Behm, M and Schneller, A (2013) Application of the Loughborough construction accident causation model: A framework for organizational learning. Construction Management and Economics, 31(6), pp. 580-595. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
In order for the construction industry to improve its poor safety performance it needs to learn from its safety mistakes and put the lessons learned to good use. Incident investigation theories and techniques vary widely in the peer-reviewed literature. The Loughborough Construction Accident Causation (ConAC) model was applied to State Department of Transportation construction accidents, and is proposed as a tool to facilitate organizational learning in the construction industry. Details of the methodology utilized are described so that it can be duplicated in research and in practice. By investigating 27 DOT construction incidents, the research demonstrates how the model can be used both in research and in practice. The model yielded 6.63 causes/factors/influences identified per incident, and correlated the causes to determine relationships. Incident causality is complex and multi-faceted. The Loughborough model facilitates a holistic view of incident causality and thus organizational learning.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accident; organizational learning; safety |
| Index terms: | construction industry, investigation, construction incident, lessons learned, safety performance, methodology, construction accident, organizational learning |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, occupational health and safety management, professional development, research methods, health risk and incident analysis, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Health and Safety |
| 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