THE PERFORMANCE APPROACH TO CONSTRUCTION WORKER SAFETY AND

HEALTH

By

THEODORE CONRAD HAUPT

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

DECEMBER 2001
This dissertation is dedicated to my children, Jamie and Matthew; my parents, James and
Sheila; my closest friend, Meena; my family and everyone engaged daily in the battle
against the poor safety and health performance of the construction industry.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First I wish to thank God for giving me the opportunity to embark on this project

and for the ability He gave me to complete it successfully. I knew that the project carried

His blessing. This assurance helped when I felt like quitting and when I struggled with

the pressures of being a student and a single parent. With the knowledge that He would

adequately meet my every need, I was able to confront every challenge.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (Madiba) helped me recognize that to be free is not

merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the

freedom of others. Improving the safety and health of construction workers is such a way.

I wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance and guidance of a number of

people in the course of completing this project. For a start, this project would not have

been possible without financial support from the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID), the Foundation for Research and Development (FRD), and the

Ernest Oppenheimer Memorial Trust. I am especially grateful to the Institute of

International Education (IIE) for the supportive and accommodating manner in which my

program was administered. In particular, I wish to acknowledge my advisor and

counselor, Surbhi Bhatt of IIE, for her unqualified support of my work and for her

unwavering belief in my ability to complete this project successfully.

I owe a tremendous intellectual debt to every member of my supervisory

committee. Drs. Robert Stroh, Jimmie Hinze, Richard Coble, Kwaku Tenah and Ron

Akers guided me throughout the preparation of this dissertation with unfailing

iii
enthusiasm, generous assistance and encouragement. Their consistent support and

motivation ensured that this project would be completed successfully. I am grateful for

their inspiration, scholarly advice, willingness to help, and detailed review of working

drafts of this dissertation. This work benefited from their critical comments and

provocative discussions.

I am indebted to those individuals, too numerous to mention, who provided me

with data and information, and without whose cooperation this dissertation would not

have been possible. These nameless warriors battle daily to make construction safe and

healthy.

I appreciate the support and prayers of my family and few close friends in South

Africa throughout the duration of this project. I am especially grateful to my parents for

their consistent encouragement, love, incredible patience, tolerance, understanding and

positive attitude.

Finally, I owe an unquantifiable debt to my wonderful children, Jamie and

Matthew; and to my closest and best friend, supporter and confidante, Meena for bearing

the brunt of my frustrations when the going was tough. Their unquestioning belief in me

and my ability to complete this project was often the only inspiration and motivation I

needed to keep me from succumbing to frequent feelings of inadequacy and ineptitude. I

am indebted to them all for not demanding too much. The few hours I was able to share

with them were always a source of new energy.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................v

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
Background to the Study................................................................................................1
Research Problem Statement .........................................................................................8
Research Objectives .....................................................................................................11
Research Methodology ................................................................................................12
Structure of Study ........................................................................................................14

SAFETY PERFORMANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY..........................16

Introduction..................................................................................................................16
Importance of the Construction Sector ........................................................................16
Nature of the Construction Industry ............................................................................21
Safety Performance of the Construction Industry........................................................28
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................40

PERFORMANCE CONCEPT...........................................................................................42
Background to the concept...........................................................................................42
Performance Concept and Construction Worker Safety..............................................46
Defining the Performance Approach ...........................................................................47
Features of the Performance Approach........................................................................52
Comparison with the Prescriptive Approach...............................................................57
Performance-based Regulatory Frameworks...............................................................62
Potential for Improving Construction Worker Safety..................................................65
Application of the Performance Approach ..................................................................67
Examples of the Application of the Performance Approach .......................................69
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................73

INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE-BASED SAFETY LEGISLATION...................75

Introduction..................................................................................................................75
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDMR) of 1994 ....................77
Client ......................................................................................................................79
Planning Supervisor ...............................................................................................79
Principal Contractor ...............................................................................................79
Designer .................................................................................................................80
Other Contractors ...................................................................................................80

v
 Prior Notice ............................................................................................................80
Health and Safety Plan...........................................................................................81
Health and Safety File............................................................................................81
Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992............................................................82
Project Supervisor..................................................................................................85
Safety and Health Coordinators .............................................................................85
Safety and Health Pla n...........................................................................................86
Prior Notice ............................................................................................................86
Obligations of Employers ......................................................................................86
Workers ..................................................................................................................87
Concerns .................................................................................................................87
Australian Regulations and Legislation.......................................................................88
Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and Regulations 1995 ...........................90
Objective ................................................................................................................92
Locus of Performance ............................................................................................92
Management of Hazards ........................................................................................93
Responsibilities of Principals.................................................................................93
Responsibilities of Employers ...............................................................................94
Responsibilities of Employees ...............................................................................94
Additional Comments on NZBC ...........................................................................94
Concerns .................................................................................................................95
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 ................................................97
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................100

IMPLEMENTING THE PERFORMANCE APPROACH .............................................102

Introduction................................................................................................................102
Change and Change Management ..............................................................................102
Common Law Approach to Worker Safety and Health.............................................107
Emergence of the Prescriptive Approach...................................................................108
Model for Implementation of the Performance Approach.........................................111
Classify Construction Activity.............................................................................112
Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................114
Identify Hazards ...................................................................................................117
Set Safety Objectives and Performance Requirements........................................117
Select Strategy to Meet Performance Requirements............................................119
Design Risk Control Plan and Select Method of Measuring Performance..........120
Review Adequacy of Risk Control Action Plan and Measuring Performance ....122
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................123

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................124
Introductio n................................................................................................................124
Examination of OSHA Variances..............................................................................128
Theory Foundation for the Survey of Upper Management Attitudes ........................128
Design of Upper Management Questionnaire............................................................131
Management Attitude to the Approaches.............................................................133
Change Management ............................................................................................135
Sample Selection........................................................................................................137

vi
 Questionnaire Administration....................................................................................138
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................139

ANALYSIS OF OSHA VARIANCES ............................................................................141

Introduction................................................................................................................141
OSHA Variance Applications ....................................................................................141
Temporary Variance ............................................................................................142
Permanent Variance .............................................................................................143
Interim Order........................................................................................................144
Experimental Variance.........................................................................................144
Defense Variance .................................................................................................144
Findings of Investigation ...........................................................................................145
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................149

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS OF TOP MANAGEMENT SURVEY ..............................150

Introduction................................................................................................................150
Demographic Information..........................................................................................150
Management Attitude to the Prescriptive and Performance Approaches ..................154
Comparison of Means ..........................................................................................165
Comparing Means to Rank Responses ................................................................171
Preference for Either Approach ...........................................................................171
Change Management ..................................................................................................172
Ranking of Responses Comparing Means ...........................................................182
Group Preferring the Performance Approach......................................................183
Top Management Struc ture Position ...................................................................185
Management Preferring the Performance Approach ...........................................186
Management Preferring the Prescriptive Approach Compared ...........................188
Ranking Means of Responses ..............................................................................202
Means of Group Preference of Approach............................................................203
Top Management Position...................................................................................204
Respondents Preferring the Performance Approach............................................205
Respondents Preferring the Prescriptive Approach.............................................207
Ranking Responses by Means .............................................................................217
Approach Preference............................................................................................218
Management Position...........................................................................................220
Management Favoring the Performance Approach.............................................222
Management Favoring the Prescriptive Approach ..............................................223
Cross tabulation and Measures of Association..........................................................227
Preference for the Performance Approach by Top Management Position ..........227
Preference for the Performance Approach Based on Number of Employees......230
Preference for the Performance Approach Based on Contracts Value ................232
Preference for the Performance Approach Based on Level of Understanding ....234
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................235

CORRELATION, REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND MODELING..............................241

Introduction................................................................................................................241
Correlation and Regression Analysis .........................................................................242

vii
 Does Understanding Predict Preference for the Performance Approach? ...........242
Does Preference Predict the Influence on Certain Defining Issues? ...................243
Does Preference Predict Importance of Safety Management Issues?..................254
Does Management Position Predict Preference? .................................................255
Does Firm Size Predict Preference for the Performance Approach?...................256
Regression Modeling .................................................................................................256
Importance of Actions for (SUSACTS)...............................................................262
Importance of Worker Participation (WKRPART) .............................................275
Does CHGDRIVS Predict SAFEMAN (H12)? ...................................................284
Does IMPLFACT Predict SAFEMAN (H13)? ....................................................286
Does CHGDRIVS Predict IMPLFACT (H15)? ..................................................289
Does SAFEMAN Predict WKRTRUST (H16)?..................................................291
Does FOREMEN Predict WKROPIN (H17)? .....................................................293
Other Relationships....................................................................................................294
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................296

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................299

Summary....................................................................................................................299
Performance Paradigm and its Application to Safety and Health..............................299
Performance Approach as a Construction Safety Alternative ...................................302
Variances to OSHA’s Prescriptive Requirements .....................................................305
Level of Knowledge of Management of Construction Firms ....................................305
Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................308
Conclusion .................................................................................................................309
Recommendations for Future Research.....................................................................311

APPENDIX

A INTERNATIONAL SURVEY ...................................................................................313

B ELECTRONIC INTERVIEW WITH HELEN TIPPETT...........................................317

C TOP MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ..............................................................320

D RESULTS OF INTERNATIONAL SAFETY SURVEY...........................................328

E ELECTRONIC INTERVIEW WITH BILL PORTEOUS ..........................................335

F EXAMPLE OF A SAFETY CHECKLIST .................................................................337

G SAMPLE COVER LETTER ......................................................................................340

H FEDERAL REGISTER OF RECORDS OF VARIANCES .......................................342

LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................................345

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................361

viii
 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE PERFORMANCE APPROACH TO

CONSTRUCTION WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH

By

Theodore Conrad Haupt

December 2001

Chairman: Robert C. Stroh

Major Department: College of Design, Construction and Planning

Accidents occur on construction sites around the world despite various

occupational safety and health laws, rules, and regulations. There is an ni ternational trend

away from prescribing compliance with safety laws toward a performance approach.

Contractors are allowed flexibility to choose the means and methods to perform their

operations safely.

This study examines whether a performance approach is an effective and

acceptable approach to improving safety and health on construction sites. The study has 5

main objectives: (1) to increase understanding of the performance paradigm and its

application to safety and health in construction; (2) to determine the feasibility and

acceptance of the performance approach as an effective alternative to previous

prescriptive approaches to construction safety; (3) to develop a model based on the

review of literature on the performance approach in construction and examination of

ix
existing international construction safety and health legislation; (4) to establish whether

applications for variances to OSHA's prescriptive requirements would have been

obviated by the performance approach; and (5) measure the level of knowledge of the top

management structures of construction firms about the performance approach and their

attitude toward its implementation in their firms.

We reviewed the literature on the performance approach extensively. We studied

applications for variances to OSHA's requirements. We used a self-administered

questionnaire survey for the top management of 100 construction firms.

This study showed that most of the sample population (78%) believed they

understood the performance approach very well. Most (58%) preferred this approach.

The areas of flexibility, support for innovation, and ease of introducing new materials

were regarded as being most important. Top management (54%) drove major change.

The demonstration of consistent and decisive personal leadership, introduction of

appropriate training programs, and allocation of adequate resources were the most

important actions for the successful implementation of the performance approach. The

strongest predictor of worker participation was the importance of safety and health issues

Strong predictors of the actions that would be taken to implement the performance

approach were implementation factors and position within top management.

x
 INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

The construction industry has earned the reputation of being a dangerous or

highly hazardous industry because of the disproportionately high incidence of accidents

and fatalities that occur on construction sites around the world (The Business Roundtable,

1983; Churcher and Alwani-Starr, 1996; Brown, 1996; Rowlinson, 2000; Smallwood and

Haupt, 2000). Dangerous refers to being risky, hazardous, or unsafe. Situations, tools, or

other elements may be either imminently dangerous referring to an impending or

immediate risk such as a bare electrical cord, or inherently dangerous such as poisons,

explosives or chemicals.

Construction worldwide is a significant employer of labor as large proportions of

its activities and operations have labor-intensive characteristics (Haupt, 1996). In Europe,

for example, the construction industry employs about 7.5% of the total industrial

workforce (some 11 million workers). European construction accounts for 17.5% of all

work-related accidents and injuries (some 1 million accidents per year). Construction is

responsible for about 22.5% of all occupational deaths, representing some 1500 fatal

accidents per year (Berger, 2000; Dias and Coble, 1999). For many years construction

has consistently been among those industries with the highest injury and fatality rates

(Khalid, 1996; Hanna et al., 1996).

1
 2

Personal hazards1 have been cited as a general cause of accidents2 on bridge

construction sites in the United States, United Kingdom and Japan (Gee and Saito, 1997).

These hazards include injuries to workers through falling, something falling on them, and

tripping over obstacles.

Despite sophisticated safety and health regulations in most countries, high rates of

injury and fatality persist. The procedures intended to prevent such accidents are usually

mandated by the appropriate occupational safety authority in each country (Gee and

Saito, 1997). Scholars and professionals within the construction industry recognize that

regulations and legislation by themselves are not enough to bring about the desired goal

of zero accidents and incidents on construction sites (Center to Protect Workers’ Rights,

1993; Ratay, 1997). However, adherence to them alone does demonstrably improve site

safety. If reasonable in philosophy, adequate in detail, and worded without ambiguity,

legislation and regulations provide a basis for the employment and enforcement of good

construction practices. According to Ratay (1997), good codes and standards can improve

construction safety at minimal or no extra cost. On the other hand, poor codes and

standards can contribute to increased costs and disputes with little or no impact on

construction safety. These costs and disputes arise from delays in construction progress,

penalties for these delays, financial losses, personal injuries and fatalities.

1
A hazard is a dangerous condition that can interrupt or interfere with the expected,
orderly progress of an activity. Hazards may be negligible when they will not result in
injury to people or serious damage to equipment; marginal when they can be controlled to
prevent injury or damage; critical when they will cause injury or serious damage or both;
and catastrophic where they will cause death to workers.
2
In the U.S., according to worker’s compensation and other insurance and liability laws,
an accident is any unplanned and unexpected event that causes injury or illness.
 3

At first glance, many safety and health legislative and regulatory frameworks are

prescriptive3 . That is, they specify, in exacting terms, how the employer must address any

given conditions. Additionally, these standards and regulations tend to support the

traditional command-and-control, deemed-to-comply, or prescriptive approach of

addressing unsafe conditions, existing and potential hazards while placing little, if any,

emphasis on addressing unsafe worker behavior. Simply providing and enforcing

prescriptive rules and procedures is not sufficient to foster safe behavior in the workplace

(Reason, 1998). Legislative frameworks effectively address the work environment and

procedures. It is the role of management to interpret how the provisions of such

legislative frameworks will be enacted on construction sites relative to working practices.

If unsafe worker behavior were addressed by legislation, construction practitioners might

regard themselves as being absolved from their safety and health responsibilities to their

workers. For example, if the law specified that construction workers had to come to work

wearing mandatory minimum protective gear, it becomes an issue regarding who should

provide the gear. Further, who should enforce the implementation of the law and who

should bear the costs involved become other issues to be considered. The focus of

implementation and enforcement has consequently been on compliance rather than on

proactive preventive measures. Punitive measures for noncompliance are usually in the

form of fines.

3
Prescription literally means connection or conformity with statutes. The prescriptive
approach is concerned with enforced conformity to the law, regulations and rules.
Prescriptive standards, therefore, require strict, rigid, and objective criteria to be met to
be in compliance. To be in compliance means to act in accordance with all applicable
rules and standards that usually represent minimum requirements and become outdated
by advances in technology or changes in working procedures.
 4

Research conducted by the National Safety Council (NSC) and the Du Pont

Company (Human Performance Technologies, 1998), however, suggests that, based on

the root causes of accidents that were analyzed, the focus of standards and regulations on

physical conditions might be misdirected (Table 1-1). The results of both studies strongly

support the notion that the behavior of workers on construction sites needs to be changed

if safety performance is to be improved. The question that arises is whether unsafe

behaviors can be changed by legislation or through effective management.

Table 1-1 Root causes of industrial accidents

Causes National Safety Council (%) Du Pont Company (%)
Unsafe conditions 10 4
Unsafe behaviors 88 96
Unknown causes 2 -
Total 100 100
Adapted from Human Performance Technologies (1998)

Advocates of the behavior-based safety approach focus their attention on the

modification of unsafe behaviors through the primary processes of observation and

feedback (Blair, 1999; Geller, 1988; Geller, 1988; Geller, 1999; Loafman, 1998; Krause,

1993; Matthews et al., 1999; McSween, 1993; McSween, 1995; Sulzer-Azaroff, 1999).

Unsafe physical conditions, equipment and management actions and attitudes are

seemingly not addressed.

Hinze (1997) however disputes the results of these studies suggesting that the

numbers are unsubstantiated and meaningless. He contends that accidents are a

combination of physical conditions on construction sites and worker actions suggesting

that safety should therefore focus on both. However, if the results of the studies imply

that between 98% and 100% of industrial accidents are caused by a combination of
 5

unsafe behaviors and unsafe conditions, then it seems that both can be addressed.

Consequently, most accidents can be avoided.

The construction industry is experiencing fundamental changes brought about by

several influences such as increasing trade liberalization (Alleyne, 1997), globalization

and internationalism. These influences are being accompanied by direct action to make

the construction industry perform more efficiently by owners of international

construction projects (Atkin and Pothecary, 1994). Arguably, the movement toward

global integration is unstoppable (Alleyne, 1997). Moreover, the growing markets in the

Far East, Middle East, Africa and South America present numerous opportunities for

industry participants. As enterprises exploit these opportunities, they are increasingly

confronted with how to cope with human rights issues that include worker protection.

Human rights issues have become a focal point of debate throughout the world.

Worker safety and health are a subset of these issues, and accordingly should come under

the same scrutiny. However, in an international environment where no uniformly

accepted international safety and health standards currently exist, it is extremely difficult

for construction practitioners to ensure that they create workplaces that are safe for their

workers. Consequently, workers are forced to interpret the compliance requirements of

legislation, implement construction practices, and use construction materials with which

they are unfamiliar.

Increasing economic globalization necessitates the international harmonization

and necessitates the development of regulatory standards and requirements critical to

competition and economic efficiency (Office of Management and Budget 1996). Because

of reducing the regulatory burden on international construction practitioners under free

 6

trade and anti-trust agreements through uniform international standards, the economic

efficiency of their operations is likely to be increased. This shift is evidenced by

worldwide interest in the development of performance-based building standards.4 This

international interest is fueled primarily by the need to address the difficulties posed by

current prescriptive codes and standards pose, inter alia, regarding the following:

− Optimization of building construction costs;

− Product or system and process innovation; and
− Establishment of fair international trading agreements (Foliente, Leicester, and Pham,
1998).

Prescriptive codes are restrictive and constitute major non-tariff trade barriers that

inhibit the building and construction trade. Effectively, they do not permit construction

practitioners the flexibility to reduce construction costs through the easy introduction and

subsequent use of innovative and new materials and technologies. Since they are usually

very country-specific making compliance requirements difficult to understand and

implement, they inhibit international trade.

This drive is supported by member economies who are signatories to the World

Trade Organization (WTO) who have committed themselves to the use of performance

requirements in their trade dealings with each other (Foliente, Leicester, and Pham,

1998). These performance criteria can be used to evaluate the fitness of a product for a

particular purpose or to evaluate the merits of accepting new and innovative products and

technology in their markets.

4
Standards are statements of conditions or levels of acceptance that are acceptable to all
concerned, and are then used to evaluate conditions and performance (Marshall, 1994).
Performance-based refers to the approach in terms of which performance, as defined
earlier, is the principal, essential or fundamental ingredient or goal. Performance-based
standards, therefore, identify important, broadly defined goals that must result from
applying a standard, rather than specific technical requirements.
 7

Pressure is mounting internationally for such performance-based standards to be

developed because of the global emphasis on making workplaces safe and reasonably

free from health hazards (American National Standards Institute, 1996a; ANSI, 1996b).

Standards are needed that allow innovation and flexibility, especially since risk and

safety vary among countries based on their socioeconomic position (Walsh and Blair,

1996; Lapping, 1997). The variance in environmental and occupational health and safety

standards between different countries has been cited as a major route of the international

transfer or acquisition of health risks (Alleyne, 1997). The industry has not responded

well to demands for improved productivity and quality, attention to environmental issues,

reduced life cycle costs, value for money and improved safety performance (Haupt and

Coble, 2000a)

In the increasingly global competitiveness of the construction business, quality

control and quality assurance for a consistent level of performance in health and safety in

construction is no longer optional (Kashef et al., 1996). In fact, it is critical to advocate

more strongly for a concerted engagement in global health issues such as safety and

health in international construction to make the industry a safer one for construction

workers throughout the world. Research has shown that safe workplaces and workers

improve productivity accompanied by reduced costs and increased profitability (Hinze,

1997; Levitt and Samelson, 1993).

There has been a steadily growing recognition that new and different approaches

are necessary to arrest the incidence of accidents and fatalities on construction sites

around the world. Previous country-specific prescriptive approaches have failed to reduce

the number of accidents occurring on construction sites around the world. A uniform
 8

international approach that reduces the variance of construction safety and health

standards between different countries could decrease the transfer and acquisition of

health risks.

In response, safety and health regulations have been subjected to major revisions

during the last three decades. In some cases, new legislative and regulatory approaches

have entirely replaced existing regulations and legislation. The emphasis of these new

pieces of legislation in Europe, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, for example, has

been on individuals and their duties. Additionally, they represent a noticeable departure

from previous prescriptive approaches (Coble and Haupt, 1999; 2000). They have been

based on principles designed specifically to increase awareness of the problems

associated with safety and health issues. They demonstrate a new approach and

commitment to the management of construction projects. The value of these new efforts

lies in the requirements of all participants in the construction process to make safety and

health a mandatory priority in a structured way (Caldwell, 1999; Lorent, 1999). They are

performance-based. Rather than prescribing strict compliance with regulations, they

focus on satisfying safety outcomes or performance requirements. Consequently, they

permit flexibility in dealing with safety and health issues. Additionally, they provide a

framework within which all the activities of all participants in the construction process

are coordinated and managed, in an effort to ensure the safety of those involved with

construction.

Research Problem Statement

Accidents, incidents, injuries and fatalities continue to occur unabated on

construction sites around the world at consistently high rates (Hinze, 1997; Center to
 9

Protect Workers Rights, 1995; Berger, 2000). This situation persists despite various

regulatory systems and standards in the construction industry in most countries. These

systems and standards take the form of occupational safety and health laws, rules and

regulations. Over the years, different philosophical approaches to construction

occupational safety and health management have evolved that have underpinned the

design, implementation and enforcement of these regulatory systems and standards. They

have, however, built on the basic premise that construction accidents and fatalities may

be mitigated by good construction practices, utmost care, effective inspection, and strict

enforcement of high standards of care (Ratay, 1997). While differing in approach, scope

and application from country to country, these regulatory frameworks have maintained

their universal objective of the improvement of construction safety and health

performance. In the context of international construction, this objective becomes harder

to achieve when all participants in the construction process,5 including the enforcement

agencies, have to follow the same rules (Ratay, 1997). Codes and standards serve this

purpose. While these by themselves do not prevent all accidents, adherence to them does

improve site safety. The codes and standards provide the basis for the employment and

enforcement of good construction practices. However, to fulfill this role they have to be

reasonable in philosophy, adequate in detail, and well worded without ambiguity (Ratay,

1997). This is precisely where the problems lie. Approaches followed include the

traditional prescriptive approach and, more recently, the behavioral based approach. The

focus has been largely on addressing physical factors on construction sites like job

5
The construction process involves the various phases of the project including initiation,
definition, pre-design, preparation of design documents, preparation of construction
documents, construction operations on site, hand-over, occupancy and maintenance.
 10

conditions, mechanical hazard elimination and forms of protection; and somewhat on

personal or behavioral factors such as worker training, attitudes and physical

characteristics, and the job environment (Barrie and Paulson, 1984). While the

implementation of these approaches has resulted in the reduction of accidents, incidents,

injuries and fatalities, the construction sector is still most responsible for accidents and

deaths compared with all other industrial sectors. Unfortunately, this trend is a worldwide

phenomenon. Further, there is no major tangible incentive for contractors to go beyond

the minimum compliance requirements of safety and health regulations (Ebohon et al.,

1998).

There is an international trend, particularly in Europe and the United Kingdom,

toward redirecting the focus away from the need to comply prescriptively with

construction occupational safety and health laws, toward a more flexible approach. In this

approach, the focus is on the process and outcome rather than on the means of

compliance (Coble and Haupt, 1999; 2000). This performance-based approach allows

construction contractors to determine how to perform their operations. The approach is

based on the position that each project process and design is unique; and consequently,

compliance with a rigid set of rules is not feasible (Lapping, 1997). Rather than enforce

complex rules and regulations with punitive measures such as heavy fines for

noncompliance, regulatory and enforcement agencies are required to develop efficient

and effective enforcement strategies with simplified, flexible, and consistent standards

(Lapping, 1997).

This study examines the performance approach to determine its appropriateness

and acceptance as a safety management approach. This study is motivated by the current
 11

lack of literature on the performance approach as it relates to construction worker safety

and health. Further, the performance approach, particularly in the United States, has not

been readily regarded as an acceptable alternative approach to the largely prescriptive

approach promoted and fostered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act and

Administration (OSHA). As far as the researcher is aware, there has not been any study

that has attempted to measure the level of understanding nor the acceptability of the

performance approach among contractors. Against the background that there have been

different legislative and regulatory attempts to introduce the performance approach, there

is a need for a universal and comprehensive model that would assist participants to

successfully implement the approach in their workplaces. Finally, the study is driven by

the need to inform about the approach and provide a clearer understanding of the

potential benefits of introducing and implementing it in the area of construction worker

safety and health.

Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is to examine whether a performance-based approach to

construction safety management is an effective and acceptable approach to improving

safety and health on construction sites. More specifically, the study has five main

objectives.

The first objective is to increase the understanding of the performance paradigm

and its application to safety and health in construction. This objective is accomplished by

examining what is known about the approach as it applies to the construction industry,

while defining its essential elements and unique characteristics.

 12

The second objective is to determine the feasibility and acceptance of the

performance approach as an effective alternative to previous prescriptive or deemed-to-

comply approaches to construction worker safety. It would be achieved by comparing

alternative approaches to identify those features, which are most likely to influence safety

and health performance on construction sites.

The third objective is to develop a model for implementing the performance

approach to worker safety and health on construction sites anywhere in the world.

The fourth objective is to establish whether variances to OSHA’s prescriptive

requirements have arisen due to the nonapplicability of these measures in the particular

circumstances, and whether a performance approach would obviate these variances. This

objective will be achieved examining applications to OSHA for variances, the profiles of

the applicants, the nature of the variance sought, the reasons and motivations for the

application, and the outcomes of the applications.

The fifth objective is to measure top management’s knowledge about the

performance approach and their attitude toward its implementation within their

organizations. We examine top management’s ability and willingness in order to

determine how they will implement the performance approach.

Through this study we aim to contribute to the literature on the performance

approach to construction worker safety and health, especially since very little has been

written about this specific application of the performance approach.

Research Methodology

The methodology of this study is shown in Figure 1-1 and consists of the

following:
 13

Literature Review

Examination of Existing
Legislation

Development of Implementation/Procedural
Model

Research Design

Electronic OSHA International Contractor

Interviews Variances Survey Survey

Helen Bill OSHA and Administration of

Tippett Porteous DOL web Questionnaires
sites

CIB W99-L List of

and CNBR-L Contractors
Listserves

Data Analysis

Figure 1-1 Flow-chart of research methodology

− A review of the literature to determine what is known and determine current practice
of the performance approach in the construction industry regarding construction
worker safety and health;
 14

− An examination of existing international construction worker safety and health

legislation, codes and standards to identify the differences between the performance
and prescriptive approaches, with focus on concomitant innovations and restructuring;
− An electronic discussion with relevant experts and participants in the design and
implementation of performance-based building codes and legislation (where this has
occurred) to identify the motivation for the change from previous approaches, and
problems encountered with implementation;
− An examination of applications for variances to OSHA requirements, the profiles of
applicants, and the reasons and motivations for the applications; and
− A survey of the top management of a sample of construction firms in the United States
to determine their attitudes and opinions about the performance approach and its
implementation in their organizations.

Structure of Study

This introductory chapter outlines the research problem addressed by this study. It

also sets out the objectives of the study and includes a brief description of the research

methodological approach that is used.

In the chapter on safety performance of the construction industry, the safety

performance of the construction industry is examined against the background of its

importance as an economic industrial sector.

The literature on the performance approach is reviewed in the chapter entitled,

The Performance Approach, to determine current practice and what is known about the

approach in general, and about construction worker safety and health specifically. In this

chapter, we consider several of the issues raised in the literature that affect

implementation of the approach. We also consider the regulatory frameworks

underpinning the performance approach in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom

and Canada. We discuss regulatory issues suggested by the literature pertaining to the

design and implementation of a successful performance approach.

Some of the existing international legislation, codes and standards are examined

in the chapter entitled, International Performance-based Safety Legislation, with

 15

emphasis on the innovations and restructuring that resulted from the change from the

previous approaches. Where new legislation has been introduced, the resulting concerns

are identified.

In the chapter entitled, Implementing the Performance Approach, a model for

implementing the performance approach in the area of construction worker safety and

health is developed and discussed. It is hoped that this model would be generalizable to

all contexts anywhere in the world regardless of the prevailing paradigm and regulatory

framework.

The methodology used in the study is discussed in the chapter entitled, Research

Methodology. Data are analyzed in the chapters entitled, Analysis of OSHA Variances;

Analysis of Findings of Top Management Survey; and Correlation, Regression Analysis

and Modeling, respectively. The chapter, Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations,

outlines the research findings, contributions, and recommendations for future study.
 SAFETY PERFORMANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Introduction

The state of the construction industry in a country is symptomatic of the state of

its national economy. Put another way, the fate of any national economy cannot be

separated from that of the construction industry. This is a consequence of the forward and

backward linkages the construction sector forges with the rest of the economy (Drewer,

1980; Ahmad and Yan, 1996). The backward linkages refer, for instance, to the

construction materials and services sectors of the economy. The forward linkages refer to

the economic activities that result from the use of constructed buildings and facilities.

This chapter shows that as an industrial sector, the construction industry is too important

to ignore. For this reason, the nature and characteristics of the construction industry are

examined. Against this background, the safety performance of the construction industry

is critically discussed.

Importance of the Construction Sector

The construction sector plays an important role in the economies of countries

throughout the world. The role of the construction industry in economic development has

been validated by several studies (Strassman, 1975; Turin, 1969; Wells, 1986; Ofori,

1988). In these studies, a strong statistical relationship has been established between the

state of the construction industry and economic growth. Turin (1969) analyzed the data

for 87 countries (developed and underdeveloped) between 1955 and 1965. He concluded

16
 17

that a positive correlation existed between the value added by construction and the Gross

Domestic Product (GDP) of the country. Strassman (1975), who argued that the

construction industry mirrored a pattern of structural change that reflected a country’s

level of economic development, echoes this conclusion.

It has further been established that where economic growth has been significant,

the growth of construction output has been even more dramatic (Wells, 1986). For

example, in the UK, the construction industry was projected to have an economic output

of some £58 billion ($87 billion) in 1998, which constitutes approximately 10% of the

GDP (Construction Task Force, 1998). In China, while the GDP was growing rapidly

since 1979, the share of the construction industry as a percentage of GDP increased as

well (Ahmad and Yan, 1996).

Generally speaking, the assessment of the total value of construction output in any

economy is difficult to determine and usually understated. Nowhere in the national

accounts of any country is there a comprehensive picture of the total output of

construction (Wells, 1986). Wells, who has worked in the area of development

economics as it relates to the construction industry, cites as one of the reasons for this

scenario the fact that the value added by construction to GDP is the difference between

the value of sales at market prices, and the market value of all current purchases. It

therefore excludes the value of purchased building materials and components, fuel,

transport, professional services, insurance and legal fees. Additionally, the value of

capital formation in construction, which is a measure of the gross output of the

construction sector, excludes the value of repairs and maintenance work. Further, a large
 18

percentage of construction activity, especially in developing countries, is carried out in

the ‘informal sector.’6 This contribution is not included in national statistics.

The construction industry is a major employer of labor. This claim is confirmed

by the data from selected countries in Table 2-1. Of all industrial workers, the

construction sector employed between 4.9% (33.4 million) in the People’s Republic of

China and 16.2% (5.7 million) in Mexico from 1994 through 1997. In the United States,

the average was 6.2% (7.9 million) for the same period. In the United Kingdom, the

average was 7.1% (1.8 million) for the same period. In Germany the average was 14.0%

(2.9 million) for the same period. The data in Table 2-1 should not be surprising since

many construction activities, tasks and operations are labor-intensive.

The data in Table 2-2 confirm that construction employment in developing

countries such as those in Africa follows a similar trend. As a percentage of total

employment, employment in the construction sector ranged from 4.8% (313,600 workers)

in South Africa in 1997 to 11.8% (41,000 workers) in Botswana in 1995.

While caution must be exercised in the use of employment statistics, particularly

in developing countries, Turin (1969) found that regular construction employment

contributed between 40 and 80 workers per1000 where the industry plays a lesser role,

and between 300 and 400 workers per1000 where construction plays a more significant

role as an economic sector in the national employment statistics.

Similarly, in most developing countries, the construction sector contributed

between 2% and 6% of total employment (Low and Christopher, 1992).

6
The informal sector refers to those participants in the construction process who operate
outside the regularly controlled sector characterized by registration, unionization and
payment of various required fees
 19

Table 2-1 Industrial and construction employment statistics (1000s)

Country7 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Egypt 15,241.4 15,344.2 N/A N/A 15,292.8
1,019.4 967.6 993.5
(6.7%) (6.3%) (6.5%)
South Africa8 N/A 6,576.6 9,113.8 6,556.9 7,118.8
359.1 555.1 313.6 409.3
(5.5%) (6.1%) (4.8%) (5.7%)
Argentina 10,529.0 10,348.0 10,542.0 N/A 10,473.0
900.9 821.3 852.3 858.2
(8.6%) (7.9%) (8.1%) (8.2%)
Brazil N/A 69,629.0 67,920.0 69,332.0 68,960.3
4,229.0 4,337.0 4,583.0 4383.0
(6.1%) (6.4%) (6.6%) (6.4%)
Venezuela 7,265.9 7,667.0 7,819.2 8,286.8 7,759.7
602,9 624,7 600.1 694.4 630.5
(8.3%) (8.1%) (7.7%) (8.4%) (8.1%)
Mexico N/A 33,881.1 35,226.0 37,359.8 35,489.0
5,168.4 5,778.8 6,264.9 5,737.4
(15.3%) (16.4%) (16.8%) (16.2%)
Canada 13,291.7 13,505.5 13,676.2 13,940.6 13,603.5
743.8 715.0 705.4 730.7 723.7
(5.6%) (5.3%) (5.2%) (5.2%) (5.3%)
United States 123,060.0 124,900.0 126,708.0 129,558.0 126,056.5
7,493.0 7,668.0 7,943.0 8,302.0 7,851.5
(6.1%) (6.1%) (6.3%) (6.4%) (6.2%)
China 671,990.0 679,470.0 688,500.0 696,000.0 683,990.0
31,880.0 33,220.0 34,080.0 34,479.0 33,414.8
(4.7%) (4.9%) (4.9%) (5.0%) (4.9%)

7
Numbers in Egypt and Mexico refer to persons aged 12-64 years and include only the
civilian labor force; in Argentina persons aged 10 and over are included; in Brazil the
rural population of Rondonia, Acre, Amazonas, Roraima, Para and Amapa are excluded;
in Canada, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Hong Kong, Venezuela, Finland, Japan, Australia
and New Zealand persons 15 years and over are included and only the civilian labor
force; in Israel residents of East Jerusalem are included; in the U.S. and UK the data
include only persons aged 16 years and over and the civilian labor force; in China armed
forces and re-employed retired persons are excluded and the whole national economy is
covered; Japan includes self-defense forces; in Turkey persons 12 years and over are
included and the civilian labor force
8
Data for South Africa were obtained from Statistics South Africa via e-mail on February
22, 2000. However, the data for 1996 were drawn from the published census of Statistics
South Africa. A possible explanation is the exclusion of the Bantustans from the e-mailed
data. Further, according to The World Bank’s African Development Indicators 2000 the
total employment for 1997 is 15,835,000. This figure was not used because a figure for
construction employment for 1997 was not available.
 20

Table 2-1 Continued

Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Japan 64,530.0 64,570.0 64,860.0 65,570.0 64,882.5
6,550.0 6,630.0 6,700.0 6,850.0 6,682.5
(10.2%) (10.3%) (10.3%) (10.4%) (10.3%)
Hong Kong 2,872.8 2,905.1 3,007.7 3,144.7 2,982.6
220.5 229.3 269.6 306.2 256.4
(7.7%) (7.9%) (9.0%) (9.7%) (8.6%)
Israel 1,871.4 1,965.0 2,012.7 2,040.2 1,972.3
118.0 140.6 150.0 146.2 138.7
(6.3%) (7.1%) (7.5%) (7.2%) (7.0%)
Denmark 2,554.9 2,609.8 2,627.3 2,682.0 2,618.5
158.5 163.2 170.2 176.1 167.0
(6.2%) (6.3%) (6.5%) (6.6%) (6.4%)
Finland 2,080.0 2,128.0 2,158.0 2,194.0 2,140.0
109.0 115.0 118.0 130.0 118.0
(5.2%) (5.4%) (5.5%) (5.9%) (5.5%)
Germany 20,987.0 20,939.0 20,706.0 20,549.0 20,795.3
2,753.0 2,973.0 3,042.0 2,873.0 2,910.3
(13.1%) (14.2%) (14.7%) (14.0%) (14.0%)
Turkey 20,396.0 21,378.0 21,698.0 20,815.0 21,071.8
1,231.0 1,228.0 1,356.0 1,323.0 1,284.5
(6.0%) (5.7%) (6.2%) (6.4%) (6.1%)
United 25,697.0 25,972.7 26,218.8 26,681.6 26,142.5
Kingdom 1,863.5 1,835.5 1,818.7 1,864.8 1,845.6
(7.3%) (7.1%) (6.9%) (7.0%) (7.1%)
Australia 7,885.5 8,218.2 8,324.2 8,386.6 8,203.6
568.8 601.1 596.2 580.3 586.6
(7.2%) (7.3%) (7.2%) (6.9%) (7.2%)
New Zealand 1,559.5 1,632.6 1,687.5 1,735.9 1,653.9
92.4 99.7 110.4 115.1 104.4
(5.9%) (6.1%) (6.5%) (6.6%) (6.3%)
Source: ILO (1999); Statistics South Africa (SSA)(22/2/2000) and SSA (1998)

The significant contribution of construction employment is confirmed by the data

in Table 2-1where the range is between 4.9% and 16.2% of total employment.

In labor surplus economies where employment is scarce and seasonal, labor-

intensive industries like construction remain invaluable sources of employment and

income. Thus, the construction employment contribution to the countries shown in the

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 is vital to the economies of these countries. Such contributions are

likely to rise as the economy grows, industry develops, and per-capita income increases
 21

(Edmonds and Miles, 1984). Per capita income refers to the average annual income per

individual citizen Therefore, as economic growth accelerates, construction output will not

only expand but will also be a clear linkage to the rest of the economy (Wells, 1986;

Ahmad and Yan, 1996).

Table 2-2 Role of construction in national employment in African countries

Country Year Total Construction Share Of
Employment Employment Construction
(000s) (000s) Sector (%)
Botswana 1995 345.4 41.0 11.8%
Egypt 1995 15,344.2 967.6 6.3%
Morocco 1992 3,494.3 281.9 8.1%
Mauritius 1995 436.3 41.9 9.6%
South Africa 1997 6,556.9 313.6 4.8%
Source: ILO (1999); Statistics South Africa (1998)

Nature of the Construction Industry

The construction industry is characteristically one in which most of its products

are unique for substance, form, size and purpose (Berger, 2000; Porteous, 1999). Each

building or facility may, therefore, be described as being custom-made. Buildings cannot

be isolated from the environment in which they are situated. From another perspective,

Wells (1986) cites that the products of construction differ widely in terms of location,

materials and production techniques, and the standards of the finished product regarding

space, quality, durability, and aesthetic consideration. It is less well recognized that they

vary from each other, even when built to identical plans and specifications (Porteous,

1999). For example, ground conditions may require different foundation depths or

systems for two otherwise apparently identical buildings.

 22

A further consideration is that the completed products are generally not mobile in

that they are permanently fixed in specific locations. This consideration implies that even

if components are prefabricated and/or pre-assembled elsewhere, the final assembly

process remains site-specific. Where they are not unique, work operations that are similar

and repetitive are executed in work environments that change from hour to hour due to

changes in the environment such as weather conditions, location, physical conditions, and

height (Porteous, 1999).

The physical working environment in construction varies with seasons and job

site conditions. Site conditions conceivably vary between work done below natural

ground level, at ground level, at elevated heights, and sometimes even over and under

water. This changing working environment results in potentially hazardous situations.

Construction workers are required, therefore, to familiarize themselves constantly with

these new situations. Unlike manufacturing, continuity of production is not always

possible, since each product of construction is usually unique.

Construction sites are subject to local conditions (Berger, 2000). The availability

of materials and plant equipment may vary, requiring substitution with materials and

plant with which the labor force might be unfamiliar. Moreover, each building site

represents in effect the creation of a production site where new workplaces are set up.

The term ‘mobile factories’ could be used to describe this phenomenon. At the end of

each construction project the ‘factory’ is disassembled and relocated to the site of a new

or different project. However, the conditions at the new site might be completely

different to the previous project site.

 23

The construction industry has often been described as an industry characterized

by fragmentation (Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, 1993; Helledi, 1999). This

description has arisen due to the number of stakeholders and participants in the

construction process from project inception through project completion and beyond –

each with divergent roles, goals, expertise and skills. This fragmentation has resulted in

the following:

− Increased construction costs;

− Low productivity;
− Poor communication between all participants;
− Increased, and often, unnecessary, confusing and contradictory documentation;
− Ineffective and inefficient project management;
− Unnecessary delays;
− Unsatisfactory quality performance;
− Rework;
− Poor safety performance; and
− Costly and lengthy disputes (Haupt, 1996).

Additionally, the composition of construction project teams responsible for the

design, project management and project execution, changes from project to project,

resulting in a lack of continuity and consistency. Traditionally, design is separated from

the actual construction process with resultant problems in communication, coordination

and interpretation. Significant professional, legal and institutional barriers have

accompanied this separation, which has created continuity problems between the various

members of the project team, constructors and subcontractors.

The divorce of design from production in the construction process is reinforced by

the rigid compartmentalization of training in the various design and construction

professions (Wells, 1986). A consequence of this compartmentalized approach has been

the isolation of professionals from technical developments in the industry due to a

corporate approach to construction activities that disallows innovation and technological

 24

development in the industry. The effect of this isolation results in little consideration

being given to alternative construction materials and techniques. Even more fundamental,

is the consequent and apparent lack of concern for worker safety. It is rarely central to

the thinking of owners, designers, contractors and unions (Center to Protect Workers’

Rights, 1993).

Under the traditional building procurement system,9 there is little incentive to

investigate alternative materials, methods and safety options as a result of professional

fees being linked to the final cost of the project (Wells, 1986). The cost of the time spent

in investigating alternatives not be recovered from the client under such procurement and

contractual arrangements.

Further, this separation of design from production provides the ideal breeding

ground for disputes between the various participants in the construction process. Apart

from the separation of design from production, contracting by its very nature is

adversarial. The objectives of the different contracting parties are different (Binnington,

1999). The objectives of the major contracting parties, namely, the client and constructor

are divergent regarding the traditional project parameters of time, cost, and quality. For

example, constructors are constantly under pressure from clients to submit highly

competitive bids and reduce the cost of construction. Competitive tendering usually

results in the selection of the contractor who is prepared to take the biggest risk or who

has made the biggest mistake (Binnington, 1999). This tension contributes to the climate

9
The traditional building procurement system is one in terms of which the architect heads
up the project team receives the project brief and is solely responsible for all
communication with the client. The architect appoints the other participants in the
construction process.
 25

of disputes. Consequently, safety is one of the first areas to be sacrificed in the effort to

reconcile the divergent objectives.

Research conducted in New Zealand in 1997 (Site Safe, 2000) suggested that cost

driven projects and the competitive nature of the tender process resulted in lack of

margins and cost cutting of safety.

The construction industry is subject to economic cycles and is dependent on

changing governmental priorities10 and policies producing ‘stop-go’ approaches in the

sector (Ahmad and Yan, 1996). In most economies in the world, the intensity of

construction activity fluctuates according to variations in investor confidence, availability

and cost of finance and consumer demand, or even a combination of these (Porteous,

1999). These variations are typical investor and consumer reactions to changing

governmental priorities and policies.

Consequently, the construction industry does not enjoy continuous demand for its

products and services. This scenario implies that the demand for people with the

appropriate construction skills also fluctuates. Qualified and trained workers, needing

employment of some kind, leave the industry when demand for their services disappears.

The impact of this occurrence is evident in the lack of investment in, and lack of

commitment to worker training that is an important component of any plan to improve

safety performance.

10
For example, in China the sensitivity of the construction sector to the national economy
was evidenced during the period of the recent austerity program when the government
slammed brakes on the State Fixed Investment through a slowdown in approval of new
projects and a credit squeeze.
 26

Once construction activity increases, the shortage of skilled and trained people is

even more acute. To make up for this shortage, the labor force may be augmented with,

or even consist of, workers who lack the appropriate training and experience needed to

properly and safely execute the essential processes of construction assembly.

Frequently, these workers are expected to acquire totally new skills ‘on the job’11

but without any structured instruction or training program (Porteous, 1999). Usually a

proper induction program that has been shown to be effective in safety and health

programs is not conducted for these new employees. These workers constitute the group

most likely to experience accidents (Hinze, 1997).

According to Porteous (1999), a further consequence of this fluctuation is the

variation in the numbers of workers who have been trained as distinct from educated. A

trained worker would know how to execute a construction activity in a certain manner,

while an educated worker would know why the activity should be executed in that

particular manner. Additionally, it takes much longer to educate a worker than to train

one. The acquisition of knowledge of the various sciences relating to construction is a

more gradual process than merely learning how to perform a sequence of activities. The

industry, therefore, responds to meeting the acute shortage of skilled workers by

investing in skills training of workers rather than in providing them with a good

education in covering all aspects of the construction process.

The procurement systems used within the industry are frequently based on

competitive tendering. This tendering practice results in contractors undertaking

11
‘On the job’ refers to training that occurs on the actual job site where the worker is
employed and it implies that this skill acquirement is a consequence of performing the
work.
 27

construction projects on a ‘one-off’ basis. By implication each project is, therefore,

treated as being unique, without the prospect of either the physical structure being

reproduced, or the project team working together again on the next project. Since this

practice is the predominant means of obtaining work in many countries, it is difficult for

contractors to determine their future workload, plan or invest for the future. The risks

associated with this uncertainty lead to limited investment in fixed capital, minimum

employment of permanent staff, and the increased use of subcontractors and casual labor

(Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, 1993). There are few opportunities to learn from

mistakes on one building when the next one to be constructed is an entirely different one.

Legal considerations tend to make the makers of mistakes reluctant to publish their

newfound knowledge (Porteous, 1999). In addition, the highly competitive nature of the

industry does not encourage the sharing of knowledge with other potential competitors

(Porteous, 1999). Industry practitioners will avoid their responsibility regarding safety

and health, using the reasons just given as excuses for not observing safety and health

policies.

Because of the financial rewards and incentives to build more cheaply in the

short-term, one of the first areas, unfortunately, to experience cost cutting to improve the

competitiveness of tenders is that of safety and health (Porteous, 1999; Site Safe, 2000).

As long as the products of construction are commodities, built for immediate sale or

financial returns on completion, there will be strong incentives for investors to push the

minimum mandatory requirements for safe and healthy buildings. Short-term market

forces are antipathetic to the expenses incurred in complying with a building code.

Building control regimes neither encourage nor discourage the construction of buildings
 28

that exceed the minimum safe and sanitary requirements. It is likely that the minimum

mandatory requirements of the code will become the norm as long as short-term financial

outlooks prevail.

A further characteristic of the industry is the unfavorably high supervisor-worker

ratio, which according to Hinze (1997) should be of the order of 2.7 workers to 1

supervisor. Supervisors who have a more personal and positive relationship with their

workers have more favorable safety performance records (Hinze 1997, Levitt and

Samelson 1993). This relationship is difficult to develop if the ratio is high.

For a long time, the construction industry has been labeled as one with a poor

health and safety culture. Efforts to improve health and safety performance will not be

effective until the health and safety culture is improved (Dester and Blockley, 1995).

That is, there is a need for a major paradigm shift regarding attitudes toward safety and

health on construction sites.

Safety Performance of the Construction Industry

In the industrialized nations of the world, accidents12 , now cause more deaths than

all infectious diseases and more than any single illness13 except those related to heart

disease and cancer (Brittannica Online, 1998). The construction industrial sector is a

dangerous or highly hazardous one (The Business Roundtable, 1983; Churcher and

Alwani-Starr, 1996; Birchall and Finalyson, 1996; Khalid, 1996; Smallwood and Haupt,

12
Accidents are unplanned and undesirable events that interrupt planned activities that
may or may not result in injury or property damage.
13
An illness is a bodily impairment resulting from exposure over a period of time to a
harmful substance or environment, which does not occur immediately and is not evident
until some time after the exposure.
 29

2000). It has earned itself this unfortunate and unenviable reputation due to the

disproportionately high incidence of accidents and fatalities which continue to occur on

construction sites around the globe. For instance, in New Zealand, construction workers

are three times more likely to be killed and twice as likely to be seriously injured than the

general workforce (Site Safe, 2000). Internationally, construction workers are two to

three times more likely to die on the job than workers in other industries while the risk of

serious injury is almost 3 times higher (Site Safe, 2000).

The construction industry in the United Kingdom, for example, has for many

years consistently had the highest incident rate for fatal accidents and serious injuries14

when compared with all other industrial sectors (Joyce, 1995). In New Zealand during

1998 more than 3,000 workers had injuries serious enough to prevent them from working

for more than five days (Site Safe, 2000). The number of fatalities in construction

represents only a fractional part of the problem, with thousands of major injuries, and

even more minor ones, resulting in lost time.

In the United States of America, for example, the construction industry employs

in the region of 6% of the entire industrial workforce (Table 2-1). However, the

construction sector has generally accounted for nearly 20% of all industrial worker deaths

(Hinze, 1997; Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, 1993).

In Europe, the situation is more serious with the construction industry employing

on average between 5% of the industrial workforce in Finland and 14% in Germany

(Table 2-1). Construction accounts for on average between 7.5% of all accidents and

14
Injuries are bodily impairments that are immediate, occur at a fixed time and place,
resulting from accidents.
 30

injuries in the United Kingdom and 12.6% in Finland as evidenced in Table 2-3. The

sector is responsible for 30% of all fatalities (Berger, 2000; Lorent, 1999).

The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation (ACC) in

New Zealand, reported that the construction industry employed 5.8% of the total

workforce (11% of the part time workforce) in 1998. Construction was responsible for

about 11.5% of the expenditure from the employer account of the ACC (Site Safe, 2000).

In 1998, construction fatalities accounted for 32.9% of total workplace fatalities (Site

Safe, 2000).

Although the incidence of injuries and fatalities has decreased by more than 50%

during the last 30 years, the number of accidents, injuries and deaths continues to remain

unacceptably high. In the United States alone, accidents in the construction industry cost

over $17 billion annually (Levitt and Samelson 1993). Data from the ACC in New

Zealand indicate that between 1994 and 1996, claims for construction injuries increased

by 28%, which is about twice the rate of increase for all other industries (Site Safe,

2000). In 1997, the ACC spent NZ$69 million on treatment and compensation for

construction injuries, while the indirect cost to firms and workers was conservatively

estimated at NZ$21 million.

The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (1993) reported that in the United States,

workers in many construction trades died 8 to 12 years earlier, on average, than did many

white-collar workers. In the United States, three to four construction workers die from

injuries on the job each workday (representing 18.6 to 34 fatalities per 100,000 full-time

workers). Further, construction has more deaths from injuries on the job than any other

industrial sector. It is estimated that there are on average more than 229,000 lost-time
 31

construction worker injuries in the United States requiring restricted work or time off to

recover (Table 2-3).

