Holt, G D (2016) Opposing influences on construction plant and machinery health and safety innovations. Construction Innovation, 16(3), pp. 390-414. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to consider opposing influences on workplace plant and machinery health and safety (PMH&S) innovations, highlight examples of these to model PMH&S innovations' effectiveness at the workplace, develop guidance for improvement of same and for construction of health and safety (H&S) performance. Design/methodology/approach This study is a qualitative meta-analysis of data distributed among a sample of published research in the field, and it uses inductive reasoning based on informal, qualitative and interpretative analysis. Findings Nearly all PMH&S innovations (positive influences) originate from original equipment manufacturers and specialist companies throughout the supply chain. Negative influences that can counter these potential H&S benefits result mainly from human (in) action(s) at the workplace. These are classified (and analysed) in terms of “error”, “indifference” and “lack of training”. “Tolerant” H&S management is another negative influence found among these classifications. Originality/value The study draws from a targeted meta-sample of research in the field, a model of positive and negative influences on PMH&S innovations that emphasises workers' (in) action(s).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | workplace,innovation,health and safety,machinery,hrmc people,plant |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, construction plant, methodology, health and safety, meta-analysis, manufacturer, reasoning |
| Subjects: | construction equipment, health safety and environment, performance management, research methods, cognitive psychology, research evaluation and metrics, practitioner |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Health and Safety, Plant and Equipment, Roles and Professions, Quality Management |
| 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