Ahn, S; Crouch, L; Wan Kim, T and Rameezdeen, R (2020) Comparison of worker safety risks between onsite and offsite construction methods: A site management perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(9): 0001890, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Many researchers, as well as industry practitioners, believe that offsite construction methods are associated with a lower level of worker safety risks than traditional onsite construction methods. This study aims to test such belief by comparing the list of worker safety risks identified by site supervisors for both onsite and offsite construction scenarios for the same building components. Specifically, Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) - prejob hazard assessments required by law in Australia - were collected from two projects where offsite manufacturing has been used, and they were used as a basis for the investigation. Additionally, interviews were conducted with the site supervisors who developed the Statements for a more in-depth investigation of the worker safety risks involved with onsite and offsite construction methods, respectively. The analysis reveals that the total risk score (the higher the score, the more numerous the safety risks) would decrease in the offsite construction scenarios in each case, mainly due to significantly fewer work-at-height tasks included in the offsite construction scenarios. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by providing an empirical, evidence-based explanation for why offsite construction can help reduce safety risks on construction sites.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | multicase study; offsite construction; offsite manufacturing; safe work method statement; safety risk |
| Index terms: | building component, hazard assessment, interview, evidence, practitioner, construction method, Australia, site supervisor, investigation, site management, construction site, body of knowledge, onsite |
| Subjects: | practitioner, data collection methods, Geography, construction operations, work location, building construction, knowledge management, architectural elements, evaluation and assessment methods, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Site Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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