Table 2-3 Industrial and construction accident statistics (1000s)

Country15 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Egypt 60.7 57.3 55.4 50.9 56.1
5.7 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.7
(9.4%) (7.7%) (7.8%) (8.2%) (8.3%)
South Africa 9.0 10.5 9.6 6.3 8.9
0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.8
(8.9%) (8.6%) (8.3%) (7.9%) (9.0%)
Namibia 5.0 3.9 4.2 4.9 4.5
0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8
(18.0%) (17.9%) (14.3%) (16.3%) (17.8%)
Panama 16.8 16.8 16.5 15.8 16.5
2.2 2.1 2.2 1.4 2.0
(13.1%) (12.5%) (13.3%) (8.9%) (12.0%)
Canada 429.7 411.2 378.6 380.7 400.1
33.4 31.0 29.9 30.5 31.2
(7.8%) (7.5%) (7.9%) (8.0%) (7.8%)
Mexico N/A 442.7 401.8 428.9 424.5
45.7 39.3 35.9 40.4
(10.3%) (9.8%) (8.4%) (9.5%)
United States 3,061.0 2,967.4 2,832.5 2,866.2 2,931.8
246.1 221.9 220.5 230.7 229.8
(8.0%) (7.5%) (7.8%) (8.0%) (7.8%)
Venezuela 8.0 7.6 6.5 5.2 6.8
2.1 2.2 1.1 1.5 1.7
(26.3%) (28.9%) (16.9%) (28.8%) (25.4%)
Puerto Rico 28.0 25.6 27.2 26.0 26.7
2.1 1.9 2.2 1.2 1.1
(7.5%) (7.4%) (8.0%) (4.6%) (4.2%)
China 16.3 28.5 29.0 26.4 25.1
2.7 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.1
(16.6%) (7.4%) (6.9%) (6.1%) (8.4%)
Hong Kong 64.4 59.4 59.5 62.8 61.5
16.7 15.5 16.7 19.1 17.0
(25.9%) (26.1%) (28.1%) (30.4%) (27.6%)

15
Numbers in Egypt include establishments employing 50 or more workers; in South
Africa before 1996 they exclude occupational diseases, but include non-fatal cases
without lost workdays; in the U.S. they include establishments with 11 or more
employees; in China state owned enterprises only are included; in the UK road traffic
accidents are excluded; in Australia Victoria and Australian Capital Territory are
excluded.
 32

Table 2-3 Continued

Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Israel 84.2 88.3 92.3 83.8 87.2
10.1 10.5 12.0 10.4 10.8
(12.0%) (11.9%) (13.0%) (12.4%) (12.3%)
Jordan 13.7 15.3 14.8 13.4 14.3
2.4 2.4 2.7 3.3 2.7
(17.5%) (15.7%) (18.2%) (26.4%) (18.9%)
Denmark 47.7 49.7 50.6 N/A 49.3
4.1 4.5 4.3 4.3
(8.6%) (9.1%) (8.5%) (8.7%)
Finland 56.1 57.6 53.1 N/A 55.6
7.3 6.9 6.9 7.0
(13.0%) (12.0%) (13.0%) (12.6%)
Norway 24.0 30.1 27.8 34.1 29.0
2.3 3.2 2.8 3.4 2.9
(9.6%) (10.6%) (10.1%) (10.0%) (10.0%)
United 159.6 150.3 158.3 167.3 158.9
Kingdom 11.7 10.3 12.0 13.8 12.0
(7.3%) (6.9%) (7.6%) (8.3%) (7.5%)
Australia 135.7 139.1 133.4 123.9 133.1
13.1 12.8 12.2 10.8 12.2
(9.7%) (9.2%) (9.1%) (8.7%) (9.2%)
New Zealand 31.6 40.0 42.6 36.5 37.7
2.5 3.6 4.0 4.1 3.6
(7.9%) (9.0%) (9.4%) (11.2%) (9.4%)
Source: ILO (1999)

The data in Table 2-3 from selected countries indicate the number of accidents in

the construction industry during the period 1994 through 1997. The data suggest that the

construction industry is responsible for, on average, between 7.5% of all types of

accidents in the United Kingdom and 27.6% in Hong Kong. Noticeably, the sector

accounts for, on average, 7.8% of all types of accidents in the United States and Canada,

and 9.5% in Mexico for the same period.

The range for the African countries selected is from 8.3% in Egypt to 17.8% in

Namibia. For Asian countries selected, the range is 8.4% in Mainland China to a

staggering 27.6% in Hong Kong. For the selected South American countries, the range is

4.2% in Puerto Rico to 25.4% in Venezuela. For Europe, the range is 7.5% in the United
 33

Kingdom to 12.6% in Finland. For Oceania, the range is much closer with Australia

being 9.2% and New Zealand 9.4%. In the Middle East, the range is from 12.3% in Israel

to 18.9% in Jordan.

Table 2-4 Statistics for industrial and construction fatalities

Country16 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average 17
Egypt 203 201 154 180 185
39 40 33 21 33
(19.2%) (19.9%) (21.4%) (11.7%) (18.0%)
South Africa 913 879 612 482 722
103 114 54 74 86
(11.3%) (13.0%) (8.8%) (15.4%) (11.9%)
Namibia 41 41 48 18 37
6 3 6 2 4
(14.6%) (7.3%) (12.5%) (11.1%) (9.25%)
Panama 65 85 60 76 72
8 16 7 7 10
(12.3%) (18.8%) (11.7%) (9.2%) (13.2%)
Canada 724 749 703 833 752
145 137 150 149 145
(20.0%) (18.3%) (21.3%) (17.9%) (19.3%)
Mexico N/A 1,618 1,315 1,568 1,500
261 209 220 230
(16.1%) (15.9%) (14.0%) (15.3%)
United States 6,632 6,275 6,202 6,238 6,337
1,028 1,055 1,047 1,107 1,059
(15.5%) (16.8%) (16.9%) (17.7%) (16.7%)
Puerto Rico 67 82 58 41 62
7 20 14 6 12
(10.4%) (24.4%) (24.1%) (14.6%) (19.0%)
China 7,235 20,005 19,457 17,558 16,064
1,513 1,474 1,358 1,056 1,350
(20.9%) (7.4%) (7.0%) (6.0%) (8.4%)
Hong Kong 263 247 278 247 259
76 89 70 63 75
(28.9%) (36.0%) (25.1%) (25.5%) (29.0%)

16
In Egypt establishments with 50 or more employees are included; in Namibia and
Finland deaths occurring within 1 year of accident are included; the U.S. includes
establishments with 11 or more employees; China includes deaths occurring within 1
month of accident; Hong Kong includes manual workers; in the UK road traffic accidents
are excluded; in Australia Victoria and Australian Capital Territory are excluded
17
All data in this column have been rounded up to the nearest whole number
 34

Table 2-4 Continued

Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Japan 2,301 2,414 2,363 2,078 2,289
942 1,021 1,001 848 953
(40.9%) (42.3%) (42.4%) (40.8%) (41.6%)
Jordan 23 27 10 18 20
3 3 4 9 5
(13.0%) (11.1%) (40.0%) (50.0%) (23.8%)
Denmark 75 84 76 N/A 78
15 14 13 14
(20.0%) (16.7%) (17.0%) (17.9%)
Finland 55 46 48 N/A 50
8 12 6 9
(14.5%) (26.1%) (12.5%) (17.3%)
Norway 42 60 53 64 55
10 12 0 11 8
(23.8%) (20.0%) (0%) (17.2%) (15.0%)
United 211 233 220 230 224
Kingdom 59 66 66 59 63
(28.0%) (28.3%) (30.0%) (25.7%) (27.9%)
Australia 324 289 246 289 287
43 43 38 30 39
(13.3%) (14.9%) (15.4%) (10.4%) (13.4%)
New Zealand 45 55 59 43 51
7 7 4 7 6
(15.6%) (12.7%) (6.8%) (16.3%) (12.3%)
Source: ILO (1999)

The data in Table 2-4 reflect the extent to which the construction industry is

responsible for fatalities when compared with the total number of fatalities in the work

place.

The construction industry contributes, on average, from 8.4% in Mainland China

to 41.6% in Japan of all industrial fatalities from 1994 through 1997. The sector accounts

for, on average, 16.7% of all types of industrial deaths in the United States, 19.3% in

Canada, and 15.3% in Mexico for the same period. The range for the African countries

selected is from 9.25% in Namibia to 18.0% in Egypt. For Asian countries selected, the

range is 8.4% in Mainland China to a staggering 41.6% in Japan.

 35

For the selected South American countries, the range is 13.2% in Panama and

19.0% in Puerto Rico. For Europe, the range is 15.0% in Norway and 27.9% in the

United Kingdom. For Oceania, the range is much closer with Australia being 13.4% and

New Zealand 12.3%. In Jordan, the contribution is 23.8%.

While the data in Table 2-4 confirm that the construction industry is responsible

for a major proportion of all workplace-related deaths, a more illustrative statistic would

be the rate of fatalities per1000 workers employed. These data are reflected in Table 2-5

for selected countries.

An examination of the data in Table 2-5 confirms, on average, that for every

10,000 workers employed in construction the number of workers that will be fatally

injured in:

− Egypt, Canada, Bolivia, Spain and Korea will be 3 workers;

− Panama will be between 4 and 5 workers;
− Turkey will be between 5 and 6 workers; and
− Hong Kong will be between 10 and 11 workers.

Apart from the actual costs incurred regarding injuries and fatalities, the national

economy of any country suffers enormous cost and loss of productivity due to the number

of workdays lost as a consequence of occupational injuries and deaths.

The data in Table 2-618 provide an indication of the magnitude of this problem in

selected countries and suggest that the construction sector is responsible for a major

proportion of the workdays lost as a result of occupational injuries.

18
The countries were selected based on the completeness of the data listed in the ILO
Yearbook of Labour Statistics with the intention of obtaining an idea of the magnitude of
the potential losses because lost workdays in construction; Egypt includes establishments
with 50 or more employees; Australia excludes Victoria and Australian Capital Territory
 36

Table 2-5 Industrial and construction fatalities per1000 employees

Country19 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Egypt 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.11
0.32 0.34 0.30 0.25 0.30
Zimbabwe 0.19 0.21 N/A N/A 0.20
0.21 0.29 0.25
Panama 0.17 0.16 0.11 N/A 0.15
0.44 0.66 0.27 0.46
Canada 0.0647 0.0655 0.0609 0.0705 0.0654
0.3225 0.3015 0.3287 0.3151 0.3170
Bolivia 0.156 0.125 0.117 0.111 0.127
0.000 0.198 0.385 0.711 0.324
United States 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.015
Puerto Rico 0.075 0.089 0.061 0.042 0.067
0.151 0.412 0.255 0.138 0.239
Hong Kong 0.104 0.098 0.110 0.098 0.103
1.273 1.357 0.934 0.772 1.084
Korea 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.34
0.38 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.33
Spain 0.1063 0.1007 0.0979 0.1006 0.1014
0.3080 0.3141 0.2986 0.3126 0.3083
Sweden 0.062 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.033
0.077 0.067 0.055 0.058 0.064
Turkey 0.283 0.208 0.322 0.299 0.278
0.547 0.408 0.669 0.503 0.532
United 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010
Kingdom 0.068 0.080 0.080 0.057 0.071
Australia 0.07 0.06 0.05 N/A 0.06
0.17 0.15 0.13 0.15
Source: ILO (1999)

For the countries selected, the range, on average from 1994 through 1997, is

between 3.4% in Togo in Africa and 63.3% in Bahrain in the Middle East. For the

African countries selected, the range is from 3.4% in Togo (400 lost workdays) and

18.9% in Tunisia (143,600 lost workdays). Regarding the American countries selected,

the range is from 3.5% in Nicaragua (3,300 lost workdays) to 14.4% in El Salvador

(58,600 lost workdays).

19
UK excludes road traffic accidents and Australia excludes Victoria and Australian
Capital Territory
 37

Table 2-6 Workdays lost due to industrial and construction injuries (1000s)
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Egypt 1,234.8 1,177.3 1,085.4 1,045.1 1,135.7
119.8 114.9 94.9 115.9 111.4
(9.7%) (9.8%) (8.7%) (11.1%) (9.8%)
Togo 9.0 12.4 18.9 9.3 12.4
1.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4
(14.4%) (1.6%) (1.1%) (0.0%) (3.4%)
Tunisia N/A 742.4 813.9 718.5 758.3
135.3 159.6 136.0 143.6
(18.2%) (19.6%) (18.9%) (18.9%)
Guatemala 3,019.0 2,861.0 2,306.2 2,140.6 2,581.7
332.1 314.7 253.7 235.5 284.0
(11.0%) (11.0%) (11.0%) (11.0%) (11.0%)
Nicaragua 53.6 78.8 107.0 136.9 94.1
1.4 1.6 2.8 7.2 3.3
(2.6%) (2.0%) (2.6%) (5.3%) (3.5%)
El Salvador 385.3 429.4 411.4 400.1 406.6
55.5 61.9 59.3 57.7 58.6
(14.4%) (14.4%) (14.4%) (14.4%) (14.4%)
Bahrain 26.4 97.2 21.0 22.0 41.7
11.6 80.1 6.9 7.0 26.4
(43.9%) (82.4%) (32.9%) (31.8%) (63.3%)
Hong Kong 583.5 614.9 614.0 663.5 619.0
196.3 210.0 217.3 250.6 218.6
(33.6%) (34.2%) (35.4%) (37.8%) (35.3%)
Israel 2,646.3 2,789.2 2,990.2 2,690.0 2,778.9
368.9 390.5 466.1 408.4 408.5
(13.9%) (14.0%) (15.6%) (15.2%) (14.7%)
Singapore 95.7 87.7 108.2 144.9 109.1
26.3 27.3 35.1 65.4 38.5
(27.5%) (31.1%) (32.4%) (45.1%) (35.3%)
Spain 13,111.2 14,440.1 15,592.3 15,489.9 14,658.4
2,571.6 3,004.7 3,288.8 3,266.9 3,033
(19.6%) (20.1%) (21.1%) (21.1%) (20.7%)
Finland 1,152.6 1,138.6 1,051.2 N/A 1,114.1
177.5 163.7 157.6 166.3
(15.4%) (14.4%) (15.0%) (14.9%)
Sweden 976.5 874.0 851.4 890.0 898.0
112.9 100.8 95.4 94.4 100.9
(11.6%) (11.5%) (11.2%) (10.6%) (11.2%)
Turkey 1,926.1 1,763.4 1,788.7 1,992.5 1,867.8
388.2 338.6 324.1 386.0 359.2
(20.2%) (19.2%) (18.1%) (19.4%) (19.2%)
Australia 1,020.8 1,021.2 1,041.9 987.6 1,017.9
122.8 92.7 96.1 93.3 101.2
(12.0%) (9.1%) (9.2%) (9.4%) (9.9%)
Source: ILO (1999)
 38

For Hong Kong (218,600 lost workdays) and Singapore (38,500 lost workdays),

construction is responsible for 35.3% of all workdays lost. Construction in Israel is

responsible for 14.7% of the total workdays lost (408,500 lost workdays). The range for

the European countries selected is from 11.2% in Sweden (100,900 lost workdays) to

20.7% in Spain (3,033,000 lost workdays). In Australia, the contribution of the

construction sector is on average 9.9% or 101,200 lost workdays.

Table 2-7 Primary safety and health hazards on U.S. construction sites
Deaths and injuries
Type of injury
Falls (more than 33% of deaths)
Being struck by/against (falling object) -
22% of deaths
Caught in/between (trench cave-ins) – 18%
of deaths
Electrocution – 17% of deaths
Other – 10% of deaths

Musculoskeletal disorders
Cause of injury Areas most affected
Lifting Lower back, shoulders
Awkward postures Knee, hip, shoulders, lower back
Repetitive motion Shoulders, neck, wrists
Hand-tool vibration Fingers, wrists

Chronic health hazards

Hazard Organ or system most affected
Noise Hearing
Asbestos and manmade fibers Lungs
Lead and other metals Kidneys, nervous and reproductive
systems
Solvents Kidneys, liver, nervous system
Hazardous wastes Kidneys, liver, nervous and
reproductive systems
Heat and extreme cold Circulatory system
Source: Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, 1993

Construction workers experience a high rate of injury partly due to where they

actually work. For example, they work on scaffolding several hundred feet above the
 39

ground, in noisy areas shared with moving heavy machinery, in trenches, and in confined

spaces.

Construction sites have been described as ‘crawling with hazards,’ which affect

the health of construction workers (Marsicano 1995). Some of these include:

− Noise and particulates associated with the operation of heavy equipment;

− Dust produced during dry wall operations; and
− Metal fumes associated with welding and cutting.

Further, construction workers incur injuries due to the positions that they have to

assume while working. For example, much of the finishing work in construction involves

areas that are above shoulder height or below knee level (Schneider and Susi, 1993). The

main types of safety and health hazards for workers in the United States on construction

sites are shown in Table 2-7.

The leading causes of construction fatalities in New Zealand are falls,

electrocutions and being ‘caught between’ (Site Safe, 2000). The main causes of injuries

in New Zealand that lead to ACC claims are listed in Table 2-8.

Table 2-8 Main causes of injuries leading to ACC claims in New Zealand
Cause of injury

Falls, loss of balance, trips and slips - 36% of injuries

Long-term back or joint problems - 20% of injuries
Hitting or being hit by objects - 15% of injuries
Stretching or lifting - 14% of injuries
Noise induced hearing loss - 5% of injuries
Source: Site Safe, 2000

The advancement of technology, development of sophisticated plants, new

construction techniques, increased size and complexity of construction works, and

 40

improvements in the recognition of risks20 and hazards, suggest that there is still an

opportunity for improvement in the safety record of the construction industry (Joyce

1995). The success of any construction project is usually measured in terms of the

universally acceptable project parameters of time, cost and quality. Safety performance

on projects should be just as much a measure of the success of that project as are project

completion within the desired time frame, within the budget and to satisfactory quality

performance standards (Hinze 1997). It is inconceivable to regard a project as

‘successful’ when limbs and lives have been lost through accidents that could have been

prevented, had achieving adequate safety performance on the project been regarded as

important as productivity and quality.

However, to work toward the goals of zero accidents and zero incidents, a

concerted and coordinated effort is required on the part of all the participants in the

construction process. At present construction industry safety activities are untargeted,

inconsistent and uncoordinated with the focus of the industry on compliance with

minimum standards rather than best practice (Site Safe, 2000). Risks of exposure to

hazards need to be eliminated at source. Where it is not possible, the risks must be

controlled and the means for protecting workers against these risks must be considered

(Lan and Arteau, 1997).

Chapter Summary

It is more important to reduce the occurrence of accidents than to reduce injuries.

If accidents and hazardous exposures can be eliminated, injuries and illnesses can

consequently be eliminated (Marshall, 1994).

20
Risk, in this context, is defined as the probability of an adverse effect to human health,
 41

In this chapter, the construction industry has been shown to be an important sector

of any national economy, especially regarding its employment potential. The nature and

characteristics of construction have been examined. The unsatisfactory safety and health

record of the industry has been highlighted. The construction industry tends to have a low

awareness of the long-term benefits of safe practice, while the tendering process often

gives little attention to safety, resulting in cost and corner cutting.

In the next chapter, the literature on the performance-based approach is reviewed

with reference to what is known about the approach and what is being done in practice.

The regulatory frameworks underpinning the performance approach in Australia, New

Zealand, United Kingdom and Canada are examined. This examination will demonstrate

the different ways in implementing the approach to construction worker safety and health

that countries have chosen to follow within the contexts of their national industries.

property and the environment and the severity of that effect.

 PERFORMANCE CONCEPT

Background to the concept

The performance approach is not a new approach. For example, since the late

1960’s the Norwegian Building Research Institute (NBRI) was already working with the

performance concept in building (Bjørneboe, 1982). Most of the work of the NBRI has

however concentrated on developing performance requirements for building components

and parts of buildings.

The confusion and misunderstanding of the performance concept as it applies to

the construction industry, arises from the approach meaning different things to different

people (Gross, 1996). Generally the performance approach involves the practice of

thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means (CIB21 , 1982; Gibson, 1982). In

this sense, it is concerned with what buildings or building products are required to do,

and not with prescribing how they are to be constructed.

The approach describes the target performance to be achieved rather than what

solution should be selected to achieve the performance (Foliente et al., 1998). It refers to

the attempt to define how a result or solution aimed at should be able to perform. It does

not actually describe what that result should be (CIB, 1975). The concept defines

requirements without imposing restrictions on the form or materials of the solutions.

21
International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.

42
 43

The Working Commission W6022 (1982), and Gibson (1982), further describe the

concept as no more than the application of rigorous analysis and scientific method to the

study of buildings and their constituent parts. This assertion refers to the way

performance criteria are determined, and to the testing methods employed in evaluation

and assessment procedures.

Literature on the performance approach as it pertains to building and construction,

suggests that it is possible to apply the performance concept to a variety of circumstances

and people. For example, its application to the area of sustainable construction has

recently been investigated. This investigation revolved around the need to encourage the

use of innovative environmental technology in construction (Bröchner et al., 1999). It

also promoted the need to establish uniform demanding target performance levels in an

international building assessment system. The assessment system had to provide

consistency, be feasible and practical within a specific country or region (Todd and

Geissler, 1999; Cole, 1999; Cooper, 1999). It was argued that criteria based on levels of

performance rather than prescriptive actions would be readily customized to reflect

regional differences.

The strategies for achieving performance levels could be chosen on what was

most appropriate and effective for each location. Criteria that prescriptively mandated the

use of particular technology, equipment, material or design would be less amenable to

customization, resulting in actions that might possibly be inappropriate in some regions.

The complex maze of building regulations which exist in most countries is

regarded by many as being overly prescriptive and, consequently, an impediment to the

22
CIB Working Commission W60 has as its focus the performance concept in building
 44

introduction of new technologies and design concepts (CIB, 1997; Simenko, 1996).

According to Foliente, Leicester and Pham (1998), the development of building standards

that are performance-based has drawn international interest as a result of some of the

difficulties presented by deemed-to-comply or prescriptive codes and standards. These

difficulties arise from the need to:

− Make building construction more cost effective;

− Allow for easier introduction of product or system and process innovation; and
− Establish fair international trading agreements.

In the global construction market the relatively inflexible, prescriptive codes and

standards are increasingly being criticized as being non-tariff barriers to trade (CIB,

1997; Simenko, 1996). For example, to move away from the prescriptive or deemed-to-

comply building codes and standards that hinder building and construction trade, the

World Trade Organization (WTO) has included Clause 2.8 of the Agreement on Trade

Barriers to Trade.

This clause states that:

Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical regulations based

on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or
descriptive characteristics (WTO, 1997).

The introduction of this clause, therefore, implies a commitment of signatories to

the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to the use of performance

requirements:

− In the evaluation of the appropriateness of products for their desired purpose; and
− In the acceptance of new and/or innovative products in their markets.

It might also be counter-argued that the country-specific compliance requirements

of the prescriptive approach, especially in developing countries, constitute an effective

protectionist measure. Prescription based legislation would potentially act as a barrier to

 45

trade in favor of the indigenous construction industry. While unlikely against the

background that developing countries have historically been ‘standard-takers23 ‘ and not

‘standard-setters,’ this situation would pose problems to world free trade, trade

liberalization and trade expansion when globalization and internationalization are

priorities.

Since the construction industry plays an important role in the economy of any

country, the performance approach could arguably pose a potential threat to developing

countries such as in Africa. It has been suggested that the development of the indigenous

construction industries will contribute to economic growth and development in those

countries (Haupt, 1996). As the construction industry develops rapidly, it gives the

opportunity for the development of other relevant industries such as construction

materials, light industry, machinery, and electronics (Ganzhi, 1996). The introduction of

an approach would be counter-productive that would favor the penetration of large

international construction enterprises into the domestic market, inhibiting the growth and

development of local construction capacity.

Performances based building standards, arguably, provide the means of

overcoming the difficulties presented by prescriptive codes and standards (Foliente et al.,

1998). They are replacing traditional codes (CIB, 1997), particularly in highly

industrialized countries. These standards essentially standardize the description of the

performance of an attribute of a product in some measurable manner. Once the required

level of performance has been established, the designer of the product is free to use any

23
Developing countries have tended to accept international standards developed and
adopted in industrialized countries (standard-takers) rather than develop and set their own
standards (standard-setters).
 46

form or materials consistent with the final product meeting this performance level

(Walker, 1997; 1998).

Performance Concept and Construction Worker Safety

While there has recently been considerable discussion directed to performance

standards, the literature is largely silent regarding the application of the performance

concept to construction worker safety and health. For example, the CIB Report 32 (1975)

suggests that the application of the performance concepts requires the satisfaction of

certain needs or requirements. These end or ‘end result’24 requirements are described as:

− User needs that refer to the activities of the end users or occupants of the building
facility within the facility;
− Human needs that refer to more generally accepted human factors and requirements;
and
− Other needs that include technical, physiological, psychological and sociological
considerations relative to the safety, health and comfort of those for whom the
building is intended, which might include equipment, goods, or animals that may be
housed in the building; and
− The satisfaction of economic and social considerations.

Bayazit (1993) endorsed this perception by describing user requirements as the

requirements of the end users, owners, financiers, building managers, and all the related

groups affected by the completed building facility. The needs of those responsible for the

actual construction of the facility, namely, the safety and health of the construction

workers (the first, albeit temporary users of the facility), are not referred to, overlooked

or ignored. Reasons that have been cited for this oversight include the perceived

difficulty in the link between performance specifications and the ability to design

24
Performance specifications are also known as ‘end result’ specifications in the building
materials sector
 47

adequate tests to set performance criteria. The assessment and evaluation of whether

these criteria have been satisfied or not present another difficulty.

This study argues that the requirements of workers as temporary users can also be

expressed in terms of performance requirements that need to be met during the

construction process. Further, it is possible to assess and evaluate whether performance

criteria for executing construction activities and tasks have been satisfied. In the absence

of substantive literature on the application of the performance approach to construction

worker safety and health, the literature is reviewed that deals with the performance

approach as it applies to building design, materials, elements and components.

Defining the Performance Approach

There is still some confusion on what is meant by the performance approach. For

example, OSHA in the United States responded to a request for a permanent variance

from 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1), the standard that defines the general machine guarding

requirements of OSHA (OSHA, 1994). OSHA suggested that by not specifying the types

of machine guards that must be used, this standard should be referred to as a performance

standard. Accordingly, the employer is free to adopt a machine guard that performs in

such a manner as to meet the objective of the standard. This objective is to protect

employees from the identified hazards. The standard does, however, recommend several

specific types of machine guards but leaves the employer the decision regarding which

machine guard best suits the working conditions. Ironically, should the employer select

any type of machine guard that is not listed among the recommended types, the employer

would have to apply for a variance to the standard, which is an onerous, tedious and time-

consuming process. This is typical for a prescriptive standard. This example shows the
 48

extent of the confusion very well. By merely allowing the employer some latitude

regarding a choice of equipment or means, OSHA claims the standard to be performance-

based. OSHA standards are generally considered to be prescriptive in nature. As stated

earlier, the performance approach focuses on ends rather than means.

Further, OSHA (1998), in clarifying the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.800 that

deals with underground construction, makes use of what it terms ‘performance language’

in paragraph (b)(2). Here it stipulates the provision of access and egress ‘in such a

manner that employees are protected…’ However, very specific requirements are

prescriptively contained in the next paragraph, namely, (b)(3). Again, it seems that

whenever specific requirements are not stipulated within an otherwise prescriptive

standard, OSHA regards it as performance-based. This does not fully conform to the

generally accepted definition of the performance concept and approach.

There is also confusion on how performance-based standards should be developed

and implemented (Foliente et al., 1998). Since the performance concept implies a new

way of looking at things (buildings in this case), its application raises questions about the

usual meaning of words used in construction (CIB, 1975).

Because of the continual pressure that is being experienced by the construction

industrial sector through the introduction of new materials, designs, and technologies, it

has become necessary to devise ways of evaluating all of these in terms of the functions

that they are required to fulfill (CIB, 1975). The word performance has been selected to

characterize the requirement of products to have certain properties to enable them to

function as desired or specified. The nature of performance has been described by CIB

(1975), as dealing with how the building fabric and the spaces within the fabric react to
 49

the stresses that are brought to bear on them. The building fabric is defined as any of the

building materials, building components, products, units, elements of construction, and

assemblies of which they are composed. The stresses, on the other hand, refer to agents,

agentia, forces, states of simultaneous stress, and external stresses, which stem from

natural, and artificial or man-made phenomena in their surroundings or environments or

contexts. To apply the concept of performance it is necessary to match the requirements

of the users with this reaction to stresses within the fabric and the spaces within the

fabric.

CIB Working Commission 60 has defined the word performance as, ‘behavior

related to use’ (CIB, 1975; Gereben, 1982). This definition is related to the utilization25

period of a building, and to its users. The idea is that users should be able to conduct

their activities in safety, satisfy their comfort requirements, without impairment of their

health, expediently, and permanently. There is another definition for the term, namely,

‘behavior in construction’ which relates primarily to materials. However, with regard to

design and construction decisions, both these definitions relate to decisions impacting the

end product and end users (Bayazit and Kurumu, 1982). The construction worker is not

considered to be an end user and, therefore, not included as a user.

A more comprehensive definition is offered by Kreijger (1982:99), in terms of

which performance is the ‘organized procedure or framework within which it is possible

to state the desired attributes of a material, a component or a system to fulfill the

requirements of the intended use or user without regard to the specific means to be

25
The utilization period may be defined by either the physical and/or economic life of a
building facility.
 50

employed in achieving the results.’ It is possible that the requirements of the

construction worker as a user could be recognized under this definition.

The concept may also be graphically represented to demonstrate how performance

requirements impact the relationships between the planning and design, construction and

use or utility phases as shown in Figure 3-1.

Since the performance approach is primarily concerned with ends rather than

means, it does not necessarily imply that means are not considered, especially

construction methods and types, products or materials (CIB, 1982). When means are

considered, it is strictly in terms of whether they will achieve the ends, and will do so

reliably for a defined period of time. While the approach is not fundamentally new, it

does break fresh ground by calling for a disaggregate and flexible approach to building

construction, and by subjecting all parts of buildings to systematic scrutiny (CIB, 1982).

The performance approach implies:

− Assembling data and criteria from different contributors26 to the total building design
and attempting to state them in common terms that, while it does not, but should,
according to this researcher, include worker safety;
− Extending the scope of quantitative performance assessment,27 which were previously
taken for granted, especially when dealing with innovative designs or products;
− Defining all design objectives clearly;
− Demanding evidence of compliance with requirements by means of accepted methods
of performance test 28 and evaluation; and

26
These contributors would include the client, designers, engineers, financiers and local
building regulation enforcement agencies
27
Defined as ‘a prediction of performance in use, involving judgment, based on a
comparison of test data with the performance requirement’ (CIB, 1975)
28
Defined as ‘an examination giving data from which the performance of an item can be
assessed’ (CIB, 1975)
 51

− Defining methods of ranking or weighting individual aspects of performance to give a

measure of overall quality where products or designs, and/or, according to the
researcher, construction methods are being compared with performance criteria (CIB,
1982) or functional performance requirements29 .

Planning and
design phase

Performance Performance
requirements requirements

Utility Construction
phase Performance phase
requirements

Figure 3-1 Relationship between planning, construction and use

The trend toward the performance approach and performance specification30 is

driven by several forces, which include:

− The accelerating rate of change of building technologies;

− The availability of improved space-planning and design concepts and techniques;
− Higher expectations of the conditions which buildings must provide (cib, 1982); and,
according to this researcher,
− The demand to improve safety performance on construction sites based on the volume
of research confirming the global concern about this aspect of construction.

29
These are ‘statements of need expressed in qualitative or quantitative terms’ (CIB,
1975). A functional requirement addresses one specific aspect or required performance of
the building to achieve a stated goal (Foliente et al., 1998).
30
Defined as ‘a specification which states the performance or performance levels
required of an item and may refer to tests’ (CIB, 1975).
 52

A practical definition, therefore, for the performance approach as it applies to

construction worker safety and health would be the identification of important broadly-

defined goals, ends or targets (user requirements) that must result from applying a safety

standard, regulation or rule without setting out the specific technical requirements or

methods for doing so. As such, the performance approach describes what has to be

achieved to comply with the regulations and leaves the means and methods of complying

up to the contractor.

Features of the Performance Approach

It is argued by CIB W60 (CIB, 1982) that the performance approach as it applies

to building design, materials, elements and components, permits new developments to be

exploited, while safeguarding and assuring a level of quality adequate for the purpose in

question. It does not block technical change (Bröchner, Ang and Fredriksson, 1999). It

allows for choices of solutions to meet the performance requirements of the intended

user, which in turn permits optimization (Wright, 1982). The approach provides

incentives for designers to innovate and to adopt new systems and materials (Briggs,

1992; Walsh and Blair, 1996; Bröchner, Ang and Fredriksson, 1999). It is possible, by

introducing the performance concept in the conceptual stage, to emphasize the

importance and significance of user needs, including the needs of construction workers.

This emphasis should establish a good framework for the analysis of the project, and a

good basis for the selection of the systems and materials to be used on the project (Jones,

1982). For this process to be effective, there has to be communication between designers

and other members of the project team (Simenko, 1996). However, research conducted in
 53

Canada confirmed a serious lack of communication between designers and constructors,

resulting in designs which could not be built as expected (Crawford, 1982).

Further, the approach is dependent on the availability of a large and wide-ranging

body of scientific knowledge on each aspect of building function, and on building

techniques or methods, and materials. This scientific knowledge is not always available

and consequently impedes the widespread application of the approach, making it

extremely difficult to write and implement performance codes (CIB, 1997). The

appropriate knowledge that is required includes:

− The requirements which could be those of owners, end users, and/or construction
workers as temporary users;
− The context within which the building would need to satisfy these requirements such
as weather, frequency and severity of usage, hazards and potential hazards; and
− The available methods of evaluation of behavior in use or performance (Gibson, 1982;
CIB, 1982).

Additionally, this knowledge has to be quantitative, or capable of quantitative

interpretation, to facilitate a workable and unambiguous basis for performance appraisal

and regulation (Gibson, 1982; CIB, 1982).

Thinking in terms of performance, according to Bröchner, Ang and Fredriksson

(1999), produces a sharper focus on quality instead of price only. By speaking in the

functional language of the client and building users, communication between them should

be improved, resulting in raising the level of client satisfaction. In this respect, the

approach facilitates the supply of systematic, user-orientated information. It is potentially

possible that the approach could produce a similar focus on worker safety resulting in

improved communication on safety issues, while improving worker safety performance

on the construction site.

 54

Resorting to the performance concept should reduce costs by encouraging more

efficient ways of providing a given function, using known or new solutions (Bröchner,

Ang and Fredriksson, 1999; Simenko, 1996). Research studies have shown that investing

in construction worker safety reduces costs (The Business Roundtable, 1991; Hinze,

1997; Levitt and Samelson, 1993).

There are also reasons to believe that the approach simplifies and reduces the

volume of construction regulations. In the European Community, for example, the safety

regulations which are performance-based, are contained in less than 20 pages when

compared with the 100’s of pages with limitless and confusing cross-references of OSHA

in the United States, which are largely prescriptive in nature (Coble and Haupt, 1999;

2000). According to OSHA (1993), 96% of the variance applications received by OSHA

are not actual requests for variances, but rather are requests for clarification or

interpretation of standards. These clarifications and interpretations often stem from cross-

references that are conflicting and difficult to understand.

Performance-based regulations support international trade through the

harmonization of construction regulations across borders, as is evidenced in Europe

(Coble and Haupt, 1999; 2000; Simenko, 1996). By removing trade barriers it will be

more attractive to develop and introduce new technologies which are ‘worker-safety-

friendly.’ The performance approach will enhance the prospects of the introduction of

technologies that have been carefully evaluated in terms of their level of safety and

hazard exposure of those who will implement them.

However, the prediction of performance is a key difficulty. On the one hand, it is

possible to establish acceptable performance criteria. These criteria are usually set based
 55

on a combination of any set of judgment, practical tests, theoretical considerations or

behavior. On the other hand, it is more difficult to assess before the building is

constructed whether the criteria are going to be met by the proposed design, construction

method, and building materials. There is considerable interest around the world in

developing a system of reliable and valid test methods and assessment procedures that

combines robustness, sophistication, and an ability to reflect regional or national

concerns. There could be a common set of underlying characteristics relevant to the

structure of all assessment methods (Cole, 1999), which might provide:

− A common and veritable set of criteria and targets;

− The basis for making informed design decisions; and
− An objective assessment of the impact that a building would have on, say, the safety
and health of workers.

When these core criteria are made explicit, they can provide a clear starting point

for developing customized methods for specific building types, geographic regions, and

specific intentions (Todd and Geissler, 1999).

Many of those responsible for the administration of building regulations are less

enthusiastic about the performance concept, due to code officials and inspectors not

having the background nor the training required to deal effectively with the performance

approach (Jones, 1982). Without the required knowledge it is difficult to make judgments

regarding whether the user and performance requirements have been adequately met or

not by a proposed solution or alternative approach.

When monitoring actual performance in a contractual relationship, there is a range

of risks to be managed. These risks may be defined as the probability of adverse effects

to human safety and health, property and the environment, and the severity of those

effects. It is also frequently difficult to identify the party responsible for managing the
 56

risks. Building clients, contractors and government regulatory authorities lack the basic

competence needed for expressing, interpreting, and monitoring requirements expressed

in terms of performance. There has not been adequate investment in the development of

this competence (Bröchner, Ang and Freriksson, 1999). Additionally, there are costs

associated with the management of data specific to a particular material, component,

method or project. The varied legal and jurisdictional structures under which these codes

have to function make the process even more arduous.

There are two categories of barriers to the implementation of the performance

concept, namely,, measurement limitations to determine if proposed solutions meet the

performance criteria, and institutional non-technical barriers (Wright, 1982). There are

problems associated with access to data, choice and use of measurement methods, and in

deriving a consistent practice for using performance data as input to assessment methods

(Bröchner, Ang and Freriksson, 1999).

The institutional barriers include:

− Lack of resources for designers to develop a variety of solutions to meet the

performance criteria;
− Lack of research capability of designers to evaluate these solutions and select the best
suited;
− Lack of appropriate tools to determine user needs at the design stage;
− Lack of a knowledge base built up from past and present performance experiences in
practice;
− Lack of ability to learn in a cumulative way from successes and failures due to the
dispersed nature of the building community; and
− Uncertainty about who should be responsible for evaluating whether the completed
building has met the performance criteria - the architect, engineer, constructor, or
manufacturer (Wright, 1982; Christensen, 1982).

The situation is exacerbated when construction worker safety is added to the

equation. Until very recently, building contractors were held solely and exclusively

responsible for the safety of their workers. Designers felt no compulsion until recently to
 57

become involved with giving consideration to the impact that their designs had on

construction worker safety.

It is obvious that different participants in the construction process will have

distinctly different sets of interests in the performance approach. These participants

include the community, building end users, clients, designers, constructors,

manufacturers, suppliers, insurers, and construction workers.

Responsibilities are assumed by those setting performance requirements as well as

those expected to meet them. Any decision about a level of performance bears with it a

connotation of risk, in terms of known sources of uncertainty and possible errors of

judgment. The responsibilities associated with meeting performance requirements vary

in degree, according to circumstances. All or part of these responsibilities may be

assumed by any of the participants.

Comparison with the Prescriptive Approach

The prescriptive approach describes means, as opposed to ends, and is primarily

concerned with type and quality of materials, method of construction, and workmanship

(CIB, 1982). It attempts to standardize the work process using prescriptive rules and

procedures usually backed by the monitoring of compliance and by sanctions for

noncompliance (Reason, 1998). The approach has been described as being conservative

in that it is difficult to take account of variations in workmanship and materials (Walsh

and Blair, 1996). It is problematic to refine the approach to keep pace with innovation,

better construction techniques, and new materials. For example, when OSHA proposed to

modify its existing standards on respiratory protection in 1994 (29 CFR 1910.134, 29

CFR 1915.152 and 29 CFR 1926.103), reasons cited for the modifications included
 58

changes in methodology, technology and approach to respiratory protection. The existing

standard did not provide for these. OSHA claimed that research on the proper use of

respiratory protective equipment resulted in new technology that improved protection for

wearers. Further, the existing standards did not reflect what had become accepted practice

for implementation of comprehensive respiratory protection programs to protect

employees. The process to introduce these amendments was extremely tedious and time-

consuming, and included public hearings over a lengthy period of time.

Issues of aesthetic content are extremely difficult to handle in terms of

performance and tend rather to be very prescriptive. The focus should rather be on the

contexts in which performance requirements carry a potential for overall gains (Bröchner,

Ang and Freriksson, 1999). The performance approach is unsuitable on the larger scale

typical of entire buildings and the broader physical environment, where social, political

and aesthetic issues weigh more heavily than when developing and selecting components

and construction technology. This claim is only valid against the current understanding of

the application of the performance concept as described in the literature on the

performance approach that excludes the safety of ‘temporary users’ or construction

workers.

Safe working procedures are continually being amended reactively to prevent

actions implicated in a recent accident or incident (Reason, 1998). These amendments

become increasingly restrictive over time. Consequently, the range of permissible actions

is reduced to far less than that necessary to get the job done under anything but optimal

conditions. Reason (1998) rightly suggests that very rarely do the latent conditions, local

triggers and other active failures that lead to an accident occur in precisely the same form.
 59

The inability to cover every conceivable situation comprehensively in a prescriptive way,

arguably, leads to deviations from these prescriptive rules and regulations by construction

workers. Some of the many factors that influence the successful execution and

completion of any construction activity are illustrated in Figure 3-2.

It is evidently extremely difficult to account for each and every one of these in a

prescriptive way. One of the effects of continually tightening up safe working practices in

a prescriptive manner is the increase in the likelihood of deliberate deviations from these

practices. The scope for allowable action shrinks so much that procedures are routinely

violated or when operational necessity demands it. These violations increase the

probability of a subsequent error and the likelihood of a bad outcome such as an accident

or injury (Free, 1994; Parker et al, 1995).

A further concern revolves around potential conflicts between the requirements of

several agencies due to each having their own prescriptive standards. For example, in

granting a variance to 29 CFR 1910.106(b)(2)(viii)(f), OSHA recognized that there was a

conflict between that standard and the requirements of Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) under 40 CFR 761. 65(b)(1) concerning the draining and flushing of

combustible/flammable liquids.

Prescriptive or ‘recipe’ requirements might be simpler to work with than

performance or ‘end result’ requirements. There is an element of duration in the

application of any performance test method, in contrast to adherence to prescriptive

specifications, which is often instantaneous and based upon visual conformity with the

specification (Bröchner, Ang and Freriksson, 1999). However, the latter can potentially
 60

stand in the way of the most efficient and economical solution to a building problem

(CIB, 1982).

Time of Skills level

Cost or day of workers
Supervision
budget available or
Climatic required
conditions

Risk level
Equipment

Working Code
environment requirements

Activity

Worker Design
experience

Quality
standards
Location of
desired
work

Hazards

Materials to
Available be used
time or
duration Method of
Worker
attitude construction

Figure 3-2 Factors that affect the successful completion of a construction activity
 61

By being prescriptive regarding a restricted range of solutions, they exclude

innovation, impede the introduction of new technologies and design concepts, reduce

cost-effectiveness, and international harmonization (Simenko, 1996). Additionally, they

do not provide the best means of making use of the knowledge and ideas of others.

To describe the defining relationship between prescriptive and performance

approaches, buildings may be viewed as a matrix of parts and attributes (Hattis, 1996).

The main difference between the traditional prescriptive and the performance approaches

may then be described as follows:

− In the prescriptive approach, the building parts are described, specified and procured,
resulting in a building with a unique but implicit set of attributes; and
− In the performance approach, the building attributes are described and specified, and
many combinations of different building parts can be procured for which it can be
demonstrated that the specified attributes will be provided.

There are several characteristics in terms of which performance-based codes are

expected to be superior to traditional prescriptive codes (CIB, 1997). The following are

the characteristics that are directly related to the structure of the performance code

documents:

− Ease of understanding the intent of regulation; and

− Transparency for ease of:
− Evaluation of alternative and/or innovative solutions;
− International scrutiny within trade agreements;
− Consistency of interface for users;
− Ease of authoring and maintaining the code documents; and
− Ease of representation and delivery in Information Technology (IT) systems and in
supporting associated navigation and retrieval functions (CIB, 1997).

Prescriptive specifications will continue for some time to play a significant but

supplementary role. It is possible for there to be specific instances where aspects of a

specification might deliberately be retained in prescriptive terms. These include:

 62

− Finite limitations, for example, where a building client may desire to prescribe or
restrict aspects of the building design or materials to be used in a building for aesthetic
purposes;
− Economic reasons where the cost of a performance evaluation may be too high in
relation to the value of the product; and
− The state of the construction industry where professional resources are scarce or the
local industry might not be able to respond to a performance specification (CIB, 1982).

According to Jones (1982), it is acceptable to use performance-based regulations

wherever possible and then fill in with prescriptive measures as required. However,

extreme caution must be exercised to ensure that the safety and health of construction

workers is not compromised in the process.

Performance-based Regulatory Frameworks

The idea of controlling building construction within a performance-based

regulatory framework is appealing to virtually every segment of the construction

industry. Architects, engineers, building manufacturers, and the other participants in the

construction process view the performance approach as a logical route for obtaining

acceptance of new ideas, products and technologies in the construction sector (Jones,

1982). In fact, building regulations in many countries are perceived to be overly

prescriptive and an impediment to this view. They are criticized increasingly as being

inflexible non-tariff barriers to international trade. In many countries where performance-

based standards, building codes and regulations have replaced the traditional prescriptive

ones, these newer regulatory structures are based on variations of the Nordic Five Level

System illustrated in Table 3-1 (CIB 1997).

Broad requirement characteristics of these regulatory structures are that they:

− Respond to social needs;

− Are based on user needs;
− Are based on sound technical knowledge;
 63

− Are useable and verifiable; and

− Are enforceable.

Table 3-1 Nordic 5 Level System

Level Basic Heading Description/Comments
1 Goal Addresses the essential interests of the community
at large regarding the built environment, and/or the
needs of the user-consumer
2 Functional Requirement Building or building element specific qualitative
requirements.
3 Operative Requirement31 Actual requirements, in terms of performance
criteria or expanded functional description
4 Verification Instructions or guidelines for verification of
compliance
5 Examples of acceptable Supplements to the regulations with examples of
solutions solutions deemed to satisfy the requirements
(CIB, 1997; Foliente et al., 1998)

In the Nordic 5 Level System, levels 4 and 5 are concerned with the specifics of

meeting the objectives of the minimum structure as set out in levels 1, 2 and 3. Levels 2

and 3 represent an elaboration of the objectives component of the minimum structure

which is level 1, while levels 4 and 5 refer to the ways of meeting the objectives.

Levels 4 and 5 may be combined to form a general four level regulatory system

such as reflected in Figure 3-3 (Adapted from Foliente et al., 1998). This is generally

regarded as the basic performance model. If the method of verification selected shows

that the performance requirements have not been met, the solution needs to be re-

examined and another attempted until the requirements have been fully met.

These differences and commonalties have been reflected in Figure 3-4 (taken

from CIB, 1997) by drawing comparisons between the Nordic 5 Level System and those

31
Sometimes referred to as the ‘Performance Requirement,’ and wherever possible
should be stated in quantified terms (Foliente et al., 1998).
 64

applied in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Canada. Very similar

characteristics are found in the regulatory frameworks developed in European countries.

Level 1 GOAL/OBJECTIVE

Level 2 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Level 3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Level 4 VERIFICATION METHODS

Deemed-to-comply By testing By By combined testing

code provisions calculation and calculation

Prescriptive method Performance based methods

Figure 3-3 General four level regulatory system

Level Australia New Zealand United Canada

Kingdom
Goals Objectives Objectives Goals Objectives
Functional Functional Functional Functional
Requirements Statements Requirements Requirements
Operational Performance Deem- Performance Functional
Requirements Requirements to- Requirements Requirements
satisfy
Verification Verification Performance
Methods Methods Technical
Solutions Acceptable
Acceptable Acceptable Alternative solutions
Solutions Solutions Approaches
Figure 3-4 Nordic 5 Level System compared with structures in selected countries
 65

On the one hand, the United Kingdom has applied the least formal approach with

very brief goals and functional requirements. On the other hand New Zealand has opted

for a structure which is very formal and complete (CIB, 1997).

Potential for Improving Construction Worker Safety

From the review of the literature on the performance concept, it is evident that the

performance approach has focused almost exclusively on the needs of end users and the

consequent performance requirements of the building fabric to meet these needs. The

literature, where it refers to safety and health, does so in the context of end users such as

occupants of building facilities and the general public (Gambatese, 2000). The

underpinning motivation for addressing safety and health in this way is to address

liability issues should the building structure fail to meet the performance requirements.

The literature is largely silent regarding the safety and health of construction

workers on site while the structure is being erected, remodeled or demolished. The

requirements of workers have either been ignored or overlooked. As the first users of the

building facility, the performance approach should be able to be applied to them as well

(Hinze, 2000).

The literature on the performance approach to building also suggests that the

earlier phases of the construction process are critical to the successful implementation of

the performance approach. The pre-design and design phases are important, as it is during

these early stages that the end user and performance requirements are established.

Research has shown that the early involvement of all participants, particularly designers,

in the construction worker safety effort has great potential for reducing exposure to

hazards and potential hazards. The consequence of this early involvement potentially
 66

results in the reduction of accidents, injuries and fatalities (Gambatese, 2000a; Hinze,

1994; Hinze and Wiegand, 1992; Gambatese, Hinze and Haas, 1997; Gambatese, 2000b;

Smallwood and Haupt, 2000; Lorent, 1999; Hinze et al., 1999). By including construction

workers as users, designers have the potential to consider their particular requirements

and the performance required to meet them during the pre-design and design phases of

construction (Hinze, 2000).

During the construction phase, workers engage in construction tasks during which

they are exposed to hazards due to the nature of the activities being carried out, the

properties of the materials being worked with, and the complexity of the construction

methods being used. Other impacting factors include the location in which the activity is

being performed, the environment, climatic conditions, and personal attitudes. These

have to be considered during risk assessments, qualitative and quantitative identification

of their requirements as users, and implementation of solutions that will satisfy these user

and performance requirements. Unfortunately the requirements of construction workers

as users of the building during construction is given scant attention in the available

literature. The only reference to safety appears to be regarding safety in use (Blachère,

1993; Sneck, 1993). In this context reference is made to:

− Safety of maintenance work;

− Safety against injuries to occupants;
− Safety during circulation; and
− Security against intrusions.

Regarding hygiene or health, the only reference appears to be in terms of:

− Pollution of the building environment; and

− Emission or development of noxious or unhealthy substances in the building as they
affect end users (Blachère, 1993; Sneck, 1993).
 67

The differences between construction workers and the end users lie in the nature

of the activities in which they engage as well as the environment within which these

activities take place. Construction workers are engaged in activities designed to erect the

building. The environment is constantly changing as the construction process continues

toward final completion.

Construction workers are users, and as such have performance or user

requirements that have to be met regarding their safety and health while carrying out

construction tasks. This notion needs to be accepted by all the participants in the

construction process. Construction workers and their safety and health needs have to be

given the same serious consideration as all other users of the building facility. Once this

occurs, the performance approach can influence the safety performance of the

construction industry.

Application of the Performance Approach

The need to adopt the performance concept in building activities is well

established at an international level (Borges, 1982). However, this need seems to be

restricted to the developed and industrialized countries. According to Antoni (1982), the

prime task of the performance concept is to rationalize procedures and facilitate the

economic use of resources. He questions whether the lack of application of the approach

in developing countries is due to it being too sophisticated to be useful for, or used by,

those who have the most urgent needs, most scarce resources, and the largest problems.

He suggests that the approach would be of great value and a means of more effective

transfer of technologies to these countries. A problem with this argument is that it fails to

recognize that there might, in fact, be technologies that could be transferred, in the
 68

reverse direction as commonly accepted, from the developing countries to the developed

and industrialized countries.

Other arguments affecting the application of the performance approach in

developing countries revolve around whether the focus would be on other benefits such

as trade liberalization and expansion rather than on safety and health; and whether the

drive toward the performance approach constitutes a watered down approach to safety

and health. There have been many efforts to introduce performance-based32 concepts into

building codes33 and standards. When codes cover technical aspects of performance they

incorporate or refer to relevant standards, becoming users of standards. Clients for their

own assurance of performance also use standards.

Gibson (1982) suggests that standards34 retain the benefits of interchangeability

while being tools for reducing trade barriers and stimulating innovation. Some countries

have legislated the functional or qualitative level of the performance concept that

32
Other performance concepts that might be applicable to safety and health have been
explored. ‘Performance oriented’ refers to being concerned with making adjustments or
adaptations in relation to facts, principles or particular situations. Safety and health
training could be described as being performance-oriented since it should empower
workers to be able to make adjustments to particular hazardous situations or adapt to
changing environments to ensure their safety. On the other hand, management should
become more ‘performance directed’ in their management styles. By this is meant that
management should manage all construction by the shortest uninterrupted course of
action to achieve the goal or objective of safety for their workers.
33
A building code or regulation refers to a document, typically legal, used by a local,
state, provincial or national governing body to control building practice, through a set of
statements of acceptable minimum requirements of building performance. These vary
from country to country, or locality to locality, because acceptable requirements are
usually established based on socio-political and/or community considerations (Foliente et
al., 1998).
 69

provides the intent of the law, offering some examples of situations that are deemed to

satisfy the concepts. Others have retained a mixture of detailed performance and

prescriptive requirements (CIB, 1997). The effectiveness of either approach has yet to be

tested.

The performance concept can be applied in a wide variety of circumstances, by a

wide range of people making various types of contribution to the design and construction

of buildings, and in a wide variety of ways (Gibson, 1982). These include:

− The design and construction of a continuing building program as well as a single

project;
− The development and marketing of building products, while appreciating the added
value of superior performance;
− The improved preparation and structuring of design guidance as a result of the
development of design methods and the increase in the volume of information
available to designers; and
− The control of construction quality and construction worker safety through inspection,
approval or certification, providing feedback from practice that is essential for the
continued refinement of performance criteria, and of design and evaluation methods.

The purposes served by each of these areas are listed in Table 3-2.

Examples of the Application of the Performance Approach

Attempts have been made to apply the performance approach in the energy-

efficient design of new commercial buildings (Briggs, 1992). In this case, standards and

guidelines based on the performance of an entire building provide maximum flexibility

for the designer to creatively address project requirements, while ensuring overall energy

efficiency.

