Teizer, J (2016) Right-time vs real-time pro-active construction safety and health system architecture. Construction Innovation, 16(3), pp. 253-280. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the critical time window for pro-active construction accident prevention and response. Large to small organisations throughout the entire construction supply chain continue to be challenged to adequately prevent accidents. Construction worker injuries and fatalities represent significant waste of resources. Although the five C’s (culture, competency, communication, controls and contractors) have been focusing on compliance, good practices and best-in-class strategies, even industry leaders have only marginal improvements in recorded safety statistics for many years. Design/methodology/approach Right-time vs real-time construction safety and health identifies three major focus areas to aid in the development of a strategic, as opposed to tactical, response. Occupational safety and health by design, real-time safety and health monitoring and alerts and education, training and feedback leveraging state-of-the-art technology provide meaningful predictive, quantitative and qualitative measures to identify, correlate and eliminate hazards before workers get injured or incidents cause collateral damage. Findings The current state and development of existing innovative initiatives in the occupational construction safety and health domain are identified. A framework for right-time vs real-time construction safety and health presents the specific focus on automated safety and health data gathering, analysis and reporting to achieve better safety performance. The developed roadmap for right-time vs real-time safety and health is finally tested in selected application scenarios of high concern in the construction industry. Originality/value A strategic roadmap to eliminate hazards and accidents through right-time vs real-time automation is presented that has practical as well as social implications on conducting a rigorous safety culture and climate in a construction business and its entire supply chain.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | performance measures,accident prevention framework,automation and control,construction safety and health,lagging and leading indicators,right-time alert and warning technologies |
| Index terms: | accident prevention, right-time alert, compliance, injury, strategy, performance measure, window, methodology, system architecture, state of the art, construction accident, safety performance, lagging and leading indicator, safety culture, warning technology, good practice, monitoring, occupational safety and health, construction supply chain, construction worker, fatalities, automation, statistics, construction industry, prevention, construction safety and health |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, health risk and incident analysis, management, architectural elements, safety engineering, research methods, health safety and environment, automation and robotics, financial risk, occupational health and safety management, project controls, health conditions and diseases, industry analysis, environmental health, design theory, research dissemination and communication, mathematical modelling, construction logistics, control systems, practitioner, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Supply Chain Management, Quality Management, Site Management, Time Control |
| 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