Lingard, H; Cooke, T and Gharaie, E (2013) The how and why of plant-related fatalities in the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20(4), pp. 365-380. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - Drawing on the findings of coronial investigations, this research aimed to investigate the circumstances and causes of fatal incidents involving plant in the Australian construction industry. The analysis sought to provide greater insight into how and why fatal incidents occur and to inform recommendations for the prevention of fatal incidents involving plant. Design/methodology/approach - Fatal incidents involving plant were identified from the National Coronial Information System. In each case, the decedent was a construction worker and the incident occurred at a construction worksite. A systemic incident causation model developed by Loughborough University informed the identification of originating influences, shaping factors and immediate circumstances in each incident. Findings - Most of the incidents involved excavators, trucks and cranes, and different classifications of plant were associated with different types of incident. The most common incident types involved people being run over by moving plant or struck by a moving object. Site layout and unsafe actions were the most commonly identified immediate circumstances. Shaping factors included site constraints and the design of plant, particularly visibility issues relating to "blind spots". Originating influences included the design of the permanent work and construction process. Research limitations/implications - The research highlights the usefulness of systemic incident causation models, such as the "Loughborough Model", in the analysis of the causes of fatal incidents involving plant in the construction industry. Practical implications - The results indicate that plant-related fatalities occur as a result of a complex interplay of different causes, some of which are "upstream" of the construction work. The use of innovative new site planning methods and active monitoring technologies to reduce the risk of collisions between people and plant should be considered. Originality/value - The analysis provides a more detailed qualitative analysis of the causes of fatal incidents involving excavators than would be possible using national compensation data, which restricts analysis to a classification of the mechanism and agency of injury.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; construction industry; fatalities; health and safety; incident causation; plant; plant layout; plant safety |
| Index terms: | agency, information system, methodology, construction process, qualitative analysis, drawing, site layout, injury, health and safety, fatalities, construction worker, compensation, prevention, construction industry, monitoring, construction work, investigation, Australia, planning method |
| Subjects: | health conditions and diseases, building construction, sociology, information systems, industry analysis, research methods, health risk and incident analysis, financial risk, health safety and environment, Geography, operations management, technical documentation, urban planning, site logistics, research design and methodology, data collection methods, control systems, dispute resolution, practitioner |
| Topics: | Governance, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Site Management, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Digital Applications |
| 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