34
A standard is essentially a technical document seeking to standardize some activity in
relation to building and construction, usually in terms of quality or performance, size or
procedure (Walker, 1997).
 70

Table 3-2 Examples of purposes served

Specific building projects Design data and guidance
Functional briefing Collection of basic data
Design delegation Validation and consistency of criteria and
Design competitioDesign methods
commissioning (sketch and detailed Structuring and organization of documents such as
design) checklists, general lists of performance
Design and build requirements, design data and aids, performance
Building system/method selection specifications, building regulations, standards,
Building component selection product literature and agrément certificates
Assembly and construction
Product development and Quality (and safety) control
marketing
Research and development Performance-based building regulations
Promotion and marketing Performance-based safety standards
Product literature Certification of products and systems
Source: Adapted from CIB (1982)

The performance standards provided incentives for the designers to innovate and

adopt new systems and materials. For example, a designer might be allowed to include

larger window areas in the design than would otherwise be permitted. In contrast,

prescriptive requirements provided no incentive for performance that exceeded the

required minimums and could even serve to freeze design practice at currently accepted

levels.

The objective of the Energy Sciences Department in the United States is to

surmount the technical challenges that have to be addressed if performance-based energy

standards are to be made practical and widely accepted by the construction industry.

These technical challenges include the capability to generate targets that are responsive to

the unique combinations of functions, site, energy and construction costs encountered in

most new commercial building projects. The challenge is also for the energy-performance

levels to be economically sound for them to be accepted, and be implemented so that they

are easy for designers to use.

 71

The fire protection and loss control industries describe the approach as the future

of loss control. The existing current fire safety design and approval processes, and codes

and standards inhibit the introduction and application of new technologies (Simenko,

1996). It is claimed that savings in the $170 billion spent on fire protection in the United

States could be brought about through a performance-based approach (Jones, 1997). The

approach is intended to provide flexibility in maintaining accepted fire safety levels while

ensuring life safety and reducing property loss. Performance-based requirements should

reduce design and construction costs, and maintenance and liability coverage costs.

The Australian Model Code for Residential Development (AMCORD) has

emphasized the use of an integrated performance-based approach to urban residential

development in new and existing urban areas in Australia. AMCORD suggests that this

approach provided a practical alternative to outdated prescriptive methods, flexibility in

development approaches, and encouraged more responsive development outcomes

(AMCORD, 1997). Further, the approach encouraged flexible and environmentally

responsive planning, containing clear site planning and design objectives supported by

simple statements of intent. AMCORD recognized that the performance approach

represented a shift in perspective. For instance, regulatory processes would be

streamlined resulting in fast track approvals of plans and minimization of bureaucracy.

The performance approach covered the entire range of residential development, from

subdivision planning to the design of single homes and large multi-unit developments.

The trucking industry in the United States has rejected the prescriptive one-size

fits all regulatory schemes for safety enforcement. Instead they have opted for
 72

performance-based regulations that provided drivers and companies with the flexibility

they needed to operate safely (American Trucking Association, 1998; Strah, 1996).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded in a study

conducted in Virginia that the previous prescriptive command-and-control approach to

the management of water quality was inefficient and ineffective (Kerns, 1991). This

approach was based on a fragmented pollutant-by-pollutant basis oriented toward specific

technologies to control each pollutant. The EPA emphasized the need to move beyond the

prescriptive approach of uniform, source-specific emission and effluent limits that were

backed by enforcement actions. This change in approach occurred due to the complexity

of the current water quality concerns requiring an equivalent complexity in responses.

The responses proved to be uneconomical and not cost-effective. They have subsequently

made use of a performance approach that included performance-based standards for

hazardous pollutants, and performance targets for reformulated fuels. The water quality

management industry was allowed to meet these emission reduction targets in the most

cost-effective way possible.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) has

recommended the development of performance-based standards for laboratory waste

management. These standards have proven to be very efficient in allocating compliance

resources to maximize the benefit to the environment (CDTSC, 1998). This reform would

result in a more efficient and effective system of managing laboratory waste, while

protecting health and the environment. Further, it was argued that these standards

appeared to suit laboratories well because of the variety and variability of laboratory

activities.
 73

While it has been held that the performance approach is unsuitable for large scale

projects, the Dutch Government Building Agency has applied the concept in the current

program for procuring new courthouses and tax offices, corresponding to an investment

volume of about $1 billion (Bröchner, Ang and Freriksson, 1999). These projects made

use of design-build contracts where the effect of using performance specifications was

more obvious as the design tasks were allocated to the contractor. The intention was to

take advantage of efforts and creativity in the private sector by allowing firms to come in

very early in the design phase. Interaction between architectural design, building physics,

and other design specialties was supported along with the link to environmental

assessment experts and decision support systems.

Chapter Summary

Some of the key literature on the performance concept and approach has been

reviewed regarding its conceptual nature, its advantages and disadvantages, and its

international appeal. Some of the terminology used to describe the approach has been

examined. The confusion, which exists as a consequence, has been considered.

Difficulties regarding implementation, application and enforcement have been identified

and discussed. In particular, the difficulties refer to the assessment of performance

criteria, and the knowledge base required. The available literature on the performance

approach is largely silent regarding the application of the performance concept to the

safety and health of construction workers. The reason for this omission is that

construction workers are not considered users of the building structure with user

requirements that have to, or should be satisfied by a performance approach. Examples

have been provided of the application of the performance approach, albeit not necessarily
 74

to construction worker safety and health. The regulatory issues suggested by the literature

pertaining to the design and implementation of a successful performance approach have

been discussed and examined. The commonalties and differences between various

regulatory approaches have been highlighted.

In the next chapter, examples of performance-based safety and health legislation

in Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Europe are examined. Legislation in the

United States that is largely prescriptive in nature is also considered.

 INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE-BASED SAFETY LEGISLATION

Introduction

Both legislators and safety professionals in the construction industry have held

that responsibility for safety and health should be placed on those indirectly involved in

construction as well as the contractors who actually carry out the works. Designers,

architects and, particularly, clients influence the construction process. Many accidents

would be avoided if that influence were used with accident prevention in mind - from

project inception through project execution and then throughout the life of the facility

until its final demise through demolition (Joyce, 1995; Berger, 1999).

Given the unique nature of the construction industry and the interdependence of

the large number of stakeholders, the teambuilding approach to construction safety and

health is pivotal to achieving safety and health on construction projects (Smallwood and

Haupt, 2000). The monumental task facing the construction industry is to encourage

every person involved in the design, management, and execution of construction projects

to give priority to safety and health issues which have until now failed to attract the

necessary attention, especially from clients and designers (Joyce, 1995). The exclusion of

health and safety from specifications, and health and safety being the sole responsibility

of the contractor have been identified as primary causes of accidents in construction

(Ngowi and Rwelamila, 1997).

The results of investigations in the U.S. into major catastrophes in construction

have shown that a lack of planning and engineering oversight has been a primary

75
 76

contributor to the cause of these failures (Lapping, 1997). Further, in a study conducted

in South Africa, planning was identified as the primary preventive action that could have

been taken in 40% of the cited cases (Szana and Smallwood, 1998). Additionally, in a

study into scaffolding accidents in the United States, South Africa, and Turkey, designing

for safety and enforcement of regulations and standards were suggested as reasonably

practicable preventive precautions (Müngen, et al., 1998).

The poor safety and health performance record of the construction industry has

resulted in safety and health regulations around the world being subjected to major

revisions during the last three decades.

In this chapter, the approach is examined that is advocated by the Council

Directive 92/57/EEC that forms the basis for construction worker safety and health

legislation in Europe, The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDMR)

1994 in the United Kingdom, The National Model Regulations, and the National Code of

Practice for the Control of Workplace Hazardous Substances 1994 in Australia, and the

Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and Regulations 1995 in New Zealand.

These examples of safety and health legislation are performance-based and have as their

main thrust the redistribution of responsibility for health and safety on construction sites

away from the contractor to include clients and planning professionals (ILO, 1992;

Lorent, 1999; Caldwell, 1999). Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970 (OSHA) in the United States is also examined, as legislation that is largely

prescriptive in nature, but is slowly moving toward a performance approach.

 77

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDMR) of 1994

The CDMR were introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in March 1995 in

compliance with the European Union Council Directive 92/57/EEC in 1992, in terms of

which all European Union member states were to implement the terms of the directive

into national legislation by 1994. The directive was, however, not implemented in its

entirety by the CDMR. Rather the CDMR implemented the organizational and

management aspects (Caldwell, 1999). The regulations were, additionally, a response to

the study conducted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which recorded that

during the period 1981 through 1985, 739 people were killed in the construction sector

(Munro, 1996). An analysis of the main causes of accidents in UK construction revealed

the following:

− A lack of supervision by line managers in the industry;

− Inadequate equipping of workers to identify dangers and to take steps to protect
themselves from these; and
− A lack of coordination between the members of the professional team at the pre-
construction phase (Joyce, 1995).

They were consequently designed to provide a legislative framework aimed at

achieving cooperation and coordination in the drive to improve construction safety and

health on construction sites.

The regulations promote the teamwork approach during the design and

construction life of construction projects, which was advocated by Sir Michael Latham in

his 1994 report, Constructing the Team. They place new responsibilities and duties on

clients, designers, and contractors (Caldwell, 1999). The CDMR carry a criminal sanction

of up to 2 years imprisonment and unlimited fines for noncompliance with their

provisions. The primary objective of the CDMR is to ensure proper consideration of

 78

safety and health issues throughout each phase of the construction process from project

inception through to the eventual demise of the building by demolition (Tyler and Pope,

1999). The CDMR have been described as a management solution. They involve

coordination in a notoriously fragmented industry as well as the integration of the major

participants in the construction process.

Major distinguishing characteristics of this legislation include:

− A departure from the traditionally prescriptive or ‘deemed-to-comply’ or ‘command-

and-control’ approaches to a performance-based approach in terms of which no
standards for compliance are set;
− The compelling of safety and health management as an obligation into the planning
and design of virtually all but the smallest of construction projects;
− Emphasis on the identification of construction hazards and the assessment of risks to
eliminate, avoid or at the very least reduce perceived risks;
− Consideration of safety and health issues not just during the construction life of the
project, but from project inception through to the final demise of the facility by
demolition, including the operation, utilization and maintenance periods;
− The redistribution of responsibility for construction worker safety away from the
contractor, who was previously solely responsible, to include all participants in the
construction process from the client through to the end-user;
− The introduction of a new participant to the construction process, the planning
supervisor, with responsibility to coordinate the other participants and documents to
facilitate better management of safety and health on construction projects;
− Mandatory safety and health plans as instruments facilitating exchange and
communication of safety and health issues between all participants in the construction
process, on all ‘notifiable’ projects where the construction phase is longer than 30 days
or will involve more than 500 person days, and where there are more than 5 persons
carrying out construction work at any one time; and
− Mandatory compilation of a safety and health file by the planning supervisor to be
handed over to the client upon completion of the facility.

The CDMR acknowledge the roles of each participant in construction. For

example, whereas designers were not previously extensively involved in giving advice

about systematic consideration of health and safety issues, they are now required to avoid

foreseeable risks as a duty for all construction projects.

 79

The establishment cost to the industry in the UK was calculated to be in the

region of $825 million with the cost of compliance by designers an additional annual

amount of about $435 million. The practical implications of CDMR are set out below in

some detail to facilitate easy comparison between the UK and European Economic

Community positions:

Client

Once the client decides to proceed with a construction project, the initiative to

apply the CDMR lies with the client. The client, or client’s agent, has an obligation under

the CDMR to appoint a planning supervisor and principal contractor.

Planning Supervisor

The role of the planning supervisor includes ensuring the preparation of a project-

specific safety and health plan, the monitoring of safety and health aspects of the project

design, the provision of adequate advice to the client and any contractor, and ensuring the

preparation of a project-specific safety and health file. Further, the planning supervisor

has the responsibility to ensure that all members of the professional team liase and

communicate within a management framework on all safety and health issues.

Principal Contractor

In terms of the CDMR, the principal contractor is responsible to take over and

further develop the safety and health plan of the project, coordinate the activities of other

contractors as well as provide information, training and consultation with all employees

to minimize risks to safety and health.

 80

Designer

The designer is required under the CDMR to ensure that the design avoids

unnecessary risks to health and safety or reduces the risks so that the project can be

constructed and maintained safely. The risk to safety and health produced by a design

feature must be weighed against the cost of excluding the feature entirely by designing to

avoid risks to safety and health, tackling the causes of risks at source, or if not possible,

reducing and controlling the effects of risks by appropriate means aimed at protecting

anyone at work who might be affected by the risks and, in so doing, yielding the greatest

benefit. Additionally, the designer has the responsibility to keep the client informed of

duties that will arise as a result of the project design.

Other Contractors

All contractors are to co-operate with the principal contractor with regard to

safety and health risks arising or likely to arise from their own work on site.

Prior Notice

A prior notice must generally be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive

responsible for safety and health at work on all construction sites where the construction

phase will be longer than 30 working days, and on which more than 5 workers are

employed at the same time, or on which the amount of construction work to be carried

out will involve more than 500 person-days. This notice must be periodically updated if

necessary and be displayed on the construction site.

 81

Health and Safety Plan

The health and safety plan is the instrument that facilitates the exchange and

communication of safety and health issues between all participants in the construction

process. During the pre-construction phase the plan is prepared using information from

the client, designers, and planning supervisor. Prior to commencement of the project

works the plan is further developed by the principal contractor to include details of safety

and health risk management and prevention which arise due to the construction activities

of contractors and sub-contractors. The safety plan is subject to continuous review and

amendment as construction progresses.

The information contained in the health and safety plan, while it is project-

specific, should include provisions covering the following:

− General;
− Program;
− Existing off-site conditions;
− Existing on-site conditions;
− Existing records;
− The design;
− Construction materials;
− Site layout and management;
− Relationship with the client’s undertaking;
− Site rules; and
− Procedures for the continuing review of the health and safety plan (Joyce 1995).

Health and Safety File

The planning supervisor is required under the CDMR to compile a health and

safety file to be handed to the client upon completion of the project.

The following information should be included in the health and safety file:

− Historic site data;

− Site survey information;
− Site investigation reports and records;
− Photographic record of essential site elements;
 82

− Statement of design philosophy, calculations, and applicable design standards;

− Drawings and plans used throughout the construction process, including drawings
prepared for tender purposes;
− Record drawings and plans of the completed structure;
− Maintenance instructions;
− Instructions on the handling and/or operation of equipment together with the relevant
maintenance manuals;
− Results of proofing or load tests;
− Commissioning test results;
− Materials used in the structure identifying, in particular, hazardous materials including
data sheets prepared and supplied by suppliers;
− Identification and specification of in-built safety features, for example, emergency and
fire fighting systems and fail-safe devices; and
− Method statements produced by the principal contractor and/or contractors (ACOP
1995).

Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992

The Council of European Communities committed itself to ensuring greater

protection of the safety and health of construction workers through the adoption of

minimum requirements for encouraging improvements in working environments on

construction sites to ensure a better level of protection. In particular, increased

responsibility was placed on employers accompanied by new obligations for workers and

greater involvement by all participants in the construction process – owners to workers –

in the management of risks (Lorent, 1999). The imposition of additional administrative,

financial, and legal constraints that would impact negatively on small and medium-sized

undertakings was not intended. Rather the Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992

was designed to guarantee the safety and health of workers on construction sites in the

European Community wherever building or civil engineering works were carried out. The

Directive was transposed into national law in most member countries of the European

Union with minor changes in the management or personnel structure and/or the safety

measures advanced by the original Directive. In some countries the adoption of the
 83

Directive was necessitated by the need for organizational change due to developments to

improve the cohesion of the construction process and communication, as well as the

structural changes caused by the cluster of sub-contracting arrangements characterizing

their construction industries (Lorent, 1999).

The Commission recognized that more than 50% of occupational accidents on

construction sites were attributable to unsatisfactory architectural and/or organizational

options, or poor planning of the works at the project preparation stage (Lorent, 1999).

Moreover, the Commission recognized that large numbers of accidents resulted from

inadequate coordination especially where various undertakings worked simultaneously or

in succession at the same construction site. This recognition represented a major

paradigm shift. Previously all responsibility for safety and health on construction sites

was attributed solely to contractors. The provisions of the Directive were directed to

bring about a cultural change to improve the poor safety culture prevalent within the

industry (Schaefer and De Munck, 1999).

The main distinguishing features of the Directive include:

− The performance-based nature of the provisions of the Directive;

− Ensuring that safety and health issues are taken into account through all phases of the
construction process, extending to the operation, utilization, and maintenance periods,
and the final demise of the facility through demolition;
− The redistribution of responsibility for construction worker safety away from the
contractor, who was previously solely responsible, to include all participants in the
construction process from the client through to the end-user;
− The introduction of the project supervisor who is responsible, while acting for the
client, for all applicable general safety and health requirements during the stages of
design and project preparation, including ensuring that the safety and health plans and
files are accordingly adjusted;
− The appointment of one or more safety and health coordinators by the client or the
project supervisor, for either or both the project preparations and project execution
stages, their duties in terms of each stage being different;
− The compilation of mandatory safety and health plans by the client or project
supervisor before actual work commences on site;
 84

− The giving of a prior notice, which must be updated periodically and displayed on the
construction site, submitted to the authorities responsible for safety and health at work
on all construction sites where the work is scheduled to last longer than 30 working
days, and on which more than 20 workers are employed at the same time, or on which
the amount of work to be carried out is scheduled to be more than 500 person-days;
− The mandatory preparation of a file appropriate to the characteristics of the project
containing relevant safety and health information to be taken into account during any
subsequent works; and
− The fact that the entire Directive, together with all annexures, is contained in a total of
17 pages.

The following are typical examples of performance-based standards taken from

the Council Directive:

Scaffolding and ladders

− All scaffolding must be properly designed, constructed and maintained to ensure that it
does not collapse or move accidentally.
− Work platforms, gangways and scaffolding stairways must be constructed,
dimensioned, protected and used in such a way as to prevent people from falling or
exposed to falling objects.

Demolition work
− Where the demolition of a building or construction may present a danger:
− appropriate precautions, methods and procedures must be adopted; and
− the work must be planned and undertaken only under the supervision of a competent
person.

These sections are the equivalent of OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subparts L (1926.450-

453) and T (1926.850-860). The actual text of sections of the applicable OSHA standards

is given in the section dealing with OSHA.

Resistance to change in any form is normal and is to be expected. Reaction to this

directive was no different. Architects, in particular, across Europe felt very

uncomfortable with this change in responsibility from the contractor to the client who

was required to take appropriate steps regarding safety and health in the planning and

execution of a construction project. Further, the client was responsible for organizing the

work on the construction site in such a way that risks to life and health were avoided as
 85

far as is possible, and where not possible, to maintain residual risk at the lowest level

possible (Berger, 2000). The practical implications of Council Directive 92/57/EEC

follow:

Project Supervisor

The project supervisor while acting on behalf of the client is responsible for the

design, and/or execution, and/or supervision of the execution of a project. The directive

requires that the project supervisor take cognizance of all applicable general safety and

health requirements during the stages of design and project preparation. Additionally the

project supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the safety and health plans and files are

accordingly adjusted.

Safety and Health Coordinators

The directive requires one or more safety and health coordinators to be appointed

by the client or the project supervisor. Coordinators may be appointed for either or both

the project preparations and project execution stages and their duties in terms of each

stage are different.

Regarding the project preparations stage safety and health coordinators are

responsible for the coordination of the implementation of the provisions that

consequently arise out of the involvement of the project supervisor in the design and

project preparation stages. Further they are responsible for the formulation of a safety and

health plan as well as a file containing all the relevant safety and health information

applicable to the project.

During the project execution stage coordinators are required to coordinate all

aspects of safety and health relative to the project and ensure strict compliance with all
 86

such provisions. Additionally they are required to facilitate cooperation between all

contractors on the site, ensure that safe working procedures are followed and that only

authorized persons are allowed onto the construction site. These coordinators do not

relieve the client or project supervisor of any of their responsibilities in terms of the

construction project.

Safety and Health Plan

Additionally, the client or the project supervisor is responsible for the compilation

of a safety and health plan before actual work begins on site. These safety plans must

take into account the work involving particular risks listed in Annex II of the directive.

Prior Notice

A prior notice must be submitted to the authorities responsible for safety and

health at work on all construction sites where the work is scheduled to last longer than 30

working days and on which more than 20 workers are employed at the same time, or on

which the amount of work to be carried out is scheduled to be more than 500 person-

days. This notice must be periodically updated if necessary and be displayed on the

construction site.

Obligations of Employers

The directive in no way absolves employers from their responsibilities toward

their workers, and require them to take measures in compliance with the minimum safety

and health requirements for construction sites as set out in Annex IV of the directive.
 87

Workers

All workers must be informed and kept informed of all measures to be taken

regarding their safety and health on the construction site. They are to be involved on a

consultative and participatory basis in all matters of safety pertaining to their activities at

the workplace.

Concerns

However, concerns remain among many of the member countries of the EU about

the cost to implement the revised structure embodied in the provisions of the Directive.

This cost has been estimated to range between 0.2 and 2% of the total project cost

distributed on the basis of 35% for coordination during the project preparation phase and

65% during the project execution phase (Lorent, 1999; Berger, 1999).

Further, there is concern about the lack of a standard and simplified system of

reporting construction-related accidents, injuries, fatalities and diseases which might have

been embodied in the Directive (Papaioannou, 1999; McCabe, 1999; Casals and Salgado,

1999; Onsten and Patay, 1999). This lack makes it difficult to conduct comparative

analyses of the effectiveness and impact of the introduction and implementation of the

Directive in member countries on the safety performance of the industry on a country-by-

country basis. This difficulty was encountered first hand when trying to conduct the

international survey described earlier.

Additionally, there is confusion in some countries about the need for and content

of the project-specific safety and health plan (Onsten and Patay, 1999; Casals and

Salgado, 1999; Caldwell, 1999). A final concern revolves around the poorly defined

competence and qualification requirements of project supervisors and safety coordinators

 88

with mutual recognition of training and development programs and qualifications

(McCabe, 1999; Dias, 1999; Gottfried, 1999; Casals and Salgado, 1999; Caldwell, 1999).

Australian Regulations and Legislation

It was realized in Australia that it would be impossible to draft appropriate

standards to cover each of the between 21000 and 37,000 chemicals individually that are

used in Australian workplaces. It was recognized further that specific substance controls

were insufficient to deal with the wide range of workplace situations where large

numbers of hazardous substances were used.

The National Model Regulations, and the National Code of Practice for the

Control of Workplace Hazardous Substances, of 1994 are consequently generic rather

than substance-specific. They provide cover for all hazardous substances used in

workplaces throughout Australia. The model regulations apply to all workplaces where

hazardous substances are used or produced, and to all persons with potential exposure to

hazardous substances in those workplaces (Lawson, 1996).

The regulatory package is an example of performance-based regulations. The

health and safety outcomes are specified in the regulation, but not the means to achieve

them, as has been the case for previous prescriptive Australian safety and health

regulations and legislation of the past. The regulations provide a comprehensive approach

to the control of health risks from exposure to hazardous substances by setting the

outcomes to be achieved and by setting the processes to be followed. They do not

prescribe how risks must be controlled. The regulations give industry the flexibility to

select the most appropriate control measures for different workplace conditions, based on

the identification and assessment of risk (Lawson, 1996).

 89

A risk management process is incorporated in the National Model Regulations for

the Control of Workplace Hazardous Substances. Features of this process include:

− Establishment of the context regarding scope and objective. The regulations apply to
all workplaces where hazardous substances are encountered in the course of work. The
objective of the regulations is to minimize the risk of adverse health effects due to
exposure to hazardous substances.
− Identification of hazards or risks. Hazardous substances used at work need to be
provided with labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). Workers, who will
potentially be exposed to hazardous substances used in a work activity, need to be
provided with information and training on the nature of the hazards. Workers need to
participate in the hazard identification process, which begins with the manufacture or
importation of the hazardous substance. Manufacturers and importers produce, review,
and revise MSDS for all hazardous substances that they supply. Suppliers provide
appropriate labeling on all containers of hazardous substances supplied for use at
work. Employers identify hazardous substances in the workplace by reference to the
MSDS or labels.
− Risk assessment. This assessment includes the identification of any hazardous
substance used or produced in that work, review of information about hazardous
substances, and identification of any risk of exposure to any hazardous substance used
or produced in that work.
− Risk control. Employers need to select appropriate measures to achieve and sustain
control, arrange induction and training, and determine if monitoring or health
surveillance is required. These aspects are covered in the National Code of Practice.

When evaluating the effectiveness of the new performance risk management style

regulations when compared with the former prescriptive, rules-based approach, Gun

(1994) referred to the report of the Health and Safety Executive in the UK, where it was

established that there had been significant improvements in the assessment and control of

risks arising from hazardous substances in the workplace since the introduction of the

new regulations. There had been a greater awareness of risks from hazardous substances

resulting in improved management strategies to prevent and control risks. The increased

awareness resulted in the detection of an increased amount of chemical-related morbidity.

About 49% of the survey respondents reported more efficient use of chemicals, and a

similar percentage reported a range of other benefits including better management of

 90

plant. The regulations had enabled companies to focus on the individual realities of their

own workplaces and develop appropriate and effective action.

Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and Regulations 1995

The New Zealand Building Code (NZBC) is an integrated performance-based

code, divided into clauses, that sets out descriptions of objectives, general functional

requirements, and specific mandatory performances that must be achieved to comply with

the law (Table 4-1).

Methods for compliance are not prescribed. The NZBC originated from building

industry requests for reform dating back to 1979 with a Ministry of Works and

Development sponsored research project. It was the culmination of 10 years research at

Victoria University of Wellington in the School of Architecture Industry Research Group

and Centre for Building Performance Research under the direction of Dr. Helen Tippett35 ,

and the service of five people for four years to reform the existing national building

regulatory system.

Table 4-1 Example of a performance code from the New Zealand Building Code
Objective F4.1
The objective of this provision is to safeguard people from injury
caused by falling
Functional F4.2
Requirement Buildings shall be constructed to reduce the likelihood of accidental
fall
Performance F4.3.1
Where people could fall 1 meter or more from an opening in the
external envelope or floor of a building, or from a sudden change of
level within or associated with a building, a barrier shall be provided

35
An electronic interview was conducted on 9 December 1999 with Dr. Helen Tippett on
performance-based codes - refer to Appendix B
 91

The national building code had to be performance oriented (Building Industry

Authority, 2000), consistent with public interest, and within a suitable economic

framework regarding efficiency and accountability underlying the restructuring of the

New Zealand economy. The NZBC aimed to encourage innovative design and advance

technology applications in the most cost effective way by allowing ‘alternative solutions’

in that the NZ government established the why and what was to be controlled whereas the

industry, researchers and academics provided the know-how and how much.

The code, and its performance base, is regarded as the best building control tool to

encourage innovation, remove barriers to international trade, and to minimize the

guessing game of why regulators insist upon particular prescriptive requirements (Hunt

and Killip, 1998). These benefits are being gained through a custom-made administrative

legislative framework uniquely designed for New Zealand.

The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HSE Act) shows the confidence

which the New Zealand government has in the performance approach. It extends the

application of the performance approach to worker safety and health. The HSE Act has

reformed the law and many separate regulations and altered their nature from a

prescriptive base to a performance-based platform of legislation. In this way, it provides,

for the first time, comprehensive coverage and a consistency of approach to the

management of safety and health in all workplaces. Responsibilities and obligations of all

participants in the construction process have changed to include everyone. It is intended

to reduce the amount of legislation and change the emphasis from the control of specific

hazards to managing risks in relation to work activities. The emphasis moved from a

prescriptive base to that of a performance base and has a five-level format; similar to the
 92

Nordic Five Level System described earlier. The HSE Act provides comprehensive

coverage for all work situations, clearly defines responsibilities, promotes systems for

identifying hazards and dealing with them, enforces involvement of employees in health

and safety issues along with requirements for health and safety training and education.

It has been claimed that attitudes toward safety and health have improved

throughout all industries. The guidelines to the HSE Act regarding the construction

industry include checklists to aid in identification of risks, and the assessment and control

of those risks. Some key features of the HSE Act follow:

Objective

The principle objective of the HSE Act is to prevent harm to workers while at

work. All principals (or clients) are expected to ensure that actions at work do not result

in harm to employees of contractors or sub-contractors, including members of the public.

Locus of Performance

Under the HSE Act, the principle responsibility is to take ‘all practicable steps’ to

ensure the health and safety of everyone carrying out work of any kind throughout all

stages of a construction project, including those who might be affected by the project,

such as the general public (Site Safe, 1999). This obligation is not simply a reactive one

but rather a proactive one.

Rogers (2000) cites the case of Mair v Regina Ltd. where the judge observed the

nature of this obligation as: ‘The Act contains a new philosophy... it requires employers

to be proactive... employers are now required to be analytical in providing or maintaining

a safe working environment. It is not just a matter of meeting minimum standards and

codes lay down by statute. It requires employers to go further and set down their own
 93

standards commensurate with the principal object of the Act, after due analysis and

criticism.’

Management of Hazards

The HSE Act sets out a hierarchy for action to limit the effects of work hazards.

This involves the following:

− Identification of the hazards by breaking work into elements, identifying activities

within elements and extracting known hazards from checklists and allocating to
activities; and
− Evaluation of the significance and consequent management of the hazards by the
following hierarchy:
− Elimination;
− Isolation; and if elimination or isolation is not possible
− Minimization.

Responsibilities of Principals

A principal is someone who forms a contract with a third party to carry out a

building project or any part of such a project. Although the client has responsibility as a

principal, other members of the project team can be principals at any one time, and all

key participants in the construction process have a duty to provide for the health and

safety needs of their own areas of operation (Site Safe, 1999). The following are some of

the issues which principals need to consider:

− Designers and consultants possess adequate safety and health knowledge, expertise
and experience;
− Contract periods and budgets make provision for safety and health aspects to be
included in the project;
− Assessment of the ability of contractors to manage and control safety and health on the
project;
− Provision for on-site safety and health monitoring;
− Provision of all relevant safety and health information such as known hazards, to
consultants and contractors; and
− On-going coordination of information and activities between all participants in the
construction of the project (Rogers, 1999; Site Safe, 1999)
 94

Responsibilities of Employers

Employers are responsible under the HSE Act 1992 to identify hazards and ensure

that the proper controls are in place to manage them regarding the threat that they pose to

employees and the general public. Regular reviews of the workplace have to conducted to

ensure the effectiveness of the controls and to identify new hazards. Employers are

required to provide adequate supervision and training to employees in the safe use of all

plant, equipment and protective clothing that they may use or handle. Further they are

required to record all accidents and investigate all accidents and near misses.

Additionally, all employees have to be involved in the development of emergency

procedures.

Responsibilities of Employees

Employees are responsible for their own safety and that of their fellow workers as

far as practicable.

Additional Comments on NZBC

Consequent to a request for information of the performance approach to

construction worker safety and health via cnbr-l, an international list serve, Dr. Helen

Tippett from the Victoria University of Wellington, responded. She had been one of the

leading experts involved in the development of the New Zealand Building Act and

Building Code during the period 1980 through 1990. Eleven open questions were

submitted to her (Appendix B).

These questions were intended to determine the motivation for the change from

the former prescriptive approach in favor of the performance approach, the initial impact

and reception of this change on and by industry participants, and the effect on the safety
 95

and health performance of the industry. Some of the answers to the questions are

contained in Table 4-2. On the suggestion by Dr. Helen Tippett, six open questions were

submitted to Dr. Bill Porteous36 , the Chief Executive of Building Industry Authority

(BIA) in New Zealand (Appendix E). The answers to some of the questions are set out in

Table 4-3.

Table 4-2 Selected answers to questions on NZBC

Question Answer
What prompted New Zealand to Industry submission to government in 1981 pointing
develop and then adopt a out that the cost of multiple prescriptive regulatory
performance-based building systems was not commensurate with public benefit.
regulatory system? Change of government in 1985 with a strong
deregulation agenda.
How was the transition from the old Mixed feelings and skepticism that it would encourage
code to the new code received by all innovation or more cost effective compliance.
participants in the construction
process?
Has the new code in any way Yes, accredited private certifiers, accredited products,
impacted the structure of the industry more consistent territorial authority granting of
and organizations? building consents, responsibility of owner for ongoing
compliance.
How was the change managed? New Building Act of Parliament and new national
authority (Building Industry Authority)
What was the cost involved in the Significant
transformation?
Has the code improved the To some extent - the opportunity for improvement is
performance of the industry? greater than actual
Would such an approach work in the Yes, refer BIA and subsequent legislation (HSE Act)
area of construction worker safety and
health?

Concerns

The results of research conducted in 1997 indicated several areas of concern (Site

Safe, 2000) that needed to be addressed if the safety and health record of construction

36
An electronic interview was conducted on 23 October 1999 with Dr. Bill Porteous, the
Chief Executive of Building Industry Authority in New Zealand on performance-based
codes - refer to Appendix E
 96

were to improve further. Before the production of a Guidelines document, the roles and

responsibilities of the various participants in the construction process for safety and

health were unclear. There was little reliable information on actual injury rates and safety

practices. There had until recently been no systematic analysis of injury patterns or

planning of injury prevention activities. The tendering or procurement process

encouraged participants to cut corners to reduce project costs. Some clients had only a

paper compliance to avoid prosecution. Some participants considered rewards for safe

practices from the ACC experience rating system insignificant. Most participants viewed

ISO 9000 registration as expensive and ineffective in enhancing injury prevention.

Further, workers’ compensation insurers focused on claims and injury management rather

than on injury prevention. There was inadequate information about injury prevention

methods regarding both equipment and procedures. Tight project timelines, poor

housekeeping or untidy construction sites, and carelessness were identified as the largest

contributing factors to accidents.

Table 4-3 Selected answers to questions on NZBC by the BIA

Question Answer
How has the introduction of the new No measurable effect so far as we are aware
code (NZBC) impacted the structure of
the construction industry itself and also
construction firms?
Was there any large scale resistance to No ‘large scale resistance’ was observed
the change in legislative approach?
What was the cost involved in bringing Not known. As with any change to the law of the land
about the transformation? the cost fell mainly on the taxpayer. The cost of
learning to work within the new regime has not been
quantified but would have been borne by both local
government and the building industry.
Has the code improved the We would say ‘yes’ because innovation has been
performance of the industry? encouraged and alternative solutions accepted.
 97

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970

OSHA in the United States applies specifically to employers, which in

construction are contractors. Consequently, contractors have been held solely responsible

for safety and health on construction sites in the United States. There is considerable

resistance to any attempt to shift the liability for safety to include other participants in the

construction process such as manufacturers, suppliers, and designers. These interest

groups have considerable lobbying power to prevent changes to current legislation.

Manufacturers and suppliers for example shift the liability for the products they

manufacture or supply to contractors in the form of various data sheets (MSDSs).

The OSHA standards have historically been formulated on the basis of traditional

prescriptive and ‘deemed-to-comply’ approaches. Contractors are required to comply

rigidly with the provisions of the standards. Noncompliance is censured in the form of

punitive fines.

The OSHA regulations cannot, and do not, cover every conceivable work

condition or situation. Construction contractors hold the position that each project process

and design is unique and compliance with a rigid set of rules is not feasible (Lapping,

1997). In cases where the regulations do not cover a particular situation, contractors have

to apply to OSHA to obtain permission to deviate from the applicable standard.

Historically, the requests for these variances have been relatively few, and the number of

variances actually granted tends to be even smaller (Hinze, 1997).

The OSHA standards for construction consist of over 200 sections, and more than

1000 subsections, ranging from short paragraphs to several pages. The sections are

grouped into 26 subparts (A through Z). Examples of prescriptive codes for demolition

work and scaffold platforms are supplied in Figure 4-2.

 98

The effort to change the culture of the current regulatory system enjoys support at

the highest level of government. Contractors have requested the government to allow

them the flexibility to choose the means and methods to perform their operations

(Lapping, 1997). Federal regulatory agencies have begun to write rules that satisfy this

request for flexibility by the construction industry (Lapping, 1997). It has been

recognised that developing tailored and cost-effective standards, as well as altering or

eliminating existing rules that are obsolete or no longer make sense, have to be supported

by sound science and good information.

The following example of a prescriptive code covering demolitions is drawn from

OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart T 850(k):

Employee entrances to multi-story structures being demolished shall be

completely protected by sidewalk sheds or canopies, or both, providing
protection from the face of the building for a minimum of 8 feet. All such
canopies shall be at least 2 feet wider than the building entrances or
openings (1 foot wider on each side thereof), and shall be capable of
sustaining a load of 150 pounds per square foot. Employee entrances to
multi-story structures being demolished shall be completely protected by
sidewalk sheds or canopies, or both, providing protection from the face of
the building for a minimum of 8 feet. All such canopies shall be at least 2
feet wider than the building entrances or openings (1 foot wider on each
side thereof), and shall be capable of sustaining a load of 150 pounds per
square foot.

The following example of a prescriptive code covering scaffolding platforms is

drawn from OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L 451 Scaffolding:

(b) ‘Scaffold platform construction.’

(b)(1)(ii) …. the platform shall be planked or decked as fully as possible

and the remaining open space between the platform and the uprights shall
not exceed 9 1/2 inches (24.1 cm).

(b)(2) Except as provided in paragraphs of this section, each scaffold

platform and walkway shall be at least 18 inches (46 cm) wide.
 99

(b)(5)(I) Each end of a platform 10 feet or less in length shall not extend
over its support more than 12 inches (30 cm) …

(b)(5)(ii) Each platform greater than 10 feet in length shall not extend
over its support more than 18 inches (46 cm), unless it is designed and
installed so that the cantilevered portion of the platform is able to support
employees without tipping, or has guardrails which block employee access
to the cantilevered end.

(b)(7) On scaffolds where platforms are overlapped to create a long

platform, the overlap shall occur only over supports, and shall not be less
than 12 inches (30 cm) unless the platforms are nailed together or
otherwise restrained to prevent movement.

There is increasing support for a move away from the traditional focus on strict

compliance with procedural requirements and heavy fines for noncompliance in favour of

a system based on results or outcomes. At the same time, compliance assistance will be

offered when the requirements are not met. To this end, OSHA for example, has been

pilot testing a system which will give both construction managers and workers the

primary responsibility for ensuring safety and health at their individual work sites.

For its part, OSHA, in a May, 1995 report, entitled ‘The New OSHA,’ has

committed itself to promoting common sense regulations, encouraging partnerships, and

eliminating red tape, while at the same time ensuring greater safety and healthier working

conditions for American workers (Office of Management and Budget 1996). To achieve

these improvements, OSHA is:

− Offering incentives to employers with good safety and health programmes;

− Either eliminating or amending outdated and confusing standards;
− Improving consultation with stakeholders in the construction industry; and
− Establishing performance measures that evaluate programmes based on safety and
health results and outcomes.

The August 1996 revision of the OSHA standard protecting approximately 2.3

million workers on scaffolds in the construction industry is an example of a performance-

 100

based approach. The standard establishes performance-based criteria, where possible, to

protect employees from scaffold-related hazards such as falls, falling objects, structural

stability, electrocution, and overloading (Office of Management and Budget 1996).

Employers are allowed greater flexibility in the use of fall protection systems to protect

workers on scaffolds. This flexibility extends to workers erecting and dismantling

scaffolds. The training of workers using scaffolds is also strengthened. Further, the

standard specifies when retraining is required. According to estimates, the new standard

will prevent 4,500 injuries and 50 deaths annually, saving construction employers at least

$90 million in annual costs resulting from lost workdays due to scaffold-related injuries.

Chapter Summary

The benefits of the adoption of the Council Directive 92/57/EEC in Europe, the

CDMR in the UK, National Model Regulations and the National Code of Practice for the

Control of Workplace Hazardous Substances in Australia, and HSE Act 1992 and

Regulations 1995 in New Zealand have not been extensively measured and evaluated yet.

It is anticipated that the paradigm shift promoted by this type of regulatory framework

will have positive results for the construction industry and contribute to the common

vision of accident free construction on construction sites. Further, for the fully successful

introduction of a performance-based code an effective and efficient administrative and

legal underpinning must support it.

The value of the CDMR, Council Directive 92/57/EEC, and HSE, in particular,

lies in the requirements of all participants in the construction process to make safety and

health a mandatory priority in a structured way. They are performance-based, permitting

flexibility in dealing with safety and health issues and the relationships, which are
 101

common for construction projects. Additionally, they provide a framework within which

all the activities of all participants in the construction process, are coordinated and

managed in an effort to ensure the safety of those involved with, or affected by,

construction. It must be noted though that there are still several serious concerns about

these legislative frameworks.

While OSHA is still largely prescriptive in nature, there are signs of increasing

acceptance of a paradigm shift toward a performance-based approach. There is a steadily

growing recognition that new approaches are necessary to arrest the incidence of

accidents and fatalities on construction sites around the United States. A willingness to

shift liability for safety away from contractors to include other participants in the

construction process is necessary, but seems unlikely against present resistance.

In the next chapter, implementation issues surrounding the performance approach

in the area of construction worker safety and health are discussed.

 IMPLEMENTING THE PERFORMANCE APPROACH

Introduction

The tendency to protect self, family, and friends is a natural one that has been

evident throughout the history of the human race. However, people have invariably been

willing to take chances in exchange for possible gains - sometimes with tragic

consequences. Accident prevention is not the priority that it should be, for the most part,

due to ignorance of hazards and the magnitude and consequences of potential accidents.

The question might be asked whether it is necessary to construct and enforce

safety and health standards, codes and regulations. It seems that while people in positions

of responsibility should consider the welfare of others as a matter of conscience, they

frequently fail to uphold standards of safety and health, either from ignorance or from

selfishness.

This chapter presents the basis for the implementation of the performance

approach to construction worker safety and health. Since the implementation process

might require several changes within construction firms, we discuss the requirements and

management of change. Further, we discuss briefly the evolution of safety and health

legislation.

Change and Change Management

The many forces of change rooted in the prevailing social, economic, and political

conditions have created enormous pressure on all organizations to respond or risk

102
 103

stagnation and decline (Bonvillian, 1997). In particular, organizations have to cope with

globalization of the economy, new market opportunities, technological advancements,

emergence of new management approaches and paradigms, and appropriate response to

the needs of workers.

All people and organizations are affected by change. According to Bennis (1993:

19),

‘if change has now become a permanent and accelerating factor in

American life, then adaptability to change becomes increasingly the most
important single determinant of survival. The profit, the saving, the
efficiency, and the morale of the moment become secondary to keeping
the door open for rapid readjustment to changing conditions.’

Weatherall (1995) goes even further by claiming that continuing change will be

the constant in this present next century. Change has been described as being ‘pervasive,

important and most frustratingly, elusive’ (Weston, 1998:78). It is painful, illuminating,

and time-consuming (Diamond, 1998). It is a process of transition and transformation of

people and systems.

Change that might be temporary or permanent may, according to Whetton (2000)

be broadly characterized into

− Functional change;
− Operational change;
− Novel change; and
− Repetitive change.

One of the most salient features of human behavior is resistance to change

(Marshall, 1994), especially transformational change (Almaraz, 1994; Almaraz and

Margulies, 1998). Generally, people are hesitant to accept change if it was not their idea

and they had no part in developing it. Some reasons, according to Nadler (1988) why

people resist or reject change include:

 104

− Fear of the unknown;

− Possibility of economic insecurity;
− Threats to social relationships; and
− Failure to recognize the need for change.

Other reasons include:

− Lack of confidence in the party promoting the change;

− Lack of evidence of any benefit to be gained for themselves from the change;
− Preference for things to remain comfortably the way they are; and
− Fear that the change will affect them adversely.

The performance approach to construction worker safety and health requires a

paradigm shift from the traditionally prescriptive approach. It does not depend on

compliance with the minimum requirements of prescriptive standards. Rather, it requires

a culture change that relies on a continuous and long-term commitment to understanding,

evaluating and improving construction activities and processes. The acceptance of a new

paradigm regarding construction worker safety and health, such as the performance

approach, often necessitates a redefinition of the corresponding science (Kuhn, 1970).

For the performance approach to be implemented successfully and effectively,

organizations will need to depart radically from their old way of doing things (Nadler and

Tushman, 1989; 1990) until it becomes a corporate culture and part of the way business is

done. Statzer (1999:32) describes this process as becoming ‘transparent.’ Change may

result in adjustments in the interconnection of any of the four components of people, task,

technology, and structure. Such change will affect the culture of the organization,

transforming it in the process. Depending on the existing culture and the degree to which

a change differs from that culture, an organization might be more or less ready for such a

change.
 105

A model for determining the readiness of an organization for change is offered by

Sink and Morris (1995) as follows:

C = (a) (b) (d) > R

where

C = readiness for change;

a = level of dissatisfaction with the status quo;

b = clearly understood and desired future state;

d = practical first steps in the context of an overall strategy for actualizing the

desired future state; and

R = perceived cost or risk of changing.

The difference between what the organization wants to achieve (variable b) and

what presently exists (the status quo) creates a level of dissatisfaction (variable a). Once

both of these variables are established, the first practical steps (variable d) and overall

strategy for achieving the desired future state are decided. It should therefore become

obvious that the degree by which these factors outweigh the perceived cost or risk of

changing (variable R) will determine the readiness of the organization for change

(variable C). If the probability of achieving the future desired state is greater than the

perceived cost or risk of changing, the more ready the organization would be to change.

The importance of the role and commitment of management in supporting the

safety and health effort in their organizations is well-documented (Hinze, 1997; Samelson

and Levitt, 1993).

‘Management’s reaction to change determines [the] success [of change].

When upper management ‘buys in’ to the changes, it ensures success.’
(Petersen, 1996:278)
 106

Change, such as a paradigm shift from a prescriptive toward a performance

approach, is difficult and almost impossible unless top management is totally committed

to supporting and driving it. Management leadership, commitment and accountability are

crucial (Statzer, 1999). Organizational change demands executive commitment and

investment that is cognitive, emotional and financial (Diamond, 1998). According to

Boles and Sunoo (1998), the largest barriers to managing change are lack of management

visibility and support, employee resistance, and inadequate management skills.

Resistance to change is particularly relevant when the vision of management

differs from the values and beliefs of the existing organizational culture. If the

organizational culture fails to assimilate this vision and its implications, the desired

change will never become accepted and will ultimately fail (Almaraz, 1998).

Management is the key that allows safety performance improvements to occur in

organizations (Freda, Arn and Gatlin-Watts, 1999; Hinze, 1997; Samelson and Levitt,

1993; Statzer, 1999). However, few managers acknowledge the need for a change in

management beliefs and values to support and nourish the new cultural reality (Almaraz,

1998; Boles and Sunoo, 1998) that the performance approach to construction worker

safety represents. The importance of top management commitment and the issues of

organizational culture cannot be underestimated. Improved safety and health performance

within an organization has to become a strategic choice. The extent of culture change

needed will not be an overnight process. Such change must be planned and carefully

implemented. The extent to which top management chooses to support the program of

change will determine its ultimate success. It becomes apparent that the implementation
 107

of the performance approach to construction worker safety will be dependent on the

capacity and willingness of management to introduce and support the changes necessary.

‘Another way in which behavior is strongly influenced is through

modeling (learning by imitation). The research on modeling tells us that if
we want to maximize approach (rather than avoidance) tendencies in
workers, we [managers] must exhibit that behavior ourselves.’ (Petersen,
1996:266)

Managers and supervisors must strive to demonstrate safe work practices and

make decisions that reflect their commitment to safety (Cook and McSween, 2000).

Common Law Approach to Worker Safety and Health

The improvement of construction worker safety and health has gone through

several stages of development. The concept of common law prevailed before the

enactment of occupational safety and health legislation to reduce the number of work-

related accidents, injuries and fatalities. Common law develops from custom and

precedent. Accordingly, when workers accepted employment they also accepted the

consequences of exposure to any risks and hazards associated with that employment.

Employers were not required to point out work-related hazards. Workers were generally

expected to be smart enough to avoid danger in the workplace (Marshall, 1994). Workers

were on the job by their own choice and therefore deemed to have accepted the risk of

working there. They were also consequently expected to assume some responsibility for

their own safety as well as the safety of their fellow workers. However, workers rarely

intervened on behalf of their fellow workers.

In the absence of safety legislation, workers were solely responsible for their own

actions and workplace safety. They were expected to work safely without being

specifically informed nor trained about how they were to achieve this performance
 108

objective. It is therefore conceptually appropriate to suggest that, prior to the enactment

of safety legislation, the prevailing approach to worker safety and health was

performance oriented. Safety objectives were implied to have been determined for each

construction activity. Employers expected workers to take responsibility for their actions

during the execution of their tasks, for their own safety as well as that of their fellow

workers. Further, workers themselves accepted the associated risks of each activity. They

decided on the most appropriate method to satisfy the specific performance requirements

to meet these safety objectives. The appropriateness or success of the method selected

was established by whether the activity was executed safely without any accident, injury

or fatality.

Emergence of the Prescriptive Approach

As industrial growth was experienced in Europe in the 19th century, the concern

for the safety of workers increased. However, it was not until about 1900 that a body of

work-related law made its appearance. These first laws dealt with compensation rather

than accident prevention. Safety and health standards were typically developed after the

recognition of the need for guidelines for the design and operation of equipment, and

only after many workers had been injured or killed in serious work-related accidents

(Marshall, 1994). These standards and regulations usually originated from professional

societies, industry-sponsored organizations, trade associations, government agencies that

have jurisdiction, international associations and specific companies. Sometimes they

were developed for very specific situations and were not appropriate beyond that area.

Consequent to studies of occupational accident statistics in the United States,

several bills controlling safety and health were passed. The most notable of these was the
 109

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970. OSHA had as its stated purpose

the provision for the general welfare and the assurance, so far as possible, of every

working man and woman in the U.S. safe and healthful working conditions and the

preservation of human resources. OSHA effectively transferred the responsibility for the

safety and health of workers to employers, who, in construction, are contractors. Most of

the standards promulgated and enforced by OSHA are referred to as specification or

prescriptive standards.

In terms of the approach depicted in Figure 5-2, the means to meet the objective

to execute a construction activity in a safe and healthy manner are prescribed and require

compliance. Noncompliance with the prescriptive standards is dealt with punitively,

usually by means of fines levied against the employer.

This approach (also known as the command-and-control approach) has relied on

efforts to improve engineering and work environments accompanied by authoritarian

management models dependent on hierarchical structures, formal rules and procedures

and the policing of workers to ensure compliance (Human Performance Technologies,

1998).

While some of the standards are vague, most are very specific and rigid. It is also

not possible to cover every possible situation with prescriptive regulations.

In 1978, over 900 standards were revoked because they were found picayune,

obsolete or insignificant. Revisions of standards became an on-going and time-

consuming task since new knowledge and technology needed to be incorporated in them.

Additionally the standards were written in legal terminology rendering them difficult to

interpret. In many cases employers are aware of a violation but do not possess the
 110

knowledge to correct the hazard to comply with the prescribed provisions. Because of the

thousands of standards that had to be enforced, it was problematic to find a sufficiently

large core of knowledgeable compliance officers to enforce the provisions of the

legislation (Hammer, 1981; Marshall, 1994).

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

SAFETY OBJECTIVE
for construction activity, sub-system
or component

PRESCRIPTIVE
or deemed-to-comply/satisfy
REQUIREMENT
to meet safety objective

NO Has
PUNITIVE prescriptive
MEASURE requirement
been met?

Figure 5-2 Traditional prescriptive model

This prescriptive form of legislation has become the norm in most countries

where occupational safety and health legislation has been introduced. Unsafe acts are

generally accepted to be the major contributing cause of accidents. Despite this situation,
 111

prescriptive legislation is primarily aimed at unsafe conditions when enforcement will not

completely eliminate or adequately reduce unsafe acts. This intensively regulatory

approach has tended to evolve into a reactive rather than proactive one.

Model for Implementation of the Performance Approach

A procedural model for implementing a performance approach to worker safety

and health by contractors on construction sites is depicted in Figure 5-3. The model has

been adapted from the approaches advocated in safety and health legislation in Australia,

New Zealand, Europe and the United Kingdom. It promotes the resolution of planning

issues ahead of organizational issues as suggested by Hawkins and Booth (1998).

Planning, in this case, is the determination in advance of the safety objectives of the

organization and deciding upon the course of action that will most effectively achieve

those objectives. Planning is essential for the initial implementation of an overall

management system and for specific elements that make up that system (AS/NZS

4804:1997). The model fosters a proactive approach since management and workers are

involved in setting the safety objectives to be achieved regarding each activity before it is

undertaken. Further, the model does not conflict with the clients’ responsibility under

legislation such as the Construction (Design Management) Regulations in the UK and the

various hybrids of Directive 92/57/EEC37 in Europe, regarding the role of the planning or

project supervisor, and the various safety and health coordinators. The requirement to

produce project-specific safety and health plans and files remain unaffected.

37
The countries in the European Union were allowed to incorporate the provisions of
Directive 92/57/EEC into their national legislative frameworks. While some incorporated
them in their totality, several did so with many changes from Directive 92/57/EEC.
However, the essence of the Direction remained entrenched in the new national
legislation
 112

The model is somewhat similar to the industrial engineering solution delivery

process depicted in Figure 5-2 that can be conceptualized as a series of steps that are

repeated.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

Situation Preliminary Design Develop Install Operation

Appraisal analysis

Test Test Debug

Figure 5-2 Solution delivery (adapted from Sink and Morris, 1995)

The main steps involved in the model in Figure 5-3 are outlined below:

Classify Construction Activity

In particular, the following information about each construction activity should be

gathered as part of the classification process:

− The duration and frequency of the tasks involved;

− The location of the work;
− The number and trade category of workers that will execute the work and be exposed;
− The other parties that might be affected by the work;
− The training which workers had received about the tasks to be carried out;
− The written systems of work and/or permit-to-work procedures prepared for the tasks,
where these exist;
− The plant, equipment, powered hand tools and machinery that may be used together
with manufacturers’ or suppliers’ instructions for their operation and maintenance;
− The size, shape, surface nature and weight of building materials that might be handled
to complete the tasks;
− The distances and heights that building materials have to be moved manually;
− The nature, quantity, physical form and hazard data sheets (msds’s) of substances used
or encountered during the tasks;
− The requirements of legal acts, regulations and standards relevant to the work being
done, plant and machinery used, and substances used or encountered;
− The examination of the firm’s control measures already in place; and
 113

− The firm’s incident, accident and ill-health experience associated with the work being
done, and plant, equipment and substances used (adapted from BS 8800:1996).

