Safety performance evaluation model for off-site construction through the integration of key leading and lagging factors

Olimat, H.; Abudayyeh, O.; Liu, H. and Alwashah, Z. (2026) Safety performance evaluation model for off-site construction through the integration of key leading and lagging factors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(6): 04026077, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Off-site construction, a growing alternative to traditional building methods, offers advantages such as reduced environmental impact, improved productivity, and cost efficiency. However, off-site construction introduces new and unique safety challenges across its multiple phases of fabrication, transportation, and assembly. The Experience Modification Rating (EMR), a widely used insurance metric in traditional construction, remains the primary factor used by insurance carriers to adjust workers' compensation premiums for off-site firms. However, the industry's reliance on an outdated metric that relies on lagging safety indicators, broad classifications, and other nonsafety factors raises significant concerns over its applicability in reflecting the distinct safety risks and operational contexts of off-site work. Therefore, this research examines the inadequacies of EMR in this sector and identifies 70 key safety factors specific to off-site processes through an extensive literature review of 76 research publications. A structured survey was used to validate the relevance and importance of these factors and was distributed to professionals from both the off-site construction and insurance industries, yielding 30 valid responses. Based on the findings, this paper explores the potential for alternative safety evaluation approaches that are off-site-specific and data-driven and considers all relevant leading and lagging factors. Thus, using the Relative Importance Index (RII), this study establishes 36 validated, high-priority safety metrics, laying the groundwork for future multicriteria-based assessment models tailored to off-site construction. Additionally, applying the Mann-Whitney U test revealed significant intergroup differences in factor prioritization between off-site construction professionals and insurance providers, highlighting key divergences in safety perception.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: experience modification rate; occupational safety; off-site construction; safety performance evaluation; workers' compensation insurance
Index terms: survey, literature review, relative importance index, safety performance, cost efficiency, publication, environmental impact, safety factor, integration, productivity, traditional construction, site process, site work, fabrication, compensation, occupational safety, off-site construction, traditional building, insurance
Subjects: building construction, heritage and conservation, manufacturing engineering, financial risk, operations management, site logistics, economic analysis, construction type, research dissemination and communication, environmental impact, occupational health and safety management, organizational analysis, management, economics, data analysis and analytics, risk assessment, data collection methods, dispute resolution
Topics: Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Site Management, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Sustainability, Legal Issues
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

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