The practice of DFS review in Singapore: Industry and organisational level interventions

Construction is one of the most dangerous industries worldwide. Design for Safety (DfS) is a promising intervention to address safety concerns. Many countries have mandated the performance of DfS review in their regulations. However, previous research has shown that the performance of mandated DfS review may not be effective. The process tends to turn into something that is just carried out on paper rather than removing or reducing risk in the design. Thus, there is a need for research on how effective DfS review is carried out. This study examines the practice of DfS review in Singapore and identifies potential interventions suitable for improving the practice of DfS, both at the industry and organisational level.The study conducted was a mixed-methods study conducted in three parts to fulfil the three objectives. To study practice in Singapore in detail, 59 interviews were conducted, where practitioners where they were asked to describe the DfS reviews during their projects. It was found that the types of practices observed could be classified into five groups. These five groups could further be classified into a twoaxis model. The two axes were whether the focus of the group was to reduce risks at the source or to fulfil the obligations of the regulation and how much effort was deployed to support this focus. This classification can support in explaining the spectrum of behaviour displayed under the mandated practice of DfS, surfacing considerations from each organisation for the practice of DfS. It can practically contribute by allowing for the designing of targeted interventions.For finding industry level interventions, data was taken from the interviews previously conducted. These were classified into different types of interventions. Four focus groups were held with 16 industry experts for their rankings and evaluations of the potential interventions. It was found that interventions addressing the competency and knowledge of team members in the review were perceived to be viii the most important. This was followed by interventions of tools and technology, checks and audits, and lastly, industry recognition.A novel instrument to measure DfS climate was created for the organisational level intervention. Interviews conducted showed that the culture for DfS and hence climate, was important as a manifestation of the culture. DfS climate is “the shared perceptions of, and the meaning attached to the DfS policies, practices, and procedures project team members experience and the behaviours they observe getting rewarded and that are supported and expected” in a particular organisation on a particular project. The instrument was first piloted. With a sample of 242 responses, the questionnaire was subjected to exploratory factor analysis to determine the structure of the construct. The final instrument constructed consisted of 19 questions. These questions broke into five dimensions: participation of leader, member cooperation, member performance, project resources, and expectations for stakeholder representation. The overall construct of DfS climate was linked to whether design changes would be incorporated into the design or tender documents, facilitation in communication and teamwork in the project, and whether DfS review was rated to be effective for improving the design of the project or reducing the inherent design risk.The research is novel in that the entire spectrum of practice across the industry was studied in detail, adding to the knowledge of how DfS outcomes emerge from interactions within the project team. Practical contributions are made as interventions to promote the effective practice of DfS are prioritised and created. Further research can be conducted to validate interventions found and the DfS climate instrument in different contexts.