Classify Construction Activity

Assess Risks

Identify Hazards

Set Safety Objectives

Set Performance Requirements

Select Strategy

Design Risk Control Action Plan

Measure Performance

Yes
No Is Plan Implement
Amend Adequate? Plan
Plan

Performance
Met?
No
Yes

End

Figure 5-3 Implementation procedures of the performance approach

 114

Risk Assessment

The contractor initially assesses the risks subjectively associated with each

construction activity, assuming that planned or existing controls are in place. This

assessment could form part of an integrated approach to risk management within the

overall business strategy. Risk in this context refers to the likelihood that an accident

might occur and the consequences of having an accident (BS 8800:1996). This

assessment might be carried out by a specialized safety professional in the employ of the

contractor

The determination of the severity or tolerability of the risks associated with the

particular activity will be based on either the contractor’s own experience or the

experience of the industry. Severity of the risks will determine the level of resources that

the contractor needs to allocate to reduce the risks themselves, and the exposure of

workers to them. In particular, risk assessment needs to be carried out for situations

where hazards appear to pose a significant threat and it is uncertain whether existing

measures are adequate. By using a participative approach, management and workers

agree safety procedures based on shared perceptions of the hazards and risks (BS

8800:1996).

A risk assessment pro forma may be used to record the findings of an assessment

effort. This form, for example, should cover:

− Details of the work activity;

− Hazard(s) and/or potential hazards;
− Controls in place;
− Levels of risk; and
− Action to be taken once assessment is completed (BS 8800:1996).
 115

Procedures for making an informed determination of risk have to be developed.

Examples of these include safety reviews, checklists, what-if-analysis, failure mode and

effects analysis, and cause-consequence analysis (Stavrianidis, 1998).

Further, criteria have to be established for deciding whether risks are tolerable

where the risk has been reduced to the lowest level that is reasonably practicable.

A simple risk assessment model is illustrated in Table 5-4.

What is likelihood or What is the possible

probability of severity of the
accident occurring? accident if it occurs?

Yes
Is risk Proceed
acceptable? with task

Reduce
Yes
probability
Is change
and/or
possible?
severity

No

Restructure
task

Figure 5-4 Simple risk assessment model

In this model the likelihood or probability of an accident occurring while a task is

carried out and the severity of the accident should it occur is determined before the task is
 116

executed. If the risk is acceptable, the task proceeds. If the risk is considered

unacceptable, the task is restructured if change is not possible. Where change is possible,

the probability and/or the severity is reduced. In either case, the acceptability of the risk

involved in the task is measured before it proceeds.

An alternative way of assessing risk is represented in Figure 5-5, adapted from

Statzer (1999), where one axis represents the likelihood of a risk occurring and the other

its expected cost. It is likely that by using such a matrix, construction firms may discover

that they are allocating resources on potential risks that are extremely unlikely, while

ignoring less-costly risks that may occur at any time.

The severity of harm needs to be considered regarding the part of the body most

likely to be affected. The nature of the harm could range from slightly harmful to

extremely harmful. Table 5-1 provides an example of an estimator of the level of risk.

Cost of Least likely, Most likely,

occurrence Most expensive risks/ Most expensive risks/
hazards hazards

Least likely, Most likely,

Least expensive risks/ Least expensive risks/
hazards hazards

Likelihood of occurrence
Figure 5-5 Evaluating relative risks/hazards

The action that should be taken regarding each of the risk levels indicated in

Table 5-1 is suggested in Table 5-2. The identification of the level of risk will result in

the development and implementation of suitable prevention and protection strategies (Lan
 117

and Arteau, 1997). In both tables, a risk that is ‘tolerable’ is taken to imply that the level

of risk associated with the construction activity has been reduced to the lowest that is

practicable.

Table 5-1 Estimator of risk level

Slightly harmful Harmful Extremely harmful
Highly unlikely Trivial risk Tolerable risk Moderate risk
Unlikely Tolerable risk Moderate risk Substantial risk
Likely Moderate risk Substantial risk Intolerable risk
(BS 8800:1996)

Identify Hazards

All the significant hazards related to each construction activity should be

identified. In particular, consideration should be given to which workers will be exposed

and what the consequences of such exposure might be. Methods to identify and

categorize hazards have to be established. For example, a hazard prompt list might be

developed taking into account the nature of the work activities of the organization and

locations where work is carried out. Examples of such lists are contained in both the

guideline documents to the UK and New Zealand safety legislation (Appendix F).

Set Safety Objectives and Performance Requirements

Objectives or user (worker) requirements should be specific, measurable,

achievable, relevant and timely. Once key objectives have been selected, they need to be

quantified. For example, objectives to increase or reduce something should specify a

numerical figure and a date for their achievement; objectives to introduce a safety feature

or eliminate a specific hazard should be achieved by a specified date; and objectives to

 118

maintain or continue existing conditions should specify the existing level of activity (BS

8800:1996).

Table 5-2 Action for risk levels

Risk level Action and timescale
Trivial No action is required and no documentary records need to be kept
Tolerable No additional controls are required. Consideration may be given to a
more cost-effective solution or improvement that imposes no additional
cost burden. Monitoring is required to ensure that the controls are
maintained.
Moderate Efforts should be made to reduce the risk, but the costs of prevention
should be carefully measured and limited. Risk reduction measures
should be implemented within a defined time.
Where the moderate risk is associated with extremely harmful
consequences, further assessment may be necessary to establish more
precisely the likelihood of harm as a basis for determining the need for
improved control measures.
Substantial Work should not be started until the risk has been reduced. Considerable
resources may have to be allocated to reduce the risk. Where the risk
involves work in progress, urgent action should be taken.
Intolerable Work should not be started or continued until the risk has been reduced.
If it is not possible to reduce risk even with unlimited resources, work
activity has to remain prohibited.
(BS 8800:1996)

Additionally, appropriate performance requirements and outcome indicators that

should preferably be quantitative need to be selected to indicate the extent to which the

safety objectives have been achieved. It is also necessary to measure the situation before

the implementation of a safety plan, also known as the baseline. An example of a safety

objective associated with the performance requirement to prevent falls from scaffolds is

shown in Table 5-3.

Regarding duty of employers in relation to heights at some workplaces, the New

Zealand regulations require that every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure

means are provided to prevent the employee from falling. This provision is covered under
 119

clause 21 that deals with heights of more than 3 meters (9’). It applies to every place of

work under the control of that employer where any employee may fall more than 3

meters. Employers must ensure that any means provided to prevent employees from

falling are suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used.

Table 5-3 An example of a safety objective to prevent falls from scaffolds

Quantified key objective Increase the usage rate of guardrails, toe boards and tying
off on all scaffolds from the present (measured) value of
50% to 100% on this job
Performance A guardrail 35’-43’ above the walking platform must be
requirement erected along the exposed edge of all scaffolds
A mid-rail must be incorporated
A toe board must be included
All workers on scaffolds over 9’ high must wear individual
fall arrest systems such as lanyards and static lines
Outcome indicator Records of observed usage of guardrails, toe boards and
individual fall arrest systems on scaffolds

Select Strategy to Meet Performance Requirements

There are several possible strategies that could be used to meet the performance

requirements and the safety objectives that have been set. These strategies are outlined in

Figure 5-6.

In the example in Table 5-3, the contractor had several options with which to

ensure that the safety objective was met of preventing falls from scaffolds - all of which

would have satisfied the requirements of the performance-based regulations. The

contractor could have used any of the following:

− A new method;
− A newly developed individual fall arrest system;
− An innovative patented scaffolding system;
− An improvement to existing work practices within the organization; or
− An established industry or company safe working practice.
 120

Set Performance Requirements

Select Strategy

Use Use Satisfy New Deemed To

Innovation/ Creative or Change in Comply/Satisfy
New Option Legislation or Firm's Best
Technology/ Practice or Safe
New Working
Material Practice or
Benchmark

Design Risk Control Action Plan

Figure 5-6 Possible strategies to meet performance requirements

In this example, the contractor selected the last option since the use of guardrails,

toeboards and tying off was already an established practice both within the firm and the

industry at large. However, the usage needed to be increased from the present value of

50% to 100% on the particular job.

Design Risk Control Plan and Select Method of Measuring Performance

Contractors can do both the steps of designing the risk control plan and selecting

the method of measuring performance at the same time. The latter step is the equivalent

of verification in the basic performance models described earlier.

 121

A plan to control the risks associated with the construction activity needs to be

designed. The risk control plan specifies who will do what, by when, and with what result

(BS 8800:1996). For its success, the plan must of necessity enjoy the support of top

management (Cook and McSween, 2000; Petersen, 1996). Further, it should be fully

costed and have adequate financial resources allocated for its implementation.

The plan should be implemented in accordance with the performance

requirements and outcome indicators decided upon to achieve the key safety objectives.

An example of the broad elements of a risk control plan for preventing falls from

scaffolds is reflected in Table 5-4.

Trends in the outcome indicators should be monitored continually throughout the

implementation period of the plan. The adequacy of the plan needs to continually

evaluated and the plan amended as required. The cost effectiveness of the safety

objectives and the risk control plan should be reviewed to determine which elements of

the plan contributed to its success. Those, which were unnecessary, may then be

eliminated.

Table 5-4 Risk control plan to prevent falls from scaffolds

Gain commitment from top management
Agree on a budget for implementing the performance requirements
Train workers, foremen and supervisors in the required method of erecting scaffolds
Train workers in the proper use and maintenance of individual fall arrest systems
Frequent observations and inspections to check that scaffolds have guardrails, mid
rails, and toe boards and that workers are tied off and using individual fall arrest
systems correctly

In Table 5-5 attention is drawn to the likelihood that an objective may be achieved

even though the control plan failed to be implemented.

 122

Table 5-5 Review of risk control plan

Was control plan implemented?
Yes No
Was Yes No corrective action required, Plan was not relevant. Find out
objective but continue to monitor what has led to the achievement of
Achieved? objective
No Plan is not relevant, therefore Make renewed effort to implement
prepare a new plan plan; continue to measure outcome
indicators
(BS 8800:1996)

Contractors have several methods that they could use to measure whether the

action plan was effective and whether the performance requirements have been met to

satisfy the safety objectives for the particular task. These include the following:

− Checklists;
− Inspections;
− Safety samplings;
− Benchmarking;
− Environmental sampling;
− Attitude surveys;
− Behavior sampling;
− Walk-throughs;
− Document and record analysis; and
− Expert and consultant involvement.

For the example in Table 5-3, recording the results of regular observations was

selected as the outcome indicator and would be appropriate to determine whether the

performance achieved the safety objective.

Review Adequacy of Risk Control Action Plan and Measuring Performance

The final stage in the implementation process is the review of the performance

requirements by measuring the outcome indicators to determine whether the control plan

was effective and the safety objectives achieved. Where the performance requirements

were not met, new performance requirements might have to be established. In this event,

different outcome indicators might have to be decided upon. It is also likely that a new or
 123

revised risk control plan might have to be drawn up, the plan implemented, the outcome

indicators measured until the performance requirements have been met, and the safety

objectives achieved.

Should the review indicate that the safety objectives for the particular

construction activity have been satisfactorily and cost effectively achieved, the

performance solution selected might become an organizational safe working practice to

be prescriptively followed on all future projects for that activity.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has established that implementation of the performance approach to

construction worker safety and health will require a paradigm shift from the prescriptive

approach accompanied by organizational cultural and structural change. The

implementation will be dependent on the readiness and capacity of top management of

construction firms to bring about these changes. The chapter has examined the evolution

of safety and health legislation to the present pre-occupation with a performance

approach. A model was developed for the implementation of such an approach on

construction sites anywhere in the world, irrespective of the legislative and regulatory

framework. It was demonstrated that the safety and health requirements of workers as

users could be met using a performance approach.

In the next chapter, the research methodology is described to achieve the stated

research objectives.
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Polls and surveys are popular means of obtaining information from people by

asking questions. Surveys are one of the most frequently used methods in social research

(May, 1997). The benefits of using surveys rely on following protocol in random

sampling procedures that allow a relatively small number of people to represent a much

larger population (Schuman and Presser, 1981; Sonquist and Dunkelberg, 1977; May,

1997; Ferber et al., 1980). Survey research carries with it the responsibility to follow

certain ethical norms such as respect for the privacy and the voluntary nature of the

participation of the respondents (Salant and Dillman, 1994).

Surveys have been characterized by the collection of data from large numbers of

people to describe or explain the characteristics or opinions of a population through the

use of a representative sample (May, 1997). According to Ferber et al. (1980:3), a survey

then is

‘a method of gathering information from a number of individuals, a

‘sample’, to learn something about the larger population from which the
sample is drawn.’

Additionally, surveys have been characterized into 4 categories, namely,, factual,

attitudinal, social psychological and explanatory (Akroyd and Hughes, 1983).

Researchers have argued that there is a relationship between attitudes and behavior by

suggesting that the possession of a certain attitude necessarily means that a person will

then behave in a particular way (May, 1997; Spector, 1981). Further, surveys are an

124
 125

effective means to gain data on attitudes on issues and causal relationships. However,

surveys for the most part can only show the strength of statistical association between

variables. They do not account for changes in attitudes and views over time, nor do they

guarantee that the questions are correctly interpreted by the respondents (May, 1997).

Essentially, since surveys measure facts, attitudes or behavior through questions,

hypotheses must operationalize into procedures and measures through questions that

respondents can understand and are able to answer (Spector, 1981). These answers must

then be capable of categorization and quantification to examine patterns of relationships

between them by employing the techniques of statistical analysis, the findings of which

have to be statistically significant.

Importantly, the survey has to ensure that the research is both valid and reliable.

According to Kidder (1981:7),

‘research is valid when the conclusions are true. It is reliable when the
findings are repeatable. Reliability and validity are requirements for both
the design and the measurement of research. At the level of research
design, we examine the conclusions and ask whether they are true and
repeatable. At the level of measurement, we examine the scores of
observations and ask whether they are accurate and repeatable.’

Validity means that the research instrument measures what it is designed to

measure, while reliability refers to the replicability of the results of the research (Spector,

1981).

The methods are described in this chapter that were used to gather the data about

whether variances to OSHA’s prescriptive requirements had arisen due to the

nonapplicability of these measures; and the attitudes of the upper management of

construction firms to the performance approach and its implementation within their

organizations.
 126

Literature Review

Examination of Existing
Legislation

Development of Implementation/Procedural

Research Design

Electronic OSHA International Contractor

Interviews Variances Survey Survey

Helen Bill OSHA and Administration of

Tippett Porteous DOL web Questionnaires
sites

CIB W99-L List of

and CNBR-L Contractors
Listserves

Data Analysis

Figure 6-1 Flow-chart of Research Methodology described in this chapter

 127

In particular, the various forms of survey instruments discussed in this chapter

will provide the data for the results discussed in the next three chapters, and several of the

research conclusions in the final chapter. The flow-chart in Figure 6-1 summarizes the

major steps undertaken in this study with the shaded steps being covered in this chapter.

Initially, a pilot study was conducted using a structured questionnaire (Appendix

A) to determine the construction activity most responsible internationally for accidents,

injuries and fatalities on construction sites. Responses were obtained from several

respondents using the cnbr-l and cibw99-l international listserves domiciled in Australia

and Hawaii respectively. However, it was extremely difficult to compare the data

provided because of differences in the reporting methods used in each country. The study

was useful even if only to provide anecdotal evidence of this problem. A consolidated

record of the responses is included as Appendix D. Instead the International Labor

Organization’s (ILO’s) Yearbook of Labor Statistics provided more comparable statistics

about the safety performance of the construction industry in several countries. These

statistics were used in the chapter on the safety performance of the construction industry

to describe the industry’s safety record around the world.

Structured electronic interviews were conducted with two experts in New Zealand

to determine what prompted the introduction of the performance approach in that country

and the impact of its introduction on the industry (Refer to Appendices B and E). The

results of these discussions were included in the chapter on international performance-

based safety legislation.

Applications to OSHA in the United States for variances to existing standards and

related information leaflets were studied to determine the circumstances under which
 128

OSHA granted variances. The results of this study are discussed in the chapter on the

analysis of OSHA variances.

A structured questionnaire (Appendix C) was used to measure the attitudes of

contractors in the United States toward the performance approach to construction worker

safety, and their opinions on issues related to bringing about the changes that the

approach requires. The results of this survey are presented and discussed in the chapters

on the analysis of the top management survey and correlation, regression analysis,

modelling.

Examination of OSHA Variances

An electronic Internet search was conducted of the websites of OSHA and United

States Department of Labor (DOL) to examine variances to the OSHA regulations,

particularly those that pertained to the construction industry. All the variance applications

that were listed in the Federal Register were looked up to identify the circumstances

surrounding the applications, the profiles of the applicants, the reasons and motivations

for the applications, and the determinations of OSHA for each. Where variances were

granted, it was noted whether they were permanent or temporary. Further, a few of the

OSHA rulings and comments were also examined regarding litigations involving

deviations from the OSHA standards.

Theory Foundation for the Survey of Upper Management Attitudes

Systems and structures embody deep-seated values that may work against change.

The structure of organizations reflects the values of leaders working within them. The

values most critical to change are the ones espoused by those holding key positions

(Hinings, 1996). All organizations contain functional and occupational groups that
 129

operate from different perspectives (Filby and Willmott, 1988; Watson, 1982). The upper

management of organizations makes up one of these groups. The influence of leaders on

the performance of their organizations may be summed up as follows:

‘…organizational decision-makers, managers and professionals alike hope

to ensure that their central values and beliefs influence the performance of
their organizations by designing functional arrangements and hierarchies
to facilitate and support those views.’ (Ranson et al., 1980:199)

The values of individuals holding the top organizational positions are the ones

that are promoted and perpetuated throughout organizations (Hage and Dewar, 1973).

Enz (1986:42) echoes this view when she claims

‘…clearly, top management is a critical group in examining values

because of its control over organizational design and functioning. To
understand the role of values in an organizational context requires close
examination of the organizational leaders and how their beliefs operate to
influence the activities within the firm.’

Organizational arrangements develop from the ideas, values, and beliefs that

underpin them (Hinings, 1996).

Leaders of change are only as good as their ability to form trustful bonds and to

communicate and collaborate effectively with their participants. Since top-down change

is problematic, workers need to be partners in organizational change. Upper management

can no longer operate on behalf of organizations making decisions for others without

their participation and investment (Porter-O’Grady, 1997). The respect and trust of the

majority of the workforce is essential (Quinn, 1996). Deep change will not occur if

workers feel they are powerless and lack a voice in the strategies and structures of

organizational change. For change to have any chance of success, the genuineness of

management commitment has to be evidenced in consistent acts of real empowerment of

the workforce.
 130

Major change is impossible unless the upper management of organizations

actively and demonstrably supports and understands the need for the changes they

introduce (Freda, Arn and Gatlin-Watts, 1999). Not only is pressure to change required

but also support in the form of time, financial resources, and decision-making authority.

Additionally, barriers to change need to be broken down.

The literature on change reiterates the need for management to:

− Define the objectives of change;

− Communicate the change required, orally, in writing, and in action; and
− Review the progress toward the change (Hensler, 1993; Quinn, 1996; Saunders and
Kwon, 1990; Freda, Arn and Gatlin-Watts, 1999).

According to Saunders and Kwon (1990) and Freda, Arn and Gatlin-Watts

(1999), communication is the most critical activity in ensuring successful change.

Workers want to know the specifics of any change, how it will affect them, and how they

can prepare for it. Other factors for successful change include phased introduction and

implementation of the changes, training of those affected by it, and documentation of the

change process.

Weston (1998) suggests that the guiding principles of successful change

initiatives have been well documented, namely,, leadership, implementation and

reinforcement.

Leadership involves creating and communicating a consistent, coherent and

compelling vision. Implementation requires deliberately identifying and removing the

structural and behavioral impediments to change. Further, implementation also requires

ability, willingness, knowledge and skill (Sink and Morris, 1995) on the part of the

leadership. Reinforcement implies institutionalizing and reinforcing the gains and

ensuring that the organization is open for further change. The vision of firms have to be
 131

reviewed and, if necessary, revised (Freda, Arn and Gatlin-Watts, 1999). Change has to

become institutionalized as a core organizational value and systematically reinforced

(Trahant and Burke, 1996).

Having concluded that the leadership or upper management of organizations is

pivotal to the successful introduction and implementation of programs that might involve

change, the survey was designed to measure the opinions of upper management of

construction firms toward the performance approach to construction worker safety,.

Design of Upper Management Questionnaire

The type of population, the nature of the research questions and available

resources determine the type of questionnaire to use to conduct the survey. Three types of

questionnaires are generally used:

− Mail or self-completion questionnaire;

− Telephone survey; and
− Face-to-face interview schedule (May, 1997).

The main strengths of mail questionnaires include:

− A lower cost than face-to-face interviews;

− Advantageous anonymity on ethically or politically sensitive issues;
− Consideration of responses by respondents in their own time;
− Less bias from the way in which different interviewers ask questions; and
− Possibility of covering a wider geographic area at a lower cost (May, 1997).

The weaknesses of mail questionnaires include:

− Need to keep questions relatively simple and straightforward;

− Absence of probing beyond the answer given by respondents;
− Lack of control over who answers the questionnaire;
− Low response rate; and
− Inability to check on bias of final sample (May, 1997).
 132

Having taken cognizance of both the merits and demerits of using various

questionnaires, it was decided that mail or self-administered questionnaires would be the

most appropriate survey instrument to use in this exploratory study.

The option was considered of measuring the readiness of organizations

themselves to implement the performance approach to construction worker safety. It was

recognized that the likelihood that organizational respondents will respond to survey

requests is a function of their

− Authority to respond where they might not have the formal or informal authority to
respond on behalf of the organization;
− Capacity to respond where they might not have the capacity to facilitate the assembly
of the relevant knowledge to reply adequately to the survey request; and
− Motive to respond where they might not be sufficiently personally or organizationally
motivated to disclose information about the organization (Tomaskovic-Devey, 1994).

By measuring the opinions of upper management of construction firms, these

issues would not be problematic to the respondents. Rather than requesting information

about their organizations, their own personal opinions would be measured regarding the

performance approach to construction worker safety.

Questions pertinent to the research were developed, critically reviewed by faculty

from the M.E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction at the University of Florida,

and then refined to address the issues as specifically as possible. Those questions with a

limited set of possible choices were identified, and the corresponding sets of answers

were developed. A pilot study was performed among 10 contractors in Hawaii, Georgia

and Florida to test the proposed questions and to obtain feedback regarding other relevant

issues that should be addressed. Only minor revision of the questionnaire was required

largely to make it user-friendlier. The questionnaire took about 15 minutes to complete.

 133

The questionnaire length of 5 pages excluding the cover page was in line with the

recommendation that the optimal length for a questionnaire is 10 to 12 pages (Dillman,

1978). According to Dillman, there is no difference in response rates for various

questionnaire lengths below 12 pages.

Questions that were open-ended were kept to a minimum, either to cater for the

wide range of expected or possible responses or to allow the respondents the freedom to

fully explain their choice of responses. For most of the questions a 7-point Likert scale

was deemed appropriate and scaled answers were developed. The Likert scale is the

mostcommon scale for obtaining the opinions of respondents (Fellows and Liu, 1997)

This type of scale can be used to produce hierarchies of preferences which can then be

compared. The semantic differential rating scale (Osgood et al., 1957) was chosen

because of its simplicity and flexibility. To facilitate the rating of intensity, the extreme

scale positions were labeled. These labels appear to define rating positions that are about

equidistantly spaced, which is a prerequisite for an accurate measurement.

Several variations of Likert scales were used. The 4 variations used were

understanding scale, preference scale, influence scale, and importance scale. They are

illustrated in Table 6-1. The questionnaire was divided into three sections, namely,

demographic information, management attitude to the prescriptive and performance

approaches, and change management (The questionnaire has been attached as Appendix

C).

Management Attitude to the Approaches

This section dealt with the level of understanding, beliefs and opinions on the

prescriptive and performance approaches to construction worker safety and health.

 134

Before responding to any of the questions in this section, respondents were requested to

study the definitions of the prescriptive and performance approaches as well as the

accompanying illustrative examples of each approach. The objective of this request was

to ensure that the respondents had an idea of what the approaches were and also the

differences between them.

Table 6-1 Examples of Likert scales used

Understanding scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very poorly Very well
Preference scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive
Influence scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Extremely
influential
Importance scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

The first question presented respondents with a hypothetical situation. It was a

closed question and allowed the respondents to make a choice between the prescriptive

and performance approaches as a solution to the situation. The question was designed to

establish the approach that respondents preferred.

This question was followed by one that was open-ended and required respondents

to provide an explanation for their choice in the previous question.

To provide an indication of how well the respondents understood the prescriptive

and performance approaches, question was included that allowed them to indicate their

level of understanding using a 7-point understanding scale. This question was followed

up by one which cross-checked the response to the first question in this section by asking

respondents to indicate which approach they preferred conceptually using a 7-point

preference scale.
 135

To verify that respondents understood the two approaches, a series of 10 pertinent

issues drawn from the literature on the performance approach were listed. Respondents

had to indicate using a 7-point influence scale the influence that each approach had on the

issues listed. For example,

− Ease of introduction of new technologies (7-point influence scale);

− Cost effectiveness of approach (7-point influence scale); and
− Ease of implementation (7-point influence scale).

The final question in this section investigated on a 7-point importance scale how

important a list of 5 issues were to respondents regarding construction safety and health

management. For example,

− Cost effectiveness of approach; and

− Potential to improve safety performance on sites.

Change Management

The questions in this section of the questionnaire were designed to measure the

capacity for change within the organizations of respondents. The questions also probed

which issues motivated or prompted change within their organizations.

The first question investigated the involvement of various parties in the

sponsorship of major change within their organization. Respondents had to indicate the

extent of the involvement in these changes of top management, middle management, site

management, workers, and first-line supervisors by way of percentages.

The next question examined the influence using a 7-point influence scale of a list

of 13 issues in driving change within the organizations of respondents. For example,

− To improve financial performance;

− To keep up with competitors;
− To improve the safety record; and
− To meet worker demands.
 136

This question was followed up by a question investigating whether respondents

had observed the introduction of major changes in the organizations.

The next series of 5 questions investigated on a 7-point importance scale the

extent of participation of workers and first-line supervisors in the process of change and

change management. These questions were:

− If the company were to consider introducing a change to improve safety performance

how important would be the willingness of workers to accept the change before the
change is implemented?
− How important would it be to break down the resistance of workers to change by
convincing them to accept the change?
− How important would it be to build credibility and trust with the workers before
implementing a change?
− How important would it be to enlist the opinions of workers on a proposed change
before it is implemented?
− How important do you regard the receptiveness of first-line supervisors (foremen) to
change?

The following question informed on the level of importance, using a 7-point

importance scale, of a list of 10 factors on the implementation of a new approach to

safety. For example,

− Top management support;

− Open communication;
− Adequate resources;
− Creativity; and
− Workshops and training.

This question is followed by one that investigates the importance on a 7-point

importance scale of a list of 11 actions for the successful implementation of a new

approach to construction worker safety and health. For example,

− Demonstrate consistent and decisive personal leadership;

− Allocate adequate financial, equipment and staff resources;
− Amend corporate vision and mission;
− Introduce and support appropriate training programs; and
− Reward workers for being innovative, and looking for new solutions.
 137

The final question requests the number of recordable injuries that the organization

had during the preceding year. Provision is made at the end of the questionnaire for

additional comments by respondents on performance and prescriptive regulations and

standards.

Sample Selection

The sample was drawn from a database compiled by the M.E. Rinker, Sr., School

of Building Construction at the University of Florida. The database consisted of the

contact details of 843 construction organizations throughout the United States. These

organizations were representative of the entire construction industry and included general

contractors, homebuilders, subcontractors, specialty contractors, developers, and

professional consultants. Since it was not financially feasible to include all 843

organizations in the sample, a sample size of 200 firms was decided to be adequate.

While it was originally intended to make a random selection from the database, it

was decided to only include those organizations that had telephone numbers listed in the

database. The reasoning behind this decision was to facilitate making telephonic contact

with the firms during the administration process to improve the response rate. The 432

organizations without telephone numbers were eliminated from the list, leaving 411

organizations that could be randomly selected from. This number was further reduced by

the 5 organizations in Florida and Georgia that had participated in the pilot study. This

revised list comprising of 406 organizations made up the sampling frame. Every

organization in the sampling frame had an equal chance of being selected. The

organizations on the list were numbered consecutively from 1 through 406.

 138

To select 200 organizations from the sampling frame, the probabilistic procedure

of systematic random sampling was used. This was the most practical procedure

available. In this procedure the researcher begins by making a random selection from the

sampling frame, and then systematically samples every nth element (Salant and Dillman,

1994; May, 1997). Accordingly, the first construction organization was randomly

selected from the revised list. Since this sample would be a one-in-two sample, every

second (nth) organization was systematically selected until the sample comprised 200

organizations.

Questionnaire Administration

The process of distributing the survey and receiving the completed questionnaires

took approximately 10 weeks. To maximize both the quality and quantity of responses,

attention was given to every detail that might affect response behavior. Proven methods

to increase response rate were implemented to maximize the number of respondents.

The survey packet comprising of a cover letter, questionnaire, and pre-addressed

postage paid return envelope was mailed out to the sample of construction organizations

in mid-December 2000. The cover letter was printed on the University of Florida

letterhead stationery and addressed to each individual organization. The letter explained

that participation was voluntary; that all responses would be confidential; and that

respondents needed to only answer those questions they felt comfortable with. The

importance of the participation of the respondents in the study was stressed. Each letter

included individual salutations and was personally signed by the researcher. Respondents

were assured of anonymity. A sample of the cover letter is provided in Appendix F.

 139

About one month after the initial mailing, every organization that had not yet

responded was contacted by telephone. Each questionnaire had been marked with

individual identification numbers so that follow up could be done regarding only those

who had not responded. The telephone calls served to verify the accuracy of the contact

details of the database regarding address and telephone numbers, whether the survey

package had in fact been received, and whether a response could be expected.

Through this process of follow up telephone calls, it was learnt that the contact

details of 100 organizations in the sample were incorrect and that no new information

was available. Replacement survey packages could not be sent out to them. Uncompleted

survey packages were returned by 2 organizations who did not want to participate in the

study. The sample size was consequently reduced to an effective 98 respondents.

As a result of the follow up telephone calls, survey packages were faxed to 18

organizations, and e-mailed as attachments to 37 organizations. The importance of their

participation was again stressed. Each of these organizations was requested to fax back

their responses.

The number of completed questionnaires received including those of the pilot

study were 67, representing an overall response rate of 68.4%. Given the nature of the

study, the length of the questionnaire, and the time and budgetary constraints the

response was considered to be acceptable. No further attempts were made to increase the

number of responses.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the methods were outlined that were used to gather data about

OSHA variances and top management attitudes toward the performance approach and its
 140

implementation. The theoretical foundation for the survey of the top management of

construction firms was discussed. The influence of the leaders in organizations was

outlined with special reference to their value systems and pivotal role in bringing about

major changes. The design was described of the questionnaire used to gather data about

top management attitudes. Additionally, the sample selection and questionnaire

administration processes were outlined.

In the next chapter the findings of the OSHA variance examination are presented

and analyzed.
 ANALYSIS OF OSHA VARIANCES

Introduction

Variances from OSHA standards are recorded in the Federal Register. For the

purposes of this study, an electronic Internet search was conducted of the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Department of Labor (DOL) websites to

examine the records of the Federal Register relative to variances. The results of this

search are described in this chapter.

OSHA Variance Applications

In the United States, in instances where regulations do not cover a particular

circumstance, or contractors wish to use alternatives to comply with the specific

requirements of an OSHA standard, contractors have to apply to OSHA to obtain

permission to deviate from the applicable standard. A contractor or group of contractors

for specific workplaces may request a variance. For example, contractors may be unable

to comply fully with a new safety and health standard in the time provided as a result of a

shortage of staff, materials or equipment. Further, contractors may sometimes be using

methods, equipment or facilities that differ from those prescribed by OSHA, but they

believe are equal to or better than the requirements of OSHA.

Variances from OSHA standards are authorized under sections 6 and 16 of OSHA

of 1970 (29 United States Code 65), and the implementing rules attached in the Code of

Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1905). Requests for variances under OSHA regarding

141
 142

construction safety and health standards are considered variances under the Construction

Safety Act. There are several types of variances. These are:

Temporary Variance

A temporary variance is designed to provide a contractor time to come into

compliance with the requirements of an OSHA standard subsequent to the effective date

of that standard. For example, a contractor may not be able to comply by the prescribed

date because the necessary construction, or alteration of the facility cannot be completed

in time or when technical personnel, materials or equipment are temporarily unavailable.

To be eligible for a temporary variance, the contractor must put in place an effective

program that will ensure that compliance with the standard or regulation as quickly as

possible. Application for the variance must be made within a reasonable time after the

promulgation and prior to the effective date of the standard. The contractor must inform

all workers of the application and of their rights. The contractor must demonstrate to

OSHA that all available measures are being taken to safeguard workers against the

hazards covered by the standard.

The following must be provided:

− The standard or portion of the standard from which variance is requested;

− The reasons why the contractor cannot comply by the effective date of the standard;
− The measures already taken and those to be taken (with dates) to comply with the
standard must be documented;
− The certification that workers have been informed of the variance application and a
copy given to their authorized representative;
− The summary of the application is posted wherever notices are normally posted in the
workplace; and
− The communication informing workers that they have a right to request a hearing on
the application.
 143

The procedures that must be followed for temporary variances are documented in

29 CFR 1905.10 in reference to OSHA section 6 (b) (6) (A).

Temporary variances are not granted to contractors who indicate that they cannot

afford to meet the costs of coming into compliance. Usually, a time-limited interim order

is issued pending the decision on the temporary variance.

Permanent Variance

A permanent variance authorizes an alternative to a requirement of an OSHA

standard subject to the workers of the contractor being provided with employment.

Additionally, the contractor has to demonstrate that the methods, conditions, practices,

operations or processes provide a safe and healthful work place as effectively as

compliance with the standard. Due to the conservative approach of OSHA, it is

reasonable to expect that OSHA will require that the protection that has to be provided to

workers must be much better than the standard. Further, the probability of liability suits

and the litigative environment contribute to this conservative approach.

Workers have to be informed of the application and their right to request a

hearing. Essentially, applications for permanent variances must contain the same

information as applications for temporary variances. The procedures to be followed for

permanent variances are set out in 29 CFR 1905.11 in reference to OSHA section 6 (d).

In making a determination on a permanent variance, OSHA reviews the

application and evidence of the contractor, makes an on-site visit to the work place as

deemed necessary, and notes the comments of workers and other interested parties. If the

request has merit, OSHA may grant a permanent variance. Final variance orders detail
 144

the specific responsibilities and requirements of the contractor and explain precisely the

differences between the requirements of the standard and the alternative.

Interim Order

A contractor may apply to OSHA for an interim order when seeking a temporary

variance so that work may proceed under existing conditions until a final order is made

on the application for variance. This application may be submitted separately or with the

application for variance.

If the interim order is granted, the terms of the order are published in the Federal

Register. The contractor must inform workers of the order, provide a copy to their

authorized representative, and post a copy wherever notices are normally posted.

Experimental Variance

OSHA grants the experimental variance when such a variance is necessary to

allow the contractor to participate in an experiment designed to demonstrate or validate

new or improved safety and health techniques to protect the health and safety of workers.

The procedures to be followed for experimental variances are described in OSHA section

6 (b) (6) (C).

Defense Variance

OSHA may grant reasonable variations, tolerances and exceptions to and from the

requirements of OSHA to avoid serious impairment of the national defense. These

variances may not be in effect for more than 6 months without notifying workers and

offering a public hearing on the issues. The procedures to be followed for defense

variances are described in 29 CFR 1905.12 in reference to OSHA section 16.

 145

Findings of Investigation

The electronic Internet search of the OSHA and DOL websites indicated a total of

53 records covering variances in the Federal Register from 1973-1999. These are

summarized in Table 7-1, and graphically represented in Figure 7-1. A list containing the

details of each record is attached as Appendix G.

Table 7-1 Summary of Federal Register records of OSHA variances

Year Total Records General Industry Construction
1973 2 1 1
1974 3 3 0
1975 0 0 0
1976 2 2 0
1977 2 2 0
1978 2 2 0
1983 1 1 0
1984 1 1 0
1985 18 15 3
1986 6 6 0
1987 8 5 3
1988 3 2 1
1989 2 2 0
1997 1 1 0
1998 1 1 0
1999 1 1 0
Totals 53 45 8

The low number of records was a concern since a much higher number of

applications had been anticipated. The sheer size of the construction industry in the

United States suggests that there should have been a higher number of applications.

However, considering the time and cost constraints and that these records were available,

it was decided to proceed and work with them.

 146

Federal Register of OSHA Variance Records - All Industries, General

Industry and Construction Industry
(1973-1999)

20

18

16
General industry
14
Variance Records

12

All industries
10

4
Construction
2

0
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1997 1998 1999

Year

Figure 7-1 Distribution of Federal Register records of OSHA variances by year

There were no entries or records from 1979-1982 and 1990-1996. Further, most

records (18) were entered in 1985, amounting to almost 34%. Of the total number of

records, only 15% (8) were construction related variance entries.

However, further examination of the records revealed that many were not related

to variance applications per se. Several of them dealt with meeting and hearing notices,

and application withdrawals. The adjusted number of records covering only variance

applications are indicated in Table 7-2.

The outcomes of variance applications and the types of variances for each of

general and construction industries are listed in Table 7-3. Of the 27 variances granted,

only 22.2% (6) were for the construction industry. Of these, 50% (3) were temporary

variances, 16.7% (1) were permanent variances, and 33.3% (2) were interim orders.
 147

Table 7-2 Federal Register records of variance applications

Year Total Records General Industry Construction
1973 2 1 1
1974 3 3 0
1975 0 0 0
1976 2 2 0
1977 2 2 0
1978 2 2 0
1983 1 1 0
1984 1 1 0
1985 13 10 3
1986 1 1 0
1987 6 3 3
1988 3 2 1
1989 2 2 0
1997 1 1 0
1998 0 0 0
1999 1 1 0
Totals 40 32 8

According to OSHA (1993), about 96% of the variance applications received by

OSHA were not actual requests for variance, but rather were requests for standard

clarification or interpretation, or are from employers wishing to avoid complying with a

standard.

The number of variance applications made is extremely small as evidenced from

this investigation. The number of variances actually granted is even smaller. Considering

that from of 26 years from 1973 to 1999, only 6 variances (about 1 every 4 years) from

construction standards were granted provides a more graphic indication of the probability

that a variance application will be successful.

Possible reasons for the small number of applications for variances include:

− The procedures to be followed to obtain a variance that are tedious and time-
consuming with no certainty of the application succeeding;
− The low probability that the variance application will be successful;
 148

− The onus placed on the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that

compliance with the alternative procedure provided protection that was equivalent to
that provided by compliance with the standard;
− The need to possibly employ the services of professionals to certify that the alternative
satisfied this requirement; and
− The need for the provision of substantial technical data for the evaluation of
alternatives to the standard.

Table 7-3 Outcomes of variance applications

Year General Temp. Perm. Interim Construction Temp. Perm. Interim
Industry variance variance order variance variance order
1973 1 1 1 1
1974 3 3 0
1976 2 2 0
1977 2 2 0
1978 2 1 1 0
1983 1 1 0
1984 1 1 0
1985 6 3 3 3 2 1
1986 1 1 0
1987 0 1 1
1988 1 1 1 1
1989 0 0
1997 0 0
1998 0 0
1999 1 1 0
Total 21 13 3 5 6 3 1 2

While it was possible to establish the identity of the applicant from the Federal

Register records, it was not possible to determine the profile of the applicant nor the exact

details pertaining to the variance applications. However, it was possible to establish that

variances had been granted where there was a clear conflict between the OSHA standard

and that of another body such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and where

there were 2 standards that covered 1 construction activity. It was not possible to

determine based on the information provided in the Federal Register whether a

performance approach would have obviated the need to request these variances.
 149

Of the 20 variances still in effect, only 17 of these were listed in the Federal

Register records linked to the OSHA website. A further concern is that while it seems

that each variance granted has a unique number assigned to it, the last record for 1999 is

number 2318. The questions that arise from this situation are:

− Were there more than 27 variances granted?

− If there were, how many more were there?
− Why are there only 53 listed in the Federal Register linked to the OSHA website? and
− Where are the details of the other variance applications if there were more?

However, if the percentages derived from this study are applied to the possible

larger number of granted variances, namely, 2,318, the number of variances from

construction standards granted would be 515 (22.2%). This number would represent an

annual average of about 20, which is still very small.

Chapter Summary

The records of the Federal Register were examined relative to variances from

OSHA requirements. The types of variances that contractors could apply for included

temporary, permanent, experimental and defense variances. They could also obtain

interim orders. Of the variances granted, 22.2% were for the construction industry. Of

these variances, 50% were temporary variances, 16.7% were permanent variances, and

33.3% were interim orders. The examination confirmed that the number of applications

for variances was extremely small. The number of variances actually granted was even

smaller. While the identity of the applicant could be established from the Federal Register

records, it was not possible to determine the profile of the applicant, nor exact details

pertaining to the application. It was also not possible to determine whether a performance

approach would have obviated the need to request variances in the case examined.
 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS OF TOP MANAGEMENT SURVEY

Introduction

Statistical evidence is necessary to draw conclusions from empirical data and

establish the strength of relationships between the variables that the data represent. The

data from the questionnaires were analyzed with the aid of the SPSS computer software

package. This chapter summarizes the data obtained, and deals with the descriptive

statistical analysis itself. The chapter concludes with a summary of the analysis findings.

Demographic Information

1. What is your position within your organization? More than half (54.5%) of the
respondents held positions within their firms that are traditionally regarded as being
upper or top management positions. These positions were not directly related to
safety and health. The response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-1. Of
these management positions, 38.8% (26) were CEO’s, Presidents, Vice-presidents or
General Managers of their firms and 14.9% (10) were either Project or Contracts
Managers. The remaining 46.3% were management positions related to safety and
health. For example, 41.8% (28) were either Safety Managers or Directors.
2. Approximately how long have you held your current position? The duration
which respondents held their current positions within their firms ranged from 6
months to 36 years. The sample mean before categorization was 7.57 and the median
was 5.00 years of service in these positions (Figure 8-2).
3. What is the average number of employees in your firm? The average number of
employees ranged from 2 to 25,000 workers. The sample mean is 542.5 workers as a
result of the extreme outliers, namely, a few very high and very low values. The
median of 175 workers provides a better representation of the central value of the
sample. Firms that employed between 0 and 100 employees made up 42.4%; between
101 and 250 employees made up 19.7%; and more than 250 employees made up
37.9% of the respondents. The most frequently occurring value was 200 employees.
The response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-3.
4. What is the approximate annual value of construction contracts? As a result of
outliers such as $1.4 million and $12 billion, the median of $61 million provides a
better representation of the central value of the annual value of construction contracts
of the sample. Most of the firms, namely, 59.4% (38), had approximate annual

150
 151

construction contract values less than or equal to $100 million. The response
frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-4.

Based on 67 responses
3% Other
1.5%
Safety Consultant

38.8%
CEO/President/
Vice-president/
41.8% General Manager

Safety Director/
Manager

Project/Contracts
Manager

14.9%

Figure 8-1 Distribution of management positions

Based on 67 responses

20.9%
17.9%

> 10 years 0-1 year

5-10 years
1-5 years
26.9%

34.3%

Figure 8-2 Distribution of employment in current position

 152

Based on 66 responses
11.9%
18.2%

> 1,000

13.6% 0-25

501-1,000

26-100
251-500

12.1% 24.2%

101-250

19.7%

Figure 8-3 Distribution of average number of employees

5. Under what contracting arrangements are the firm’s revenue acquired? The
approximate total annual value of construction contracts is derived from the
contracting arrangements as shown in Figure 8-5. No firms derived 100% of their
revenue from construction management (agency) (CMA). However, 11 firms (16.7%)
derived some of their income from CMA. Only 12 firms (18.2%) derived their
revenue exclusively from general contracting (GC). However, 39 firms (59.0%)
derived at least some of their income from GC. In fact, 51.5% derived more than 50%
of the contracting revenue through this arrangement. This was the most widely used
contracting arrangement. Similarly, 16 firms (24.2%) obtained some of their income
from subcontracting (SC) while 5 firms (7.6%) did so exclusively from SC. Only 3
firms derived each (1.5%) of their incomes entirely from construction management at
risk (CMR), specialty contracting (S), and design-build (DB) respectively. Further, 15
firms (22.7%) obtained some of their revenue from CMR, 8 firms (12.1%) did so
from S, 25 (37.9%) from DB, and 5 firms (7.5%) derived some of their income from
other contracting arrangements. Further, 9 firms (13.7%) derived at least 75% of their
revenue from SC. At least 6 firms (9.1%) derived at least 50% of their contracting
revenue from CMR. Additionally, 2 firms (3.0%) obtained at least 70% of their
contracting revenue from SC. Similarly, 7 firms (10.6%) derived their revenue from
DB.
 153

Based on 64 responses

21.9% 20.3%

> $250m $0-$10m

0

$100m-$250m
$10m-$50m
18.8%
21.9%

$50m-$100m

17.2%

Figure 8-4 Distribution of annual value of construction contracts

Other Based on 66 responses

2.2%
4.8% Construction
Design-Build
Management
11.3% (Agency)
Specialty Contracting

4.7%

Construction
Management
at Risk
General Contracting
11.1%

51.7%
Subcontracting

14.2%

Figure 8-5 Distribution of firms’ annual sources of revenue

 154

6. Describe the firm’s area(s) of operation. Regarding the areas of operation of the
responding firms, the breakdown of the derivation of their contracting revenue was
1.86% from international (57 of 65 stated none); 21.91% from national (46 of 65
stated none); 33.62% from regional (33 of 65 reported none); and 42.62% from local
operations (30 of 65 reported none). While 8 firms (12.3%) undertook some of their
work internationally, no firm operated exclusively internationally. On the other hand,
9 firms (13.8%) operated exclusively nationally, 15 firms (23.1%) operated entirely
regionally, and 19 firms (29.2%) did so entirely in their local areas.

Management Attitude to the Prescriptive and Performance Approaches

7. Assuming that you were erecting scaffolding on a project in a country where both
approaches were acceptable and legitimate, which approach would you prefer?
In response to this hypothetical situation, 28 respondents (42.4%) indicated that they
would prefer the prescriptive approach while 38 (57.6%) preferred the performance
approach. The respondents tend to favor the performance approach.
8. Please explain why you made this choice. The reasons given by respondents for
choosing one approach over the other are listed in Table 8-1. The most frequent
explanations given for selecting the prescriptive approach were the following:

− More definitive and compliance can be measured objectively (16 respondents - 23.4%
of all respondents and 59.3% of those choosing the prescriptive approach); and
− Workers need specific instructions to avoid shortcuts (6 respondents - 9.2% of all
respondents and 22.2% of those choosing the prescriptive approach).

The following reasons were given for preferring the performance approach:

− Differing conditions may require different approaches (9 respondents - 13.8% of all

respondents and 23.7% of those choosing the performance approach);
− Minor changes allowed due to site conditions (3 respondents - 4.6% of all respondents
and 7.9% of those choosing the performance approach);
− Provides contractor with flexibility (16 respondents - 24.6% of all respondents and
42.1% of those choosing the performance approach); and
− Responsibility of solution choice vests in contractor (3 respondents - 4.6% of all
respondents and 7.9% of those choosing the performance approach).

The explanations that were given by the respondents regarding their preferences

related very well to those for which each approach is reportedly known to be

characteristic.

9. How well do you feel that you understand the concepts of prescriptive and
performance standards? Most of the respondents, namely, 51 (78.5%) felt that they
understood the concepts well. Only 1 of the respondents (1.5%) felt that their
understanding of the concepts was very poor. This finding is supported by the
 155

measures of central tendency, with a mean of 6.14, a median of 6.00, and a mode of
7.00. It is important since the responses to the remaining questions are dependent on
the level of understanding of both concepts. The histogram of the response frequency
distribution is shown in Figure 8-6.

Table 8-1 Explanations for selecting approach

Prescriptive Performance Reasons for preference
9Differing conditions may require different
approaches
3Minor changes allowed due to site conditions
16 More definitive and compliance can be measured
objectively
6 Workers need specific instructions to avoid
shortcuts
16Provides contractor with flexibility
1Easy for workers to understand requirements
3Responsibility of solution choice vests in contractor
1Allows for innovation and ingenuity
1Consistent structural strength better maintained
1Unit president concept resembles performance
approach
1 Contractors caused safety issue in first place
1 Minimum prescriptive standards help subcontractor
management
1Minimizes liability exposure to general contractor
1 Eliminates subjective inspections
1Better working rapport with supervision
1 Lack of knowledge to use performance approach
1No strong preference
1 Contractor should be responsible for safety
27 38

10. Conceptually, which approach to construction worker safety do you prefer? The
respondents had no conceptual preference for either the prescriptive or the
performance approach. The measures of central tendency were all concentrated
around the central value, namely, 4, of the 7-point Likert scale38 . The sample mean
was 4.02 and the median 4.00. The mode was 6.00. The range of response values was
1.00 to 7.00. While 9 respondents (13.6%) stated they did not prefer one approach
above another, 28 respondents (42.4%) preferred the performance approach and 29

38
In this case, the lower end of the scale, namely, 1-3, represented preference for the
performance approach with 1 representing a very strong preference. The upper end of the
scale, 5-7 represented preference for the prescriptive approach with 7 representing a very
strong preference. The value 4 represented no preference for either approach.
 156

respondents (43.9%) the prescriptive approach. This finding is somewhat surprising

since the response to the hypothetical situation indicated a stronger preference by
17% for the performance approach. This result suggests that might be a difference in
conceptual preference and practical implementational preference. The histogram of
the response frequency is shown in Figure 8-7.

40

30
FREQUENCY

20

10

Std. Dev = 1.04

Mean = 6.2

0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING CONCEPTS

Figure 8-6 Frequency distribution of level of understanding concepts39

11. How influential are the types of approaches to the following issues? The
respondents were asked to rate the influence that either the prescriptive or the
performance approach had on several issues based on how they understood the
approaches. For each issue, a 7-point Likert scale of influence was used with the
performance approach at the lower end of the scale and the prescriptive approach at
the upper end of the scale 40 . It was noted that the range of response was from 1 to 7,
covering the full range of responses.

39
The scale used to indicate the level of understanding of the concepts in Figure 8-6 is a
7-point Likert scale with 1 representing very poor understanding, 4 representing neither
poor nor good understanding (neutral), and 7 representing excellent or very good
understanding. This form of scale of measurement is used in all histograms
40
In this case, the lower end of the scale, namely, 1-3, represented the level of influence
that the performance approach would have on the issues with 1 representing a very strong
influence. The upper end of the scale, 5-7 represented the level of influence that the
prescriptive approach would have on the issues with 7 representing a very strong
influence. The value 4 represented that neither approach would be influential
 157

− Ease of introduction of new technologies. The measures of central tendency for the
sample indicate a bimodal frequency distribution. The value of the mode is 6.00. The
mean is 4.08 while the median is 4.00. The findings suggest that the respondents are
almost equally divided regarding their opinions on the influence of either approach to
the ease with which new technologies may be introduced into construction. The
histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-8. While 26
respondents (49.6%) opined that the performance approach was more influential, 30
(46.9%) felt that the prescriptive approach was more influential. Examination of the
extremes of the scale reveal that those with strong feelings were represented almost
equally, namely, 23 respondents (35.9%) toward the performance approach and 25
respondents (39.0%) toward the prescriptive approach. The range of response values
was 1.00 to 7.00.

