Rowlinson, S; Mohamed, S and Lam, S W (2003) Hong Kong construction foremen's safety responsibilities: A case study of management oversight. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(1), pp. 27-35. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
In total, 69 foremen from 13 Hong Kong construction companies were invited to participate in a study designed to investigate foremen's opinions regarding 27 safety supervisory tasks. These fell into six categories, including handling new workers, training, safety, discipline, coordinating, and motivating. Results of the survey and subsequent follow-up interviews showed that over two thirds of foremen claimed that they had the responsibility to perform certain tasks but only half said that they had the authority to perform these tasks. Further interviews and on-site observations of foremen were then conducted in order to validate the findings by way of case study material. It is concluded that foremen play a key role in ensuring that safety management systems operate effectively. It appears, from the results of the study, that this role is not being performed properly and that the key interface between worker and management the role of the foreman, is not paid sufficient attention by senior management and is an area requiring urgent attention if Hong Kong's poor site safety record is to be improved.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; foremen; Hong Kong; responsibility; safety; supervision |
| Index terms: | survey, construction company, interview, construction industry, supervision, safety management system, Hong Kong, case study |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, health safety and environment, Geography, control systems, data collection methods, organization |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PTE |
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