This explored the contributing factors to crane safety incidents in the Australian construction industry based on interviews & focus groups with 62 industry participants (crane manufacturers, maintenance specialists, riggers, crane operators etc).
One aspect this paper tried to move beyond were simple attributions of human error or behavioural causes as it’s argued that many of these issues can be traced back to organisational issues.
Far too much to cover in this paper so I’ll pick a few items.
Results:
A total of 77 causal/contributing factors were identified in the study, which “were found to operate at multiple levels within the work system relating to the use of cranes in the construction industry” and where the factors “interact with each other in complex ways within and between levels in the work system” (p1). Factors related to the industry, regularly, social, planning management & work practice levels within construction, and finally at the bahaviours & conditions of the immediate worksite.
One factor was the difference between qualifications and experience. Participants observed that crane training & licensing regimes are insufficiently rigorous and it’s too easy to obtain a licence. This was seen to be compounded by operators having to change machines with little notice, where crane companies often have a fleet of cranes. Therefore their experience may be specific to certain makes/models of crane but not to different ones they operate.
Assessing competence relative to specific machines was seen as a critical component.
High demand for crane workers was seen to attract a lot of new entrants who obtain licences with little experience. This was more prevalent for mobile cranes compared to tower.
Rule use was discussed, where operators noted they break rules to complete work. Examples included operating beyond the crane’s SWL. Clients were observed to make crane companies complete a raft of paperwork but once everything was signed, were told to just get the job done.
Job pressure to get work done was passed down through crane service providers to crane drivers, who sometimes over-ride warning devices. An example was operators using overriding keys to exceed crane limits. Some suggested that crane designers should locate override keys outside of the cabin to reduce this.
Power imbalances were also linked to safety and rule departure. When some crane operators refused unsafe work, “The next day, they’re not welcome back on site” (p6). However, conversely, given the active construction industry it’s noted that some mobile crane companies can pick & choose where they work and “[avoid] sites at which safety controls may be stringently applied by diligent principal contractors” (p6).
Project conditions were related to incidents. Restricted access was one where the cranes that are deployed to site aren’t the best type to do the job. Site layout was seen as an important factor, where it imposes considerable restrictions on the types of cranes to be used, setup location and slewing.
Another was restrictions on when work can be performed, with setting up cranes at night seen as a fundamental issue for the industry. Noted was that in some cases operators are setting up or packing up cranes in the dark; further “There’s a lot of crucial lifts get done of a night where no one can see” (p7).
Issues with the interaction of other trades & services were also highlighted, where multiple people trying to do their own work can impact mobile crane safety. E.g. people digging trenches near crane outriggers and the like.
Crane operators may also be pressured by project demands to operate in unsafe weather conditions. Stopping due to unsafe weather was less of an issue for tower cranes compared to mobile.
Inadequate pre-lifting planning was also flagged. Sometimes a crane operator may only receive a call the day before to do a lift tomorrow, resulting in the wrong equipment or specifications.
Another was for smaller tier contractors where crane operators turn up to site with nobody to direct them – but then grilled by site staff once they arrive on the lack of lifting going on. Larger jobs were better planned than smaller jobs like pick & carry. For pick & carry, “there’s pretty much no lift planning and consultation from projects” (p8).
Inadequate pre-planning was linked strongly to project time pressures, where project timelines “dictate how much preparation or lack thereof actually happens” (p8). Or when crane operators visit site prior to the lift, lifting plans can be rendered irrelevant by the changing workplace circumstances.
The value of paperwork was explored. People differed in their views on whether it added value. Some noted that principal contractor safety processes can be cumbersome & unhelpful, with one noting “I think the current style of safety management on sites is doomed from the start. We’re expecting people to read through 20, 30 page documents, retain it, work to it in the exact process. I mean, it’s just not going to happen” (p8).
Others noted that the excessive focus on site inductions and over-emphasising paperwork takes time away from hands-on management of work to the detriment of safety. Some were more charitable about paperwork, but both agreed that paperwork needs to focus more on the actual work itself, detailing how the crane will be set up, used & how work will occur.
E.g. everybody knows about generic fall risks from a crane but more important is detailing how to ensure that the safety pain has been connected. Or another example is the paperwork will talk about gloves, shoes, sunglasses, hardhat etc. but then “[says] nothing about lifting the loads” (p8).
Development of safety documentation by principal contractors without due consultation with specialist crane service providers was seen as an issue. E.g. principal contractors may have good engineers but have little experience with cranes & then try to dictate to crane operators how to do their jobs.
Finally, crane maintenance was also an issue. Taking cranes out of service for maintenance was an ongoing issue as the builders want to keep on building with no down time on their cranes. This may be more an issue for mobile cranes as the crane company is working flat out.
In conclusion, the authors argue that understanding the various interacting factors across multiple levels of the construction industry “can inform the selection and implementation of ‘upstream’ prevention measures for crane safety [incidents]” (p1).
SafetyInsights.org 