Emuze, F (2023) An illustrative case study of workaround and its effects on construction site safety in South Africa. In: Tutesigensi, A and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 39th Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2023, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
A workaround implies that a rule known to be correct has become an obstacle. A workaround is expedited to resolve a problem with obsolete rules or to create a problem by violating rules (cutting corners). In both scenarios, a workaround is a form of violation. This paper aims to depict workarounds, their frequency, and their impact on rule-related behaviours of workers in the frontline of construction. On-site interviews were used to collect data for the study. The interviewees answered questions based on lived experiences on construction sites. Data analysis showed that the 'workaround' - the practice of reconsidering rules that are incompatible with a task - was common and accepted on the three construction sites. Operatives who were interviewed resorted to workarounds whether the task was covered by appropriate rules (good rules), obsolete rules (bad rules), or where the task was not covered by a rule (no rule). The effect is an incorrect but rewarding violation, which is dangerous because it is habit-forming. In future, negative habit-forming through unrestricted workarounds should be discouraged in construction.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction site; rule behaviour; safety rule; South Africa; workaround |
| Index terms: | violation, habit, operative, South Africa, construction site, data analysis, case study, interview |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, work location, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, data collection methods, regulatory law, Geography |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Site Management |
| 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