14

12

10
FREQUENCY

Performance Prescriptive
4

2 Std. Dev = 2.02

Mean = 4.0
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

CONCEPTUAL APPROACH PREFERENCE

Figure 8-7 Conceptual preference for prescriptive and performance approaches

− Cost effectiveness. The sample mean (3.73) indicated a slight leaning in favor of the
influence of the performance approach regarding cost effectiveness. However, a closer
look at the extreme values of the scale indicated 6 additional respondents (9.1%)
favored the performance approach. A significant number of 11 respondents (16.7%)
were undecided about which approach had the greater influence. Overall, 32
respondents (48.5%) felt the performance approach had the greater influence, while 23
respondents (34.8%) were inclined toward the prescriptive approach. The histogram of
frequency of responses is shown in Figure 8-9.
− Flexibility. The sample mean (2.70), median (2.00) and mode (1.00) suggest that
respondents felt that the performance approach had a greater influence on the issue of
flexibility. The 45 respondents indicating a preference for the performance approach,
represented 68.2% of the sample, while those who felt that the prescriptive approach
had the greater influence represented 22.7 % of the sample (15 respondents. The
histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-10.
 158

16

14

12

FREQUENCY
10

4
Performance Prescriptive
Std. Dev = 2.16
2
Mean = 4.1
0 N = 64.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-8 Frequency response for ease of introduction of new technologies

14

12

10
FREQUENCY

4
Performance Prescriptive
2 Std. Dev = 2.09
Mean = 3.7
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-9 Frequency distribution for cost effectiveness of approach
 159

30

FREQUENCY
20

10
Performance
Prescriptive
Std. Dev = 1.89
Mean = 2.7
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-10 Frequency distribution for flexibility

− Ease of implementation. A larger proportion of the sample (31 respondents or

47.0%) felt that the performance approach was more influential regarding the ease of
implementing an approach to construction worker safety. A significant number (10
respondents or 15.2%) were undecided about which approach had the greater
influence. The histogram of the response frequency distribution of the sample is
depicted in Figure 8-11.
− Ease of understanding compliance requirements. The measures of central tendency
of the sample indicate a stronger preference for the prescriptive approach influencing
the ease of understanding compliance requirements for worker safety. Of the sample,
34 respondents (51.5%) preferred the prescriptive approach, while 26 respondents
(39.4%) expressed a preference for the performance approach. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-12.
− Support for innovation. The sample median (2.00) and mode (1.00) show that
respondents felt that the performance approach was more supportive of innovation
than the prescriptive approach. These 40 respondents made up 60.6% of the sample,
while those leaning toward the prescriptive approach made up 22.7% (15 respondents).
The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-13.
 160

14

12

10

FREQUENCY
8

4 Performance Prescriptive

2 Std. Dev = 1.98

Mean = 3.7
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-11 Frequency distribution for ease of implementation

16

14

12
FREQUENCY

10

4 Performance Prescriptive
Std. Dev = 2.03
2
Mean = 4.3
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-12 Frequency distribution for ease of understanding compliance requirements
 161

30

20
FREQUENCY

10
Performance Prescriptive

Std. Dev = 2.00

Mean = 3.0
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-13 Frequency distribution for support for innovation

− Ease of introduction of new materials. A larger proportion of the sample (56.7%)

opined that the performance approach was more influential regarding the issue of the
ease of introducing new materials, while 29.9% (20 respondents) felt that the
prescriptive approach had the greater influence. The sample mean was 3.40. The
histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-14.
− Corporate culture, vision and mission of your organization. Similarly, 47.8% of
the sample (32 respondents) felt that the performance approach was more influential
with regard to the corporate culture, vision and mission of firms. However, a
significant number of respondents (22.4%) were undecided about which approach was
the more influential. The sample mean was 3.48. The histogram of the response
frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-15.
− Potential to improve safety performance on sites. The sample median (3.00) and
mode (1.00) suggested that there was a preference for the performance approach
having more influence on the potential to improve safety performance on construction
sites. Some 34 respondents (50.7%) favored the performance approach, while 25
respondents (37.3%) favored the prescriptive approach. The histogram of the response
frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-16.
 162

20

FREQUENCY
10

Performance

Prescriptive Std. Dev = 1.99

Mean = 3.4
0 N = 67.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-14 Frequency distribution for ease of introduction of new materials

20
FREQUENCY

10

Performance Prescriptive Std. Dev = 2.03

Mean = 3.5
0 N = 67.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-15 Frequency distribution for corporate culture, vision and mission
 163

14

12

10
FREQUENCY

4 Performance Prescriptive

2 Std. Dev = 2.09

Mean = 3.7
0 N = 67.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-16 Frequency distribution for potential to improve safety performance on sites

− Simplicity of interpretation. The sample mean (4.21) provided a good measure of

central tendency of the sample. This is evident, as a slightly larger proportion of the
respondents (47.8%) preferred the prescriptive approach while 40.3% leaned toward
the performance approach being more influential to the issue of respect to simplicity of
interpretation. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure
8-17.
− Ease of compliance. The sample was almost equally divided between respondents
favoring either approach influencing the issue of ease of compliance. However, the
sample mean (4.11) indicated a slight preference for the prescriptive approach. There
were 13 respondents who had no preference. The histogram of the response frequency
distribution is shown in Figure 8-18.
 164

20

FREQUENCY

10

Performance Prescriptive Std. Dev = 2.23

Mean = 4.2
0 N = 67.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-17 Frequency distribution for simplicity of interpretation

14

12

10
FREQUENCY

Performance Prescriptive
4

2 Std. Dev = 2.01

Mean = 4.1
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE OF APPROACHES

Figure 8-18 Frequency distribution for ease of compliance
 165

Comparison of Means

By comparing the means of the various frequency distributions, it was possible to

rank the influence of the various approaches on the 11 issues. By ranking the means in

ascending order it was possible to rank the issues in order of the influence that the

performance approach had on them. The 7-point scale of influence suggested that mean

values closer to 1 suggested a stronger influence of the performance approach, while

mean values closer to 7 suggested a stronger influence of the prescriptive approach. This

ranking in order of influence is reflected in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2 Ranking the influence of the approaches on issues

Rank Issue N Mean Std.
Deviation
1 Flexibility 65 2.6615 1.8815
2 Support for innovation 65 2.9692 1.9841
3 Ease of introduction of new materials 66 3.3636 1.9817
4 Corporate culture, vision and mission of your 66 3.4242 1.9928
organization
5 Ease of implementation 65 3.6462 1.9719
6 Cost effectiveness of approach 65 3.6769 2.0699
7 Potential to improve safety performance on sites 66 3.6818 2.0914
8 Ease of compliance 65 4.0769 2.0102
9 Ease of introduction of new technologies 63 4.0794 2.1650
10 Simplicity of interpretation 66 4.1667 2.2228
11 Ease of understanding compliance requirements 65 4.2923 2.0212

The performance approach had the greatest influence on the issue of flexibility

with a mean value of 2.66. It had the least influence on ease of understanding compliance

requirements with a mean value of 4.29. Support for innovation ranked 2nd and ease of

introduction of new materials ranked 3rd. This finding conforms with the issues that the

literature on the performance approach suggests motivate the decision to adopt the

approach. The potential to improve safety performance on sites ranked 6th .

 166

To determine whether the influence of the approaches differed by preference for

approach, the means were compared based on preference. The results of this comparison

yielded slightly different results (Table 8-3).

Table 8-3 Ranking influence of the approaches on issues by approach

Sample Issue Perform Mean Std. Prescript Mean Std.
Rank Dev. Dev.
1 Flexibility 1 2.47 1.89 11 3.00 1.89
3 Ease of introduction of new 2 2.76 1.75 8 4.35 1.95
materials
2 Support for innovation 3 2.89 2.09 10 3.18 1.91
6 Cost effectiveness of 4 2.92 1.88 5 4.82 1.89
approach
4 Corporate culture, vision and 5 2.92 1.79 9 4.32 2.06
mission of your organization
7 Potential to improve safety 6 3.03 1.85 6 4.71 2.05
performance on sites
5 Ease of implementation 7 3.08 1.75 7 4.50 2.01
8 Ease of compliance 8 3.24 1.74 2 5.25 1.82
9 Ease of introduction of new 9 3.33 1.90 4 5.11 2.10
technologies
10 Simplicity of interpretation 10 3.45 2.18 3 5.21 1.95
11 Ease of understanding 11 3.61 1.85 1 5.32 1.87
compliance requirements
Valid N (listwise) 36 28

The issue of flexibility ranked highest for those preferring the performance

approach and lowest for those preferring the prescriptive approach. The ease of

understanding compliance requirements ranked the lowest for those preferring the

performance approach but highest for those preferring the prescriptive approach. The

ease of introducing new materials and support for innovation ranked 2nd and 3rd

respectively for those preferring the performance approach. The ease of compliance and

simplicity of interpretation ranked 2nd and 3rd for those preferring the prescriptive

approach. The potential to improve safety performance on sites ranked 6th for both
 167

groups. The ease of the introduction of technology ranked 9th for those preferring the

performance approach and 4th for those preferring the prescriptive approach. This result

seems to be an anomaly since it would have been predicted to be higher for the

performance group and lower for the prescriptive group. The range of responses was

from 1 to 7 for all issues except ease of implementation for which it was 1 to 6.

12. How important are the following issues to construction safety and health
management? The respondents were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale of
importance41 how important they regarded several issues regarding an approach to
construction safety and health management.
− Cost effectiveness of the approach. The sample mean (4.80), median (5.00) and
mode (5.00) indicate that most of the respondents regarded cost effectiveness to be
important to an approach to construction safety and health management. Some 39.4%
(26 respondents) regarded this aspect as particularly important, whereas 13.6% (9
respondents) regarded it as relatively unimportant. The histogram of the response
frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-19.

16

14

12

10
FREQUENCY

Std. Dev = 1.77

2
Mean = 4.8
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-19 Frequency distribution of importance of cost effectiveness

41
The scale used to indicate the level of importance is a 7-point Likert scale with 1
representing not important at all, 4 representing a neutral attitude, and 7 representing very
or extremely important. This form of scale of measurement is used in all histograms
 168

− Ease of implementation of the approach. Similarly, the sample mean (5.84), median
(6.00) and mode (7.00) indicate that respondents regarded the ease of implementation
of the approach as more important to safety and health than its cost effectiveness. Only
3% (2 respondents) regarded this issue as not important, 7.5% (5 respondents) were
undecided about its importance, while 60 respondents (89.6%) regarded it with
varying degrees of importance. In fact 34.3% (23 respondents) regarded it as very
important. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-
20.

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.12

Mean = 5.8

0 N = 67.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-20 Frequency distribution of importance of ease of implementation

− Ease of understanding compliance requirements. The respondents regarded the

ease of understanding compliance requirements as important. This finding is suggested
by the sample mean (6.04), median (6.00) and mode (7.00). There were no
respondents who regarded this issue as unimportant. Only 4 respondents (6.0%) were
undecided about how important the issue was to construction safety and health
management. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure
8-21.
 169

30

FREQUENCY 20

10

Std. Dev = .94

Mean = 6.0
0 N = 67.00
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-21 Frequency distribution of ease of understanding compliance requirements

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.43

Mean = 5.4

0 N = 67.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-22 Distribution of support for innovation, new materials and technology
 170

− Support for innovation, new materials and technology. As before, a large

proportion of the respondents regarded the support for innovation, new materials and
technology that an approach to safety management would provide as important. Some
18 respondents (26.9%) felt that the issue was very important (7), 17 respondents
(25.4%) stated that it was slightly less important (6), while 16 respondents (23.9%)
that it was important (5). Only 1 respondent (1.5%) regarded the issue as not important
at all (1). The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-
22.

40

30
FREQUENCY

20

10

Std. Dev = 1.05

Mean = 6.3

0 N = 67.00
1.5 2.4 3.3 4.2 5.1 6.0 6.9

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-23 Frequency distribution of potential to improve safety performance on sites

− Potential to improve safety performance on sites. As might have been expected,

only 1 respondent regarded the potential of the approach to improve safety
management on sites to be not important. The sample mean (6.31), median (7.00) and
mode (7.00) indicate that this issue is regarded as extremely important to respondents.
In fact, 38 respondents (56.7%) regarded the issue as very important, 18 respondents
(26.9%) saw the issue as slightly less important while 8 respondents (11.9%) regarded
it as important. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in
Figure 8-23. While the scales seem different due to the way SPSS selected to
graphically represent the data, they represent 1 to 7 as before.
 171

Comparing Means to Rank Responses

By comparing the means of the various frequency distributions, it was possible to

rank the 5 issues regarding how important they were regarded by the respondents. The 7-

point scale of importance suggested that the greater the importance of the issue the closer

the mean value would be to the upper end of the scale, namely, 7. This ranking in order

of importance is reflected in Table 8-4. The importance of the potential to improve safety

performance on sites ranked the highest, while the importance of cost effectiveness

ranked the lowest.

Table 8-4 Importance of issues affecting construction safety management

Rank Issue N Mean Std.
Deviation
1. The potential to improve safety performance on sites 66 6.32 1.05

2. The ease of understanding compliance requirements 66 6.05 .95

3. The ease of implementation of the approach 66 5.83 1.13

4. Support for innovation, new materials and 66 5.39 1.43

technology

5. The cost effectiveness of approach 65 4.77 1.77

Preference for Either Approach

To determine whether the preference for an approach would have any effect on

the ranking, the means were compared based on their preference. The results of this

comparison yielded the same ranking in Table 8-5. The result of the comparison revealed

that preference for either the performance or prescriptive approach had no effect on the

ranking of the issues.

 172

Table 8-5 Importance of construction safety management issues by approach

Sample Issue Perform. Mean Std. Prescript. Mean Std.
Rank Rank Dev. Rank Dev.
1 The potential to improve 1 6.32 .84 1 6.29 1.30
safety performance on sites
2 The ease of understanding 2 5.92 1.00 2 6.18 .86
compliance requirements
3 The ease of implementation 3 5.79 1.26 3 5.93 .94
of the approach
4 Support for innovation, new 4 5.50 1.41 4 5.29 1.49
materials and technology
5 The cost effectiveness of 5 4.97 1.71 5 4.64 1.87
approach
Valid N (listwise) 38 27

Change Management

13. Who usually sponsors major change within your organization? Regarding who
usually sponsors major change within the firms of respondents, the breakdown of
their responses were 53.52% top management, 16.12% middle management, 19.05%
site management, 6.00% workers and 5.03% supervisors. The top management of 58
firms (89.2%), middle management of 45 firms (69.2%), site management of 44 firms
(67.7%), workers of 27 firms (42.5%), and supervisors of 22 firms (33.8%) sponsored
some of the major changes in those firms. The top management of 8 firms (12.3%)
and the site management of 3 firms (4.6%) sponsored 100% of the major changes that
took place in those firms. The distribution of sponsors of major change is shown in
Figure 8-24.
14. How influential are the following in driving change within your organization?
The respondents were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale of influence42 how
influential they regarded 13 issues in driving change within their organizations. The
closer to the upper end of the scale the response, the greater the influence the issue
had on driving change. Conversely, the closer to the lower end of the scale of 1, the
weaker the influence of the issue on driving changes.
− Financial performance. The measures of central tendency of the sample, namely, the
mean (6.00), median (6.00) and mode (7.00), indicated that most of the respondents
(93.8%) regarded financial performance as influential in driving change within their
firms. Only 2 respondents (3.1%) regarded financial performance as not influential
(1.0). Further, 26 respondents (40.0%) regarded this issue as extremely important in
driving change (7.0) (Figure 8-25).

42
The scale used to indicate the level of influence is a 7-point Likert scale with 1
representing not influential at all, 4 representing a neutral attitude, and 7 representing
very or extremely influential. This form of scale of measurement is used in all histograms
 173

5%
supervisors
6% workers

19% site management

54% top management

16% middle
management

Figure 8-24 Distribution of major change sponsorship within organizations

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.08

Mean = 6.0

0 N = 65.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-25 Frequency distribution of financial performance
 174

− Staff turnover. The sample mode (4.00) indicated that 20 respondents (30.3%) were
undecided about the influence that staff turnover had in driving change within their
organizations. The sample mean (3.21) and median (3.00) indicated that 36
respondents (54.5%) regarded this issue as not being influential to varying degrees.
While only 2 respondents (3.0%) regarded staff turnover as extremely influential, 10
respondents (15.2%) regarded it as not influential in driving change. The histogram of
the response frequency distribution is depicted in Figure 8-26.
− Introduction of new technology. Only 6 respondents (9.1 %) regarded the
introduction of new technology as not being influential in driving change within their
firms. While 13 respondents (19.7%) were undecided, 47 respondents (71.2%)
regarded the issue as being influential. Further, 6 respondents (9.1%) regarded the
introduction of new technology as extremely influential in driving change. The
histogram of the response frequency distribution is depicted in Figure 8-27.
− Keeping up with competitors. More respondents (77.3%) regarded keeping up with
competitors as being influential to varying degrees in driving change in their firms.
While only 5 respondents (7.6%) regarded this issue as not influential at all, 13
respondents (19.7%) regarded it as extremely influential. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is depicted in Figure 8-28.

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.51

Mean = 3.2
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-26 Frequency distribution of staff turnover
 175

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.15

Mean = 5.1

0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-27 Frequency distribution of introduction of new technology

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.66

Mean = 5.2

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-28 Frequency distribution of keeping up with competitors
 176

− Improvement of your safety record. Not unexpectedly, most of the respondents

(86.4%) regarded the improvement of their safety record as being influential in driving
change in their organizations. While only 3 respondents (4.5%) regarded this issue as
not being influential to varying degrees, 21 respondents (31.8%) regarded it as
extremely influential. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is depicted
in Figure 8-29.

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.27

Mean = 5.8

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-29 Frequency distribution of improvement of safety record

− Occurrence of accidents. Surprisingly, the sample mean (3.83), the median (4.00),
and the mode (4.00) indicated that a large proportion of the respondents (25.8%) were
undecided about the influence that the occurrence of accidents had in driving change
within their organizations. Further, 30 respondents (45.5%) regarded this issue as not
being influential, while 19 respondents (28.8%) regarded it as having some influence.
While 2 respondents (3.0%) regarded the occurrence of accidents as not being
influential at all, 6 respondents (9.1%) regarded it as being extremely influential
(Figure 8-30).
 177

20

FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.65

Mean = 3.8
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-30 Frequency distribution of occurrence of accidents

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.49

Mean = 4.6

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-31 Frequency distribution of meeting worker demands
 178

− Meeting worker demands. The sample mean (4.59), the median (5.00), and the
mode (4.00), indicated that a large proportion of the respondents (28.8%) were
concentrated around being undecided about the influence of this issue in driving
change in their firms. However, only 10 respondents (15.2%) regarded meeting worker
demands as not being influential to varying degrees. Further, 4 respondents (6.1%)
regarded the issue as being extremely influential. The histogram of the response
frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-31.

50

40
FREQUENCY

30

20

10
Std. Dev = 1.14
Mean = 5.7

0 N = 66.00
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-32 Frequency distribution of generating of quality improvements

− Generating of quality improvements. The sample mean (5.73), the median (6.00),
and the mode (6.00) indicated that most of the respondents (86.4%) regarded the
generating of quality improvements as being influential in driving change in their
firms. Only 1 respondent (1.5%) regarded this issue as not being influential at all,
while 18 respondents (27.3%) regarded it as being extremely influential in driving
change. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-32.
− Exploitation of new market opportunities. Most respondents (72.7%) regarded the
exploitation of new market opportunities as being influential in driving change, while
9 respondents (13.6%) regarded it as not being influential. Further, while 2
respondents (3.0%) regarded the issue as not being influential at all, 14 respondents
(21.2%) regarded it as extremely important. The sample mean was 5.29. The
histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-33.
 179

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.54

Mean = 5.3

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-33 Frequency distribution of exploitation of new market opportunities

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.39

Mean = 5.0

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-34 Frequency distribution of responding to management initiatives
 180

− Responding to management initiatives. The sample mean (5.02), the median (5.00)
and the mode (6.00) indicated that a large proportion of the respondents (68.2%)
regarded response to management initiatives as being influential in driving change.
Only 9 respondents (13.6%) regarded it as not being influential. Further, 1 respondent
(1.5%) regarded the issue as not being influential at all, while 7 respondents (10.6%)
regarded it as being extremely influential in driving change. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-34.
− Responding to third party claims. The frequency distribution of the sample
indicated that respondents were generally evenly divided between whether responding
to third party claims was influential or not in driving change in their firms. The sample
mean (4.12), the median (4.00) and the mode (4.00) indicated that a large number of
respondents (28.8%) were undecided on the issue. While 5 respondents (7.6%)
regarded the issue as not being influential at all, 7 respondents (10.6%) regarded it as
extremely influential. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown
in Figure 8-35.

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.67

Mean = 4.1

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-35 Frequency distribution of responding to third party claims
 181

− Complying with owner/client requirements. The frequency distribution of

responses of the sample indicated that complying with owner or client requirements
was influential in driving change. The sample mean (5.58), the median (6.00) and the
mode (6.00) were indicative of this influence. Only 3 respondents (4.5%) regarded this
issue as not being influential, while 54 respondents (81.8%) regarded it as being
influential. Further, 15 respondents (22.7%) regarded it as being extremely influential
in driving change (7.0). The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown
in Figure 8-36. While the scales seem different due to the way SPSS selected to
graphically represent the data, they represent 1 to 7 as before.

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.30

Mean = 5.6

0 N = 66.00
1.4 2.3 3.2 4.1 5.0 5.9 6.8

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-36 Frequency distribution of complying with owner/client requirements

− Meeting new insurance requirements. While 17 respondents (26.2%) were

undecided about the influence of meeting new insurance requirements in driving
change within their firms, most of the respondents (64.6%) regarded the issue as
influential. Only 6 respondents (9.2%) regarded it as not being influential, while 12
respondents (18.5%) regarded it as extremely influential. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-37.
 182

20

FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.51

Mean = 5.1
0 N = 65.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 8-37 Frequency distribution of meeting new insurance requirements

Ranking of Responses Comparing Means

By comparing the means of the various frequency distributions, it was possible to

rank the 13 issues regarding how influential they were regarded by the respondents in

driving change within their organizations. This ranking in order of importance is reflected

in Table 8-6. The improvement of financial performance of the organization ranked the

highest, followed by the improvement of the safety record of the organization.

Staff turnover ranked the lowest in driving change in their organizations.

Surprisingly, the occurrence of accidents ranked 12th .

 183

Table 8-6 Influence of issues in driving change within organizations

Rank Issue N Mean Std.
Deviation
1 The improvement of financial performance 64 6.0000 1.0838

2 The improvement of your safety record 65 5.7385 1.2659

3 The generating of quality improvements 65 5.7077 1.1419

4 Complying with owner/client requirements 65 5.5692 1.3106

5 The exploitation of new market opportunities 65 5.2615 1.5338

6 Keeping up with competitors 65 5.1538 1.6605

7 The introduction of new technology 65 5.0769 1.1498

8 Meeting new insurance requirements 64 5.0469 1.5164

9 Responding to management initiatives 65 5.0000 1.3919

10 Meeting worker demands 65 4.6000 1.4979

11 Responding to third party claims 65 4.1077 1.6782

12 The occurrence of accidents 65 3.8462 1.6605

13 Staff turnover 65 3.2000 1.5227

Group Preferring the Performance Approach

To determine whether the preference for the performance approach, instead of the

prescriptive approach, would have any effect on the ranking, the group of respondents

who preferred the performance approach was selected and the means compared based on

this preference. The results of this comparison yielded slightly different results in Table

8-7. The financial performance of their firms was the primary change-driving issue for all

groups. Similarly, meeting worker demands and responding to third party claims were
 184

issues that all respondents regarded as marginally influential in driving change. Further,

the occurrence of accidents and staff turnover were issues that all respondents regarded as

being of little importance in driving change in their firms. While those preferring the

performance approach reported that exploitation of new market opportunities was the 5th

most influential change-driving issue in their firms, those preferring the prescriptive

approach regarded it as the 8th most influential issue. The introduction of technology was

regarded as more influential in driving change (5th ) by those preferring the prescriptive

approach than those preferring the performance approach (9th ).

Table 8-7 Influence of issues in driving change within organizations according to

preference of approach
Sample Issue Perform Mean Std. Prescript Mean Std.
Rank Rank Dev. Rank Dev.
1 Financial performance 1 5.86 1.25 1 6.19 .79
3 Generating of quality improvements 2 5.81 1.08 3 5.57 1.23
2 Improvement of your safety record 3 5.78 1.23 2 5.68 1.33
4 Complying with owner/client 4 5.59 1.34 4 5.57 1.29
requirements
5 Exploitation of new market 5 5.43 1.57 8 5.04 1.48
opportunities
6 Keeping up with competitors 6 5.27 1.68 7 5.11 1.69
9 Responding to management 7 5.05 1.47 9 4.96 1.32
initiatives
8 Meeting new insurance 8 5.03 1.54 6 5.11 1.52
requirements
7 Introduction of new technology 9 5.00 1.18 5 5.21 1.13
10 Meeting worker demands 10 4.46 1.48 10 4.75 1.53
11 Responding to third party claims 11 4.03 1.74 11 4.18 1.59
12 Occurrence of accidents 12 3.89 1.70 12 3.71 1.63
13 Staff turnover in driving change 13 3.00 1.49 13 3.57 1.48
Valid N (listwise) 37 28

Generating quality improvements and improvement of safety records ranked 2nd

and 3rd respectively for the group preferring the performance approach. Similarly,
 185

improvement of safety records and generating quality improvements ranked 2nd and 3rd

respectively for the group preferring the prescriptive approach.

Top Management Structure Position

To determine whether the position within the top management structure of firms

had any effect on the ranking, the means were compared. The results of this comparison

yielded slightly different results for each major management position category as shown

in Table 8-8.

Table 8-8 Influence of issues according to top management position

Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice- Contracts Director/
president/MD/ Manager Manager
General
Manager
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Improvement of financial performance 1 2 1 1
Improvement of your safety record 2 3 2 2
Generating of quality improvements 3 1 4 4
Complying with owner/client requirements 4 5 3 3
Exploitation of new market opportunities 5 4 9 9
Keeping up with competitors 6 8 5 5
Introduction of new technology 7 6 8 8
Meeting new insurance requirements 8 7 7 7
Responding to management initiatives 9 9 6 6
Meeting worker demands 10 10 10 10
Responding to third party claims 11 11 11 11
Occurrence of accidents 12 12 12 12
Staff turnover 13 13 13 13
 186

CEOs, Presidents, Vice-presidents and general managers ranked the generation of

quality improvements as most influential in driving change within their organizations.

Further, they regarded the improvement of the financial performance of their firms,

improvement of the firm’s safety record, and the exploitation of new market

opportunities as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th most influential.

On the other hand, project managers, contracts managers, safety directors and

safety managers ranked the improvement of financial performance as the most influential

in driving change in their organizations. Additionally, they regarded the improvement of

their firms’ safety record, complying with owner/client requirements, generating quality

improvements, and keeping up with competitors as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th most influential

change drivers. They did not regard the exploitation of new market opportunities (9th ) as

being as influential as did the CEO group (4th ). This is not entirely surprising since

marketing issues would be expected to feature fairly highly on the agenda of CEOs.

Meeting the demands of workers, responding to third party claims, the occurrence of

accidents, and staff turnover were consistently regarded by all the groups as not being the

major drivers of change in their organizations. The rankings were 10th , 11th , 12th and 13th

respectively.

Management Preferring the Performance Approach

The results are represented in Table 8-9 of examining whether the top

management position within the group preferring the performance approach influenced

the ranking order. The resultant rankings were somewhat different from those in Table 8-

8 for all management groupings. The rankings in this latter table are shown in

parentheses for ease of comparison.

 187

CEOs, Presidents, Vice-presidents and general managers ranked the improvement

of the firm’s safety record as most influential in driving change within their

organizations. Further, they regarded the improvement of the financial performance of

their firms, complying with owner/client requirements, and generating quality

improvements, as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th most influential.

Table 8-9 Influence according to top management preferring performance approach

Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice- Contracts Director/
president/MD/ Manager44 Manager
45
General
Manager43
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Improvement of financial performance 1 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 (1)
Improvement of your safety record 2 1 (3) 7 (2) 1 (2)
Generating of quality improvements 3 4 (1) 2 (4) 4 (4)
Complying with owner/client requirements 4 3 (5) 4 (3) 3 (3)
Exploitation of new market opportunities 5 8 (4) 5 (9) 8 (9)
Keeping up with competitors 6 6 (8) 3 (5) 6 (5)
Introduction of new technology 7 9 (6) 6 (8) 9 (8)
Meeting new insurance requirements 8 7 (7) 10 (7) 7 (7)
Responding to management initiatives 9 5 (9) 8 (6) 5 (6)
Meeting worker demands 10 10 (10) 9 (10) 10 (10)
Responding to third party claims 11 11 (11) 11 (11) 11 (11)
Occurrence of accidents 12 12 (12) 12 (12) 12 (12)
Staff turnover 13 13 (13) 13 (12) 13 (12)

43
N=14
44
N=6
45
N=14
 188

The exploitation of new market opportunities and introduction of new technology

dropped in the ranking from 4th to 8th and 6th to 9th respectively. Keeping up with

competitors rose in the rankings from 8th to 6th and responding to management initiatives

from 9th to 5th . It would seem that issues that surround safety performance and

expectations were regarded as more influential. Project and contracts managers were

more concerned about the competitive environment and ranked those issues highly. For

instance, keeping up with competitors, exploiting new market opportunities and

introducing new technology rose in the rankings. The improvement of the firm’s safety

record dropped in rank from 2nd to 7th . This is a surprising result. Meeting new insurance

requirements, complying with owner/client requirements, and responding to management

initiatives dropped from their previous rankings.

Safety directors and managers predictably regarded the improvement of the firm’s

safety record as the most influential change driver. There was very little change from the

previous rankings for this group. The last 3 rankings for all groups remained unchanged.

Management Preferring the Prescriptive Approach Compared

The results are represented in Table 8-10 of examining whether the top

management position within the group preferring the prescriptive approach influenced the

ranking order. The resultant rankings were somewhat different from those in Table 8-9

for all management groupings. The rankings for those preferring the performance

approach are shown in parentheses for ease of comparison.

In contrast to the CEOs group that preferred the performance approach, those

preferring the prescriptive approach regarded the influence of several change-driving

issues differently. For example, they regarded generating quality improvements as being
 189

the most influential issue. The performance group stated this issue as being the 4th most

influential.

Table 8-10 Influence according to top management preferring prescriptive approach

Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice- Contracts Director/
president/MD/ Manager47 Manager48
General
Manager46
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Improvement of financial performance 1 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (2)
Improvement of your safety record 2 3 (1) 6 (7) 3 (1)
Generating of quality improvements 3 1 (4) 5 (2) 4 (4)
Complying with owner/client requirements 4 5 (3) 2 (4) 2 (3)
Exploitation of new market opportunities 5 9 (8) 3 (5) 9 (8)
Keeping up with competitors 6 7 (6) 7 (3) 6 (6)
Introduction of new technology 7 4 (9) 9 (6) 5 (9)
Meeting new insurance requirements 8 6 (7) 4 (10) 8 (7)
Responding to management initiatives 9 8 (5) 8 (8) 7 (5)
Meeting worker demands 10 10 (10) 11 (9) 10 (10)
Responding to third party claims 11 11 (11) 10 (11) 11 (11)
Occurrence of accidents 12 12 (12) 12 (12) 13 (12)
Staff turnover 13 13 (13) 13 (13) 12 (13)

While the CEOs who preferred the performance approach regarded the

introduction of new technology as being 9th most influential, the prescriptive group

regarded it as 4th most important. Complying with owner/client requirements and

46
N=10
47
N=4
48
N=14
 190

responding to management initiatives were regarded by the CEOs group who preferred

the prescriptive approach as being less influential (5th and 8th respectively) than their

counterparts who preferred the performance approach (3rd and 5th respectively).

The Project Managers group who preferred the prescriptive approach regarded

complying with owner/client requirements, exploitation of new market opportunities,

meeting new insurance requirements, and generating of quality improvements as being

2nd, 3rd, 4th , and 5th most influential change-driving issues. Their counterparts who

preferred the performance approach regarded these same issues as being 4th , 5th , 10th , and

2nd most influential.

Safety directors who preferred the prescriptive approach regarded the

improvement of the safety record of their firms, introduction of new technology, and

responding to management initiatives as being 3rd, 5th , and 7th respectively most

influential issues driving change within their firms. Their counterparts who preferred the

performance approach viewed the influence of these issues differently, namely, most

influential, 9th , and 5th influential respectively.

15. Have you observed the introduction of any major changes in your firm? In
response to this question, most of the respondents (89.1%) had observed the
introduction of major changes within their organizations. Only 7 respondents (10.9%)
had not observed any such changes. With response of ‘yes’ being given a value of 1.0
and ‘no’ being given a value of 2.0, the sample mean was 1.11. The response
frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-38.
16. How important would be the willingness of workers to accept the change before
the change is implemented? 49 Most of the respondents (66.7%) regarded the
willingness of workers to accept the change before it was implemented as an
important issue. Only 14 respondents (21.2%) regarded it as not important, while 18

49
The scale used to indicate the level of importance is a 7-point Likert scale with 1
representing not important at all, 4 representing a neutral attitude, and 7 representing very
or extremely important. This form of scale of measurement is used in all histograms
 191

respondents (27.3%) regarded it as very important. The sample mean was 5.11. The
response frequency distribution is shown in the histogram in Figure 8-39.

Sample size = 64 responses

10.9%

No

Yes

89.1%

Figure 8-38 Frequency distribution of observation of major changes

17. How important would it be to break down the resistance of workers to change by
convincing them to accept the change? Similarly, most of the respondents (84.8%)
regarded breaking down the resistance of workers to change by convincing them to
accept it as an important issue. While 17 respondents (25.8%) regarded this issue as
very important, only 1 respondent (1.5%) regarded it as not important. The response
frequency distribution is shown in the histogram in Figure 8-40.
18. How important would it be to build credibility and trust with the workers before
implementing a change? Most of the respondents (93.9%) regarded as an important
issue the building of credibility and trust with workers before implementing a change.
Only 3 respondents (4.5%) were undecided about its importance, while 29
respondents (43.9%) regarded it as very important. The response frequency
distribution is shown in the histogram in Figure 8-41.
 192

20

FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.67

Mean = 5.1

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-39 Distribution of importance of willingness of workers to accept change

40

30
FREQUENCY

20

10

Std. Dev = 1.26

Mean = 5.7
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-40 Importance of breaking down the resistance of workers to change
 193

19. How important would it be to enlist the opinions of workers on a proposed

change before it is implemented? The sample mean (5.74), median (6.00) and
mode (6.00) indicated that most of the respondents (84.8%) regarded the opinions of
workers on a proposed change as being important. In fact, 20 respondents (30.3%)
regarded the issue as very important (7.0 on the scale) and 22 respondents (33.3%) as
only slightly less important (6.0 on the scale). No respondents regarded the opinions
of workers as being not important at all. Only 7 respondents (10.6%) were undecided
about the importance of this issue. The response frequency distribution is shown in
the histogram in Figure 8-42.
20. How important do you regard the receptiveness of first-line supervisors
(foremen) to change? No respondents regarded the receptiveness of foremen or
first-line supervisors to change as not being important. While 35 respondents (53.8%)
regarded the issue as very important (7.0 on the scale), 14 respondents (21.5%)
regarded it as only slightly less important (6.0 on the scale). Only 6 respondents
(9.2%) were undecided about the importance of the receptiveness to change of
foremen. The response frequency distribution is shown in Table 8-28 and the
histogram of the distribution in Figure 8-43.

40

30
FREQUENCY

20

10

Std. Dev = .99

Mean = 6.2

0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-41 Importance of building credibility and trust with workers
 194

30

20

FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.14

Mean = 5.7

0 N = 66.00
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE

Figure 8-42 Importance of enlisting the opinions of workers

40

30
FREQUENCY

20

10

Std. Dev = 1.02

Mean = 6.2

0 N = 65.00
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-43 Importance of the receptiveness of foremen
 195

21. How important do you regard the following factors to be for the implementation
of new approaches? The respondents were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale of
importance50 how important they regarded each of 10 factors to be for the
implementation of new approaches within their organizations.
− Top management support. The sample mean (6.55), the median (7.00) and the mode
(7.00) indicated that a large proportion of the respondents (96.9%) regarded the
support of top management as important for the implementation of new approaches
within their firms. Further, 44 respondents (68.8%) regarded this support as very
important. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-
44.
50

40
FREQUENCY

30

20

10
Std. Dev = .82
Mean = 6.5

0 N = 64.00
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-44 Importance of top management support

− Mutual trust between workers and management. Similarly, the sample mean
(6.12), the median (6.00) and the mode (7.00) indicated that a large proportion of the
respondents (92.4%) regarded mutual trust between workers and management as
important for the implementation of new approaches within their firms. Further, 31
respondents (47.0%) regarded this support as very important. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-45.

50
The scale used to indicate the level of importance is a 7-point Likert scale with 1
representing not important at all, 4 representing a neutral attitude, and 7 representing very
or extremely important. This form of scale of measurement is used in all histograms
 196

40

30
FREQUENCY

20

10

Std. Dev = 1.12

Mean = 6.1

0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-45 Importance of mutual trust between workers and management

− Incentives and rewards for supporting the change. The responses from a large
proportion of the respondents (31.8%) tended to be distributed around the central value
of the 7-point scale. This trend indicated that these respondents had no strong opinions
about the importance of incentives and rewards for supporting change. However, 29
respondents (43.9%) regarded the issue as important, with 9 respondents (13.6%)
regarding it as very important for the implementation of new approaches. On the other
hand, 16 respondents (24.2%) regarded the issue as being not important, with 3
respondents (4.5%) regarding it as being not important at all. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-46.
− Continuous improvement of safety performance. Most of the respondents (87.9%)
regarded the continuous improvement of safety performance as important for the
implementation of new approaches. Further, 25 respondents (37.9%) regarded the
issue as very important with a further 21 respondents (31.8%) regarding it as only
slightly less important. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown
in Figure 8-47.
− Open communication. No respondents regarded open communication as not being
important. While 42 respondents (63.6%) regarded the issue as very important, 15
respondents (22.7%) regarded it as only slightly less important. Only 2 respondents
(3.1%) were undecided about the importance of open communication for the
implementation of new approaches. The histogram of the response frequency
distribution is shown in Figure 8-48.
 197

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.66

Mean = 4.3
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-46 Importance of incentives and rewards for supporting change

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.15

Mean = 5.9

0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-47 Importance of continuous improvement of safety performance
 198

50

40

FREQUENCY 30

20

10
Std. Dev = .81
Mean = 6.5

0 N = 66.00
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-48 Importance of open communication

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = .94

Mean = 6.1
0 N = 66.00
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-49 Importance of effective coordination
 199

− Effective coordination. Similarly, no respondents regarded effective coordination as

not being important. While 27 respondents (40.9%) regarded the issue as very
important, 20 respondents (30.3%) regarded it as only slightly less important. Only 4
respondents (6.1%) were undecided about the importance of effective coordination for
the implementation of new approaches. The histogram of the response frequency
distribution is shown in Figure 8-49.

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.41

Mean = 5.5

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-50 Importance of joint labor/management problem solving

− Joint labor/management problem solving. Several respondents (23.1%) were

undecided about the importance of joint labor/management problem solving to the
implementation of new approaches within their firms. While only 1 respondent (1.5%)
regarded this issue as not important at all, 19 respondents (29.2%) regarded it as very
important. Further, 18 respondents (27.7%) regarded joint problem solving as only
slightly less important. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown
in Figure 8-50.
 200

− Adequate resources. While 8 respondents (12.1%) were undecided about the

importance of adequate resources for the implementation of new approaches, 25
respondents (37.9%) regarded it as being very important. Further, 19 respondents
(28.8%) regarded the provision of adequate resources as being only slightly less
important. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-
51.
− Creativity. Similarly, while 11 respondents (16.7%) were undecided about the
importance of creativity for the implementation of new approaches, 19 respondents
(28.8%) regarded it as being very important. Further, 16 respondents (24.2%) regarded
creativity as being only slightly less important. The histogram of the response
frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-52.
− Workshops and training. The sample mode (7.00) was positioned at the extremity of
the frequency distribution. This observation indicated that these 22 respondents
(33.3%) regarded workshops and training as being very important for the
implementation of new approaches within their organizations. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-53.

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.15

Mean = 5.9

0 N = 66.00
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-51 Importance of adequate resources
 201

20

FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.48

Mean = 5.4

0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-52 Importance of creativity

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.38

Mean = 5.7
0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-53 Importance of workshops and training
 202

Ranking Means of Responses

By comparing the means of the various frequency distributions, it was possible to

rank the 10 issues regarding how important they were regarded by the respondents for the

implementation of new approaches within their organizations. This ranking in order of

importance is shown in Table 8-11. The support of top management within the firm

ranked the highest, open communication ranked 2nd, and mutual trust between

management and workers ranked 3rd.

Table 8-11 Importance of issues for the implementation of new approaches

Rank Issue N Mean Std.
Deviation
1 Top management support 63 6.5397 .8196

2 Open communication 65 6.4615 .8116

3 Mutual trust between workers and management 65 6.1231 1.1251

4 Effective coordination of construction activities 65 6.0615 .9499

5 Continuous improvement of safety performance 65 5.8923 1.1473

6 Adequate resources 65 5.8462 1.1488

7 Workshops and training 65 5.6462 1.3855

8 Joint labor/management problem solving 65 5.4615 1.4151

9 Creativity 65 5.3692 1.4850

10 Incentives and rewards for supporting the change 65 4.3077 1.6576

Incentives and rewards for supporting the change ranked the lowest in importance

for the implementation of new approaches within their organizations, namely, 10th. Joint
 203

labor/management problem solving ranked 8th and creativity ranked 9th , respectively.

Continuous improvement of safety performance ranked 5th .

Means of Group Preference of Approach

To determine whether the preference for either the prescriptive or the

performance approach would have any effect on the ranking, the means were compared.

The results of this comparison yielded only slightly different rankings in Table 8-12.

These results suggest that preference for either the performance or the prescriptive

approach did not severely effect the importance with which the issues were regarded

regarding the implementation of a new approach within construction firms.

Table 8-12 Importance of issues for new approaches by approach preference

Sample Issue Perform Mean Std. Prescript Mean Std.
Rank Rank51 Dev. Rank52 Dev.
1 Top management support 1 6.57 .90 1 6.52 .70
2 Open communication 2 6.53 .69 2 6.39 .96
3 Mutual trust between workers and 3 6.18 .98 4 6.04 1.29
management
4 Effective coordination of 4 6.08 .91 3 6.04 1.00
construction activities
6 Adequate resources 5 5.97 1.08 6 5.71 1.24
5 Continuous improvement of safety 6 5.87 1.19 5 5.96 1.10
performance
7 Workshops and training 7 5.68 1.30 7 5.64 1.52
8 Creativity 8 5.47 1.41 9 5.25 1.58
9 Joint labor/management problem 9 5.42 1.24 8 5.50 1.62
solving
10 Incentives and rewards for 10 4.13 1.53 10 4.61 1.81
supporting the change

51
N=38
52
N=28
 204

Top Management Position

To determine whether the position of the respondents within the management

structure of their firms would have any effect on the ranking, the means were compared.

The results of this comparison yielded different rankings for each major category of

management position as evidenced in Table 8-13.

While the CEO group ranked the importance of the 10 issues in the same order as

the sample, the other groups ranked the issues in different orders. As an important issue

with regard to implementing new approaches, incentives and rewards for supporting

change ranked lowest (10th ) consistently across all groups. Of particular interest was the

mid-table ranking (5th or 6th ) of continuous improvement of safety performance as an

important issue

While the other groups ranked top management support as being most important

to implement new approaches, project and contracts managers regarded open

communication as the most important issue. They ranked adequate resources and joint

labor/management problem solving as being the next most important issues, namely, 2nd

and 3rd respectively. They ranked top management support as being 5th important while

ranking mutual trust between workers and management only 7th . This suggests that issues

involving management did not rank as highly as others.

Safety directors and managers ranked effective coordination of construction

activities and workshops and training as being 3rd and 4th important respectively. The

ranking of top management support and open communication as being the most and next

important was predictable since these are generally regarded as being essential for the

success of any safety initiative.

 205

Respondents Preferring the Performance Approach

To determine whether the management positions of respondents preferring the

performance approach had any effect on the ranking of the importance of issues, the

means were compared. The results of this comparison yielded slightly different rankings

for each major category of management position as evidenced in Table 8-14. The

rankings from Table 8-13 are shown in parentheses.

While the whole CEO group previously ranked the importance of the 10 issues in

the same order as the sample, those preferring the performance approach ranked them

differently. For example, open communication was regarded as the most important issue.

Workshops and training were regarded as much more important moving from 8th to 4th

rank.

Table 8-13 Importance of new approaches based on top management position

Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice-president/ Contracts Director/
MD/ Manager Manager
General Manager
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Top management support 1 1 5 1
Open communication 2 2 1 2
Mutual trust between workers and 3 3 7 5
management
Effective coordination of construction 4 4 4 3
activities
Continuous improvement of safety 5 5 6 6
performance
Adequate resources 6 6 2 7
Workshops and training 7 8 9 4
Joint labor/management problem solving 8 7 3 9
Creativity 9 9 8 8
Incentives and rewards for supporting the 10 10 10 10
change
 206

Project and contracts managers favoring the performance approach regarded open

communication as the most important issue. They ranked adequate resources and

effective coordination of construction activities as being the next most important issues,

namely, 2nd and 3rd, respectively. They ranked top management support as being 4th

important while ranking mutual trust between workers and management only 6th . This

suggests that issues involving management did not rank as highly as others.

Table 8-14 Importance of new approaches to management preferring the performance

approach
Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice-president/ Contracts Director/
MD/ Manager54 Manager55
General
Manager53
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Top management support 1 2 (1) 4 (5) 2 (1)
Open communication 2 1 (2) 1 (1) 1 (2)
Mutual trust between workers and 3 3 (3) 6 (7) 3 (5)
management
Effective coordination of construction 4 5 (4) 3 (4) 5 (3)
activities
Continuous improvement of safety 5 7 (5) 8 (6) 7 (6)
performance
Adequate resources 6 6 (6) 2 (2) 6 (7)
Workshops and training 7 4 (8) 9 (9) 4 (4)
Joint labor/management problem solving 8 9 (7) 5 (3) 9 (9)
Creativity 9 8 (9) 7 (8) 8 (8)
Incentives and rewards for supporting the 10 10 (10) 10 (10) 10 (10)
change

53
N=14
54
N=6
55
N=14
 207

Safety directors and managers that favored the performance approach ranked open

communication as most important. They ranked top management support, mutual trust

between workers and management, and workshops and training as being 2nd, 3rd and 4th

important respectively. All groupings regarded the continuous improvement of safety

performance as less important than before.

Respondents Preferring the Prescriptive Approach

To determine whether the management positions of respondents preferring the

prescriptive approach had any effect on the ranking of the importance of issues, the

means were compared. The results of this comparison yielded slightly different rankings

for each major category of management position as evidenced in Table 8-15. The ranking

of the group preferring the performance approach are shown in parentheses.

The CEOs group that preferred the prescriptive approach reported that continuous

improvement of safety performance, joint labor/management problem solving, and

workshops and training as being the 5th , 6th and 8th most important issues regarding the

implementation of new approaches within their firms. Their counterparts who preferred

the performance approach regarded these issues as 7th , 4th and 9th most important.

Generally there were no major differences in the level of importance with which either

group regarded other issues.

Project and contracts managers favoring the prescriptive approach regarded the

continuous improvement of safety performance, workshops and training, effective

coordination of construction activities, top management support, and creativity as 2nd, 5th ,

6th , 8th , and 9th respectively most important issues affecting the implementation of new

approaches. Their counterparts who favored the performance approach regarded the
 208

importance of these issues differently, namely, 8th , 9th , 3rd, 4th , and 7th respectively.

Interestingly, the prescriptive group regarded the continuous improvement of safety

performance highly. Further, they regarded workshops and training as more important

than top management support.

Table 8-15 Importance of new approaches to management preferring the prescriptive

approach
Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice-president/ Contracts Director/
MD/ Manager57 Manager58
General
Manager56
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Top management support 1 1 (2) 8 (4) 1 (2)
Open communication 2 2 (1) 1 (1) 2 (1)
Mutual trust between workers and 3 3 (3) 7 (6) 6 (3)
management
Effective coordination of construction 4 4 (5) 6 (3) 3 (5)
activities
Continuous improvement of safety 5 5 (7) 2 (8) 4 (7)
performance
Adequate resources 6 7 (6) 3 (2) 7 (6)
Workshops and training 7 8 (4) 5 (9) 5 (4)
Joint labor/management problem solving 8 6 (9) 4 (5) 8 (9)
Creativity 9 9 (8) 9 (7) 9 (8)
Incentives and rewards for supporting the 10 10 (10) 10 (10) 10 (10)
change

Safety directors and managers that favored the prescriptive approach regarded

effective coordination of construction activities, continuous improvement of safety

performance, and mutual trust between workers and management, as being the 3rd, 4th ,

56
N=10
57
N=4
58
N=14
 209

and 6th respectively most important issues affecting the implementation of new

approaches. On the other hand, their counterparts who favored the performance approach

regarded these same issues as 5th , 7th , and 3rd most important.

All groupings preferring the prescriptive approach regarded the continuous

improvement of safety performance as a more important issue than their counterparts

preferring the performance approach.

22. How important do you regard the following actions for the successful
implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and health?
The respondents were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale of importance59 how
important they regarded 11 specific actions that could be taken for the successful
implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and health. The
frequency distributions of the responses to these issues are discussed in the following
sections.
− Demonstration of consistent and decisive personal leadership. The sample mean
(6.42), median (7.00) and mode (7.00) indicated that the responses of most of the
respondents were positioned toward the upper end of the scale. While 40 respondents
(60.6%) regarded the demonstration of consistent and decisive personal leadership as
very important for the successful implementation of a new approach to construction
worker safety and health, 18 respondents (27.3%) regarded it as being only slightly
less important. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in
Figure 8-54.
− Allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff resources. No respondents
regarded as unimportant the allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff
resources for the successful implementation of a new approach to worker safety. While
26 respondents (39.4%) regarded this action as very important, 24 respondents
(36.4%) regarded it as being only slightly less important. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-55.
− Amending the corporate vision and mission. The sample mean (4.97), the median
(5.00) and the mode (5.00) were all concentrated to the right (upper end) of the central
value of the scale. While only 3 respondents (4.5%) regarded amending the corporate
vision and mission for the successful implementation of a new approach to
construction worker safety as not important at all, 13 respondents (19.7%) regarded
this action as very important. There were 12 respondents (18.2%) who were undecided
about the importance of the action. The histogram of the response frequency
distribution is shown in Figure 8-56.

59
The scale used to indicate the level of importance is a 7-point Likert scale with 1
representing not important at all, 4 representing a neutral attitude, and 7 representing very
or extremely important. This form of scale of measurement is used in all histograms
 210

50

40

FREQUENCY 30

20

10
Std. Dev = .91
Mean = 6.4

0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-54 Importance of demonstration of consistent and decisive personal leadership

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = .93

Mean = 6.1
0 N = 66.00
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-55 Importance of allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff resources
 211

20

FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.61

Mean = 5.0
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-56 Importance of amending the corporate vision and mission

− Motivation of workers to implement changes for continuous improvement. The

distribution of most of the responses of respondents was concentrated around the
upper end of the 7-point scale. The sample mean was 5.83. Some 21 respondents
(31.8%) regarded the motivation of workers to implement changes for continuous
improvement as very important for the successful implementation of a new approach
for worker safety. Another 21 respondents (31.8%) regarded this action as being only
slightly less important. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown
in Figure 8-57.
− Encouragement of worker participation at all levels. Similarly, the distribution of
most of the responses of respondents was concentrated around the upper end of the 7-
point scale, with a sample mean of 5.97. Some 29 respondents (43.9%) regarded the
encouragement of worker participation at all levels as very important for the
successful implementation of a new approach for worker safety. Another 18
respondents (27.3%) regarded this action as being only slightly less important. The
histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-58.
 212

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.03

Mean = 5.8

0 N = 66.00
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-57 Importance of motivation of workers to implement changes

40

30
FREQUENCY

20

10

Std. Dev = 1.19

Mean = 6.0

0 N = 66.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-58 Importance of encouragement of worker participation at all levels
 213

20

FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.39

Mean = 5.4

0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-59 Importance of changing the organization’s systems, policies and procedures

− Changing the organization’s systems, policies and procedures to augment the

changes. The distribution of most of the responses of respondents was concentrated
around the upper end of the 7-point scale. The sample mean was 5.44. Some 18
respondents (27.3%) regarded changing the firm’s systems, policies and procedures as
very important for the successful implementation of a new approach for worker safety.
This change had to augment the changes that will be necessary for a new approach to
work well. A further 17 respondents (25.8%) regarded this action as being only
slightly less important. Only 1 respondent (1.5%) regarded the action as not important
at all. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-59.
− Introduction and support of appropriate training programs. The distribution of
most of the responses of respondents was concentrated around the upper end of the 7-
point scale, with a sample mean of 6.12. Some 32 respondents (48.5%) regarded the
introduction and support of appropriate training programs as very important for the
successful implementation of a new approach for worker safety, and another 19
respondents (28.8%) regarded this action as being only slightly less important. There
were no respondents who regarded the action as not important at all. The histogram of
the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-60.
 214

40

30

FREQUENCY

20

10

Std. Dev = 1.09

Mean = 6.1

0 N = 66.00
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-60 Importance of the introduction and support of appropriate training programs

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.21

Mean = 5.8
0 N = 67.00
1.5 2.4 3.3 4.2 5.1 6.0 6.9

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-61 Importance of regularly measuring and evaluating progress of changes
 215

− Measuring and evaluating progress of the changes regularly introducing new

plans of action if necessary. The distribution of most of the responses of respondents
was concentrated around the upper end of the 7-point scale with the sample mean
being 5.81. Some 21 respondents (31.3%) regarded as very important measuring and
evaluating progress regularly of changes for the successful implementation of a new
approach for worker safety. Further, new plans of action had to be introduced if
necessary if progress was unsatisfactory. Another 26 respondents (38.8%) regarded
this action as being only slightly less important. There was 1 respondent (1.5%) who
regarded the action as not important at all. The histogram of the response frequency
distribution is shown in Figure 8-61. While the scales seem different due to the way
SPSS selected to graphically represent the data, they represent 1 to 7 as before.
− Comparing the performance of the company with competitors. Several
respondents (27.3%) were undecided about the importance of comparing the
performance of the company with competitors for the successful implementation of a
new approach to construction worker safety and health. While only 3 respondents
(4.5%) regarded this action as not important at all, 11 respondents (16.7%) regarded it
as very important. Further, 10 respondents (15.2%) regarded comparing company
performance with competitors as only slightly less important. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-62.

