Gambatese, J A; Behm, M and Hinze, J W (2005) Viability of designing for construction worker safety. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(9), pp. 1029-1036. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Designing for construction safety entails consideration of the safety of construction workers in the design of a project. Research studies have identified the design aspect of projects as being a significant contributing factor to construction site accidents. Designing to eliminate or avoid hazards prior to exposure on the jobsite is also listed as the top priority in the hierarchy of controls common to the safety and health professions. Widespread implementation of the concept in the United States by engineering and architecture firms, however, is lacking due to perceived industry and project barriers. Given its absence from standard design practice, a question arises as to the viability of designing for safety as an intervention in the construction industry. This paper presents a pilot study that was conducted to investigate the practice of addressing construction worker safety when designing a project and to determine the feasibility and practicality of such an intervention. Through interviews of architects and engineers, the study found that a large percentage of design professionals are interested and willing to implement the concept in practice. Among the perceived impacts of implementation, project cost and schedule were mentioned most often along with limitations being placed on design creativity. The results of the pilot study indicate that designing for safety is a viable intervention in construction. The factors that impact the consideration of safety in the design of a project do not entirely prohibit its implementation or make its implementation extremely impractical and therefore not feasible. Additionally, the outcomes of implementation provide sufficient motivation to implement the concept in practice. The paper describes the key changes needed for implementation of the concept in practice which include: a change in designer mindset toward safety; establishment of a motivational force to promote designing for safety; increase designer knowledge of the concept; incorporate construction safety knowledge in the design phase; utilize designers knowledgeable about design-for-safety modifications; make design for safety tools and guidelines available for use and reference; and mitigate designer liability exposure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; construction site accidents; design; occupational safety |
| Index terms: | construction site accident, design for safety, construction safety, exposure, liability, United States, interview, project cost, motivation, mindset, design phase, architect, profession, construction industry, occupational safety, implementation, construction worker, creativity, design practice, designer, engineer |
| Subjects: | psychology, professional practice, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, profession, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, institututions, occupational health and safety management, environmental health, liability law, innovation and creative processes, industry analysis, public and environmental health, economics, health risk and incident analysis, design process, health safety and environment, Geography |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Cost Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Procurement, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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