Kallman, J W (1998) Loss control project decision models for the construction industry. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin - Madison, USA.
Abstract
The objective of the dissertation was to analyze Loss Control Project (LCP) decision making in the construction industry. The contributions are (1) identifying LCP decision attributes, (2) collecting a large, new database, (3) examining associations among the demographic characteristics, success factors, and LCP attributes, (4) exploring LCP demand, and (5) developing a new LCP analysis method--the Multiple Attribute Hierarchy Process. The construction industry was selected because it has frequent and significant accident costs, expresses concerns for a humanitarian workplace, has had little empirical study, and has a receptive attitude towards research. The results should be useful to contractors, LCP providers, regulators, and academics. Among the principal findings are: (1) contractors underestimate indirect loss costs; (2) reducing workers' compensation costs is very important--more important than reducing property, liability, or other loss costs; (3) although insurer pressure to adopt LCPs is the greatest single pressure issue--the overall importance of pressures, including union pressure, is very low; (4) decreasing fatalities is the most important safety concern; (5) incentive programs are not important to most contractors; (6) decreasing direct costs is the most important attribute group, however, there is large variation among the respondents; (7) contractors who spend more on LCPs think they do a better job with safety; (8) contractors with five to nine employees perceive themselves achieving somewhat worse safety results than smaller contractors. Owner participation on the job site is an important safety success factor; (9) safety meetings are not independent of the direct cost attribute group weights. Contractors conducting regularly scheduled safety meetings will place less weight on direct costs and more weights on indirect cost and non-cost attributes; (10) having an owner record accident information does seem to have a positive association with reducing EMRs; (11) while many clusters of homogeneous contractors can be formed, the results of this method are still not clear; (12) the use of the imposed MAHP structure may assist contractors in making better LCP decisions. While no definite prescriptive models could be formed in this research, the structure may help contractors think about LCPs in a more logical, methodical fashion.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Anderson, D R |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision making; direct costs; indirect cost; liability; owner; participation; safety |
| Index terms: | decision-making, variation, program, success factor, liability, construction industry, fatalities, compensation, dissertation, empirical study, regulator, database, owner, direct cost, humanitarian, indirect cost |
| Subjects: | research methods, liability law, research dissemination and communication, principle, contractual condition, economics, software systems, health risk and incident analysis, cost management, industry analysis, decision analysis, sociology, data management, dispute resolution, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Procurement, Risk Management, Health and Safety, Ethics, Legal Issues |
| 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