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.66

Mean = 4.6
0 N = 66.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-62 Importance of comparing the performance of the company with competitor
 216

− Rewarding workers for being innovative, and looking for new solutions. The
distribution of most of the responses of respondents was concentrated around the
upper end of the 7-point scale, with a sample mean of 5.16. These measures indicated
that 76.1% of respondents regarded rewarding workers for being innovative and
looking for new solutions as being of some importance (5.0 to 7.0 on the scale). In
fact, most of the respondents, namely, 31.3%, regarded it as important (5.0 on the
scale). Some 14 respondents (20.9%%) regarded the action as very important and. 16
respondents (23.9%) regarded this action as being only slightly less important (6.0 on
the scale). There was 1 respondent (1.5%) who regarded the action as not important at
all. The histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-63.
− Changing the organizational structure and hierarchy to make it more flexible and
responsive to change. Several respondents (25.4%) were undecided about the
importance of changing the organizational structure and hierarchy for the successful
implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and health. The intent
of this change would be to make the firm more flexible and responsive to change.
Some 8 respondents (11.9%) regarded this action as very important. A further 18
respondents (26.9%) regarded this action as being only slightly less important. There
were 2 respondents (3.0%) who regarded the action as not important at all. The
histogram of the response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-64.

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.52

Mean = 5.2
0 N = 67.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-63 Importance of rewards for being innovative and looking for new solutions
 217

20

FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = 1.46

Mean = 4.9

0 N = 67.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SCALE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 8-64 Importance of changing the organizational structure and hierarchy

Ranking Responses by Means

The result of comparing the means is reflected in Table 8-16. From the

comparison of the sample means of the various frequency distributions, it was possible to

rank the 11 actions regarding how important they were regarded by the respondents for

the successful implementation of a new approach to construction safety and health within

their organizations.

The demonstration of consistent and decisive personal leadership ranked the

highest; the introduction and support of appropriate training programs ranked 2nd; and the

allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff resources ranked 3rd. Comparing the

performance of the company with competitors ranked the lowest in importance, namely,

11th . Amending the corporate vision and mission ranked 9th and changing the
 218

organizational structure and hierarchy to make it more flexible and responsive to change

ranked 10th .

Table 8-16 Importance of actions for the successful implementation of a new approach
Rank Action N Mean Std.
Deviation
1 The demonstration of consistent and decisive 65 6.4154 .9167
personal leadership
2 The introduction and support of appropriate 65 6.1077 1.0915
training programs
3 The allocation of adequate financial, equipment 65 6.0769 .9405
and staff resources
4 The encouragement of worker participation at all 65 5.9538 1.1915
levels
5 The motivation of workers to implement changes 65 5.8154 1.0291
for continuous improvement
6 Measuring and evaluating progress of the changes 66 5.7879 1.2091
regularly introducing new plans of action if
necessary
7 Changing the organization’s systems, policies and 65 5.4308 1.4028
procedures to augment the changes
8 Rewarding workers for being innovative, and 66 5.1515 1.5316
looking for new solutions
9 Amending the corporate vision and mission 65 4.9538 1.6147
10 Changing the organizational structure and 66 4.8485 1.4491
hierarchy to make it more flexible and responsive
to change
11 Comparing the performance of the company with 65 4.5692 1.6768
competitors

Approach Preference

To determine whether the preference for either the prescriptive approach or the

performance approach would have any effect on the ranking, the means were compared.

The results of this comparison yielded only slightly different rankings in Table 8-17.
 219

Table 8-17 Importance of actions for implementation of a new approach by approach

Sample Issue Perform Mean Std. Prescript Mean Std.
Rank Rank60 Dev. Rank61 Dev.
1 Demonstration of consistent and 1 6.39 1.03 1 6.46 .74
decisive personal leadership
2 Introduction and support of 2 6.13 1.12 4 6.11 1.07
appropriate training programs
3 Allocation of adequate financial, 3 6.05 .96 3 6.11 .92
equipment and staff resources
6 Measuring and evaluating progress 4 5.82 1.09 6 5.79 1.40
of the changes regularly introducing
new plans of action if necessary
4 Encouragement of worker 5 5.79 1.28 2 6.21 1.03
participation at all levels
5 Motivation of workers to implement 6 5.76 1.05 5 5.93 1.02
changes for continuous improvement
7 Changing the organization’s 7 5.34 1.34 7 5.57 1.48
systems, policies and procedures to
augment the changes
8 Rewarding workers for being 8 5.32 1.49 10 4.93 1.59
innovative, and looking for new
solutions
10 Changing the organizational 9 4.76 1.30 9 5.04 1.69
structure and hierarchy to make it
more flexible and responsive to
change
9 Amending the corporate vision and 10 4.74 1.66 8 5.29 1.51
mission
11 Comparing the performance of the 11 4.63 1.67 11 4.56 1.69
company with competitors

Respondents who favored the prescriptive approach regarded the encouragement

of worker participation at all levels, introduction and support of appropriate training

programs, and measuring and evaluating progress regularly as being 2nd, 4th , and 6th

respectively in importance for the successful. Those who preferred the performance

approach regarded these same issues as 5th , 4th , and 2nd respectively in importance. All

60
N=38
61
N=28
 220

respondents regardless of approach preference regarded comparing the performance of

their firms with competitors as being the least important issue. Further, they also regarded

the demonstration of consistent and decisive personal leadership as being the most

important issue.

Management Position

To determine whether the position of respondents within the top management

structure of their firms would have any effect on the ranking, the means were compared.

The results of this comparison yielded different results for each major position category

as evidenced in Table 8-18.

While the CEOs group generally ranked the actions for the successful

implementation of a new approach to construction safety and health similarly to the

sample, the other groups ranked them differently. The CEO group regarded the allocation

of adequate financial, equipment and staff resources as being more important (2nd) than

the sample (3rd).

All the groups regarded as most important the demonstration of consistent and

decisive personal leadership. This ranking is consistent with the findings of research

about the importance of management support and commitment to programs for its

eventual success.

Project and contracts managers regarded the allocation of adequate financial,

equipment and staff resources, motivation of workers to implement changes for

continuous improvement, and regularly measuring and evaluating progress of the changes

while introducing new plans of action if necessary, as being 2nd, 3rd and 4th , respectively.

Surprisingly, they ranked lower the encouragement of worker participation at all levels as
 221

being 7th important. The other groups ranked this action as high as 3rd or 4th in

importance. Also surprising was the high ranking (6th ) given to comparing the

performance of the company with competitors. The other groups ranked this action as

being the least important, namely, 11th .

Table 8-18 Importance of actions for implementation by management position

Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice- Contracts Director/
president/MD/ Manager Manager
General
Manager
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Demonstration of consistent and decisive 1 1 1 1
personal leadership
Introduction and support of appropriate 2 3 5 2
training programs
Allocation of adequate financial, 3 2 2 4
equipment and staff resources
Encouragement of worker participation at 4 4 7 3
all levels
Motivation of workers to implement 5 5 3 6
changes for continuous improvement
Measuring and evaluating progress of the 6 6 4 5
changes regularly introducing new plans of
action if necessary
Changing the organization’s systems, 7 7 9 7
policies and procedures to augment the
changes
Rewarding workers for being innovative, 8 8 8 9
and looking for new solutions
Amending the corporate vision and mission 9 10 11 8
Changing the organizational structure and 10 9 10 10
hierarchy to make it more flexible and
responsive to change
Comparing the performance of the 11 11 6 11
company with competitors

Safety directors and managers ranked the introduction and support of appropriate

training programs and encouragement of worker participation at all levels as being 2nd
 222

and 3rd. This appears to be consistent with the traditional concerns of this group, namely,

having workers properly trained in construction safety and health.

Management Favoring the Performance Approach

To determine whether the top management position of respondents favoring the

performance approach would have any effect on the ranking, the means were compared.

The results of this comparison yielded different results for each major position category

as evidenced in Table 8-19. The ranking of the entire sample of these management

position categories is shown in parentheses.

The CEO group favoring the performance approach regarded the introduction and

support of appropriate training programs as the most important action for the successful

introduction of a new approach to construction safety. They regarded the demonstration

of consistent and decisive personal leadership as next important. Measuring and

evaluating progress of the changes regularly introducing new plans of action if necessary

ranked 3rd, up from 6th . The allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff

resources was regarded as a less important action, dropping to 6th from 2nd rank.

The ranking of importance for project and contracts managers that favored the

performance approach was only marginally different from before.

Safety directors and managers regarded the introduction and support of

appropriate training programs as the most important action for the successful introduction

of a new approach to construction safety. They regarded the demonstration of consistent

and decisive personal leadership as next important. Measuring and evaluating progress of

the changes regularly introducing new plans of action if necessary ranked 3rd, up from 5th .
 223

The allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff resources was regarded as a less

important action, dropping to 6th from 4th rank.

Management Favoring the Prescriptive Approach

To determine whether the top management position of respondents favoring the

prescriptive approach would have any effect on the ranking, the means were compared.

The results of this comparison yielded different results for each major position category

as evidenced in Table 8-20. The ranking of the management position categories that

favored the performance approach is shown in parentheses.

The CEOs group favoring the prescriptive approach regarded measuring and

evaluating progress of the changes regularly, and rewarding workers for being

innovative, and looking for new solutions as being the 7th and 10th most important actions

to be taken.

Their counterparts who favored the performance approach regarded these issues

as being 3rd and 8th most important. There were no major differences between the groups

based on approach preference regarding the importance of the other actions to be taken.

Project and contracts managers that favored the prescriptive approach regarded

the importance of the actions to be taken for the successful implementation of a new

approach differently from their counterparts who favored the performance approach. For

example, they regarded the introduction and support of appropriate training programs as

being the most important action to be taken. Their counterparts regarded this action as

being 6th most important. Further, they regarded the demonstration of consistent and

decisive personal leadership, motivation of workers to implement changes for continuous

improvement, rewarding workers for being innovative and looking for new solutions,
 224

comparing the performance of their companies with competitors, amending the corporate

vision and mission, and changing their organizations’ systems, policies and procedures as

being 3rd, 5th , 6th , 7th , 9th , and 10th most important actions respectively.

Table 8-19 Importance of implementation to management favoring the performance

approach
Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice- Contracts Director/
president/MD/ Manager63 Manager64
General
Manager62
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Demonstration of consistent and decisive 1 2 (1) 1 (1) 2 (1)
personal leadership
Introduction and support of appropriate 2 1 (3) 6 (5) 1 (2)
training programs
Allocation of adequate financial, 3 6 (2) 2 (2) 6 (4)
equipment and staff resources
Encouragement of worker participation at 4 4 (4) 8 (7) 4 (3)
all levels
Motivation of workers to implement 5 5 (5) 3 (3) 5 (6)
changes for continuous improvement
Measuring and evaluating progress of the 6 3 (6) 4 (4) 3 (5)
changes regularly introducing new plans of
action if necessary
Changing the organization’s systems, 7 7 (7) 7 (9) 7 (7)
policies and procedures to augment the
changes
Rewarding workers for being innovative, 8 8 (8) 9 (8) 8 (9)
and looking for new solutions
Amending the corporate vision and mission 9 10 (10) 11 (11) 10 (8)
Changing the organizational structure and 10 9 (9) 10 (10) 9 (10)
hierarchy to make it more flexible and
responsive to change
Comparing the performance of the 11 11 (11) 5 (6) 11 (11)
company with competitors

62
N=14
63
N=6
64
N=14
 225

Their counterparts regarded the same actions as being the most important, 3rd, 9th ,

5th , 11th , and 7th most important respectively.

Table 8-20 Importance of implementation to management favoring the prescriptive

approach
Sample CEO/President/ Project/ Safety
Vice- Contracts Director/
president/MD/ Manager66 Manager67
General
Manager65
Issue Rank Rank Rank Rank
Demonstration of consistent and decisive 1 2 (2) 3 (1) 1 (2)
personal leadership
Introduction and support of appropriate 2 1 (1) 1 (6) 4 (1)
training programs
Allocation of adequate financial, 3 5 (6) 2 (2) 3 (6)
equipment and staff resources
Encouragement of worker participation at 4 4 (4) 8 (8) 2 (4)
all levels
Motivation of workers to implement 5 6 (5) 5 (3) 6 (5)
changes for continuous improvement
Measuring and evaluating progress of the 6 7 (3) 4 (4) 5 (3)
changes regularly introducing new plans of
action if necessary
Changing the organization’s systems, 7 8 (7) 10 (7) 7 (7)
policies and procedures to augment the
changes
Rewarding workers for being innovative, 8 10 (8) 6 (9) 10 (8)
and looking for new solutions
Amending the corporate vision and mission 9 9 (10) 9 (11) 8 (10)
Changing the organizational structure and 10 8 (9) 11 (10) 9 (9)
hierarchy to make it more flexible and
responsive to change
Comparing the performance of the 11 11 (11) 7 (5) 11 (11)
company with competitors

65
N=10
66
N=4
67
N=14
 226

Safety directors and managers preferring the prescriptive approach regarded the

encouragement of worker participation at all levels, allocation of adequate financial,

equipment and staff resources, introduction and support of appropriate training programs,

and measuring and evaluating progress of the changes regularly as being the 2nd, 3rd, 4th

and 5th most important actions respectively to be taken.

On the other hand, safety directors and managers who favored the performance

approach regarded these same actions as being 4th , 6th , 1st , and 3rd in importance

respectively.

23. How many recordable injuries did the company have last year? The range of
response values was 0 to 330 with a sample mean of 19.00. The median was 7.00.
The most commonly reported response (mode) was 1.00. The histogram of the
response frequency distribution is shown in Figure 8-65. Because of the wide range of
responses the data were recoded to facilitate better analysis. From the responses, there
were 8 firms with no recordable injuries; 9 firms with 1 recordable injury; 11 firms
with between 2 and 5 recordable injuries; 10 firms with between 6 and 10 recordable
injuries; and 10 firms with more than 50 recordable injuries.

12

10
NUMBER OF CASES

8
0
1
6 >1<6
>6<10
>50
4

0
NUMBER OF RECORDABLE INJURIES

Figure 8-65 Distribution of the number of recordable injuries

 227

Injury Rate (IR)

Injury data can be used for comparison very readily when the measure of safety

performance is normalized for companies of different sizes. The injury rate is such a

measure. The injury rate for the firm of each respondent was calculated as follows:

IR = (No. of injuries * 100)/no. of employees

The mean injury rate of the sample is 6.42 and the median injury rate is 3.70. By

normal industry standards, injury rates < 2.0 are exceptional while injury rates >2 and <8

are still below the national average. The measures of central tendency of the sample

appear to be representative of the industry norms. Of the sample of 58 firms,

− 17 (29.3%) had IR’s ⇒ 2.0;

− 15 (25.9%) had IR’s > 2.0 and ⇒ 4.0;
− 14 (24.1%) had IR’s > 4.0 and ⇒ 8.0; and
− 12 (20.7%) had IR’s > 8.0.

Cross tabulation and Measures of Association

Preference for the Performance Approach by Top Management Position

To determine the variability in the preference for the performance approach the

responses of the participants to Questions 1(a) and Q3 were cross tabulated. The null

hypothesis to be tested is that preference and management positions are independent of

each other. The Pearson chi-square statistic was used to test the independence of the

preference (PREFER) for either the performance or prescriptive approaches and the

management position. The guideline was adhered to recommended by many researchers

when dealing with cross tabulations that no cell had to have an expected value less than

1.0 and not more than 20% of the cells could have expected values less than 5 (SPSS,

1999). Accordingly, only the 3 major groupings were selected for examination, namely,
 228

CEOs (JOBTITLE=1), Project Managers (JOBTITLE=2) and Safety Directors

(JOBTITLE=3). The other groupings did not satisfy the guidelines.

The total number of cases for each of PREFER, JOBTITLE=1, JOBTITLE=2 and

JOBTITLE=3 was 67. However, the valid number of cases for each was 66 (98.5%) due

to 1 missing value (1.5%). The cross tabulations and chi-square tests for each

management grouping are shown in separate tables.

JOBTITLE=1

In this sample of 66 respondents, 25 were CEOs, Presidents, Vice-presidents,

Managing Directors, or General Managers of their respective firms. Of these 10 (40%)

were observed to prefer the prescriptive approach, while 15 (60%) preferred the

performance approach. The expected counts shown in parentheses were only marginally

different, namely, 10.6 preferring the prescriptive approach and 14.4 the performance

approach. These results are shown in Table 8-21.

Table 8-21 Cross tabulation of JOBTITLE=1 with PREFER

(PREFER)
Prescriptive approach Performance approach
Jobtitle=1 10 15
(FILTER) (10.6) (14.4)

The computed chi-square statistic for this table is 0.097 and has an associated

probability (p value) or significance level of 0.756. The very small size of the statistic

suggests that there is some association but it is not significant between JOBTITLE=1 and

the preference for the performance approach. The null hypothesis as it relates to

JOBTITLE=1 cannot be rejected. The result of the chi-square test is shown in Table 8-22.
 229

Table 8-22 Chi-Square Tests of JOBTITLE=1 and PREFER

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .097 1 .756
N of Valid Cases 66
a Computed only for a 2x2 table
b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.61.

JOBTITLE=2

In this sample of 66 respondents, 10 were Project or Contracts Managers of their

respective firms. Of these 4 (40%) were observed to prefer the prescriptive approach,

while 6 (60%) preferred the performance approach. The expected counts were only

marginally different, namely, 4.2 preferring the prescriptive approach and 5.8 the

performance approach. These results are shown in Table 8-23

Table 8-23 Cross tabulation of JOBTITLE=2 with PREFER

(PREFER)
Prescriptive approach Performance approach
Jobtitle=2 4 6
(FILTER) (4.2) (5.8)

Table 8-24 Chi-Square Tests of JOBTITLE=2 and PREFER

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .028 1 .866
N of Valid Cases 66
a Computed only for a 2x2 table
b 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.24.

The computed chi-square statistic for this table is 0.028 and has an associated

probability (p value) or significance level of 0.866. The small size of the statistic suggests

that there is some association but it is not significant between JOBTITLE=2 and the

preference for the performance approach. The null hypothesis as it relates to

JOBTITLE=2 cannot be rejected. The result of the chi-square test is shown in Table 8-24.
 230

JOBTITLE=3

In this sample of 66 respondents, 28 were Safety Directors or Managers of their

respective firms. Of these 14 (50%) reported that they preferred the prescriptive

approach, while 14 (50%) preferred the performance approach. The expected counts were

different, namely, 11.9 preferring the prescriptive approach and 16.1 the performance

approach. These results are shown in Table 8-25

Table 8-25 Cross tabulation of JOBTITLE=3 with PREFER

(PREFER)
Prescriptive approach Performance approach
Jobtitle=3 14 14
(FILTER) (11.9) (16.1)

The computed chi-square statistic for this table is 1.143 and has an associated

probability (p value) or significance level of 0.285, suggesting that there is some

association but it is not significant between JOBTITLE=3 and the preference for the

performance approach. The null hypothesis as it relates to JOBTITLE=3 cannot be

rejected. The result of the chi-square test is shown in Table 8-26.

Table 8-26 Chi-Square Tests of JOBTITLE=3 and PREFER

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.143 1 .285
N of Valid Cases 66
a Computed only for a 2x2 table
b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.88.

Preference for the Performance Approach Based on Number of Employees

To determine the variability based on the size of firms according to number of

employees the responses of the participants to Questions 2(a) and Q3 were

 231

crosstabulated. The null hypothesis to be tested is that preference and size of construction

firm are independent of each other. The Pearson chi-square statistic was used to test the

independence of the preference (PREFER) for either the performance or prescriptive

approaches and the size of firm (EMPLOYNO). As before, the guideline was adhered to

that no cell could have an expected value less than 1.0 and not more than 20% of the cells

could have expected values less than 5 (SPSS, 1999). The 501-1000 and >1000 groupings

were eliminated from the examination since they had expected values of less than 5 and

accordingly, failed to satisfy the guidelines.

In this sample of 40 respondents, within EMPLOYNO 11 (27.5%) of the firms

employed 0-25 employees, 16 (40%) employed 26-100 employees and 13 (32.5%)

employed 101-250 employees. Of the 0-25 group, 4 (36.6%) were observed to prefer the

prescriptive approach, while 7 (63.6%) preferred the performance approach. Of the 26-

100 group, 7 (43.8%) were observed to prefer the prescriptive approach, while 9 (56.3%)

preferred the performance approach. Of the 101-250 group, 7 (53.8%) were observed to

prefer the prescriptive approach, while 6 (46.2%) preferred the performance approach.

The expected counts were slightly different, namely, 5.0, 7.2, and 5.9 preferring

the prescriptive approach and 6.1, 8.8, and 7.2 preferring the performance approach

respectively. These results are shown in Table 8-27.

Table 8-27 Cross tabulation of EMPLOYNO with PREFER

EMPLOYNO
PREFER 0-25 26-100 101-250
Prescriptive approach 4 7 7
(5.0) (7.2) (5.9)
Performance approach 7 9 6
(6.1) (8.8) (7.2)
 232

The computed chi-square statistic for this table is 0.753 and has an associated

probability (p value) or significance level of 0.686, suggesting that there is some

association but it is not significant between EMPLOYNO and the preference for the

performance approach. The null hypothesis as it relates to EMPLOYNO cannot be

rejected. The result of the chi-square test is shown in Table 8-28.

Table 8-28 Chi-Square Tests of EMPLOYNO and PREFER

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .753 2 .686
N of Valid Cases 40
a 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.52.

Preference for the Performance Approach Based on Contracts Value

In order to determine the variability according to the value of construction

contracts the responses of the participants to Questions 2(b) and Q3 were cross tabulated.

The null hypothesis to be tested is that preference and size of construction firm are

independent of each other. The Pearson chi-square statistic was used to test the

independence of the preference (PREFER) for either the performance or prescriptive

approaches and the size of firm (CONTVALU). All categories within CONTVALU were

included despite 3 cells (30%) having expected count of less than 5. The minimum

expected value was however greater than 1.0.

The total number of cases for each of PREFER and CONTVALU was 67.

However, the valid number of cases for each was 63 (94.0%) due to 4 missing values

(6.0%).

In this sample of 63 respondents, within CONTVALU 12 (19.0%) of the firms

had approximate annual values of construction contracts $10m, 14 (22.2%) had

 233

contracts > $10m $50m, 11 (17.5%) had contracts > $50m $100m, 12 (19.0%) had

contracts > $100m $250m, and 14 (22.2%) had contracts > $250m.

Of the $10m group, 4 (33.3%) were observed to prefer the prescriptive

approach, while 8 (66.7%) preferred the performance approach. Of the > $10m $50m

group, 5 (35.7%) were observed to prefer the prescriptive approach, while 9 (64.3%)

preferred the performance approach. Of the > $50m $100m group, 5 (45.5%) were

observed to prefer the prescriptive approach, while 6 (54.5%) preferred the performance

approach. Of the > $100m $250m group, 4 (33.3%) were observed to prefer the

prescriptive approach, while 8 (66.7%) preferred the performance approach. Of the >

$250m group, 7 (50.0%) were each observed to prefer the prescriptive approach and the

performance approach. The expected counts were slightly different. These results are

shown in Table 8-29.

Table 8-29 Cross tabulation of CONTVALU with PREFER

CONTVALU
PREFER $10m > $10m > $50m > $100m > $250m
$50m $100m $250m
Prescriptive 4 5 5 4 7
approach (4.8) (5.6) (4.4) (4.8) (5.6)
Performance 8 9 6 8 7
approach (7.2) (8.4) (6.6) (7.2) (8.4)

The computed chi-square statistic for this table is 1.272 and has an associated

probability (p value) or significance level of 0.866, suggesting that there is some

association but it is not significant between CONTVALU and the preference for the

performance approach. The null hypothesis as it relates to CONTVALU cannot be

rejected. The result of the chi-square test is shown in Table 8-30.

 234

Table 8-30 Chi-Square Tests of CONTVALU and PREFER

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.272 4 .866
N of Valid Cases 63
a 3 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.37.

Preference for the Performance Approach Based on Level of Understanding

To answer this question, the responses of the participants to Questions 5 and Q3

were cross tabulated. The null hypothesis to be tested is that understanding of the

concepts of the prescriptive and performance approaches and approach preference are

independent of each other. The Pearson chi-square statistic was used to test the

independence of the preference (PREFER) for either the performance or prescriptive

approaches and the level of understanding (UNDSTAND). Only those responses were

included in the examination within UNDSTAND where the level of understanding was

greater than 4 on the 7-point Likert scale of understanding. This step was taken to

comply with the guidelines stated earlier. The total number of cases for each of PREFER

and UNDSTAND was 61 after filtering.

In this sample of 61 respondents, 9 (14.8%) measured 5 within UNDSTAND, 21

(34.4%) measured 6, and 31 (50.9%) measured. 7.

Of the 5 group, 4 (44.4%) were observed to prefer the prescriptive approach,

while 5 (55.6%) preferred the performance approach. Of the 6 group, 6 (28.6%) were

observed to prefer the prescriptive approach, while 15 (71.4%) preferred the performance

approach. Of the 7 group, 17 (54.8%) were observed to prefer the prescriptive approach,

while 14 (45.2%) preferred the performance approach.

 235

The expected counts were slightly different, namely, 4.0, 9.3, and 13.7 preferred

the prescriptive approach and 5.0, 11.7, and 17.3 the performance approach within

UNDSTAND. These results are shown in Table 8-31.

Table 8-31 Cross tabulation of UNDSTAND with PREFER

UNDSTAND
PREFER 5.00 6.00 7.00
Prescriptive approach 4 6 17
(4.0) (9..3) (13.7)
Performance approach 5 15 14
(5.0) (11.4) (17.3)

The computed chi-square statistic for this table is 3.501 and has an associated

probability (p value) or significance level of 0.174. The size of the statistic suggests that

there is some association but it is not significant between UNDSTAND and the

preference for the performance approach. The null hypothesis as it relates to

UNDSTAND cannot be rejected. The result of the chi-square test is shown in Table 8-32.

Table 8-32 Chi-Square Tests of UNDSTAND and PREFER

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.501 2 .174
N of Valid Cases 61
a 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.98.

Chapter Summary

The responses to the top management survey were analyzed. It was observed that

54.5% of the respondents held positions within their firms that are traditionally regarded

as being upper or top management positions that were not directly related to safety and

health. The median length that these positions had been held was 5 years. The median
 236

number of employees employed by the firms was 175 employees. The median annual

value of construction contracts was $61 million. Most of the respondents (51.66%)

derived their revenue from general contracting activities, 14.22% from subcontracting,

and 11.47% from design-build contracting arrangements. Close to half of the firms

(42.62%) derived their contractual revenue from local operations, 37.62% from regional

operations, and 21.92% from national operations. The median injury rate per firm was 3.7

during the past year.

Most of the respondents (57.6%) preferred the performance approach when faced

with the hypothetical position where they could select either the prescriptive or

performance approach to satisfy compliance requirements. Common reasons given for

selecting the performance approach over the prescriptive approach included ‘differing

conditions require different approaches,’ ‘provides contractor with flexibility,’ and

‘contractor takes responsibility for choice of solution’ to deal with hazards.

The majority of respondents (78.5%) felt they understood very well both the

prescriptive and performance approaches. Respondents had no clear conceptual

preference for either approach with the median being 4.00 on the 7-point Likert scale of

preference in terms of which 1.00 represented very strong preference for the performance

approach, and 7.00 represented very strong preference for the prescriptive approach.

By ranking of the means, it was possible to rank the responses to 11 definitive

issues regarding the level of influence that the performance approach would have on each

of them. The top 3 issues that would be most influenced by the performance approach

were flexibility, support for innovation, and ease of introduction of new materials. The

potential to improve safety performance only ranked 7th .

 237

The means of responses to the importance of 5 issues regarding their importance

to an approach to construction safety and health management were ranked. The 3 issues

that respondents regarded as being most important were potential to improve safety

performance on sites, ease of understanding compliance requirements, and ease of

implementation of the approach.

Top management of 53.52% of the firms usually sponsored major changes within

their organizations. The middle management and site management sponsored 16.12% and

19.05%, respectively. Workers sponsored 6.00% of major changes while supervisors

accounted by 5.03%.

By comparing the means of the various frequency distributions, it was possible to

rank 13 issues regarding how influential they were regarded by the respondents in driving

change within their organizations. The improvement of financial performance of the

organization was most influential, followed by the improvement of the safety record of

the organization. The generating of quality improvements ranked 3rd. Staff turnover

ranked the lowest in driving change in their organizations. However, when ranking the

influence of these issues in driving change according the top management position of

respondents within the group preferring the performance approach, the rankings changed.

For example, CEOs and Safety Directors regarded improvement of their safety

record, improvement of financial performance, and complying with owner/client

requirements as being 1st , 2nd and 3rd, respectively. Project Managers seemed to be more

concerned about the competitive environment and regarded improvement of financial

performance, generating of quality improvements, and keeping up with competitors as

 238

being 1st , 2nd and 3rd, respectively. CEOs and Safety Directors regarded generating of

quality improvements as being 4th important.

Most of the respondents (88.9%) had observed the introduction of major changes

within their organizations. Most of them (66.7%) regarded the willingness of workers to

accept changes before they were implemented as an important issue. Similarly, most of

the respondents (84.8%) regarded as an important issue breaking down the resistance of

workers to change by convincing them to accept it. Most of the respondents (93.9%)

regarded as an important issue the building of credibility and trust with workers before

implementing a change. A large proportion of the respondents (84.8%) regarded the

opinions of workers on a proposed change as being important. More than half of the

respondents, namely, 35 (53.8%), regarded the receptiveness of foremen or first-line

supervisors to change as very important.

The mean responses to 10 issues were ranked regarding their importance as

perceived by the respondents for the implementation of new approaches within their

organizations. The support of top management within the firm ranked the highest, open

communication ranked 2nd, and mutual trust between management and workers ranked

3rd. Continuous improvement of safety performance ranked 5th .

When ranking the importance of these issues according to the top management

position of respondents within the group preferring the performance approach, the

rankings changed. Open communication was ranked by all groups as being the most

important issue. CEOs and Safety Directors ranked top management support, mutual trust

between workers and management, and workshops and training as being 2nd, 3rd and 4th in

importance. For Project Managers the ranking was different. This group ranked adequate
 239

resources, effective coordination of construction activities, and top management support

as being 2nd, 3rd and 4th in importance. Out of the 10 issues, continuous improvement of

safety performance ranked either 7th or 8th .

Similarly, regarding the importance of 11 specific actions for the successful

implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and health, the mean

responses were ranked. The demonstration of consistent and decisive personal leadership

ranked the highest; the introduction and support of appropriate training programs ranked

2nd; and the allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff resources ranked 3rd.

The ranking was slightly different by those in the top management structure who

preferred the performance approach. CEOs ranked the introduction and support of

appropriate training programs, allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff

resources, and encouragement of worker participation at all levels as being 2nd , 3rd and

4th most important actions to be taken respectively. Project Managers ranked the

allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff resources, motivation of workers to

implement changes for continuous improvement, and measuring and evaluating progress

of changes regularly as 2nd, 3rd and 4th most important respectively. Safety Directors

ranked the introduction and support of appropriate training programs, demonstration of

consistent and decisive personal leadership, measuring and evaluating progress of

changes regularly, and encouragement of worker participation at all levels as being the 4

most important actions in order of importance.

Of CEOs and Project Managers, 60% preferred the performance approach while

50% of Safety Directors preferred it. However, there was no association between the
 240

preference for the performance approach and the category of position within the top

management structure of the organization.

The size of the organization by number of employees and value of construction

contracting revenue were not associated with preference for the performance approach.

There were no significant linear relationships between preference of the performance

approach and other variables.

There was no linear relationship between the level of understanding of the

prescriptive and performance concepts and the preference for the performance approach.

The injury rates of most of the firms in the sample compared favorably with the

industry norm of 8.0 with 29.3% with IR’s ⇒ 2.0. There were no linear relationships

between IR and other variables.

In the next chapter the results of regression modeling and analysis are discussed

using the data from the top management questionnaire survey.

 CORRELATION, REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND MODELING

Introduction

To predict typical values of one variable given the value of another variable

expressed as a mathematical equation of basic form

Y = â0 + â1 X + å,

regression analysis is necessary (SPSS, 1999).

In this equation, â0 is known as the intercept, and represents the expected value of

Y when all independent variables equal 0; å represents the error term; â1 represents the

change in the expected value of Y associated with 1 unit increase in X when all other

independent variables are held constant.

Regression models help to assess how well the dependent variable can be

explained by knowing the value of the independent variable or a set of independent

variables. They are also useful to identify which subset from several measures is most

effective for estimating the dependent variable.

In this chapter single-step simple and multiple linear regression analysis are

employed to test several hypotheses. Further, stepwise multiple regression analysis is

used to identify key independent variables from the above hypotheses. The chapter is

concluded with a summary of the analysis.

241
 242

Correlation and Regression Analysis

Does Understanding Predict Preference for the Performance Approach?

It was expected that respondents with a greater understanding of the performance

and prescriptive approaches (UNDSTAND) would be more likely to prefer the

performance approach68 . The null hypothesis to be tested is that there is no relationship

between UNDSTAND and PREFAPPR. The correlation between these variables is

shown in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1 Correlation between PREFAPPR and UNDSTAND

Pearson Correlation -.016
Sig. (1-tailed) .450
N 66

The correlation between PREFAPPR and UNDSTAND is negative (-.016) and

not statistically significant, suggesting that should level of understanding of the

approaches increase, the value of PREFAPPR would decrease negligibly. The p value

associated with a correlation co-efficient of -.016 is 0.45 indicating that the correlation

does not differ significantly from 0. Accordingly, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Evidently, from the regression model summary in Table 9-2, there is no linear

relationship between the level of understanding of the approaches and the preference of

respondents for either the prescriptive or performance approaches since the value of R2 is

0.

68
On the Likert 7-point scale, values of PREFAPPR <4 would indicate a preference for
the performance approach with PREFAPPR=1 indicating a strong preference for the
performance approach
 243

Table 9-2 Regression Model Summary of PREFAPPR and UNDSTAND

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .016 .000 -.015 2.0345
a Predictors: (Constant), How well do you feel that you understand the concepts of
prescriptive and performance standards?(UNDSTAND)
b Dependent Variable: Conceptually, which approach to construction worker safety do
you prefer?(PREFAPPR)

Does Preference Predict the Influence on Certain Defining Issues?

It was expected that respondents with a preference for the performance approach

(PERFORM) would be likely to regard that approach as being more influential to each of

10 defining issues. On the 7-point Likert scale used to measure the level of influence,

values <4 (decreasing values) of each of the defining issues such as NEWTECH, for

example, indicated that respondents opined that the performance approach would be more

influential. A value of 1 would indicate that the performance approach would be very

strongly influential. The null hypothesis to be tested is that there is no relationship

between PERFORM and each of these issues.

Ease of introduction of new technologies (NEWTECH)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and NEWTECH is shown in Table 9-3. The correlation between PERFORM and

NEWTECH is negative (-.401), suggesting that as preference for the performance

approach (PERFORM) increases, the value of NEWTECH decreases. Decreasing values

of NEWTECH indicate increasingly that respondents regard the performance approach as

being the more influential approach regarding the ease of introducing new technologies.

The p value is 0.001 indicating that the correlation is statistically significant.

Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected.

 244

Table 9-3 Correlation between PERFORM and NEWTECH

Pearson Correlation -.401**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 63
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The regression model summary in Table 9-4 suggests that there is a linear

relationship between PERFORM and NEWTECH since the value of R2 is 0.161,

suggesting that PERFORM accounts for 16.1% of the variability of NEWTECH.

Table 9-4 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and NEWTECH

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .401 .161 .147 1.9994
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to ease of
introduction of new technologies? (NEWTECH)

Cost effectiveness of approach (COSTEFF)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and COSTEFF is shown in Table 9-5. The correlation between PERFORM and

COSTEFF is negative (-.437). This correlation co-efficient suggests that as preference for

the performance approach (PERFORM) increases, the value of COSTEFF decreases,

indicating that respondents increasingly regarded the performance approach as being

more influential regarding the cost effectiveness of an approach to construction worker

safety.

The p value is 0.000 (or less than 0.0005) and is statistically significant indicating

that the correlation does differ significantly from 0. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is

rejected.
 245

Table 9-5 Correlation of PERFORM and COSTEFF

Pearson Correlation -.437**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 65
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

From Table 9-6, it is evident that there is a linear relationship between

PERFORM and COSTEFF since the value of R2 is 0.191. This value suggests that

PERFORM accounts for 19.1% of the total variability of COSTEFF.

Table 9-6 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and COSTEFF

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .437 .191 .178 1.8770
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to cost effectiveness
of approach? (COSTEFF)

Flexibility (FLEXIBLE)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and FLEXIBLE is shown in Table 9-7. The correlation between PERFORM and

FLEXIBLE is negative (-.119). This value suggests that should preference for the

performance approach (PERFORM) increase, the value of FLEXIBLE would decrease.

Decreasing values indicate that respondents increasingly regard the performance

approach as being the more influential regarding the flexibility of an approach to

construction worker safety. The p value is 0.344 (2-tailed) indicating that the correlation

does not differ significantly from 0. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is not rejected.

From the regression model summary in Table 9-8, it is evident that there is no

strong linear relationship between PERFORM and FLEXIBLE since the value of R2 is
 246

0.014, suggesting that PERFORM accounts for 1.4% of the total variability of

FLEXIBLE.

Table 9-7 Correlation of PERFORM and FLEXIBLE

Pearson Correlation -.119
Sig. (2-tailed) .344
N 65

Table 9-8 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and FLEXIBLE

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .119 .014 -.001 1.8828
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to flexibility?
(FLEXIBLE)

Ease of implementation (IMPLEMEN)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and IMPLEMEN is shown in Table 9-9. The correlation between PERFORM and

IMPLEMEN is negative (-.344), suggesting that as preference for the performance

approach (PERFORM) increases, the value of IMPLEMEN decreases.

Table 9-9 Correlation of PERFORM and IMPLEMEN

Pearson Correlation -.344**
Sig. (2-tailed) .005
N 65
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

This correlation co-efficient shows that respondents regarded the performance

approach increasingly as being more influential regarding the ease of implementing an

approach to construction worker safety. The p value is 0.005 (2-tailed) and is statistically
 247

significant. This value shows that the correlation does differ significantly from 0. The

null hypothesis is therefore rejected.

From Table 9-10, it is evident that there is a linear relationship between

PERFORM and IMPLEMEN. The value of R2 is 0.118, suggesting that PERFORM

accounts for 11.8% of the total variability of IMPLEMEN.

Table 9-10 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and IMPLEMEN

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .344 .118 .104 1.8663
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to ease of
implementation? (IMPLEMEN)

Ease of understanding compliance requirements (COMPREQ)

The correlation between the preference for the performance approach

(PERFORM) and COMPREQ is shown in Table 9-11. The correlation between

PERFORM and COMPREQ is negative (-.406). This co-efficient suggests that as

preference for the performance approach (PERFORM) increases, values of COMPREQ

would decrease, indicating that respondents would increasingly regard the performance

approach as being more influential regarding the ease of understanding the compliance

requirements of an approach to construction worker safety. The p value associated with

the correlation coefficient of -.406 is 0.001 (2-tailed) and is statistically significant. The

correlation does differ significantly from 0. The null hypothesis is rejected.

There is a linear relationship between PERFORM and COMPREQ since the value

of R2 is 0.165 (Table 9-12). This value suggests that PERFORM accounts for 16.5% of

the total variability of COMPREQ.

 248

Table 9-11 Correlation of PERFORM and COMPREQ

Pearson Correlation -.406**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 65
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 9-12 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and COMPREQ

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .406 .165 .152 1.8613
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to ease of
understanding compliance requirements? (COMPREQ)

Support for innovation (INNOVATE)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and INNOVATE is shown in Table 9-13. The correlation between PERFORM and

INNOVATE is negative (-.045), suggesting that should preference for the performance

approach (PERFORM) increase, the value of INNOVATE would decrease. Decreasing

values of INNOVATE indicate that respondents increasingly regard the performance

approach as more influential than the prescriptive approach regarding the support for

innovation in an approach to construction worker safety. The p value is 0.723 indicating

that the correlation does not differ significantly from 0. The null hypothesis is not

rejected.

Table 9-13 Correlation of PERFORM and INNOVATE

Pearson Correlation -.045
Sig. (2-tailed) .723
N 65
 249

The regression model summary in Table 9-14 suggests that there is no strong

linear relationship between PERFORM and INNOVATE since the value of R2 is 0.002,

suggesting that PERFORM accounts for 0.2% of the total variability of INNOVATE.

Table 9-14 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and INNOVATE

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .045 .002 -.014 1.9977
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to support for
innovation? (INNOVATE)

Ease of introduction of new materials (NEWMATLS)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and NEWMATLS is shown in Table 9-15. The correlation between PERFORM and

NEWMATLS is negative (-.386), suggesting that as preference for the performance

approach (PERFORM) increases, values of NEWMATLS would decrease. This trend

suggests that respondents regarded the performance approach increasingly as more

influential regarding the ease of introducing new materials. The p value associated with

the correlation coefficient of -.386 is 0.002 (2-tailed) and is statistically significant. The

correlation does differ significantly from 0. The null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 9-15 Correlation of PERFORM and NEWMATLS

Pearson Correlation -.386**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 65
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

From the regression model summary in Table 9-16, it is evident that there is a

linear relationship between PERFORM and NEWMATLS since the value of R2 is 0.149.
 250

This value suggests that PERFORM accounts for 14.9% of the variability of

NEWMATLS.

Table 9-16 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and NEWMATLS

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.386 .149 .135 1.8366
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to ease of
introduction of new materials? (NEWMATLS)

Supported by corporate culture, vision and mission of the organization (CULTURE)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and CULTURE is shown in Table 9-17. The correlation between PERFORM and

CULTURE is negative (-.326). This value of the correlation coefficient suggests that as

preference for the performance approach (PERFORM) increases, values of CULTURE

would decrease. This tendency shows that respondents would increasingly regard the

performance approach as the more influential approach regarding whether an approach to

construction worker safety supported the corporate culture, vision and mission of their

firms. The p value is 0.008 (2-tailed) and is statistically significant. The correlation does

differ significantly from 0. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 9-17 Correlation of PERFORM and CULTURE

Pearson Correlation -.326**
Sig. (2-tailed) .008
N 65
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
 251

From Table 9-18, it is evident that there is a linear relationship between

PERFORM and CULTURE. The value of R2 is 0.106. This value suggests that

PERFORM accounts for 10.6% of the total variability of CULTURE.

Table 9-18 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and CULTURE

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .326 .106 .092 1.8916
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to corporate culture,
vision and mission of your organization? (CULTURE)

Potential to improve safety performance on sites (SAFETY)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and SAFETY is shown in Table 9-19. The correlation between PERFORM and SAFETY

is negative (-.388), suggesting that as preference for the performance approach

(PERFORM) increases, values of SAFETY would decrease. This trend shows that

respondents increasingly regarded the performance approach as being the more

influential approach with regard to the potential of an approach to improve safety

performance on construction sites. The p value 0.001 (2-tailed) and statistically

significant indicating that the correlation does differ significantly from 0. The null

hypothesis is rejected.

Table 9-19 Correlation of PERFORM and SAFETY

Pearson Correlation -.388**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 65
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
 252

Evidently, that there is a linear relationship between PERFORM and SAFETY

(Table 9-20) since the value of R2 is 0.151, suggesting that PERFORM accounts for

15.1% of the total variability of SAFETY.

Table 9-20 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and SAFETY

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .388 .151 .137 1.9476
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to potential to
improve safety performance on sites? (SAFETY)

Simplicity of interpretation (SIMPLE)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and SIMPLE is shown in Table 9-21. The correlation between PERFORM and SIMPLE

is negative (-.377). This value of the correlation coefficient suggests that as preference

for the performance approach (PERFORM) increases, values of SIMPLE would decrease.

Respondents would regard the performance approach increasingly as the more influential

approach. The p value associated with the correlation coefficient of -.377 is 0.002 (2-

tailed) and statistically significant. This value shows that the correlation does differ

significantly from 0. The null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 9-21 Correlation of PERFORM and SIMPLE

Pearson Correlation -.377**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 65
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
 253

From the regression model summary in Table 9-22, it is evident that there is a

linear relationship between PERFORM and SIMPLE since the value of R2 is 0.142. This

value suggests that PERFORM accounts for 14.2% of the total variability of SIMPLE.

Table 9-22 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and SIMPLE

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .377 .142 .129 2.0885
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to simplicity of
interpretation? (SIMPLE)

Ease of compliance (COMPEASE)

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and COMPEASE is shown in Table 9-23. The correlation between PERFORM and

COMPEASE is negative (-.486), suggesting that as preference for the performance

approach (PERFORM) increases, values of COMPEASE decrease. This trend shows that

respondents increasingly regarded the performance approach as the more influential

approach regarding the ease of complying with an approach to construction worker

safety. The p value is 0.000 (2-tailed) and is statistically significant. The correlation

differs significantly from 0. The null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 9-23 Correlation of PERFORM and COMPEASE

Pearson Correlation -.486**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 64
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

From Table 9-24, it is evident that there is a strong linear relationship between

PERFORM and COMPEASE since the value of R2 is 0.236. This value is interpreted as
 254

the proportion of the total variation in COMPEASE accounted for by PERFORM. It

suggests that PERFORM accounts for 23.6% of the total variability of COMPEASE.

Table 9-24 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and COMPEASE

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .486 .236 .224 1.7847
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How influential are the types of approaches to ease of
compliance? (COMPEASE)

Does Preference Predict Importance of Safety Management Issues?

It was expected that respondents with a preference for the performance approach

(PERFORM) would be more likely to regard as very important the 5 issues identified as

being associated with why the performance approach should be the preferred approach to

construction safety and health management. The null hypothesis to be tested is that there

is no relationship between PERFORM and the 5 dependent variables. However, there

were no significant correlations with the dependent variables. For example, the

correlation between PERFORM and COST is shown in Table 9-25.

Table 9-25 Correlation of PERFORM and COST

Pearson Correlation .118
Sig. (2-tailed) .354
N 64

The correlation between preference for the performance approach (PERFORM)

and the cost effectiveness of an approach to construction safety and health management

(COST) is positive (0.354), suggesting that as PERFORM increases, COST would

increase marginally. This tendency shows a statistically insignificant increase in the

 255

importance of cost effectiveness (COST) regarding an approach to construction safety.

The p value associated with COST is 0.118 indicating that the correlation does not differ

significantly from 0. The null hypothesis that there is no relationship between PERFORM

and COST is not rejected.

From the regression model summary in Table 9-26, it is evident that there is no

linear relationship between PERFORM and COST since the value of R2 is 0.014. This

value suggests that PERFORM accounts for 1.4% of the total variability of COST.

Table 9-26 Regression Model Summary of PERFORM and COST

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .118 .014 -.002 1.7673
a Predictors: (Constant), prefer=2 (FILTER) (PERFORM)
b Dependent Variable: How important do you regard the cost effectiveness of approach
regarding an approach to construction safety and health management? (COST)

Does Management Position Predict Preference?

Similarly, it was expected that positions of respondents within the management

structures of their firms, namely, CEO, PROJECT, and SAFEDIR, would be predictors of

the preference of for the performance approach (PERFORM). The null hypothesis to be

tested is that there is no relationship between job position and preference for the

performance approach. There were no significant correlations with the dependent

variables. The null hypothesis is not rejected. The R2 value of 0.041 from the regression

analysis model suggests that CEO, PROJECT, and SAFEDIR together predict 4.1% of

the total variability of PERFORM.

 256

Does Firm Size Predict Preference for the Performance Approach?

It was expected that size of firms, namely, EMPLOYNO and CONTVALU,

would be predictors of the preference for the performance approach (PERFORM). The

null hypothesis to be tested is that there is no relationship between the size of the firm

and preference for the performance approach. There were no significant correlations with

the dependent variables. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is not rejected. The R2 value of

0.011 from the regression analysis model suggests that EMPLOYNO and CONTVALU

together predict 1.1% of the total variability of PERFORM.

Regression Modeling

Measures for each of questions 7, 8, 10, 17 and 18 were obtained by recoding the

responses into different variables. The score of each case in these variables was

calculated by adding up each response to a sub-part of a question and then dividing by the

number of sub-parts. For example, for question 8 the scores of the responses to each of

the 5 sub-parts were added for each respondent, and then divided by 5 to give the score

for that case. In the same way the scores to questions 12 through 16 were combined to

give a single score for a different recoded variable.

Using these recoded variables, the correlations measured with Pearson Correlation

with significance at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) and 0.01 level (2-tailed) were helpful in

assessing which of them might indicate the tendency of top management to involve

workers in bringing about change to improve safety performance. These correlations

were also used to assess which variables might indicate the tendency of top management

to regard as important, actions to be taken for the successful implementation of a new

 257

approach to construction worker safety and health. The frequency distributions of each

variable are shown in Figures 9.1 to 9.6 and correlations in Table 9-27.

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = .78

Mean = 5.71

0 N = 66.00
3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

MEASURE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 9-1 Importance of safety management issues (SAFEMAN)

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = .68

Mean = 4.94
0 N = 64.00
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

MEASURE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 9-2 Influence of change-driving issues (CHGDRIVS)
 258

30

20
FREQUENCY

10

Std. Dev = .77

Mean = 5.78

0 N = 65.00
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

MEASURE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 9-3 Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

12

10

8
FREQUENCY

2 Std. Dev = .72

Mean = 5.76

0 N = 64.00
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75

MEASURE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 9-4 Importance of implementation factors (IMPLFACT)
 259

10

FREQUENCY
6

2
Std. Dev = .84
Mean = 5.56

0 N = 65.00
3.25 3.75 4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75
3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

MEASURE OF IMPORTANCE
Figure 9-5 Importance of actions for successful implementation (SUCSACTS)

5
FREQUENCY

1 Std. Dev = .81

Mean = 2.64

0 N = 35.00
1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

MEASURE OF INFLUENCE

Figure 9-6 Influence of performance approach (PERFINFL)

 260

Table 9-27 Correlations of recoded variables

SAFEMAN CHGDRIVS WKRPART IMPLFACT SUCSACTS PERFINFL

Pearson 1.000 .251* .387** .410** .381** -.378*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) . .047 .002 .001 .002 .027
N 66 63 64 63 64 34
Pearson .251* 1.000 .384** .541** .516** -.183
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .047 . .002 .000 .000 .308
N 63 64 62 61 62 33
Pearson .387** .384** 1.000 .368** .243 -.222
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .002 . .003 .053 .200
N 64 62 65 63 64 35
Pearson .410** .541** .368** 1.000 .668** -.147
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .003 . .000 .416
N 63 61 63 64 63 33
Pearson .381** .516** .243 .668** 1.000 -.177
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .053 .000 . .316
N 64 62 64 63 65 34
Pearson -.378* -.183 -.222 -.147 -.177 1.000
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .308 .200 .416 .316 .
N 34 33 35 33 34 35
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The following hypotheses were tested with single-step multiple linear regression

analysis:

− H1: The demographic characteristics of management position (JOBTITLE), size of

organization, (EMPLOYNO and CONTVALU) and source of contracting income
(CMAGENCY + GENCON + SUBCONT + CMATRISK + SPECIAL+ DESIGNB)
are predictors of determining the importance accorded to actions to be taken for the
successful application of a new approach to construction worker safety and health
(SUCSACTS).
− H2: The influence of the performance approach (PERFINFL) is a negative predictor of
determining the importance accorded to actions to be taken for the successful
application of a new approach to construction worker safety and health (SUCSACTS).
− H3: The importance of construction safety and health management issues
(SAFEMAN) is a positive predictor of determining the importance accorded to actions
to be taken for the successful application of a new approach to construction worker
safety and health (SUCSACTS).
 261

− H4: The importance of worker participation in bringing about change (WKRPART) is

a positive predictor of determining the importance accorded to actions to be taken for
the successful application of a new approach to construction worker safety and health
(SUCSACTS).
− H5: The importance of implementation factors for new approaches (IMPLFACT) is a
positive predictor of determining the importance accorded to actions to be taken for
the successful application of a new approach to construction worker safety and health
(SUCSACTS).
− H6: The importance of change-driving issues (CHGDRVS) is a positive predictor of
determining the importance accorded to actions to be taken for the successful
application of a new approach to construction worker safety and health (SUCSACTS).
− H7: The demographic characteristics of management position (JOBTITLE), size of
organization, (EMPLOYNO and CONTVALU) and source of contracting income
(CMAGENCY + GENCON + SUBCONT + CMATRISK + SPECIAL+ DESIGNB)
are predictors of determining the importance accorded to worker participation in
bringing about change (WKRPART).
− H8: The influence of the performance approach (PERFINFL) is a negative predictor of
determining the importance accorded to worker participation in bringing about change
(WKRPART).
− H9: The importance of construction safety and health management issues
(SAFEMAN) is a positive predictor of determining the importance accorded to worker
participation in bringing about change (WKRPART).
− H10: The importance of implementation factors for new approaches (IMPLFACT) is a
positive predictor of determining the importance accorded to worker participation in
bringing about change (WKRPART).
− H11: The importance of change-driving issues (CHGDRVS) is a positive predictor of
determining the importance accorded to worker participation in bringing about change
(WKRPART).
− H12: The importance of change-driving issues (CHGDRIVS) is a positive predictor of
determining the importance of construction safety and health management issues
(SAFEMAN).
− H13: The importance of implementation factors for new approaches (IMPLFACT) is a
positive predictor of determining the importance of construction safety and health
management issues (SAFEMAN).
− H14: The influence of the performance approach (PERFINFL) is a negative predictor
of determining the importance of construction safety and health management issues
(SAFEMAN).
− H15: The importance of change-driving issues (CHGDRIVS) is a positive predictor of
determining the importance of implementation factors for new approaches
(IMPLFACT).
− H16: The importance given to construction safety and health management issues
(SAFEMAN) is a positive predictor of the importance of building trust and credibility
with workers before implementing a change (WKRTRUST).
− H17: The importance given to the receptiveness of first-line supervisors (foremen) to
change (FOREMEN) is a positive predictor of the importance of enlisting the opinions
of workers on a proposed change before it is implemented (WKROPIN).
 262

Importance of Actions for (SUSACTS)

Demographic characteristics (H1)

H1 is not supported by multiple linear regression. There are no significant

correlations between the independent variables (predictors) and the dependent variable

SUCSACTS. From the regression model summary in Table 9-28, it is evident that

knowing management position (JOBTITLE), size of organization, (EMPLOYNO and

CONTVALU) and source of contracting income (CMAGENCY + GENCON +

SUBCONT + CMATRISK + SPECIAL+ DESIGNB) together only explain 0.1% (using

adjusted R269 ) of the total variability in SUCSACTS.

