Saurin, T A; Formoso, C T and Cambraia, F B (2005) Analysis of a safety planning and control model from the human error perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(3), pp. 283-298. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose is to introduce a safety planning and control (SPC) model that has been integrated into the production planning and control process. The paper is concerned with the impact of this model on human error control, since both workers' and managers' errors are major contributing factors in accident causation. Design/methodology/approach - The analysis of this impact was based on two stages: the analysis of the main types of human errors detected in five sites in which the model has been implemented and a discussion on how the model contributes to the design of safe work systems from a cognitive engineering perspective. Findings - The main conclusion is that six elements of the model (safety planning, near miss reporting, training, percentage of safe work packages indicator, participatory cycle, and planning and control diffusion) contribute to make both the boundaries of safe work visible and respected. Safety planning also helps to make the production system error-tolerant to some extent. However, the analysis of causes of safety failures in the empirical studies pointed out a high incidence of violations of the boundaries (on average, 43.5 percent of the total safety failures), mostly by workers. Research limitations/implications - Although improvement in the existing mechanisms might make the model more behavior-oriented, a broader set of measures is necessary to achieve excellence in dealing with human errors. Also, additional empirical data are necessary to clarify the nature and frequency of the human errors that have impact in construction safety. Originality/value - The model may help in devising more effective tools to reduce errors in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; modelling; production planning and control; risk management |
| Index terms: | boundaries, violation, construction safety, methodology, production planning, production system, manager, construction industry, modelling, risk management, empirical study, package |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, regulatory law, environmental health, manufacturing engineering, research methods, property law, contractual arrangements, project delivery, analytical methods, practitioner, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Procurement, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| 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