Junjia, Y; Ales@Alias, A H; Haron, N A and Abu Bakar, N (2025) Developing a method for evaluating the value of hoisting risk response strategies: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(9), pp. 6115-6136. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - Hoisting is an essential construction work package, but there is still a high incidence of accidents due to insufficient attention to coping strategies. This study aims to provide decision support to practitioners on safety protocols by developing a multi-stakeholder risk response model and a novel evaluation method. Design/methodology/approach - Firstly, the study summarizes the hoisting risk response strategies system through a literature review and stakeholder theory. Secondly, the study constructed a quantitative theoretical model based on GLS-SEM and questionnaires. Third, the EWM-VA evaluation method was developed to determine the value coefficients of strategies. Findings - The strategic interaction between government and consultants, consultants and builders, and government and builders are in the top three pronounced. Three coping strategies, “Increase funding for lifting equipment and safety devices,” “Improve the quality of safety education and training on lifting construction,” and “Conduct regular emergency rescue drills for lifting accidents,” have the optimal ratio of benefits to costs. Originality/value - The hoisting risk strategy model from the perspective of multi-interested subjects proposed by the study is based on the global thinking of the project, which reduces the troubles such as the difficulty of pursuing responsibility and the irrational allocation of strategies that were brought by the previously related studies that only considered a single interested subject. In addition, the EWM-VA evaluation method developed in the study also provides new options for evaluating risk strategies and has the potential to be extended to other fields.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | entropy weighting method; hoisting; multi-stakeholder perspective; risk response strategy; value engineering theory |
| Index terms: | builder, risk response, strategy, literature review, value engineering, decision support, entropy, hoisting, questionnaire, practitioner, lifting, methodology, package, option, education and training, interaction, construction work, risk response strategy, coping, funding |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, construction operations, economic analysis, operations management, practitioner, behavioral psychology, professional education, financial risk, research methods, data analysis and analytics, value management, data collection methods, thermal systems, occupational health and safety management, decision analysis, management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Site Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Risk Management, Project Management, Health and Safety, Education |
| 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