This explored the (perceived) factors that facilitate knowledge transfer (KT) on OHS in and between construction firms and suppliers/subcontractors. Data was based on 43 semi-structured interviews with OHS professionals and others with responsibilities for OHS. KT was framed around organisational cultures. Note: although a range of roles were included (CEOs, project managers, supervisors – the majority seemed to be OHS people…)
Culture was used as a framing device due to “construction projects [being] complex technologically and culturally as they are shaped by groups of professionals … across the supply chain” (p5), with underlying subcultures.
Results
Overall, predictably, interviews with “five types of organization revealed that there is no cultural uniformity in relation to OHS across fragmented construction industry” (p10).
Larger firms had stronger OHS approaches compared to smaller firms. Themes emerged across interviews recognising the presence of subcultures which bring benefits and challenges to project performance.
There was a lack of holistic view of OHS, which was often seen as the responsibility of individuals (particularly OHS staff). However, one respondent believed that organisations, because of their systems etc., had created a perception that construction sites were ‘safe zones’, which at the same time had “taken away the need [for people] to think”.
Generating trust was seen as a critical factor in OHS – particularly around line managers & their awareness of team safety climate. Line managers were seen as the “fastest and most efficient channels of KT who can also influence the response to the safety message” (p10). Blame, such as through incident investigations, was agreed to be a barrier.
A cultivation of the culture of learning was seen to directly contribute to KM in OHS. Learning from past incidents was agreed to be important. One firm also shared best practice stories. However, in both cases (learning from failure & sharing positive stories), it’s recognised there may be a “lack of mechanisms in place to learn from such practices”; learning meaning effective transfer across the firms.
KM was more robust during project execution than project planning.
Where formal knowledge management systems did exist, they seen to be unsystematic and inconsistently applied across the firm and projects. KM were largely project-specific and silo’d, with few mechanisms to transfer lessons across projects.
Interestingly, a CEO remarked that tactic knowledge tended to be ignored in firms & systems and from his perspective, KT can’t simply be mandated as it leads to a ‘tick the box’ exercise.
Too much process constrains freedom of thought instead of encouraging people to talk and share stories for knowledge. Too much focus was placed on top-down rules & systems, rather than focussing on “people-related mechanisms such as storytelling, [Communities of Practice], and social networking” (p4).
Similarly, an OHS Manager remarked that “We created knowledge systems, management systems, intranets and communication systems that do not serve the purpose most of the time, because we are not reaching our front-line people, and that support should be targeted for them” (p9).
Authors: Duryan, M., Smyth, H., Roberts, A., Rowlinson, S., & Sherratt, F. (2020). Accident Analysis & Prevention, 139, 105496.
Study link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105496
Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/knowledge-transfer-occupational-health-safety-culture-ben-hutchinson
SafetyInsights.org 