Design for occupational safety and health: Key attributes for organisational capability

Manu, P; Poghosyan, A; Mahamadu, A M; Mahdjoubi, L; Gibb, A; Behm, M and Akinade, O O (2019) Design for occupational safety and health: Key attributes for organisational capability. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), pp. 2614-2636. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose: Against the backdrop of the contribution of design to the occurrence of occupational injuries and illnesses in construction, design for occupational safety and health (DfOSH) is increasingly becoming prominent in the construction sector. To ensure that design interventions are safe for construction workers to build and maintain, design firms need to have the appropriate organisational capability in respect of DfOSH. However, empirical insight regarding the attributes that constitute DfOSH organisational capability is lacking. The purpose of this paper, which trailblases the subject of DfOSH organisational capability in construction, is to address two key questions: what organisational attributes determine DfOSH capability? What is the relative priority of the capability attributes? Design/methodology/approach: The study employed three iterations of expert focus group discussion and a subsequent three-round Delphi technique accompanied by the application of voting analytic hierarchy process. Findings: The study revealed 18 capability attributes nested within six categories, namely: competence (the competence of organisation’s design staff); strategy (the consideration of DfOSH in organisation’s vision as well as the top management commitment); corporate experience (organisation’s experience in implementing DfOSH on projects); systems (systems, processes and procedures required for implementing DfOSH); infrastructure (physical, and information and communication technology resources); and collaboration (inter- and intra-organisational collaboration to implement DfOSH on projects). Whilst these categories and their nested attributes carry varying weights of importance, collectively, the competence-related attributes are the most important, followed by strategy. Originality/value: The findings should enable design firms and other key industry stakeholders (such as the clients who appoint them) to understand designers' DfOSH capability better. Additionally, design firms should be able to prioritise efforts/investment to enhance their DfOSH capability.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Delphi technique; design for safety; health and safety; prevention through design; safety in design; voting analytic hierarchy process
Index terms: strategy, commitment, injury, focus group, health and safety, information and communication technology, key attribute, organizational capability, construction sector, Delphi technique, collaboration, competence, design for safety, top management, methodology, illness, designer, design firm, becoming, construction worker, prevention, occupational safety and health
Subjects: health conditions and diseases, sociology, occupational health and safety management, philosophical process, industry analysis, research methods, management, personnel development, financial risk, health safety and environment, psychology, data collection methods, profession, risk assessment, computing systems, practitioner
Topics: Human Resources, Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Risk Management, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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