SafetyInsights.org

This study explored the links between specific organisational factors of safety management systems (SMS) and specific risk variables, and their function as leading indicators.

In particular, they looked at how project and site complexity, design and resourcing influences safety risks. It’s not the first study to research the links on site complexity and design etc. on risks in construction, but it’s perhaps among the most strongly powered studies in this area given its sample size.

474 construction sites were visited and the CONSRAT (Construction Sites Risk Assessment Tool) was completed to estimate site risks.

Providing background:

·      Accident and injury rates generally have been shown to have “a low capacity to predict future accidents”; therefore many recommend the use of leading indicators

·      Here, some propose precursor factors, including: lack of connection between crews and work procedures, poor safety planning and/or lack of flexibility to adapt changes in planning, lack of preparation and improvisation, inadequate supervision and staffing, and lack of control barriers and visual warnings

·      Other work that has researched the links between SMS elements and safety risks found important factors to be: safety inspections and observations, safety resource, staffing and owner involvement

·      Leading indicators can also be divided into active and passive. Active relate to everything being done to prepare for work on site (hazard reporting, accident analysis, safety inspections and observations, pre-task meetings), and passive relate to previous decisions or planning before site work starts (training, safety resourcing, staffing, owner involvement, incentives, design meetings etc)

·      One challenge, among many, is that small to medium sized enterprises (SME) constitute about 90% of firms in construction – who have less resources to devote to formalised and systematic SMS approaches

·      This study explored two global factors of safety – complexity and resources (see the first image below); the two factors were then broken down into four sub-factors

·      Onsite complexity is in many cases an important factor affecting risk conditions. It includes endogenous elements resulting from the project itself, (type of project, building configuration, site environmental conditions, number of floors, staging etc.) and exogenous ones that the site complexity generates (factors and aspects that are decided before work starts, like contracting arrangements, number of companies onsite, subcontracting, type of work, number of works etc)

·      Complexity elements “are not directly related to an accident but they have the ability to enhance precursors of accidents” (p273). Having greater site complexity, like greater numbers of sites, work fronts, more complicated works, more firms working etc. is related to higher site risks

·      Resourcing is the other global factor, including company general resources (resources on site, agreements and contract arrangements and more) and specific resources for safety (safety staff, safety systems, equipment, training etc.)

·      Complexity and resourcing organisational factors are expected to influence at least 10 site risk factors, shown below in the second image.

Below are the organisational factors related to risks:

Below are the analysed site risk factors that the organisational factors may influence:

Results

Key findings were:

·      “Resources on site” is more determinant in explaining influences on risk variables because it affects all the risk variables in this model

·      Site structure complexity (including structure and organisation, and safety resources on site) has a stronger effect on risk variables than other factors related to intrinsic characteristics of the work, site or companies

·      Thus, “the complexity and resource factors that depend on companies are those that have the greatest impact on risks” (p270)

This study found that “complexity” has a direct and positive relationship with the risk variables, specifically H&S plan compliance, work access, fall of height, process, collective protections, personal protections, and auxiliary resources and machinery.

Therefore, “the more complex the construction site is, the higher the risk levels are identified in it, and more resources are needed to control the risks” (p276).

This effect was strongest in its relationship to fall from heights – a ubiquitous risk in construction.

Internal organisation structure and job planning and design also affect a range of risks – and are also modifiable, given the challenge of trying to influence project or size characteristics. Thus, “deficiencies in both the organizational structure and the planning and design of the construction site can lead to an increase in several risks, more specifically the risk of falling from a height” (p276).

The “resources” organisational factor also had statistically significant and negative relationships with all risk variables. Not surprisingly, “the more resources on the construction site, the less risk detected” (p276).

Resources had stronger connections with H&S plan compliance and fall of height. Contractor structure resources and coordination resources also had stronger factor loading; that is, greater specialised safety staffing and safety coordination in contractors/subcontractors reduced site risks.

The findings demonstrated that “both the complexity of the construction site and the site size remain independent of risk indicators, in the sense that these two organizational variables are not easily modifiable” (p277).

Organisational structure and internal planning of the work impacts safety performance on site.

For site structure complexity, the strongest relationship was found with risk indicators of falls from height, followed by process. Moreover, internal organisation structure and job planning and design also had similar relationships.

Thus, “the lack of resources in the internal structure of the construction site and job planning negatively alter the adequate sequence of the planned processes, possibly due to a lack of control or organization” (p277).

Also, specific safety resourcing onsite (like safety staffing and coordination) were also linked to risk variables and generally had an “important effect on the general safety conditions onsite (which include permanent monitoring aspects such as cleanliness, order, safety means, and general protections, signage, etc.); and on the other hand, on the adaptation of the specific access to the workplace, as a specific aspect of good monitoring and preventive organization of the construction site” (p278).

In short, greater specific resources in construction site safety coordination and involvement of site personnel in preventative functions reduced site risks.

They note that findings related to organisational factors – complexity and resources, provides another avenue for risk mitigation and performance indicators. That is, these factors act as leading indicators of site risks. For example, “if a significant risk level of falling from height is detected, the complexity factors that are their potential generators should be analyzed and improved. In this way, action could be taken to reduce the level of subcontracting, the extension in the hiring of companies, the number of works or workers, and the location of workers onsite” (p278).

Further, organisations can increase onsite specific resources for safety, and limit the complexity of particular facets like internal organisation and job planning, e.g. “having personnel involved in the construction site to control and monitor safety measures, and on the other hand, of limiting the hiring of companies and subcontractors, with excessive outside personnel, as well as controlling the locations in the works with more risk” (p278).

Note – while these findings may not be surprising to those employed in large organisations, they relate this mostly to SMEs, which may not have adequate safety resourcing and staffing; nor much scope around influencing site conditions, job planning or complexity factors.

Several limitations were evident of course. One is that psychosocial variables, like climate, or attitudes of workers etc. were not analysed in the models.

Authors: Forteza, F. J., Carretero-Gómez, J. M., & Sese, A. (2022). Journal of safety research, 81, 270-282.

Study link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.03.004

LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/organizational-factors-specific-risks-construction-sites-hutchinson