Table 9-28 Regression model summary of demographic characteristics and SUCSACTS

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .409 .167 .001 .8443
a Predictors: (Constant), % other, % specialty contracting, % design-build, What is the
approximate annual value of construction contracts?, % construction management at risk,
% construction management (agency), % subcontracting, What is your position within
your organization, Approximately what is the average number of employees in your
firm?, % general contracting
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

They are statistically weak predictors of determining the importance accorded to

actions to be taken for the successful application of a new approach to construction

worker safety and health (SUSACTS) such as the performance approach.

69
For multiple regression models the sample estimate of R2 tends to be an overestimate of
the population parameter. Adjusted R2 is designed to compensate for the optimistic bias
of R2 and reflects more closely how well the model fits the population. It is a function of
R2 adjusted by the number of variables in the model and the sample size (SPSS, 1999).
 263

From Table 9-29, it is evident that the F statistic is very small (1.004) and not

statistically significant, indicating that the simultaneous test that each coefficient is 0 is

not rejected. The hypothesis H1 is rejected.

Table 9-29 ANOVA of demographic characteristics and SUCSACTS

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 7.154 10 .715 1.004 .454
Residual 35.644 50 .713
Total 42.798 60
a Predictors: (Constant), % other, % specialty contracting, % design-build, What is the
approximate annual value of construction contracts?, % construction management at risk,
% construction management (agency), % subcontracting, What is your position within
your organization, Approximately what is the average number of employees in your
firm?, % general contracting
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

Influence of the performance approach (H2)

Similarly, H2 is not supported by simple linear regression. Of the sample of 34

respondents, the mean value of the importance of actions for the successful

implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and health SUCSACTS)

was 5.67,70 and the mean value of the influence of the performance approach

(PERFINFL) was 2.64.71 From the regression model summary in Table 9-30, it is evident

70
A 7-point Likert scale of importance was used, with 1 = not important at all; 4 =
neutral; and 7 = very important
71
In this case, values at the lower end of the 7-point Likert scale of influence represent an
increasing influence of the performance approach. Similarly, values at the higher end of
the 7-point Likert scale of influence represent an increasing influence of the prescriptive
approach. The value 4 represents neutral influence.
 264

that PERFINFL is a statistically weak predictor of SUCSACTS. The R2 value72 is 0.031

and accounts for 3.1% of the total variability in SUCSACTS. The standard error of the

estimate (.8148) compares favorably73 with the standard deviation of SUCSACTS

(.8153).

From Table 9-31, it is evident that the F statistic is 1.038 and therefore not

statistically significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is not rejected.

Table 9-30 Regression Model Summary of SUCSACTS and PERFINFL

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .177 .031 .001 .8148
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of performance approach (PERFINFL)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

Table 9-31 ANOVA of SUCSACTS and PERFINFL

Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1 Regression .689 1 .689 1.038 .316
Residual 21.245 32 .664
Total 21.934 33
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of performance approach (PERFINFL)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

From Table 9-32, it is evident that the predictor (PREFINFL) is not useful since

the t value (-1.019) is not below -2. On the other hand, the t value of SUCSACTST is

above 2, satisfying the usefulness guidelines. However, it is necessary for both t values to

72
The R2 value is used in this case because there are only 2 variables in the regression
model and simple regression is used. If R2 is 0 or very small, there is no linear relation
between the dependent and the independent variable.
73
If the standard error of the estimate is not less than the standard deviation, then the
regression model is no better than the mean as a predictor of the dependent variable
(SPSS, 1999)
 265

satisfy the guidelines to be useful (SPSS, 1999). The hypothesis H2 is rejected that the

influence of the performance approach is a negative predictor of determining the

importance accorded to actions to be taken for the successful application of a new

approach to construction worker safety and health (SUSACTS) such as the performance

approach.

Table 9-32 Coefficients of SUCSACTS and PERFINFL

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 6.135 .476 12.879 .000
PERFINFL -.175 .172 -.177 -1.019 .316 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation

Importance of construction safety and health management (H3)

Of the sample of 64 respondents, the mean value 74 of the importance of actions

for the successful implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and

health (SUCSACTS) was 5.54 and the mean value of the importance75 of issues to safety

management was 5.72.

Table 9-33 Regression Model Summary of SAFEMAN and SUCSACTS

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .381 .145 .131 .7783
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

74
A 7-point Likert scale of importance was used, with 1 = not important at all; 4 =
neutral; and 7 = very important
75
A 7-point Likert scale of importance was used, with 1 = not important at all; 4 =
neutral; and 7 = very important
 266

The correlation between SAFEMAN and SUCSACTS is positive (.381) (2-tailed)

and statistically significant, suggesting that as the importance of safety management

issues (SAFEMAN) increases, the importance of actions for the successful

implementation of a new approach to worker safety (SUCSACTS) also increases. The p

value is .002 indicating that the correlation differs significantly from 0. From the

regression model summary in Table 9-33, it is evident that SAFEMAN is a strong

predictor of SUCSACTS. The R2 value is significant (0.145) and accounts for a

significant portion (14.5%) of the total variability in SUCSACTS. The standard error

(.7783) compares favorably with the standard deviation of SUCSACTS (.8350).

From Table 9-34, it is evident that the F statistic is not small (10.509) and

therefore, statistically significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is

rejected. The independent variable SAFEMAN explains a significant portion of the

variation of the dependent variable SUCSACTS. The linear relationship is highly

significant (.002).

Table 9-34 ANOVA of SAFEMAN and SUCSACTS

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6.366 1 6.366 10.509 .002
Residual 37.558 62 .606
Total 43.924 63
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-35, the estimated model is:

SUCSACTS = 3.248 + .401 SAFEMAN

Evidently the predictors are useful since the t values of 4.550 and 3.242 satisfy the

usefulness guidelines of either being above +2 or well below -2.

 267

The hypothesis H3 is accordingly not rejected that the importance of construction

safety and health management issues is a positive predictor of determining the

importance accorded to actions to be taken for the successful application of a new

approach to construction worker safety.

Table 9-35 Coefficients of SAFEMAN and SUCSACTS

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3.248 .714 4.550 .000
SAFEMAN .401 .124 .381 3.242 .002 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

Importance of worker participation (H4)

Of the sample of 64 respondents, the mean value of the importance of actions for

the successful implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and

health (SUCSACTS) was 5.54 and the mean value 76 of the importance of worker

participation (WKRPART) was 5.80. The correlation between WKRPART and

SUCSACTS is positive (.243) and statistically insignificant. The p value is .053. The

correlation does not differ significantly from 0.

From Table 9-36, it is evident that WKRPART is a weak predictor of

SUCSACTS. The R2 value is very small (0.059) and accounts for a very small portion

(5.9%) of the total variability in SUCSACTS. The standard error (.8199) compares

favorably with the standard deviation of SUCSACTS (.8385).

76
A 7-point Likert scale of importance was used, with 1 = not important at all; 4 =
neutral; and 7 = very important
 268

Table 9-36 Regression Model Summary of WKRPART and SUCSACTS

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .243 .059 .044 .8199
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

It is evident from Table 9-37 that the F statistic is 3.878 and statistically

insignificant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is not rejected. The

independent variable WKRPART does not explain a significant portion of the variation

of the dependent variable SUCSACTS. The linear relationship is not statistically

significant (.053).

Table 9-37 ANOVA of WKRPART and SUCSACTS

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.607 1 2.607 3.878 .053
Residual 41.682 62 .672
Total 44.289 63
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

From Table 9-38 , it is evident that the predictor WKRPART is not useful since

the t value is not above +2 (1.969). On the other hand, the t value of SUCSACTST is

above 2 (4.999), satisfying the usefulness guidelines. However, it is necessary for both t

values to satisfy the guidelines to be useful.

The hypothesis H4 is rejected that the importance of worker participation in

bringing about change is a positive predictor of determining the importance accorded to

actions to be taken for the successful application of a new approach to construction

worker safety.
 269

Table 9-38 Coefficients of WKRPART and SUCSACTS

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3.987 .797 4.999 .000
WKRPART .269 .136 .243 1.969 .053 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

Importance of implementation factors (H5)

Of the sample of 64 respondents, the mean value of the importance of actions for

the successful implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and

health (SUCSACTS) was 5.54 and the mean value 77 of the importance of implementation

factors for new approaches (IMPLFACT) was 5.75. The correlation between IMPLFACT

and SUCSACTS is positive (.668) (2-tailed) and highly statistically significant. The p

value is less than .0005 indicating that the correlation does differ significantly from 0.

Evidently, from Table 9-39, IMPLFACT is a strong predictor of SUCSACTS.

The R2 value is 0.446 and accounts for a significant portion (44.6%) of the total

variability in SUCSACTS. The standard error (.6283) compares favorably with the

standard deviation of SUCSACTS (.8376).

Table 9-39 Regression Model Summary of IMPLFACT and SUCSACTS

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .668 .446 .437 .6283
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

77
A 7-point Likert scale of importance was used, with 1 = not important at all; 4 =
neutral; and 7 = very important
 270

From Table 9-40, the F statistic is large (49.172) and therefore highly statistically

significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The independent

variable IMPLFACT explains a significant portion of the total variation of the dependent

variable SUCSACTS. The linear relationship is highly significant (p>.0005).

Table 9-40 ANOVA of IMPLFACT and SUCSACTS

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 19.412 1 19.412 49.172 .000
Residual 24.081 61 .395
Total 43.493 62
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-41, the estimated model is:

SUCSACTS = 1.087 + .774 IMPLFACT

Table 9-41 Coefficients of IMPLFACT and SUCSACTS

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 1.087 .640 1.699 .094
IMPLFACT .774 .110 .668 7.012 .000 1.000 1.00
0
a Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

The hypothesis H5 is not rejected that the importance of implementation factors is

a positive predictor of determining the importance accorded to actions to be taken for the

successful application of a new approach to construction worker safety.

 271

Importance of change-driving issues (H6)

Of the sample of 62 respondents, the mean value of the importance of actions for

the successful implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and

health (SUCSACTS) was 5.53 and the mean value of the importance of change-driving

issues (CHGDRIVS) was 4.94. The correlation between CHGDRIVS and SUCSACTS is

positive (.516) (2-tailed) and statistically significant. The p value associated with the

correlation coefficient of .516 is less than .0005 indicating that the correlation does differ

significantly from 0.

From the regression model summary in Table 9-42, CHGDRIVS is a strong

predictor of SUCSACTS. The R2 value is large (0.266) and accounts for a significant

portion (26.6%) of the total variability in SUCSACTS. The standard error (.7168)

compares favorably with the standard deviation of SUCSACTS (.8300).

Table 9-42 Regression Model Summary of CHGDRIVS and SUCSACTS

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .516 .266 .254 .7168
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of change-driving issues in organizations
(CHGDRIVS)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

From Table 9-43, the F statistic is large (21.783) and highly significant, indicating

that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The independent variable CHGDRIVS

explains a significant portion of the variation of the dependent variable SUCSACTS. The

linear relationship is highly significant (p>.0005).

Using the coefficients from Table 9-44, the estimated model is:

SUCSACTS = 2.451 + .623 CHGDRIVS

 272

The predictors are useful since the t values of 3.679 and 4.667 satisfy the

usefulness guidelines of either being above +2 or well below -2. The hypothesis H6 is not

rejected that the importance of change-driving issues is a positive predictor of

determining the importance accorded to actions to be taken for the successful application

of a new approach to construction worker safety.

Table 9-43 ANOVA of CHGDRIVS and SUCSACTS

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 11.192 1 11.192 21.783 .000
Residual 30.828 60 .514
Total 42.020 61
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of change-driving issues in organizations
(CHGDRIVS)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

Table 9-44 Coefficients of CHGDRIVS and SUCSACTS

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 2.451 .666 3.679 .001
CHGDRIVS .623 .134 .516 4.667 .000 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

The various variables were ranked in order of their strength of prediction of the

importance of actions for the successful application of a new approach to safety

(SUCACTS), namely, the importance of implementation factors (IMPLFACT), change-

driving issues (CHGDRIVS), safety and health management issues (SAFEMAN), worker

participation (WKRPART), and influence of the performance approach (PERFINFL). To

identify the key predictors of SUCSACTS, the independent variables were tested with

stepwise multiple linear regression.

 273

Stepwise regression produced 2 models. Of the 16 candidate predictors, 2 were

included in the final model, namely, IMPLFACT and JOBTITLE. From the regression

model summary in Table 9-45, it is evident that IMPLFACT is a strong predictor of

SUCSACTS.

Table 9-45 Stepwise Regression Model Summary for predictors of SUCSACTS

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .603 .364 .338 .6227
2 .710 .505 .463 .5608
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)
b Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT), What
is your position within your organization (JOBTITLE)
c Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

The R2 value is 0.364 predicting a significant portion (33.8%) of the total

variability in SUCSACTS, using the R2 value. Together, IMPLFACT and JOBTITLE are

stronger predictors of SUCSACTS. The resultant R2 value is larger (.505) and accounts

for a more significant portion (46.3%) of the total variability of SUCSACTS, using the

adjusted R2 value. The standard error decreases from .6227 when IMPLFACT is the only

predictor to .5608 when the model includes JOBTITLE.

From Table 9-46, the F statistic is large (12.226) for the model including

JOBTITLE and therefore statistically significant, indicating that the test that each

coefficient is 0 is rejected. The combined independent variables, IMPLFACT and

JOBTITLE, explain a significant portion of the total variation of the dependent variable

SUCSACTS. The linear relationship is highly significant (p>.0005).

 274

Table 9-46 ANOVA for predictors of SUCSACTS

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5.545 1 5.545 14.299 .001
Residual 9.695 25 .388
Total 15.240 26
2 Regression 7.691 2 3.846 12.226 .000
Residual 7.549 24 .315
Total 15.240 26
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)
b Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT), What
is your position within your organization (JOBTITLE)
c Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-47, the final model is

SUCSACTS = .730 + .735 IMPLFACT + .250 JOBTITLE

Table 9-47 Coefficients for predictors of SUCSACTS

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 1.022 1.183 .864 .396
IMPLFACT .777 .205 .603 3.781 .001 1.000 1.000
2 (Constant) .730 1.071 .682 .502
IMPLFACT .735 .186 .571 3.963 .001 .993 1.007
JOBTITLE .250 .096 .377 2.612 .015 .993 1.007
a Dependent Variable: Importance of actions for successful implementation
(SUCSACTS)

It is evident that the predictors are useful since their t values in each model satisfy

the usefulness guidelines of either being above +2. The standard errors are smaller in the

final model than when only IMPLFACT is the predictor.

 275

Importance of Worker Participation (WKRPART)

Demographic characteristics (H7)

H7 is not supported by multiple linear regression. There are no significant

correlations between the independent variables (predictors) and the dependent variable

WKRPART. From Table 9-48, management position (JOBTITLE), size of organization,

(EMPLOYNO and CONTVALU) and source of contracting income (CMAGENCY +

GENCON + SUBCONT + CMATRISK + SPECIAL+ DESIGNB) are weak predictors of

the importance of worker participation (WKRPART). These variables together predict

0.9% of the total variability in WKRPART, using the adjusted R2 value of .009.

Table 9-48 Regression Model Summary of demographic characteristics and WKRPART

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .421 .177 .009 .7615
a Predictors: (Constant), % other, % construction management (agency), % design-build,
% specialty contracting, % construction management at risk, What is the approximate
annual value of construction contracts?, % subcontracting, What is your position within
your organization, Approximately what is the average number of employees in your
firm?, % general contracting
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

Table 9-49 ANOVA of demographic characteristics and WKRPART

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6.104 10 .610 1.053 .416
Residual 28.413 49 .580
Total 34.517 59
a Predictors: (Constant), % other, % construction management (agency), % design-build,
% specialty contracting, % construction management at risk, What is the approximate
annual value of construction contracts?, % subcontracting, What is your position within
your organization, Approximately what is the average number of employees in your
firm?, % general contracting
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

The F statistic from Table 9-49 is 1.053 and not statistically significant, indicating

that the simultaneous test that each coefficient is 0 is not rejected.

 276

The hypothesis H7 is rejected that demographic characteristics are predictors of

worker participation in bringing about change.

Influence of performance approach (H8)

Similarly, H8 is not supported by simple linear regression. Of the sample of 35

respondents, the mean value 78 of the importance of worker participation in bringing about

a change in approach to construction worker safety and health (WKRPART) was 5.78

and the mean value79 of the influence of the performance approach (PERFINFL) was

2.64. The correlation between PERFINFL and WKRPART is -.222 and statistically

insignificant. From the regression model summary in Table 9-50, PERFINFL is a weak

predictor of WKRPART. The R2 value is very small (0.049) and accounts for 4.9% of the

variability in WKRPART. The standard error of the estimate (.8334) compares favorably

with the standard deviation of WKRPART (.8421).

Table 9-50 Regression Model Summary of PERFINFL and WKRPART

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .222 .049 .021 .8334
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of performance approach (PERFINFL)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

From Table 9-51, the F statistic is small (1.189) and therefore not statistically

significant (.200), indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is not rejected.

78
A 7-point Likert scale of importance was used, with 1 = not important at all; 4 =
neutral; and 7 = very important
79
In this case, values at the lower end of the 7-point Likert scale of influence represent an
increasing influence of the performance approach. Similarly, values at the higher end of
the 7-point Likert scale of influence represent an increasing influence of the prescriptive
approach. The value 4 represents neutral influence.
 277

Table 9-51 ANOVA of PERFINFL and WKRPART

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 1.189 1 1.189 1.712 .200
Residual 22.921 33 .695
Total 24.110 34
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of performance approach (PERFINFL)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

The predictor (PREFINFL) is not useful (Table 9-52) since the t value is not

below -2 (-1.308). On the other hand, the t value of WKRPART is above 2 (13.137),

satisfying the usefulness guidelines. However, it is necessary for both t values to satisfy

the guidelines to be useful. The hypothesis H8 is rejected that the influence of the

performance approach is a negative predictor of worker participation in bringing about

change.

Table 9-52 Coefficients of PERFINFL and WKRPART

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 6.392 .487 13.137 .000
PERFINFL -.230 .176 -.222 -1.308 .200 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

Importance of construction safety and health management issues (H9)

Of the sample of 64 respondents, the mean value 80 of the importance of worker

participation in bringing about a change in approach to construction worker safety and

80
A 7-point Likert scale of importance was used, with 1 = not important at all; 4 =
neutral; and 7 = very important
 278

health (WKRPART) was 5.78 and the mean value81 of the importance of issues to safety

management (SAFEMAN) was 5.71. The correlation between SAFEMAN and

WKRPART is .387 (2-tailed), and statistically significant suggesting that as the

importance of construction safety issues (SAFEMAN) increases, worker participation

(WKRPART) increases. The p value is .002 indicating that the correlation differs

significantly from 0. From the regression model summary in Table 9-53, SAFEMAN is a

strong predictor of WKRPART. The R2 value is significant (0.149) and accounts for a

significant portion (14.9%) of the total variability in WKRPART. The standard error

(.7229) compares favorably with the standard deviation of WKRPART (.7776).

Table 9-53 Regression Model Summary of SAFEMAN and WKRPART

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .387 .149 .136 .7229
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

Evidently, from Table 9-54, the F statistic is not small (10.894) and therefore

statistically significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The

independent variable SAFEMAN explains a significant portion of the variation of the

dependent variable WKRPART. The linear relationship is highly significant (.002).

From Table 9-55, it is evident that the predictor SAFEMAN is useful since the t

value is +2 (3.301). On the other hand, the t value of WKRPART is also above +2

(5.471), satisfying the usefulness guidelines. The hypothesis H9 is not rejected that the

importance of construction safety issues is a positive predictor of worker participation in

bringing about change.

81
A 7-point Likert scale of importance was used, with 1 = not important at all; 4 =
 279

Table 9-54 ANOVA of SAFEMAN and WKRPART

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5.692 1 5.692 10.894 .002
Residual 32.397 62 .523
Total 38.089 63
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-55, the estimated model is:

WKRPART = 3.617 + .379 SAFEMAN

Table 9-55 Coefficients of SAFEMAN and WKRPART

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 3.617 .661 5.471 .000
SAFEMAN .379 .115 .387 3.301 .002 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

− Importance of implementation factors for new approaches (H10)

Of the sample of 63 respondents, the mean value of the importance of worker

participation in bringing about a change in approach to construction worker safety and

health (WKRPART) was 5.75 and the mean value of the importance of implementation

factors for new approaches (IMPLFACT) was 5.75. The correlation between IMPLFACT

and WKRPART is positive (.368) and statistically significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed),

suggesting that as the importance of implementation factors (IMPLFACT) increases, the

importance of worker participation (WKRPART) increases. The p value is .003

indicating that the correlation differs significantly from 0. From the regression model

summary in Table 9-56, it is evident that IMPLFACT is a strong predictor of

neutral; and 7 = very important

 280

WKRPART. The R2 value is significant (0.136) predicting a significant portion (13.6%)

of the total variability in WKRPART. The standard error (.7179) compares favorably

with the standard deviation of WKRPART (.7660).

Table 9-56 Regression Model Summary of IMPLFACT and WKRPART

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .368 .136 .122 .7179
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

From Table 9-57, the F statistic is not small (9.584) but statistically significant,

indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The independent variable

IMPLFACT explains a significant portion of the variation of the dependent variable

WKRPART. The linear relationship is highly significant (.003).

Table 9-57 ANOVA of IMPLFACT and WKRPART

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 4.939 1 4.939 9.584 .003
Residual 31.438 61 .515
Total 36.377 62
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

From Table 9-58, it is evident that the predictor IMPLFACT is useful since the t

value is +2 (3.096). On the other hand, the t value of WKRPART is also above +2

(4.812), satisfying the usefulness guidelines. The hypothesis H10 is not rejected that the

importance of implementation factors is a positive predictor of the importance of worker

participation in bringing about change.

Using the coefficients from Table 9-58, the estimated model is:

WKRPART = 3.511 + .39 IMPLFACT

 281

Table 9-58 Coefficients of IMPLFACT and WKRPART

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 3.511 .730 4.812 .000
IMPLFACT .390 .126 .368 3.096 .003 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

Importance of change-driving issues (H11)

Of the sample of 63 respondents, the mean value of the importance of worker

participation in bringing about a change in approach to construction worker safety and

health (WKRPART) was 5.77 and the mean value of the importance of change-driving

issues in organizations (CHGDRIVS) was 4.93.

The correlation between CHGDRIVS and WKRPART is positive (.384) and

significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), suggesting that as CHGDRIVS increases,

WKRPART increases. The p value is .002 indicating that the correlation differs

significantly from 0. From the regression model summary in Table 9-59, it is evident that

the importance of change-driving issues (CHGDRIVS) is a strong predictor of the

importance of worker participation (WKRPART). The R2 value is significant (0.147) and

accounts for a significant portion (14.7%) of the total variability in WKRPART. The

standard error (.7087) compares favorably with the standard deviation of WKRPART

(.7612).

Table 9-59 Regression Model Summary of CHGDRIVS and WKRPART

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .384 .147 .133 .7087
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of change-driving issues in organizations
(CHGDRIVS)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)
 282

From Table 9-60, the F statistic is not small (10.377) but statistically significant,

indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The independent variable

CHGDRIVS explains a significant portion of the total variation of the dependent variable

WKRPART. The linear relationship is highly significant (.002).

Table 9-60 ANOVA of CHGDRIVS and WKRPART

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5.212 1 5.212 10.377 .002
Residual 30.136 60 .502
Total 35.348 61
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of change-driving issues in organizations
(CHGDRIVS)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

From Table 9-61, the predictor CHGDRIVS is useful since the t value is +2

(3.221). On the other hand, the t value of WKRPART is also above +2 (5.509), satisfying

the usefulness guidelines. The hypothesis H11 is not rejected that the importance of

change-driving issues is a positive predictor of the importance of worker participation in

bringing about change.

Table 9-61 Coefficients of CHGDRIVS and WKRPART

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 3.654 .663 5.509 .000
CHGDRIVS .430 .133 .384 3.221 .002 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-61, the estimated model is:

WKRPART = 3.654 + .43 CHGDRIVS

 283

The various variables were ranked in order of their strength of prediction of

WKRPART, namely, SAFEMAN, CHGDRIVS, IMPLFACT, SUCSACTS, and

PERFINFL. To identify the key predictors of WKRPART, the independent variables

were tested with stepwise multiple linear regression.

Stepwise regression produced one model. Of the 16 candidate predictors, one was

included in the final model, namely, SAFEMAN. From the regression model summary in

Table 9-62, it is evident that SAFEMAN is a strong predictor of WKRPART.

Table 9-62 Regression Model Summary of predictors of WKRPART

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Durbin-Watson
Square Estimate
1 .441 .195 .162 .7682 1.851
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

The R2 value is not small (0.195) and accounts for a significant portion (16.2%) of

the variability in WKRPART, using the adjusted R2 value. The R2 value in the single step

regression model is smaller (0.149) predicting a less significant portion (13.6%) of the

variability in WKRPART, using the adjusted R2 value. In this model SAFEMAN is a

stronger predictor of WKRPART. From Table 9-63, it is evident that the F statistic is

smaller than the single step model (6.041) and still statistically significant, indicating that

the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The independent variable, SAFEMAN,

explains a significant portion of the total variation of the dependent variable WKRPART.

The linear relationship is statistically significant (.021).

Using the coefficients from Table 9-64, the final model is

WKRPART = 2.436 + .564 SAFEMAN

 284

Table 9-63 ANOVA of predictors of WKRPART

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3.565 1 3.565 6.041 .021
Residual 14.755 25 .590
Total 18.320 26
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of issues to safety management
b Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change

In this model the intercept is smaller than in the single step model, namely, 3.617.

The t value of SAFEMAN is smaller than the single step model but useful (2.458).

Table 9-64 Coefficients of predictors of WKRPART

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 2.436 1.377 1.770 .089
SAFEMAN .564 .230 .441 2.458 .021 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of worker participation in change (WKRPART)

Does CHGDRIVS Predict SAFEMAN (H12)?

Of the sample of 63 respondents, the mean value of the importance of issues to

safety management (SAFEMAN) was 5.71 and the mean value of the importance of

change-driving issues in organizations (CHGDRIVS) was 4.95.

The correlation between CHGDRIVS and SAFEMAN is positive (.251) and

significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), suggesting that as the importance of change-

driving issues (CHGDRIVS) increases, the importance of safety management issues

(SAFEMAN) increases. The p value is .047 indicating that the correlation differs

significantly from 0. From the regression model summary in Table 9-65, it is evident that

CHGDRIVS is a weak predictor of SAFEMAN. The R2 value is statistically significant

(0.063) and accounts for a significant portion (6.3%) of the total variability in
 285

SAFEMAN. The standard error (.7781) compares favorably with the standard deviation

of SAFEMAN (.7973).

Table 9-65 Regression Model Summary of CHGDRIVS and SAFEMAN

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .251 .063 .048 .7781
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of change-driving issues in organizations
(CHGDRIVS)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)

The F statistic from Table 9-66, is on the smallish side (4.111) but still

statistically significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The

independent variable CHGDRIVS explains a significant portion of the total variation of

the dependent variable SAFEMAN. The linear relationship is statistically significant

(.047).

From Table 9-67, it is evident that the predictor CHGDRIVS is useful since the t

value is +2 (2.028). On the other hand, the t value of SAFEMAN is also above +2

(5.888), satisfying the usefulness guidelines. The hypothesis H12 is not rejected that the

importance of change-driving issues is a positive predictor of determining the importance

of construction safety and health issues.

Table 9-66 ANOVA of CHGDRIVS and SAFEMAN

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.489 1 2.489 4.111 .047
Residual 36.928 61 .605
Total 39.417 62
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of change-driving issues in organizations
(CHGDRIVS)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-67, the estimated model is:
 286

SAFEMAN = 4.261 + .294 CHGDRIVS

Table 9-67 Coefficients of CHGDRIVS and SAFEMAN

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 4.261 .724 5.888 .000
CHGDRIVS .294 .145 .251 2.028 .047 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)

Does IMPLFACT Predict SAFEMAN (H13)?

Of the sample of 63 respondents, the mean value of the importance of issues to

safety management (SAFEMAN) was 5.73 and the mean value of the importance of

factors on implementation of a new approach (IMPLFACT) was 5.75.

The correlation between IMPLFACT and SAFEMAN is positive (.410) and

statistically significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), suggesting that as IMPLFACT

increases, SAFEMAN increases. The p value is .001 indicating that the correlation differs

significantly from 0. From the regression model summary in Table 9-68, IMPLFACT is a

strong predictor of SAFEMAN. The R2 value is significant (0.168) and accounts for a

significant portion (16.8%) of the total variability in SAFEMAN. The standard error

(.6698) compares favorably with the standard deviation of SAFEMAN (.7284).

Table 9-68 Regression Model Summary of IMPLFACT and SAFEMAN

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .410 .168 .154 .6698
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)
 287

It is evident from Table 9-69, that the F statistic is not small (12.326) and highly

significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The independent

variable IMPLFACT explains a significant portion of the total variation of the dependent

variable SAFEMAN. The linear relationship is highly significant (.001).

Table 9-69ANOVA of IMPLFACT and SAFEMAN

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5.529 1 5.529 12.326 .001
Residual 27.363 61 .449
Total 32.893 62
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of factors on implementation
b Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-70, the estimated model is:

SAFEMAN = 3.363 + .411 IMPLFACT

Table 9-70 Coefficients of IMPLFACT and SAFEMAN

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 3.363 .680 4.948 .000
IMPLFACT .411 .117 .410 3.511 .001 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)

The correlation between PERFINFL and SAFEMAN is negative (-.378) and

statistically significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), suggesting that as PERFINFL

increases, SAFEMAN decreases. On the scale of influence the smaller the value of

PERFINFL, the greater the influence of the performance approach The p value is .002

indicating that the correlation differs significantly from 0. From the regression model

summary in Table 9-71, PERFINFL is a strong predictor of SAFEMAN. The R2 value is

 288

statistically significant (0.143) and accounts for a significant portion (14.3%) of the total

variability in SAFEMAN. The standard error (.7479) compares favorably with the

standard deviation of SAFEMAN (.7956).

Table 9-71 Regression Model Summary of PERFINFL and SAFEMAN

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .378 .143 .116 .7479
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of performance approach (PERFINFL)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)

From Table 9-72, the F statistic is on the smallish side (5.343) but still statistically

significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The independent

variable PERFINFL explains a significant portion of the total variation of the dependent

variable SAFEMAN. The linear relationship is statistically significant (.027).

Table 9-72 ANOVA of PERFINFL and SAFEMAN

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.989 1 2.989 5.343 .027
Residual 17.900 32 .559
Total 20.889 33
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of performance approach (PERFINFL)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)

From Table 9-73, the predictor PERFINFL is useful since the t value is below -2

(-2.312). On the other hand, the t value of SAFEMAN is well above +2 (15.76),

satisfying the usefulness guidelines. The hypothesis H14 is not rejected that the influence

of the performance approach is a negative predictor of determining the importance of

construction safety management issues.

Using the coefficients from Table 9-73, the estimated model for predicting

SAFEMAN is:
 289

SAFEMAN = 6.883 - .366 PERFINFL

Table 9-73 Coefficients of PERFINFL and SAFEMAN

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 6.883 .437 15.760 .000
PERFINFL -.366 .158 -.378 -2.312 .027 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)

Does CHGDRIVS Predict IMPLFACT (H15)?

Of the sample of 61 respondents, the mean value of the importance of factors on

implementation of a new approach (IMPLFACT) was 5.76 and the mean value of the

importance of change-driving issues in organizations (CHGDRIVS) was 4.95.

The correlation between CHGDRIVS and IMPLFACT is .541 (2-tailed) and

statistically significant, suggesting that as CHGDRIVS increases, IMPLFACT increases.

The p value is .000 indicating that the correlation differs significantly from 0. Evidently

from the regression model summary in Table 9-74, CHGDRIVS is a strong predictor of

IMPLFACT. The R2 value is significant (0.293) and accounts for a highly significant

portion (29.3%) of the total variability in IMPLFACT. The standard error (.6231)

compares favorably with the standard deviation of IMPLFACT (.7347).

Table 9-74 Regression Model Summary of CHGDRIVS and IMPLFACT

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .541 .293 .281 .6231
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of change-driving issues in organizations
(CHGDRIVS)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)
 290

It is evident from the ANOVA Table 9-75, that the F statistic is not small

(24.416) and highly significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is

rejected. The independent variable CHGDRIVS explains a significant portion of the total

variation of the dependent variable IMPLFACT. The linear relationship is highly

significant (.0005).

Table 9-75 ANOVA of CHGDRIVS and IMPLFACT

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 9.481 1 9.481 24.416 .000
Residual 22.910 59 .388
Total 32.390 60
a Predictors: (Constant), Influence of change-driving issues in organizations
(CHGDRIVS)
b Dependent Variable: Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)

From Table 9-76, the predictor CHGDRIVS is useful since the t value is above +2

(4.941). On the other hand, the t value of IMPLFACT is above +2 (4.971), satisfying the

usefulness guidelines. The hypothesis H15 is not rejected that the importance of change-

driving issues is a positive predictor of determining the importance of implementation

factors for new approaches.

Table 9-76 Coefficients of CHGDRIVS and IMPLFACT

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 2.900 .583 4.971 .000
CHGDRIVS .577 .117 .541 4.941 .000 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: Importance of factors on implementation (IMPLFACT)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-76, the estimated model to predict

IMPLFACT is:
 291

IMPLFACT = 2.9 + .577 CHGDRIVS

Does SAFEMAN Predict WKRTRUST (H16)?

Of the sample of 61 respondents, the mean value of the importance of building

credibility and trust with workers before implementing a change (WKRTRUST) was

6.15, and the mean value of the importance of safety management issues (SAFEMAN)

was 5.71.

The correlation between SAFEMAN and WKRTRUST is positive (.326) and

statistically significant (2-tailed), suggesting that as SAFEMAN increases, WKRTRUST

increases. The p value associated with the correlation coefficient of .326 is .008

indicating that the correlation differs highly significantly from 0. The regression model

summary in Table 9-77 shows that SAFEMAN is a strong predictor of WKRTRUST. The

R2 value is statistically significant (0.106) and accounts for a significant portion (10.6%)

of the total variability in WKRTRUST. The standard error (.9414) compares favorably

with the standard deviation of WKRTRUST (.9879).

Table 9-77 Regression Model Summary of SAFEMAN and WKRTRUST

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .326 .106 .092 .9414
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)
b Dependent Variable: How important would it be to build credibility and trust with the
workers before implementing a change? (WKRTRUST)

It is evident from the ANOVA Table 9-78, that the F statistic is on the small side

(6.625) but yet statistically significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is

rejected. The independent variable SAFEMAN explains a significant portion of the total
 292

variation of the dependent variable WKRTRUST. The linear relationship is significant

(.008).

Table 9-78 ANOVA of SAFEMAN and WKRTRUST

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6.625 1 6.625 7.474 .008
Residual 55.837 63 .886
Total 62.462 64
a Predictors: (Constant), Importance of issues to safety management (SAFEMAN)
b Dependent Variable: How important would it be to build credibility and trust with the
workers before implementing a change? (WKRTRUST)

From Table 9-79, it is evident that the predictor SAFEMAN is useful since the t

value is above +2 (2.734). On the other hand, the t value of WKRTRUST is also above

+2 (4.452), satisfying the usefulness guidelines. The hypothesis H16 is not rejected that

the importance of worker safety management issues is a positive predictor of the

importance of building worker credibility and trust before implementing any changes.

Table 9-79 Coefficients of SAFEMAN and WKRTRUST

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) 3.826 .859 4.452 .000
SAFEMAN .407 .149 .326 2.734 .008 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: How important would it be to build credibility and trust with the
workers before implementing a change? (WKRTRUST)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-79, the estimated model to predict

WKRTRUST is:

WKRTRUST = 3.826 + .407 SAFEMAN

 293

Does FOREMEN Predict WKROPIN (H17)?

Of the sample of 65 respondents, the mean value of the importance the

receptiveness of first-line supervisors (foremen) to change (FOREMEN) was 6.20, and

the mean value of the importance of enlisting the opinions of workers on a proposed

change before it was implemented (WKROPIN) was 5.74.

The correlation between FOREMEN and WKROPIN is positive (.566) and

statistically significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), suggesting that as FOREMEN

increases, WKROPIN increases. The p value is <.0005 indicating that the correlation

differs statistically significantly from 0. From the regression model summary in Table 9-

80, it is evident that FOREMEN is a strong predictor of WKROPIN. The R2 value is

statistically significant (0.32) and accounts for a significant portion (32.0%) of the total

variability in WKROPIN. The standard error (.9552) compares favorably with the

standard deviation of WKROPIN (1.1494).

Table 9-80 Regression Model Summary of FOREMEN and WKROPIN

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .566 .320 .309 .9552
a Predictors: (Constant), How important do you regard the receptiveness of first-line
supervisors (foremen) to change? (FOREMEN)
b Dependent Variable: How important would it be to enlist the opinions of workers on a
proposed change before it is implemented? (WKROPIN)

From the ANOVA Table 9-81, that the F statistic is evidently not small (27.675)

and highly significant, indicating that the test that each coefficient is 0 is rejected. The

independent variable FOREMEN explains a significant portion of the total variation of

the dependent variable WKROPIN. The linear relationship is significant (<.0005).

 294

Table 9-81 ANOVA of FOREMEN and WKROPIN

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 27.075 1 27.075 29.675 .000
Residual 57.479 63 .912
Total 84.554 64
a Predictors: (Constant), How important do you regard the receptiveness of first-line
supervisors (foremen) to change? (FOREMEN)
b Dependent Variable: How important would it be to enlist the opinions of workers on a
proposed change before it is implemented? (WKROPIN)

From Table 9-82, it is evident that the predictor FOREMEN is useful since the t

value is above +2 (5.447). On the other hand, the t value of WKROPIN is also above +2

(2.417), satisfying the usefulness guidelines. The hypothesis H17 is not rejected that the

importance given to the receptiveness of foremen is a positive predictor of the importance

of enlisting the views and opinions of workers on proposed changes.

Table 9-82 Coefficients of FOREMEN and WKROPIN

Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
(Constant) 1.779 .736 2.417 .019
FOREMEN .639 .117 .566 5.447 .000 1.000 1.000
a Dependent Variable: How important would it be to enlist the opinions of workers on a
proposed change before it is implemented? (WKROPIN)

Using the coefficients from Table 9-82, the estimated model is:

WKROPIN = 1.779 + .639 FOREMEN

Other Relationships

There was no linear relationship between the contracting arrangements under

which firms acquired their revenue and the preference of respondents for either the

prescriptive or performance approaches (PREFAPPR). Correlations were observed to

 295

exist between general contracting and the other contracting arrangements, suggesting that

general contracting would be a predictor of sub-contracting, for example.

Additionally, there was no linear relationship between the areas of operation of

firms and the preference of respondents for either the prescriptive or performance

approaches (PREFAPPR). Negative correlations that were significant at the 0.01 level (2-

sided) were observed to exist between the amount of work done nationally and that done

regionally and locally. These correlations suggest that the amount of work done

nationally is a predictor of work done regionally, for example. Further, as the amount of

work done nationally increases, the amount of work done regionally decreases.

There was no linear relationship between who usually sponsors major change

within firms and the preference of respondents for either the prescriptive or performance

approaches (PREFAPPR). However, negative correlations that were significant at the

0.01 level (2-sided) were observed to exist between the sponsorship by top management

of major change and the sponsorship by others within the firms. These correlations

suggest that the sponsorship be top management is a predictor of sponsorship of change

by middle and site management, for example. Further, as the level of sponsorship by top

management increases, the level of sponsorship by others decreases.

There was no linear relationship between who usually sponsors major change

within firms and the level of influence of 13 issues in driving change within firms.

However, positive correlations that were significant at both the 0.01 level (2-sided) and

0.05 level (2-sided) were observed to exist between the influence of some of these issues

with others. These correlations suggest that their influence is a predictor of the influence
 296

of other issues. Further, as the level of influence of these issues increases, the level of

influence of others also increases.

Chapter Summary

Using simple and multiple linear regression it was possible to identify and

examine relationships between variables and groups of variables. Both single step and

stepwise regression were used to identify variables that were key predictors of others.

The level of understanding of the performance and prescriptive approaches was

not a predictor of the preference for the performance approach. However, the preference

for the performance approach was a predictor of this approach being more influential to

certain defining issues such as the ease of new technologies, cost effectiveness of the

approach, ease of implementation, ease of understanding compliance requirements and

potential to improve safety performance on sites.

The preference for the performance approach was not a predictor of the

importance of key construction safety management issues such as cost effectiveness.

Position within the management structure of a construction firm, and size of the firm in

terms of number of employees and value of construction executed were not predictors of

preference for the performance approach.

Of the 17 hypotheses tested, 5 were rejected. The demographic characteristics of

management position, size of organization, and source of contracting income were not

predictors of determining the importance of actions to be taken for the successful

implementation of a new approach to construction worker safety and health. Neither were

they predictors of determining the importance of worker participation in bringing about

change. The influence of the performance approach was not a predictor of either the
 297

actions to be taken for the successful implementation of a new approach to construction

worker safety and health, or determining the importance of worker participation in

bringing about change.

The importance of construction safety and management issues, implementation

factors for new approaches, and change-driving issues were positive predictors of both

the actions to be taken for the successful implementation of a new approach to

construction worker safety and health, and determining the importance of worker

participation in bringing about change.

The importance of worker participation in bringing about change was not a

predictor of the actions to be taken for the successful implementation of a new approach

to construction worker safety and health. The importance of change-driving issues,

implementation factors for new approaches, and influence of the performance approach

were predictors of the importance of construction safety and health management issues.

The importance of change-driving issues was a positive predictor of the importance of

implementation factors for new approaches. Further, the importance given to safety and

health management issues was a positive predictor of the importance of building trust and

credibility with workers before implementing a change. Additionally, the importance of

the receptiveness of first-line supervisors was a positive predictor of the importance of

enlisting the opinions of workers on a proposed change before it was implemented.

The various variables were ranked in order of their strength of their prediction of

the actions to be taken for the successful implementation of a new approach to

construction worker safety and health. The importance accorded to implementation

factors for new approaches, change-driving issues, and safety and health management
 298

issues were the strongest predictors. By using stepwise regression, the combination of the

importance of implementation factors for new approaches and position within the top

management structure of construction firms were the strongest key predictors of the

actions to be taken. The final model was

SUCSACTS = .730 +.735 IMPLFACT +.250 JOBTITLE.

The various variables were ranked in order of the strength of their prediction of

the importance of worker participation in bringing about change. The importance

accorded to safety and health issues, change-driving issues, and implementation factors

for new approaches were the strongest predictors. By using stepwise regression, the

importance given to construction safety and health issues was the strongest key predictor

of worker participation in bringing about change. The final model was

WKRPART = 2.436 + .564 SAFEMAN

In the next chapter, the study is concluded and includes suggestions for further

research.
 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The purpose of this exploratory study, as stated in the chapter entitled,

Introduction, was to examine whether a performance-based approach to construction

safety management was an effective and acceptable approach to improving safety and

health on construction sites. The primary objectives of the study were

− To increase the understanding of the performance paradigm and its application to

safety and health in construction;
− To determine the feasibility and acceptance of the performance approach as an
effective alternative to previous prescriptive approaches to construction safety;
− To develop a model that would permit the implementation of the performance
approach to worker safety and health on construction sites anywhere in the world
regardless of the prevailing paradigm;
− To establish whether variances to OSHA’s prescriptive requirements had arisen due to
the nonapplicability of these measures in the particular circumstances, and whether a
performance approach would have obviated the need to request these variances; and
− To measure the level of knowledge of the top management structure of construction
firms about the performance approach and their attitude toward its implementation
within their organizations.

This chapter provides a summary of the findings of the study, and conclusions and

recommendations for future study relative to each of these objectives.

Performance Paradigm and its Application to Safety and Health

The seminal literature on the performance approach as it related to building

design, materials, elements and components was reviewed. The performance concept as it

applies to the construction industry evidently means different things to different people

resulting in confusion and misunderstanding. Generally, the performance approach is

299
 300

concerned with what buildings and building products are required to do and not with

prescribing how they are to be constructed or manufactured. It refers to defining how a

result, outcome or solution should perform, without actually describing the technical

means and methods of achieving that result or outcome.

Further, the approach is concerned with meeting and satisfying the requirements

of users, particularly end users of facilities. The requirements of construction workers

have not been considered, including those relative to safety and health on construction

sites. In this study it has been argued that construction workers are users, albeit temporary

ones and that their needs can be met by implementing a performance approach.

Consequently, the literature has largely been silent on the practical application of

the performance approach to, and implications for, construction worker safety and health.

The literature that currently exists relates to aspects of the changes in legislative

frameworks in Europe and the United Kingdom. Very little, if anything, has been written

comparatively about the performance and prescriptive approaches apart from attempts by

this researcher.

While performance has been defined as ‘behavior related to use’ and ‘behavior in

construction,’ these definitions relate to decisions impacting the end product and end

users. Workers are not included. A practical definition was consequently developed in

this study to account for this exclusion. The performance approach as it applies to

construction worker safety and health would be the identification of broadly-defined

goals, ends or targets (user requirements) that must result from applying a safety

standard, regulation or rule without setting out the specific technical requirements or
 301

methods to do so. As such the approach describes what has to be achieved to comply with

the regulations and leaves the means and methods of complying up to the contractor.

Prediction of performance is a key difficulty. It is difficult to assess before the

building is constructed whether the performance criteria are going to be met by the

proposed solution of dealing with worker exposure to identified hazards. Measurement

limitations are a further difficulty, regarding determining if the proposed solutions have

met the performance criteria or not. Institutional barriers include lack of resources for

designers to develop a variety of solutions to meet the performance criteria, lack of

research capability of designers to evaluate these solutions, lack of appropriate tools to

determine user needs at the design stage, lack of a prior knowledge base, lack of ability to

learn in a cumulative way from successes and failures due to the dispersed nature of the

building community, and uncertainty about who should be responsible for evaluating

whether the performance criteria have been met.

The increased use of the performance approach in construction worker safety and

health is being driven by the accelerating rate of change of building technologies, the

availability of improved space-planning and design concepts and techniques, and the

demand to improve safety performance on construction sites. Internationally, the use of

the approach is driven by the need to make building construction more cost effective, the

need to ease the introduction of product or system and process innovation, and the need

to establish fair international trade agreements. Since less than 2% of the firms in the

sample engaged in international construction operations, it was not possible to determine

whether the performance approach was an adequate response to the international needs.
 302

When compared with the prescriptive approach, one of the difficulties relates to

the inability of this approach to cover comprehensibly every conceivable situation that

arises from construction tasks and activities. Further, concern revolves around potential

conflicts between requirements of several agencies each having their own prescriptive

requirements. Prescriptive requirements might be simpler to work with since compliance

requirements are specifically stated and compliance or noncompliance is visible.

The application of the performance approach to construction safety and health

will be enhanced when construction workers and their safety and health needs are given

the same serious consideration as all other users of the building facility.

Performance Approach as a Construction Safety Alternative

The international community has responded to the need for a safer and healthier

construction industry by introducing several new performance-based legislative

frameworks, for example, in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and New Zealand as

alternatives to previous prescriptive legislative approaches. These countries have

responded proactively, consistently and comprehensively to the

− Lack of supervision by line managers on construction sites;

− Inadequate equipping of workers to identify dangers and take appropriate steps to
protect themselves against these;
− Lack of coordination between the members of the professional team in the pre-
construction phase;
− Lack of involvement by all participants in the construction process, including workers
on a consultative and participatory basis;
− Unsatisfactory architectural and/or organizational options;
− Poor planning of the works at the project preparation stage;
− Impossibility to cover each and every situation and circumstance on construction sites;
− Demands from the construction industry for reform in building legislation;
− Reduction of the amount of legislation; and
− Encouragement of innovative design and advance technology applications in the most
cost-effective way.
 303

Using the New Zealand response as typical, there were mixed feelings and

skepticism that the performance approach would encourage innovation or more cost

effective compliance. The introduction of the new legislation has impacted the structure

of the industry, especially with the redistribution of the responsibility for construction

worker safety to include all participants in the construction process. The cost of

transforming the existing legislative framework was significant. The new approach has

improved the performance of the industry although the opportunity for improvement is

greater than actual. Innovation has been encouraged and alternative solutions have been

accepted. There was no large-scale resistance to the introduction of the new approach.

The feasibility and acceptability of the performance approach as an effective

alternative approach to construction worker safety and health depends heavily on the

involvement of everyone involved in the construction process. For example workers

should be involved on a proactive basis, as safety objectives are set. Further, an effective

and efficient administrative and legal underpinning must support the fully successful

introduction of the performance approach.

Concerns, which have arisen as a result of the introduction of performance-based

safety legislation, include

− The cost of implementation of between 0.2 and 2% of total project cost;

− The lack of a standard and simplified system of reporting construction-related
accidents, injuries, fatalities and diseases;
− Unclear roles and responsibilities for safety and health of the various participants in
the construction process;
− The absence of a systematic analysis of injury patterns;
− The absence of planning of injury prevention activities;
− The insignificance of rewards for safe practices or good safety records; and
− The focus of workers’ compensation insurers on claims and injury management rather
than on injury prevention; and inadequate information about injury prevention
methods regarding equipment and procedures.
 304

However, despite these concerns, the performance approach has reportedly

resulted in

− Greater awareness of construction-related risks;

− Detection of an increased amount of chemical-related morbidity in construction;
− More efficient use of hazardous chemicals;
− Improved management of plant and equipment; and
− Improved attitudes toward construction worker safety and health.

OSHA has initiated its own proactive program that includes

− Offering incentives to employers with good safety and health programs;

− Either eliminating or amending outdated and confusing standards;
− Improving consultation with construction industry stakeholders; and
− Establishing performance measures to evaluate programs based on safety and health
results and outcomes.

The performance approach requires a culture change that relies on a continuous

and long-term commitment to understanding, evaluating and improving construction

activities and processes. Construction organizations will have to depart radically from

their old ways of doing things.

Top management needs to be totally committed to supporting and driving the

approach. They must be committed to removing the largest barriers to managing change,

namely, lack of management visibility and support, employee resistance, and inadequate

management skills. They need to acknowledge the need for a change in management

beliefs and values to support the new cultural reality presented by the performance

approach. The extent to which top management supports the program of change toward a

performance approach to construction worker safety will determine its ultimate success.

This study has demonstrated that the safety and health requirements of workers as end

users can be met by using a performance approach. What is needed is the management

will to change. This study had further demonstrated that should the performance
 305

approach be introduced in the United States, most contractors would be willing to support

its introduction and take the necessary actions to ensure its successful implementation.

However, the lobbying powers of other participants such as manufacturers and suppliers

are a major issue.

Variances to OSHA’s Prescriptive Requirements

The analysis of the available on-line records of the Federal Register was

inconclusive regarding whether a performance approach would have obviated the need to

request variances in the cases examined. The examination confirmed that the number of

variances actually granted was extremely small. A more comprehensive examination of

all the records of the Federal Register and not only the on-line ones might produce more

informative findings.

Level of Knowledge of Management of Construction Firms

This study has shown that most of the respondents in the sample population

(78.5%) felt that they understood the performance and prescriptive approaches very well

with more than half (57.6%) preferring the performance approach. This approach was

regarded as being most influential in the areas of flexibility, support for innovation and

ease of introduction of new materials. The most important issues relative to an approach

to construction worker safety and health management were its potential to improve safety

performance on construction sites, ease of understanding the compliance requirements

and ease of implementing it.

Top management (53.5%) drove major change. Workers only sponsored 6.0% of

major changes in their organizations. The most important change-driving issues

according to the CEO and Safety Director groups were improvement of their safety
 306

record, improvement of the financial performance of their firms and complying with the

requirements of owners and clients. This finding relates well to the findings of a study

(Bonvillian, 1997) that concluded that primary change drivers were the demands of

customers (owners and clients), competition (safety record) and cost reduction (financial

performance).

The most important issues for the implementation of new approaches generally

within their organizations were the support of top management, open communication and

mutual trust between management and workers. These issues were found to be positive

predictors of the actions that would be taken for the successful implementation of a new

approach to construction safety and determining the importance of worker participation.

