industry’s endemically poor accident record and accelerating rate increases in workers' compensation insurance are warnings that the industry needs stronger safety control measures. Safety checklists, training methods, safety awards, and other motivational approaches are insufficient. The writers propose developing a computerized safety management information system (MIS) based on the same universal management control principles used to achieve schedule, cost, production, and quality objectives. The safety MIS would furnish project managers and supervisors with the timely and complete information they need to respond to safety and health problems and hazards as they occur. This paper is concerned with the first step in the development of such a control system—the establishment of a conceptual framework consisting of fundamental safety and health, management controlling, and management-information-system concepts. The framework serves as the analytical basis for determining what to measure in the safety control system and how to adapt the control system to the computer.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction safety, safety management, conceptual framework, information system, control system, project manager, compensation, supervisor, construction industry, insurance |
| Subjects: | theoretical framing, monitoring and control, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, information systems, environmental health, profession, practitioner, dispute resolution, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Sustainability |
| 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