McKay, L J (2010) The effect of offsite construction on occupational health and safety. PhD thesis, Loughborough University, UK.
Abstract
The continuous desire to improve health and safety in UK construction has in recent years been challenged to adopt offsite strategies in order to address the poor health and safety record of construction. Despite the benefits of using offsite there has been little research on the actual benefits and disadvantages of the effect of offsite on occupational health and safety. This is important given that the UK government has promoted the use of offsite to improve health and safety performance. This thesis provides a strategy for the management of offsite risk and a risk management tool has been developed. The study investigated offsite manufacturers views on offsite activities and risks in comparison with insitu activities and risks. This was achieved through three phases: phase I comprised two expert group interviews, phase II involved ergonomic audits and phase III consisted of three semi-structured interviews with three offsite manufacturers. The thesis identified that there are significant health and safety benefits of offsite. The benefits relate to specific activities within the offsite categories and context studied. Examples include the elimination of work at height, reduction in noise, reduction in work in confined space, reduction in congested work with trade overlap and greater control over work in the factory. The research revealed that there are still potential health and safety risks with offsite. Examples include; transportation and delivery of units of large size and weight with associated high consequence craneage and handling risks (unit fall and hand injury), whole body vibration, cuts, MSDs, RSIs, fumes and slips trips and falls. There appears to be little in the literature to support the identification of offsite risk issues. The study identified strategies to eliminate and reduce offsite residual risks. The case study investigated solutions to further reduce residual risks, which were further explored in phase III the semi-structured interviews. The solutions are grouped into four approaches: process change, workplace environment designing out risks, automation and the use of tools. An offsite risk management tool was developed which transfers knowledge from the study to provide awareness and management of offsite risk. The thesis provides a contribution to knowledge by providing a better understanding of offsite risks, offsite residual risks and strategies used to reduce residual risks.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | workplace environment; injury; noise; vibration; automation; government; health and safety; occupational health and safety; offsite construction; risk management; safety; UK; case study; audit; interview |
| Index terms: | risk management, risk management tool, automation, case study, process change, falls, audit, workplace environment, vibration, manufacturer, interview, health and safety, injury, occupational health and safety, strategy |
| Subjects: | mechanical systems, risk assessment, data collection methods, practitioner, performance measurement, health risk and incident analysis, management, financial risk, health safety and environment, automation and robotics, sociology, health conditions and diseases, occupational health and safety management |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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