This explored the sociotechnical aspects of risk management in construction – both by:
1) drawing on interviews with 32 construction managers, consultants and experts who provided their thoughts on hazards in construction and how to manage them &
2) applying a sociotechnical lens to discuss the factors (largely drawing on and refining the Construction Accident Causation (ConCA) model).
Way too much to cover here, so just a few points.
It’s said that construction “takes an orthodox approach to safety: Finding root causes, quantifying risk, and often blaming frontline workers” (p1), but a plateau in safety performance in construction and a “[disillusionment] with normative safety culture programmes … and bureaucratic safety management systems” (p1) has increased the need for more holistic methods of understanding performance, like sociotechnical/systems views.
Construction is seen as a particularly challenging industry, highlighted by project-nature of the industry, unique client-based designs, low profit margins, subcontracting arrangements and low transfer of learning more broadly.
Authors argue that thus far, construction research has largely taken a “hard” approach to modelling the complexity in construction, based on data mining of accident reports, but rarely explored the relationships between these factors and their origins.
Results:
I’ve skipped the majority of the interview findings due to space so will move quickly to the discussion.
Construction is said to be a combination of high-hazard work with constant change, “making risks difficult to control; the demographics of the workforce (young, male, international, and with low levels of education and economic privilege) are associated with characteristics that exacerbate risk-taking behaviours; and the project-based, client-driven structure of the sector is competitive, unregulated and litigious” (p19). The nature of construction was found to be highly interrelated and interdependent – in their view supporting the systems lens.
For worker traits and apparently low engagement with safety (according to the interviews), it’s said this relationship goes both ways. Workers may fail to engage with management, but management also fail to engage with workers. One perceived barrier was that although workers are the experts in the task, “it is presumed they are risk-takers who need to be controlled and this limits collaboration; thus, because their expertise is not valued, they disengage from the project” (p19).
Lack of engagement results in safety becoming an afterthought, with ill-suited policies for the context. This creates a cycle of poorly designed procedures & equipment and an exacerbation of the disconnect workers have, increasing cynicism and lessening engagement.
The authors put it nicely “[Workers] become disobedient (either as a pragmatic reality of getting work done or as an act of animosity), resentful of their employers, and demonise OSH – perpetuating the disconnect between workers and safety which is perceived as their lack of interest” (p19).
Breaking the vicious cycle of management mistrust and rigid rules which reduce worker engagement. Workers may appear uninterested in safety but “this could be because they are not given timely opportunities to engage, do not expect to be engaged with, or have become cynical about safety because their input is not valued” (p20).
Silo working is another challenge in construction, where workers compartmentalise their specialities and the inherent risks. Subbies contracted for specific tasks may not appreciate the significance of their interrelations to broader project safety (and to other trades); e.g. lacking the big picture. Siloism is exacerbated by construction because of the need to engage subbies for specific periods; providing little incentive to invest in training and building relationship skills. Use of effective techniques like increasing role autonomy or job rotation may not be well-suited for elements of construction in a transient environment.
Importantly, structural configuration of construction leads to the system “not [being] set up to allow relationships between trades to develop and instead they become inward-looking, defensive, and isolated, which narrows their perception of risk” (p20). Some techniques to improve
Issues with competence were highlighted from the interviews. Although participants referred to the lack of technical competence of workers and lack of awareness of safe practice, the authors in unpacking these comments note that this “highlights the breadth of skills and traits needed to manage risk successfully and the tendency of managers to oversimplify and dismiss an incident as a ‘lack of competence” (p21). Even if greater skills are needed for “the bigger picture” of project performance including better cross-collaboration with other trades, lack of resources, low profit margins and lack of incentives to invest in transient workforces works against these intentions.
Cutting corners in construction was recognised as often driven by laziness, but “symptomatic of a culture among construction workers to solve problems and prove themselves to be resourceful, capable and productive” (p22). Someone asked the rhetorical question about whether they would be congratulated for stopping work or solving a problem? Many recognised pressures to rush and improvise and a general desire to prioritise cost & schedule over safety.
Pressure from clients was seen to exacerbate these pressures – who often prioritised cost, schedule & reputation over safe operation and a general “unwillingness to take ownership of risk or invest in anything other than the end product” (p22). Low profit margins compounded by fear of litigation was also seen to exacerbate cutting corners.
One effect of this is seen in risk management – said to be based on meeting minimum standards for compliance, or safety policies that were “be reactive, disproportionate, not evidence based, rarely reviewed, and taking a broad-brush approach to cope with constant change” (p22); e.g. PPE, signage and excessive site rules.
Another point raised by interviewees was a high risk tolerance. The nature of construction was said to attract people with a risk tolerant personality – but also related qualities like people who are “flexible, hardworking, and problem solvers”, which are said to be traits desirable for production, but apparently “tend to coincide with unpredictability, complacency and risk-taking” (p23).
However regarding risk tolerance and taking, it’s said to not be a fixed trait but depends on pressures and incentives and while people may superficially appear to have a high tolerance for risk, these factors “are initiated by systemic issues: Poor planning, tight schedules, poorly designed equipment and insensitive procedures; fear of litigation, and an expendable view of the workforce” (p23).
The authors then provided some recommendations for paving the way forward (although considering the significant challenges in construction as already discussed), including:
- Job enrichment and cross-trade training and support may help to increase empathy, awareness and community
- Developing ‘learning legacy’ programmes to improve transfer of knowledge and innovation between projects
- Better engagement with workers to build empowerment and respect their expertise (which goes both ways)
- Flowing on from above, more involvement with workers and their expertise to solve problems. This includes inappropriate procedures and equipment. Also a change of perception of HSE from “an enforcer of rules to a facilitator of ideas” (p27)
- Greater focus on “adaptive safety” principles, which have been highlighted in other industries. It’s said that while the hazards in construction may be largely manageable, the rate of change and unpredictability (strongly influenced by industry pressures) is far less manageable, and thus construction needs more ideas better suited to this environment which “does not cope well with paperwork” (p27).
Authors: Eleanor J. Harvey, Patrick Waterson, Andrew R.J. Dainty, 2018, Applied Ergonomics
Study link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.06.001
Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beyond-conca-rethinking-causality-construction-ben-hutchinson
SafetyInsights.org 