Hayne, G; Kumar, B and Hare, B (2017) Design hazard identification and the link to site experience. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 170(2), pp. 85-94. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
The training, development and routes to charteredship of building design engineers have undergone a major transformation in recent years. Additionally, the duration and quality of site experience being gained by designers is reducing. While accident causation is often complex, previous research shows a potential link between design and construction accidents. The effectiveness of the UK's Construction (Design and Management) (CDM) Regulations is being questioned, and designers regularly do not recognise the impact they can make on site safety. A newly developed hazard perception test was used to determine if students and design practitioners are able to identify hazards in designs and to establish if site experience impacts hazard identification. The results of the tests show an association between the ability to identify and mitigate hazards and possession of site experience. The results provide empirical evidence that supports previous anecdotal evidence. The results also question if the design engineers of today are suitably equipped to fulfil the designer's responsibilities under the CDM Regulations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; education & training; health & safety; structures & design |
| Index terms: | evidence, regulation, practitioner, design and construction, effectiveness, duration, building design, engineer, hazard identification, designer, transformation |
| Subjects: | profession, business, performance management, project controls, political science, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner, contractual arrangements, architectural design, financial risk |
| Topics: | Procurement, Quality Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Governance, Design Practice, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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