Wehle, A J (2014) Taxonometric model for using leading safety indicators in the construction industry. PhD thesis, University of Florida, USA.
Abstract
Traditionally, safety performance has been measured by metrics such as the OSHA recordable injury rate; days away, restricted work, or transfer injury rate; or the experience modification rating. Traditional metrics that provide historical information about the measures of safety performance are classified as lagging indicators. However, are these lagging safety metrics accurate predictors of future safety performance? In contrast, leading indicators are measures which are not necessarily historical in nature but rather can be used as predictors of future levels of safety performance. Leading indicators measure the building blocks of the safety culture of a project or company. When one or more of these measures suggest that some aspect of the safety process is weakening, interventions can be implemented prior to an incident, positively impacting the safety process before any injuries or suffering are sustained. This study identified the use and characteristics of leading indicators as well as evaluated the measures based on their impact on safety performance. To explore these questions, the investigator utilized two questionnaires regarding leading indicator practices as well as examined lagging safety measures from construction projects. The construction projects examined for this study were affiliated with several categories of members of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) including contractors, owners, insurance, and suppliers groups. The findings of the research regarding passive leading indicators show that safety performance improved as more safety policies/programs/practices were implemented. In the case of active leading indicators, the research showed that the assessment of the direct effectiveness of these programs are more difficult to measure. Through the creation of an analytical taxonomy of active leading indicators, the findings reveal that active leading indicators are affected by variables such as communication, leadership, and management. This taxonomy could be used by construction companies to better design and implement more effective safety programs. It is recommended that this taxonomy should be further examined in future research. Based on the greater understanding of the nature of leading indicators derived in this research, it is also recommended that the terms "passive" and "active" be respectively changed to "consistent" and "dynamic" to more accurately characterize them in practice.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Issa, R R |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | culture; effectiveness; taxonomy; construction project; injury; insurance; communication; leadership; safety; owner; supplier |
| Index terms: | insurance, effectiveness, construction industry, taxonomy, safety culture, safety measures, owner, Construction Industry Institute, program, construction project, questionnaire, safety programs, safety performance, injury, construction company |
| Subjects: | performance management, software systems, industry analysis, sociology, health conditions and diseases, occupational health and safety management, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, health safety and environment, production management, organization, research organizations, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Project Management, Health and Safety, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management |
| 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