This finding correlates favorably with the findings of studies of effective change

management (Bonvillian, 1997; Hensler, 1993; Freda, Arn and Gatlin-Watts, 1999;

Saunders and Kwon, 1990; Cartwright, Andrews and Webley, 1999). For instance in one

study (Bonvillian, 1997) the support of top management was demonstrated by presidents

making themselves visible by informal walk-arounds. In the same study, effective

communication included face-to-face interaction. When important people behave in ways

that are inconsistent with their words, change efforts can be seriously undermined and

compromised (Freda, Arn and Gatlin-Watts, 1999). Saunders and Kwon (1990) identified

communication as the most critical activity in a study.

The study indicated that the most important actions for the successful

implementation of a new approach to construction safety were the demonstration of

consistent and decisive personal leadership, the introduction of appropriate training

programs and the allocation of adequate financial, equipment and staff resources. Freda,
 307

Arn and Gatlin-Watts (1999), Saunders and Kwon (1990) and Diamond (1998) support

this finding.

While only 53.8% of top management recognized that the receptiveness of

foremen or first-line supervisors to change was very important, a study (Bonvillian, 1997)

suggested that nothing could replace the influence of first-line supervisors on the

response of other workers to change. This study supports this suggestion since the

importance of the receptiveness of first-line supervisors was a positive predictor of the

importance of enlisting the opinions of workers.

Almost all of the respondents (93.9%) regarded building credibility and trust with

workers before implementing change as important. The second factor emerging from the

study by Bonvillian (1997) was credibility of workers. This study has highlighted that the

performance approach promotes the participation of workers in all matters of

construction safety. The findings of the survey indicated that a large proportion of the

sample population (84.8%) regarded the opinions of workers on proposed changes as

being important. In their study, Freda, Arn and Gatlin-Watts (1999), found that it was

necessary to break down barriers to change and that the entire work force needed to be

involved. Diamond (1998) suggests that workers need to be partners in organizational

change such as will be necessary when changing from a prescriptive to a performance

approach. This study found that the importance of safety management issues was a

positive predictor of the importance of building trust and credibility with workers.

The importance of construction safety and health management issues was the

strongest predictor of worker participation in bringing about change. These issues

included improvement of safety performance on construction sites, cost effectiveness,

 308

ease of implementation and understanding compliance requirements. Similarly,

implementation factors such as top management support, mutual trust between workers

and management and open communication, were strong positive predictors of the actions

that would be taken to implement a new approach such as the performance approach to

construction worker safety and health. A further strong predictor was the position within

the top management structure of construction firms, endorsing the importance of

management in any successful safety program.

Limitations of the Study

Sampling was necessary since it was not possible to examine the entire population

of contracting companies in the United States. Consequently, the sample needed to be

representative of the population to produce a result of theoretical and practical value

(Fellows and Liu, 1997; Salant and Dillman, 1994; Bess and Higson-Smith, 1995).

Further, this representativeness is necessary for the results obtained from the sample to

approximate as closely as possible to those that would have been obtained if the entire

population had been surveyed. The use of systematic or interval sampling relies on the

availability of a complete and unbiased population list (Bess and Higson-Smith, 1995).

There were difficulties in trying to achieve a sample size of 200 companies due to the

requirement that respondents had to have contactable telephone numbers and correct

postal address information. Consequently, it is possible that a systematic bias might have

been introduced that may have influenced the results. The results of the study should as

far as possible be immune to influence of any kind, and should speak for themselves

(Leedy, 1993). Non-respondents and those excluded consequent to the sample selection
 309

process should not differ from the actual sample of respondents (Sample 1) (Salant and

Dillman, 1994; Bess and Higson-Smith, 1995).

Table 10-1 Comparison between the samples

Demographic Variable Sample 1 Sample 2 Variance
Number of employees per company 175 159 16
Approximate annual value of contracting revenue $61m $83m ($22m)
Contracting arrangements:
Construction management (agency) 4.78% 6.86% (2.08%)
General contracting 51.66% 58.71% (7.05%)
Subcontracting 14.22% 24.00% (9.78%)
Construction management at risk 11.09% 0.00% 11.09%
Specialty contracting 4.69% 6.71% (2.02%)
Design-build 11.47% 3.71% 7.76%
Areas of operation:
International 1.86% 0.00% 1.86%
National 21.91% 18.46% 3.45%
Regional 33.62% 37.46% (3.84%)
Local 42.62% 44.03% (1.41%)

To determine whether there were any sampling errors due to chance factors, bias

in selection and non-response, the demographic profile of the non-respondents and

excluded companies was examined by means of a telephonic survey. The number of

participants in this survey was 35 companies (Sample 2). The results of the telephone

survey are listed in Table 10-1. Demographically, the samples appeared not to differ

extensively from each other.

Conclusion

This exploratory study set out to determine whether the performance approach

would be accepted as an effective alternative approach to construction worker safety and

health. The study showed that the defining characteristics of the approach include its

flexible implementation, coverage of all circumstances, ease of introducing amendments,

 310

and its global application. The performance approach is driven by the need to make

building construction more cost effective, the need to ease the introduction of product or

systems and process innovation, and the need to establish fair international trade

agreements. The study showed that the performance approach was influential regarding

the ease of introduction of new technology, cost effectiveness, ease of implementation,

ease of understanding compliance requirements and potential to improve safety

performance on construction sites.

The approach is an all-inclusive one regarding construction participants and the

construction process. Accordingly, it can be applied to construction workers as end users

provided that their safety and health needs are given equitable consideration with the

needs of all other end users. The approach requires all construction participants to be

involved in the safety effort, including workers on a proactive basis. The study showed

that the importance by management given to safety and health issues determined the

extent to which they would involve their workers in bringing about change regarding

safety and health performance. Further, all phases of the construction process are covered

including project inception, execution and maintenance.

For the approach to be effective there is a need for effective and efficient

administrative and legal underpinning from enforcement agencies. Further, all

construction organizations must be willing to depart radically from their old and

traditional way of approaching construction worker safety and health. It is imperative for

top management of these organizations to be involved in this effort by improving their

visibility, reducing worker resistance, and improving their management skills.

 311

The study showed that even in a largely prescriptive legislative environment the

performance approach is appealing to the top management of most contractors. They

would support its introduction and implementation.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the research findings that emerged from this particular study there are

several areas of future research.

Less than 2% of the sample of this study engaged in international construction

operations. There is a need to conduct research with construction firms that engage

heavily in international construction operations to determine whether the performance

approach addressed the international concerns that have arisen due to some of the

difficulties presented by prescriptive codes and standards.

The examination of the applications for variances from OSHA requirements was

inconclusive in this study as a result of the limited number of applications recorded in the

on-line version of the Federal Register. It might be informative to examine all the

variance applications from the original source documents.

The sample for this study was drawn exclusively from the construction industry

within the United States where the prevailing paradigm is a prescriptive one. As part of a

comparative study, it might be useful to conduct a survey of the top management of firms

in countries such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Europe where the prevailing

paradigm is performance-based.

Aspects of the implementation model developed and proposed in this study needs

to be researched to determine which elements of the model are already being

implemented and with what results.

 312

As a result of the confusion about the content of project-specific safety and health

plans in Europe, a further research project could involve the development and design of

model safety and health plans that could serve as master documents or standard

templates.

There are problems being encountered in Europe with the poorly defined

competence and qualification requirements of project supervisors and safety coordinators.

A research project could identify the minimum level of appropriate expertise required for

the functions of these persons to be conducted successfully and propose an appropriate

course of study leading to a recognized qualification.

Worker participation on a consultative and participatory basis is required for the

successful implementation of the performance approach. Research needs to be conducted

to measure the level of worker participation in all matters of construction safety. Similar

areas of research include finding ways to measure the costs of implementing the

performance approach on construction projects, and the adequacy of information about

injury prevention methods regarding equipment and procedures.

There is a need to develop appropriate tools to determine user needs at the design

stage that include the safety needs of construction workers. These could include

computer-driven application software tools.

A final area of future research involves the identification of those factors that

would prevent the performance approach from being implemented successfully. Allied to

this aspect would be the determination of the types of incentives that would drive

contractors to go beyond minimum compliance requirements.

 APPENDIX A
INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

COUNTRY: ………………………………………………………….

Section 1: Identification of Construction Activity

1. Rank the three (3) specific construction activities (e.g. Falls from scaffolds greater
than 1,2 m high) which are most responsible for accidents on construction sites in your
country for each of the years indicated below based on available national statistics.
Proceed to item 3. (However if the most recent available statistics are pre-1995,
continue to item 2.)
RANK ACTIVITY (1995)
1st 1
2nd 2
3rd 3
RANK ACTIVITY (1996)
1st 4
2nd 5
3rd 6
RANK ACTIVITY (1997)
1st 7
2nd 8
3rd 9
RANK ACTIVITY (1998)
1st 10
2nd 11
3rd 12

2. Rank the three (3) construction activities, which are most responsible, for accidents on
construction sites in your country based on the most recent information available
(indicate the year)
RANK ACTIVITY ( )
1st 13
2nd 14
3rd 15

3. Other relevant comments

16
17
18
19

313
 314

Section 2: Accident Statistics

4. How many workers are employed in your country?

YEAR ALL INDUSTRIES IN CONSTRUCTION
1995 21

1996 23

1997 25

1998 27
29

5. Indicate the number of accidents and fatalities in construction in your country

YEAR TOTAL FATALITIES
1995 31

1996 33

1997 35

1998 37
39

6. For accidents in construction indicate the incidence index (number of accidents in

construction/1000 workers in construction), frequency index (number of accidents in
construction/1,000,000 hours worked in construction), severity index (number of lost
days in construction /1000 hours worked in construction), and duration index (number
of lost days in construction/accident in construction)
YEAR INCIDENT FREQUENCY SEVERITY DURATION
1995 43

1996 47

1997 51

1998 55
59

7. For fatalities in construction indicate the incidence index (number of fatalities in

construction/1000 workers in construction), frequency index (number of fatalities in
construction/1,000,000 hours worked in construction), severity index (number of lost
days in construction /1000 hours worked in construction), and duration index (number
of lost days in construction/fatality in construction)
YEAR INCIDENT FREQUENCY SEVERITY DURATION
1995 83
1996 87
1997 91
1998 95
99
 315

8. For accidents due to the construction activity indicated in Q1 and Q2 as 1st indicate the
incidence index (number of accidents /1000 workers in construction), frequency index
(number of accidents /1,000,000 hours worked in construction), severity index
(number of lost days in construction /1000 hours worked in construction), and duration
index (number of lost days in construction/accident in construction)
YEAR INCIDENT FREQUENCY SEVERITY DURATION
1995 63

1996 67

1997 71

1998 75
79

9. For fatalities due to the construction activities indicated in Q1 and Q2 as 1st indicate
the incidence index (number of accidents /1000 workers in construction), frequency
index (number of accidents /1,000,000 hours worked in construction), severity index
(number of lost days in construction /1000 hours worked in construction), and duration
index (number of lost days in construction/accident in construction)
YEAR INCIDENT FREQUENCY SEVERITY DURATION
1995 103
1996 107
1997 111
1998 115
119

10. Other relevant statistics

120
121
123
124

Section 3: Legal Framework

11. List the relevant legislation and regulations governing safety and health in
construction in your country
125
126
127
128

12. List the relevant safety and health legislation and regulations governing the
construction activity indicated as 1st in Q1 and Q2 (If possible, submit/mail a copy of
this legislation to: Theo C Haupt, 288 Corry Village #19, GAINESVILLE, Florida
32603-2141 USA)
129
130
131
132
 316

13. Other relevant comments on the legislation or regulations

133
134
135
136

Section 4: General

14. Any other comments

137
138
139

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT YOU AND FOR YOUR
CONTRIBUTION TO THE GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION HEALTH AND SAFETY
EFFORT
 APPENDIX B
ELECTRONIC INTERVIEW WITH HELEN TIPPETT

Subject: Performance-based codes

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:48:44 – 0500
From: Theo C Haupt [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Dear Helen

Thank you so much for your most informative response. After reading your message I
have a few questions to which I would appreciate your response:

1. What prompted NZ to develop and then adopt a performance-based building

regulatory system?
2. How was the transition from the old code to the new code received by all participants
in the construction process?
3. Has the new code in any way impacted the structure of the industry and organisations?
4. How was the change managed?
5. What was the cost involved in the transformation?
6. Has the code improved the performance of the industry?
7. What is the supporting institutional framework like? How are the provisions of the
code monitored?
8. Would such an approach work in the area of construction worker safety and health?
9. Would it be possible to let me have extracts of the old code and new code to
demonstrate illustratively the difference between the approaches?
10. Would you be able to let me have or guide me to some of the literature (either your
work or that of others) on the subject?
11. What is a more appropriate description of the approach? Performance-based;
performance-directed; or performance-oriented?

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Regards

Theo

317
 318

Subject: Fwd: Performance-based codes

Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 19:20:45 + 1300
From: Helen Tippett [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]

Dear Dr Haupt

The best person to respond to your questions is Dr. Bill Porteous, CEO of the NZ
Building Industry Authority which overviews and monitors the national building control
system. His email address in my previous response was not correct. It is
[email protected]

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:48:44 –0500

From: Theo C Haupt [email protected]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: [email protected]
Subject: Performance-based codes

Dear Helen

Thank you so much for your most informative response. After reading your message I
have a few questions to which I would appreciate your response:

1. What prompted NZ to develop and then adopt a performance-based building

regulatory system?
− Industry submission to government in 1981 pointing out the cost of multiple
prescriptive regulatory systems was not commensurate with public benefit.
− Change of government in 1985 with a strong deregulation agenda
2. How was the transition from the old code to the new code received by all
participants in the construction process?
− Mixed feelings and skepticism that it would encourage innovation or more cost
effective compliance
3. Has the new code in any way impacted the structure of the industry and
organisations?
− Yes - accredited private certifiers, accredited products, more consistent territorial
authority granting of building consents, responsibility of owner for ongoing
compliance – for further details refer BIA
4. How was the change managed?
− New Building Act of Parliament and new national authority (BIA)
5. What was the cost involved in the transformation?
− Significant – refer BIA for cost and funding of system in operation
6. Has the code improved the performance of the industry?
− To some extent – the opportunity for improvement is greater than actual
 319

7. What is the supporting institutional framework like? How are the provisions of
the code monitored?
− Refer BIA
8. Would such an approach work in the area of construction worker safety and
health?
− Yes refer BIA and subsequent legislation Health and Safety in Employment Act
9. Would it be possible to let me have extracts of the old code and new code to
demonstrate illustratively the difference between the approaches?
− Refer BIA – the old plumbing regulations (under a Health Act) and the relevant
clauses in the NZBC should illustrate this well. (There are only 36 primary clauses in
the NZBC)
10. Would you be able to let me have or guide me to some of the literature (either
your work or that of others) on the subject?
− I think BIA has a full set of the research mongrams I wrote 1981-86 and working
papers for the Building Industry Commission from 1988-1990. The “primer” was
Tippett Helen. Building Controls in New Zealand: The Control System and its
Economic Impact (CRP82-21) published by Victoria University of Wellington School
of Architecture Oct 1982 ISBN 0-475-10034-4 – now out of print. VUW can arrange
to photocopy and mail this to you if you wish.
11. What is a more appropriate description of the approach? Performance-based;
performance-directed; or performance-oriented?
− Performance-based is where my research began. BIA may consider performance-
oriented best describes the system in action.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Regards

Theo

Professor Helen Tippett

Associate Dean
Faculty of Science
Victoria University of Wellington
PO Box 600 Wellington 6001 New Zealand
Telephone +64 4 463 5749 fax 463 5122

e-mail: [email protected]
 APPENDIX C
TOP MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Survey of Top Management of Construction Firms

Section 1: Demographic Information

1(a)What is your position within your organization?

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………..

1(b)Approximately how long have you held your current position? …………..… years

2(a).Approximately what is the average number of employees in your firm?

…..… employees

2(b).What is the approximate annual value of construction contracts?

$…………..… million

2(c).Under which contracting arrangement are the firm's revenue acquired?

…..…% construction management (agency); …..…% general contracting;

..……% subcontracting; …..…% construction management at risk;
….… % specialty contracting; …..… % design-build;
..… % other (specify) …………………………………………... ………………………

2(d).Describe the firm's area(s) of operation.

…..… % international; …..… % national; …..… % regional; …..… % local

320
 321

Section 2: Management Attitude to the Prescriptive and Performance Approaches

Before responding to the questions in this section, study the definitions of the prescriptive and performance
approaches and the accompanying illustrative examples of each approach as set out below:
Definition of the prescriptive approach:
The prescriptive approach requires strict, and enforced conformity to a safety standard, regulation or rule,
and specifies in exacting terms the means or methods of how employers must address given conditions on
construction sites.
Definition of the performance approach:
The performance approach identifies important broadly-defined goals, ends or targets that must result from
applying a safety standard, regulation or rule without setting out the specific technical requirements or
methods for doing so.
Example of a prescriptive code for demolition work:
OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart T 850(k)
Employee entrances to multi-story structures being demolished shall be completely protected by sidewalk
sheds or canopies, or both, providing protection from the face of the building for a minimum of 8 feet. All
such canopies shall be at least 2 feet wider than the building entrances or openings (1 foot wider on each
side thereof), and shall be capable of sustaining a load of 150 pounds per square foot. Employee entrances
to multi-story structures being demolished shall be completely protected by sidewalk sheds or canopies, or
both, providing protection from the face of the building for a minimum of 8 feet. All such canopies shall be
at least 2 feet wider than the building entrances or openings (1 foot wider on each side thereof), and shall be
capable of sustaining a load of 150 pounds per square foot.
Example of a performance code for demolition work:
Demolition work
Where the demolition of a building or construction may present a danger:
appropriate precautions, methods and procedures must be adopted;
the work must be planned and undertaken only under the supervision of a competent person.
Example of key provisions of a prescriptive code for scaffolding platforms
OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L 451 Scaffolding
(b) ‘Scaffold platform construction.’
(b)(1)(ii) …. the platform shall be planked or decked as fully as possible and the remaining open space
between the platform and the uprights shall not exceed 9 1/2 inches (24.1 cm).
(b)(2) Except as provided in paragraphs of this section, each scaffold platform and walkway shall be at
least 18 inches (46 cm) wide.
(b)(5)(I) Each end of a platform 10 feet or less in length shall not extend over its support more than 12
inches (30 cm) …
(b)(5)(ii) Each platform greater than 10 feet in length shall not extend over its support more than 18 inches
(46 cm), unless it is designed and installed so that the cantilevered portion of the platform is able to support
employees without tipping, or has guardrails which block employee access to the cantilevered end.
(b)(7) On scaffolds where platforms are overlapped to create a long platform, the
overlap shall occur only over supports, and shall not be less than 12 inches (30 cm)
unless the platforms are nailed together or otherwise restrained to prevent movement.
Example of a performance code for scaffolding and ladders
Scaffolding and ladders
All scaffolding must be properly designed, constructed and maintained to ensure that it does not collapse or
move accidentally.
Work platforms, gangways and scaffolding stairways must be constructed, dimensioned, protected and used
in such a way as to prevent people from falling or exposed to falling objects.
Note: No specific dimensions are stipulated
Summary: The prescriptive approach describes the Summary:The performance approach describes
means and methods to comply with the regulations what has to be achieved to comply with the
regulations and leaves the means and methods of
complying up to the contractor
 322

The following questions concern your understanding, beliefs and opinions on the prescriptive and
performance approaches to construction worker safety and health. Please check or circle the answer that
best approximates your opinion.

3. Assuming that you were erecting scaffolding on a project in a country where both approaches were
acceptable and legitimate, which approach would you prefer?
………..… prescriptive approach ………..… performance approach

4. Please explain why you made this choice (in Q3)

...…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………
..…………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. How well do you feel that you understand the concepts of prescriptive and performance standards? (On
a scale of 1 (very poorly) through 7 (very well), circle your choice
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very poorly Very well

6. Conceptually, which approach to construction worker safety do you prefer?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

7. How influential are the types of approaches to each of the following issues?
Ease of introduction of new technologies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Cost effectiveness of approach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Flexibility
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Ease of implementation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Ease of understanding compliance requirements

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Support for innovation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Ease of introduction of new materials

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive
 323

Q7. Cont'd

Supported by the corporate culture, vision and mission of your organization

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Potential to improve safety performance on sites

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Simplicity of interpretation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

Ease of compliance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Performance Prescriptive

8. How important do you regard the following regarding an approach to construction safety and health
management?
Cost effectiveness of approach
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Ease of implementation of the approach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Ease of understanding compliance requirements

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Support for innovation, new materials and technology

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Potential to improve safety performance on sites

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Section 3: Change Management

The following questions are designed to measure the capacity for change within your organization. Please
check or circle the answer that best approximates your opinion.

9. Who usually sponsors major change within your organization?

..…% top management; ..…% middle management; ..…% site management;

..…% first-line supervisors; ..…% workers

 324

10. How influential are the following in driving change within your organization?
To improve financial performance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

Only as staff turnover occurs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

When new technology is introduced

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

To keep up with competitors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

To improve your safety record

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

Only after accidents occur

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

To meet worker demands

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

To generate quality improvements

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

To exploit new market opportunities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

Respond to management initiatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

Respond to third party claims

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

Comply with owner/client requirements

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential

Meet new insurance requirements

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not influential Very influential
 325

11. Have you observed the introduction of any major changes in your firm?

………..… Yes ………..…No

12. If the company were to consider introducing a change to improve safety performance how important
would be the willingness of workers to accept the change before the change is implemented?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

13. How important would it be to break down the resistance of workers to change by convincing them to
accept the change?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

14. How important would it be to build credibility and trust with the workers before implementing a
change?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

15. How important would it be to enlist the opinions of workers on a proposed change before it is
implemented?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

16. How important do you regard the receptiveness of first-line supervisors (foremen) to change?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

17. How important do you consider the following factors to be for the implementation of new approaches?
Top management support
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Mutual trust between workers and management

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Incentives and rewards for supporting the change

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Continuous improvement of safety performance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Open communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Effective coordination of construction activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important
 326

Q17 Cont’d

Joint labor/management problem solving

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very imp ortant

Adequate resources
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Creativity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Workshops and training

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

18. How important do you regard the following actions for the successful implementation of a new
approach to construction worker safety and health?
Demonstrate consistent and decisive personal leadership
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Allocate adequate financial, equipment and staff resources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Amend corporate vision and mission

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Motivate workers to implement changes for continuous improvement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Encourage worker participation at all levels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Change the organization’s systems, policies and procedures to augment the changes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Introduce and support appropriate training programs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Measure and evaluate progress of the changes regularly introducing new plans of action if necessary
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Compare the performance of the company with competitors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important
 327

Q18. Cont'd

Reward workers for being innovative, and looking for new solutions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

Change the organizational structure and hierarchy to make it more flexible and responsive to change
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Very important

19. How many recordable injuries did the company have last year? ………..… injuries

Please offer any additional comments you have on the subject of performance and prescriptive regulations
and standards in the space provided below:

Thank you for contributing to the improvement of the safety and health effort on construction sites

Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to:

The Center for Construction Safety and Loss Control

University of Florida
C/o 390 Maguire Village #6
GAINESVILLE, FL. 32603-2023
 APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF INTERNATIONAL SAFETY SURVEY

Table D-1 Notes on codes used in tables of data:

Country code Activity Codes
1 = Hong Kong A = Stepping on. striking against or struck by object
2 = Spain B = Handling. lifting or carrying without machinery
3 = New Zealand C = Fall of person/loss of balance
4 = Portugal D = Ergonomics
5 = China E = Run over by plant. caught in/between
6 = United Kingdom F = Electrical
7 = Turkey G = Overturning of plant and vehicles
H = Overhangs and collapses. and cave-ins
J = Slips. Trip or fall on same level

Table D-2 1995 - Ranking of activity most responsible for accidents on construction sites
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1st A C C B
2nd B A E F J
3rd C C H A A

Table D-3 1996 -Ranking of activity most responsible for accidents on construction sites
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1st A C C C B
2nd C A D E F J
3rd B C A H A A

Table D-4 1997 - Ranking of activity most responsible for accidents on construction sites
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1st A (21.9%) C C B
2nd B A (19.9%) D E J
3rd C C (10.9%) A H A

Table D-5 1998 - Ranking of activity most responsible for accidents on construction sites
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1st C B
2nd E J
3rd H A

328
 329

Table D-6 1997 - Ranking of activity most responsible for fatalities on construction sites
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1st C (35%) C
2nd E (13.84%)
3rd H (11.15%)
4th F (6.92%)
5th G (3.85%)

Table D-7 Number of workers employed in all industries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995 763,900 3,620,600 4,225,200 97,260,000 22,025,000 4,410,744
1996 751,700 3,675,000 4,250,500 99,630,000 22,750,000 4,624,330
1997 750,100 3,823,000 4,331,900 23,250,000
1998 3,961,100 4,414,200 23,650,000

Table D-8 Number of workers employed in construction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995 229,00 1,134,500 340,300 21,580,000 842,000 852,613
(30.1%) (31.3%) (8.1%) (22.2%) (3.8%) (19.3%)
1996 269,600 1,175,500 84,399 343,100 25,540,000 889,000 722,689
(35.9%) (32%) (8.1%) (25.6%) (3.9%) (15.6%)
1997 306,200 1,242,700 85,000 388,400 34,450,000 975,000
(40.8%) (32.5%) (9.0%) (4.2%)
1998 1,307,100 400,400 1,103,000
(33%) (9.1%) (4.7%)

Table D-9 Total number of accidents in construction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995 15,300 125,015 12,084 12,809
1996 16,500 130,732* 3,134 12,289 11,784
1997 18,600 142,894* + 3,000 14,125
1998 14,159
* with loss

Table D-10 Total number of fatalities in construction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995 63 (0.41%) 259 (0.21%) 16 119 1,869 (0.01%) 88 (0.73%) 348 (2.72%)
1996 51 (0.31%) 246 (0.19%) 14 176 1,788 (0.01%) 82 (0.67%) 555 (4.7%)
1997 41 (0.22%) 260 (0.18%) 17 (0.O2%) 196 93 (0.66%)
1998 179 80 (0.57%)
 330

Table D-11 Incidence indices of accidents (number of accidents/1000 workers in

construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pre - 1995 182
1995 232(66.72) 151.6 (110.19) 36 14.35 15.02
1996 219 (61.20) 158.7 (111.21) 37.13 0.06 13.82 16.31
1997 227 (60.74) 164.0 (114.99) 14.49
1998 12.89

Table D-12 Frequency indices of accidents (number of accidents/1,000,000 hours worked

in construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pre - 1995 67 6.26
1995 85.7 6.79
1996 90.6 0.03
1997 93.7
1998

Table D-13 Severity indices of accidents (number of lost days/1000 hours worked in
construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pre - 1995 3.8
1995 2.06
1996 2.28 0.11
1997 2.14
1998

Table D-14 Duration indices of accidents (number of lost days/accident in construction)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pre - 1995 20
1995 23.1
1996 24.4 4,236.1
1997 22.2
1998

Table D-15 Incidence indices of accidents due to activity ranked 1 (number of

accidents/1000 workers in construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995 0.10 0.41
1996 8.45 0.03 0.09 0.77
1997 35.89 0.10
1998 0.07
 331

Table D-16 Frequency indices of accidents due to activity ranked 1 (number of

accidents/1,000,000 hours in construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995 0.17
1996 0.01 0.32
1997 20.5
1998

Table D-17 Incidence indices of fatalities (number of fatalities/1000 workers in

construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995 0.95 (0.27) 31.4 (0.23) 17 0.41
1996 0.68 (0.19) 29.9 (0.21) 14 0.77
1997 0.50 (0.13) 29.8 (0.21)
1998

Table D-18 Frequency indices of fatalities (number of fatalities/1,000,000 hours worked

in construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995 17.76 0.350
1996 17.05 0.513
1997 17.04 0.505
1998 0.447

Table D-19 Incidence indices of fatalities due to activity ranked 1 (number of

accidents/1000 workers in construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995
1996
1997 10.43
1998

Table D-20 Frequency indices of fatalities due to activity ranked 1 (number of

fatalities/1,000,000 hours in construction)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1995
1996
1997 5.96
1998

− Legal Framework - General

− Hong Kong

− Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance

− Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Safety Management) Regulation
 332

− Builder’s Lifts and Tower Working Platforms (Safety) Ordinance

− Occupational Safety Charter. Safety Management Regulation

− Spain

− Real Decreto 1627/1997 (24 October 1997): Transposition Directive EEC

− Ley de Prevencion de Riesgos Laborales 31/95: Transposition Framework Directive
EEC

− New Zealand

− Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989Health and Safety in Employment

Act (1992)
− New Zealand Building Code

− Portugal
−
Decret-law no 155/95 of 1 July 1995

− United Kingdom

− Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

− The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and 1994
− The Construction (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996
− The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1995
− Construction (Lifting Operations) Regulations 1961: amended 1989. 1992 and 1996
− Confined Spaces regulations 1997
− Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994

− Turkey

− Labour Law
− Rules for Workers’ Health and Work Safety
− Rules for Workers’ Health and Work Safety in Construction Sector

− Legal Framework for Construction Activity Ranked 1

− Hong Kong

− Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance

− Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Safety Management) Regulation
− Builder’s Lifts and Tower Working Platforms (Safety) Ordinance
− Occupational Safety Charter. Safety Management Regulation
 333

− Spain

− Partially in Real Decreto 487/1997 (14 April 1997)

− Partially in Real Decreto 773/1997 (30 May 1997)

− New Zealand

− Health and Safety in Employment Act (1992)

− New Zealand Building Code

− United Kingdom

− Manual Handling Regulations 1992 within the Management of Health and Safety at
Work Regulations 1992 and 1994
− Construction (Lifting Operations) Regulations 1961: amended 1989. 1992 and 1996

− General Comments

− Hong Kong

− Also a great deal of subsidiary legislation. See Rowlinson 1997 for more details
− There is a move to self-regulation but this may bring more problems than prescriptive
legislation, particularly as much work is sub-contracted to very small firms

− Spain

− The incidence of activities ranked as 4th (fall at same level), 5th (projecting objects) and
6th (stepping over objects) are decreasing over time while those ranked 1st , 2nd and 3rd
remain constant
− The basis for calculating indices in Spain are different to that recommended at the XIII
International conference in Working Statistics of OIT and uses data supplied by Social
Assurance Office

− New Zealand

− Generally information is not available due to it not being collected for the construction
industry
− There have been considerable increases in the incidence indices for all trades between
1993 and 1996 - 88% for concreting, bricklaying, steelwork and roofing workers; 66%
for plasterers, painters and floorers; 38% for building and carpentry; 22% for
plumbing services; 17% for civil engineering; and 14% for electrical services
− There is concern that injury rates are increasing while those in the rest of the world are
decreasing
− Fatality rates are also higher than other countries such as Australia. Germany. Sweden
and UK
 334

− Portugal

− Indices are based on accidents with more than one day lost
− Severity indices include 7 500 working days for each fatality

− China

− There is a lack of information available even from the Ministry of Construction

United Kingdom

− Finishing processes result in the most accidents. with transport on site being the next
major cause
− The activities ranked include fatalities. major accidents and accidents requiring more
than 3 days off work with falls from heights above 2 meters being the activity most
responsible for fatalities with falling through fragile roofing materials being the chief
cause
− Since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) UK legislation has
adopted a self-regulating approach
− Previous regulatory provisions followed a style and pattern which was developed
under different social and technological contexts
− This piecemeal development led to a haphazard mass of law which was intricate in
detail, unprogressive and difficult to amend and keep up to date
− However non-prescriptive legislation relies heavily on risk assessment and comparison
to what is termed ‘reasonably practicable.’ In providing flexibility the newer approach
has introduced elements of uncertainty and bureaucracy which all but larger employers
find difficult to implement
− Over the last 25 years the UK construction industry has witnessed a steady decline in
the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents. Unfortunately statistics for 1996/7 have
seen an increase across the range. with fatal accidents up to 12.2% and major/non-fatal
accidents up nearly 17.5% on previous annual figures (HSE 1998)
 APPENDIX E
ELECTRONIC INTERVIEW WITH BILL PORTEOUS

From: “Bill Porteous” <[email protected]>

To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 6:40 PM
Subject: RE: NZBC

Dear Theo

Thank you for your enquiry dated 12 October 2000. I apologise for the delay in replying,
but we have had to check a few points before responding to your questions. Our answers
are as follows, in the same order as you asked them:
− No measurable effect so far as we are aware.
− No “large scale resistance” was observed.
− Not known. As with any change to the law of the land the cost fell mainly on the
taxpayer. The cost of learning to work within the new regime has not been quantified
but would have been borne by both local government and the building industry.
− We would say “yes” because innovation has been encouraged and alternative solutions
accepted.
− You should put this question to Site Safe New Zealand, an organisation which deals
with such matters. Web address is www.sitesafe.org.nz. Street address is 22 The
Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand. Phone 64 4 994052
− We have posted to you today, by airmail, photocopies of the old Plumbing and
Drainage Regulations 1978 and of Clause G12 Water Supplies, together with a copy of
the Acceptable Solution G12/AS1

I hope this response is of some help.

Sincerely,

Bill Porteous

Dr. Bill Porteous

Chief Executive
Building Industry Authority
39 The Terrace, Greenock House
PO Box 11846 Wellington New Zealand
Telephone +64 4-471 0794 fax +64 4-471 0798
Email:[email protected]

335
 336

From: Theo C Haupt [mailto: [email protected] ]

Sent: Wednesday, 11 October 2000 17:11
To: [email protected]
Subject: NZBC
Importance: High

Dear Sirs

I am currently reading for a Ph.D. conducting research into the performance approach. I
was referred to you by Dr. Helen Tippett with respect to obtaining information on the
following:

1. How has the introduction of the new code impacted the structure of the construction
industry itself and also construction firms?
2. Was there any large scale resistance to the change in legislative approach?
3. What was the cost involved in bringing about the transformation?
4. Has the code improved the performance of the industry?
5. Would the performance approach work in the area of construction safety and health?
6. Can you provide me with an example of the old code and then the equivalent ni the
new code?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Theo C Haupt M.Phil, MSAIB, MASI

Immediate Past-President – African Students Association (ASA)
390 Maguire Village #6, GAINESVILLE
Florida 32603-2023, USA
Voice (352) 846 5453 (h) Fax (775) 306 4193 (352) 392 9606

You cannot win it, unless you are in it!

Safety is everyone’s business!
Know safety, no accidents!

336
 APPENDIX F
EXAMPLE OF A SAFETY CHECKLIST

The following selected checklists have been extracted from the New Zealand

regulations (Occupational Safety and Health Service, 1995) and present the main points

to be considered when checking safety and health on construction sites. The hazards

should be identified, assesses and the risks controlled.

SAFE ACCESS

Are there arrangements to deal with visitors and workers new to the site?

Can everyone reach his or her place of work safely? Are there safe roads,
gangways, passageways, ladders and scaffolds?

Are all walkways level and free from obstructions?

Is protection provided to prevent falls, especially when more than 3 m?

Are holes securely fenced or protected with clearly marked fixed covers?

Is the site tidy and are materials stored safely?

Is waste collected and disposed of properly?

Are there enclosed chutes for waste to avoid materials being thrown down?

Are nails in timber removed or hammered down?

Is safe lighting provided for work in the dark or poor light?

337
 338

EXCAVATIONS

Have all underground services been located (with locators and plans), marked and
precautions taken to avoid them?

Has an adequate supply of suitable timber, trench sheets, props or other supporting
material been delivered to the site before excavation work begins?

Is a safe method used for putting in and taking out the timbering, i.e. one that does
not rely on people working within an unsupported trench?

If the sides of the excavation are sloped back or battered, is the angle of batter
sufficient to prevent collapse?

Is the excavation inspected daily, and thoroughly examined after using explosives
or after unexpected falls of materials?

ROOF WORK

Are crawling ladders or crawling boards used on roofs that slope more than 15o ?

If not, do the roof battens provide a safe handhold and foothold?

Are there barriers or other edge protection to stop people or materials falling from
sloping roofs or flat roofs?

Are crawling boards provided and used where people work on fragile materials,
such as asbestos cement sheets or glass?

Are warning notices posted?

Are suitable guard rails, cover, etc. provided where people pass or work near such
fragile materials?

Are roof lights properly covered or provided with barriers?

During sheeting operations, are precautions taken to stop people falling from the
edge of the sheet?

Are precautions taken to stop debris falling onto others working under the roof
work or in the vicinity of the work?
 339

SCAFFOLDS

Is there proper access to the scaffold platform?

Are all uprights properly founded and provided with base plates? Where
necessary, are there timber sole plates, or is there some other way in which
slipping and/or sinking can be avoided?

Is the scaffold secured to the building in enough places to prevent collapse and
are the ties strong enough?

If any ties have been removed since the scaffold was erected, have additional ties
been provided to replace them?

Is the scaffold adequately braced to ensure stability?

Are load-bearing fittings used where required?

Have uprights, ledgers, braces or struts been removed?

Are the working platforms fully planked? Are the planks free from obvious
defects, such as knots, and are they arranged to avoid tipping and tripping?

Are all planks securely restrained against movement?

Are there adequate guard rails and toe boards at every side from which a person
or materials could fall?

If the scaffold has been designed and constructed for loading with materials, are
these evenly distributed?

Are there effective barriers or warning notices to stop people using an incomplete
scaffold, e.g. one that is not fully planked?

Does a competent person inspect the scaffold at least once a week and always
after bad weather?

Are the results of inspections recorded, including defects that were put right
during the inspections, and the records signed by the person who carried out the
inspection?
 APPENDIX G
SAMPLE COVER LETTER

May 19, 2001

XXX YYY ZZZ

1234 ABC Road
MIDWAY, FL. 32343

Attention: John Citizen

Dear Sirs

Graduate Study on Safety

The M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida

is conducting a study of safety related to safety standards. The focus of the study is to

identify company preferences as they pertain to different types of safety regulations,

namely performance and prescriptive standards. To the extent possible, the study will

attempt to identify those standards that are most preferred and reasons why. This

information will be used to provide some insights on the merits of considering changes in

the general nature of safety standards. The ultimate goal is to improve construction

worker safety.

The survey questionnaire that is enclosed, contains a variety of questions related

to safety standards and company perspectives on various issues. Many of the questions

can be answered by simply encircling the applicable answers. The survey can be

completed in about ten to fifteen minutes. Naturally, you are asked to answer only those

questions that you feel comfortable in answering.

340
 341

Completed questionnaires should be returned by December 4, 2000 in the self-

addressed and stamped envelope provided for this purpose.

The results of this study are part of a doctoral research effort. As a token of our

appreciation for your participation, we will be happy to provide a summary report of this

research to you at no charge. Should you have any questions please feel free to call us at

the telephone numbers provided below.

Responses provided by specific firms will be kept strictly confidential. Research

data will be summarized so the identity of individual participants will be concealed. Yoi

have our sincere thanks for participating in this valuable study.

Yours truly,

Jimmie Hinze Theo Haupt

Professor Ph.D. Candidate
(352) 392-4697 (352) 846-5453
 APPENDIX H
FEDERAL REGISTER OF RECORDS OF VARIANCES

Year Federal Standard Applicant Record Variance

Register # Number Type Type
1973 38:8545- 1926.552 Graver Tank & Granted Temporary
8548 Manufacturing Co.
1973 38:16944 1910.107 American Airlines Granted Temporary
1910.108
1974 39:1677- 1910.176 Fisher Mills, Inc. Granted Temporary
1678
1974 39:11481- 1910.37 Rollins College Granted Temporary
11482
1974 39:37278 1910.28 Union Electric Company Granted Temporary
1976 41:15483- 1918.66 T.A. Loving Company Granted Temporary
15484
1976 41:56110- 1910.22 Metalplate Galvanizing, Granted Temporary
56111 1910.23 Inc
1977 42:54028 1910.22 Clark Grave Vault Co. Granted Temporary
1910.23
1977 42:55291 1910.22 Frontier Hot-Dip Granted Temporary
1910.23 Galvanizing, Inc
1978 43:2945- 1910.217 West Pharmaceutical Granted Temporary
47 Services
1978 43:9887- 1910.106 Minnesota Mining and Granted Temporary
9888 Manufacturing Co. (3M)
1983 48:40463 1910.261 International Paper-Erie Granted Temporary
Mill (Hammerhill Papers
Group)
1984 49:33755 1910.1043 Graniteville Company Granted Interim
order
1985 50:6411- 1910.1043 Graniteville Company Granted Temporary
13
1985 50:10550 1910.1025 28 plants Granted Temporary
1985 50:11598 1910.1018 ASARCO, Inc. Application Permanent
1910.1025
1985 50:15004 1910.1025 AMAX Lead Company of Application Permanent
Missouri
1985 50:15654 1910.262 St. Regis Corporation Granted Interim
order

342
 343

Year Federal Standard Applicant Record Type Variance

Register # Number Type
1985 50:20145- 1926.552 Zurn Industries, Inc. and Granted Temporary
20149 Tileman & Co. Ltd
1985 50:24961 1910.1025 ASARCO, Inc. Granted Interim
Order
1985 50:24963 1910.1025 St. Joe Lead Company Application Permanent
1985 50:25343 1910.134 Chlorine Institute, Inc. Application Permanent
1985 50:26853- 1910.261 St. Regis Corporation Granted Temporary
55
1985 50:28128- 1910.1025 St. Joe Lead Company Modification Permanent
29
1985 50:2983 1910.134 Chlorine Institute, Inc. Modification Permanent
1985 50:30033 1910.1025 ASARCO, Inc. Correction Temporary
1985 50:31441- 1926.45 Union Boiler Company Granted Interim
5 1926.552 order
1985 50:40625 1910.1047 Midwest Sterilization Granted Interim
Corporation order
1985 50:40627- 1926.552 Union Boiler Company Granted Temporary
31
1985 50:41039- 1910.1025 AMAX Lead Company Hearing Permanent
45 of Missouri Notice
1985 50:48281 1910.1025 AMAX Lead Company Hearing Permanent
of Missouri Notice
1985 50:6329- 1910.1025 AMAX Lead Company Hearing Permanent
30 of Missouri Notice
1986 51:15707 1910.1018 ASARCO, Inc. Withdrawal Permanent
1910.1025 Notice
1986 51:1708 1910.134 Chlorine Institute, Inc. Withdrawal Permanent
Notice
1986 51:16596 1910.1025 AMAX Lead Company Hearing Permanent
of Missouri Notice
1986 51:23859- 1910.1025 AMAX Lead Company Granted Permanent
62 of Missouri
1986 51:32548 1910.1025 Lenox China, Inc. Withdrawal Permanent
Notice
1987 52:184-87 1926.451 Zurn Industries, Inc. Application Temporary
1926.552
1987 52:12629- 1926.800- Tomaro Contractors, Application Permanent
32 804 Inc.
1987 52:22552- 1926.552 Zurn Industries, Inc. Granted Permanent
57
1987 52:24074- 1910.1025 ASARCO, Inc. Application Permanent
77
1987 52:30463- 1910.1025 Interstate Lead Application Temporary
68 Company
 344

Year Federal Standard Applicant Record Type Variance

Register # Number Type
1987 52:30468- 1910.1025 Sanders Lead Company Application Temporary
72
1987 52:38976- 1910.1025 Interstate Lead Hearing Temporary
77 Company Notice
1987 52:45035 1910.1025 Saunders Lead Hearing Temporary
Company Notice
1988 53:20912- 1910.1025 Doe Run Company Application Permanent
13
1988 53:30491- 1910.1001 Bendix Friction Granted Interim
2 1905.10 Materials Division of order
Allied-Signal, Inc.
1988 53:47884- 1926.550 Union Carbide Corp. Granted Interim
5 order
1989 54:12692- 1910.1048 Hoechst Celanese Application Temporary
3 Corporation
1989 54:12691- 1926.550 Broad, Vogt & Conant, Application Temporary
2 Inc.
1997 62:58995- 1905.11 Dixie Divers, Inc. Application Permanent
59002 1910.423
1910.426
1998 63:579 1905.11 Dixie Divers, Inc. Comment Permanent
1910.423 Notice
1910.426
1999 64:71242- 1905.11 Dixie Divers, Inc. Granted Permanent
71261 1910.423
1910.426
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Ackroyd, S. and Hughes, J. (1983): ‘Race and sexuality in the ethnographic process,’ In
Hobbs, D. and May, T. (eds.): Interpreting the Field: Accounts of Ethnography,
Oxford, Oxford University Press

Ahmad, D. and Yan, Z. (1996): ‘An Overview of the Construction Industry in China,’
Proceedings of CIB International Conference, ‘Construction Modernization and
Education,’ Beijing, China, 21-24 October, CD-ROM

Alleyne, G.A.O. (1997): ‘Global Health the Paradigm. Policy and Program Implications,’
National Council for International Health Monthly Seminar Series, Washington, D.C.,
18 August, Pan American Health Organization

Almaraz, J. (1994): ‘Quality Management and the Process of Change,’ Journal of

Organizational Change Management, vol.. 7, no. 4, pp. 6-14

Almaraz, J. and Margulies, N. (1998): ‘The Relationship between Organizational Culture

and Quality Management Programs,’ International Journal of Applied Quality
Management, vol.. 1, no. 2, pp. 129-152

AMCORD (1997): Around the Nation with AMCORD, National Office of Local
Government, Canberra, Australia

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), (1996a): International Standardization of

Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems - Is there a Need? An Outline
of Issues Prepared by a Task group of the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) Board of Directors’ international Advisory Committee, March, New York

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), (1996b): Summary of the Results of the
May 7-8, 1996 ANSI Workshop and Questionnaire on International Standardization of
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems - Is there a Need? Based on an
Analysis by a Task Group of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Board
of Directors’ International Advisory Committee, 22 July, New York

American Trucking Associations (1998): New Fatigue Study Shows Need for Driver
Education, Regulatory Flexibility and fatigue Management Programs, Truckline,
Trucking Facts and Industry Issues Information Leaflet, pp. 1-2

345
 346

Antoni, N. (1982): ‘Introductory Address,’ Performance Concept in Building,

Proceedings of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, March 29 to
April 2, vol.. 2, pp. 13-14

Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) (1995): Managing Construction for Health and
Safety : Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 : Health and Safety
Executive

Atkin, B. and Pothecary, E. (1994): Building Futures, Reading, St. George’s Press

Barrie, D.S. and Paulson, B.C. (1984): Professional Construction Management, New
York, McGraw-Hill Book Company

Bayazit, N. (1993): ‘Methods of Performance Evaluation in the Design and Practice at

the Whole Building Level,’ Some Examples of the Application of the Performance
Concept in Building, CIB Publication 157, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 109-116

Bayazit, N. and Kurumu, Y.A. (1982): ‘A Multi-variable Decision Making Method for
the Determination of priorities of Building Performance Attributes,’ Performance
Concept in Building, Proceedings of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon,
Portugal, March 29 to April 2, vol.. 1, pp. 13-24

Bennis, W. (1993): Beyond bureaucracy: Essays on the development and evol.ution of

human organization, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers

Berger, J. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in Germany,’ In Gottfried,A., Trani,

L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and Quality in Construction,
Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working Commission 99 and Task
Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 51-60

Berger, Joachim (2000): ‘The Health and Safety Protection Plan and the File containing
Features of the Building according to EEC Directive (92/57),’ In Coble, R., Haupt, T.
and Hinze, J. (eds.), The Management of Construction Safety and Health, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, Balkema, pp. 39-46

Binnington, C. (1999): ‘By its very nature contracting is adversarial,’ Construction

World, November, pp. 18.

Birchall, S.J. and Finlayson, H. (1996): ‘The Application of European Derived Safety
Management Regulations to the UK Construction Industry,’ In Dias, L.M.A. and
Coble, R.J. (eds.), Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites,
Proceedings of the First International Conference of CIB Working Commission W99,
Lisbon, Portugal, 4-7 September, pp. 41-51
 347

Bjørneboe, J. (1982): ‘Functional Analysis of User Requirements,’ Performance Concept

in Building, Proceedings of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal,
March 29 to April 2, vol.. 1, pp. 75-85

Blachère, G. (1993): ‘Preparation of Requirements and Criteria,’ Some Examples of the

Application of the Performance Concept in Building, CIB Publication 157, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, pp. 33-39

Blair, E. (1999): ‘Behavior-based Safety: Myths, Magic and Reality,’ Professional

Safety, August, pp.25-29

Bless, C. and Higson-Smith, C. (1995): Fundamentals of Social Research Methods - An

African Perspective, Cape Town, Juta and Co., Ltd.

Boles, M. and Sunoo, B.P. (1998): ‘Three barriers to managing change,’ Workforce, vol..
77, no. 1, pp. 25-28

Bonvillian, G. (1997): ‘Managing the messages of change: lessons from the field,’
Industrial Management, vol.. 39, no. 1, pp. 20-25

Borges, J.F. (1982): ‘Welcoming Address,’ Performance Concept in Building,

Proceedings of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, March 29 to
April 2, vol.. 2, pp. 9-12

Briggs, R.S. (1992): ‘Targets Prototype Nears Completion,’ Building Systems Update,
August, http://www.ased.pnl.gov:2080/bp/updates/0892targ.htm

Britannica Online (1998): ‘Safety,’ Britannica online, http://www.eb.com/cgi-

bin/g?DocF=micro/516/60.html

Bröchner, J., Ang, G.K.I. and Fredriksson, G. (1999): ‘Sustainability and the
Performance Concept: Encouraging Innovative Environmental Technology in
Construction,’ Building Research and Information, vol.. 27, pp. 368-373

Brown, P.E. (1996): ‘Total Integration of the Safety Professional into the Project
Management Team,’ In Dias, L.M.A. and Coble, R.J. (eds.), Implementation of Safety
and Health on Construction Sites, Proceedings of the First International Conference of
CIB Working Commission W99, Lisbon, Portugal, 4-7 September, pp. 137-143

BS 8800 (1996): British Standard 8800-Occupational Health and Safety Management

Systems

Building Industry Authority (2000): ‘BIA--About Us,’ October 11,

http://www.bia.co.nz/about/
 348

The Business Roundtable (1983): More Construction for the Money, Summary Report of
the Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project, New York, The Business
Roundtable

The Business Roundtable (1991): Improving Construction Safety Performance, New

York, The Business Roundtable

Caldwell, S. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in the United Kingdom,’ In

Gottfried,A., Trani, L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and Quality in
Construction, Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working Commission
99 and Task Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 141-148

Cartwright, J., Andrews, T., and Webley, P. (1999): ‘A Methodology for Cultural
Measurement and Change: A Case Study,’ Total Quality Management, vol.. 10, Issue
1, pp. 121-128

Casals, M., Exteberria, M., and Salgado, R. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in
the United Kingdom,’ In Gottfried,A., Trani, L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety
Coordination and Quality in Construction, Proceedings of International Conference of
CIB Working Commission 99 and Task Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 121-
134

CDMR (1994): Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, SI 1994/3140

HMSO

CDTSC (1998): American Chemical Society’s Task Force on Laboratory Waste

Management Comments on California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s
Response to the Laboratory Regulatory Reform Task Force Report, ACS Task Force
on Laboratory Waste Management

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (Center to Protect Workers’ Rights) (1993): An

Agenda for Change, Report of the National Conference on Ergonomics, Safety, and
Health in Construction, Washington, D.C., 18-22 July

Christensen, G. (1982): ‘Final Report,’ Performance Concept in Building, Proceedings of

the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, March 29 to April 2, vol..
2, pp. 187-191

Churcher, D.W. and Alwani-Starr, G.M. (1996): ‘Incorporating Construction Health and
Safety into the Design Process,’ In Dias, L.M.A. and Coble, R.J. (eds.),
Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites, Proceedings of the First
International Conference of CIB Working Commission W99, Lisbon, Portugal, 4-7
September, pp. 29-40
 349

CIB (1975): The Performance Approach and its Terminology, Report No. 32, Rotterdam,
CIB

CIB (1982): Working with the Performance Approach in Building, Publication 64,
Rotterdam, CIB

CIB (1997): Final Report of CIB Task Group 11 Performance-based Building Codes,
Institute for Research in Construction National Research Council, Canada

Coble, R. and Haupt, T.C. (1999): ‘Safety and Health Legislation in Europe and United
States: A Comparison,’ In Gottfried,A., Trani, L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety
Coordination and Quality in Construction, Proceedings of International Conference of
CIB Working Commission 99 and Task Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 159-
164

Coble, R. J. and Haupt, T.C. (2000): ‘Performance vs. Prescription Based Safety and
Health Legislation - A Comparison,’ The American Professional Constructor, vol.. 24,
no. 2, pp. 22-25

Cole, R.J. (1999): ‘Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Clarifying Intentions,’

Building Research and Information, vol.. 27, pp. 230-246

Construction Task Force (1998): Rethinking Construction--The Report of the

Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the Scope
for Improving the Quality and Efficiency of UK Construction, London, Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Cook, S. and McSween, T.E. (2000): ‘The Role of Supervisors in Behavioral Safety
Observations,’ Professional Safety, Journal of the American Society of Safety
Engineers, vol.. 45, no. 10, pp. 33-36

Cooper, I. (1999): ‘Which Focus for Building Assessment Methods - Environmental

Performance or Sustainability?’ Building Research and Information, vol.. 27, pp. 321-
331

Council Directive 92/57/EEC (1992): ‘Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on

the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or
mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16
(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)’ Official Journal of the European Communities no. L
245/6

Crawford, C.B. (1982): ‘Final Statement,’ Performance Concept in Building, Proceedings

of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, March 29 to April 2,
vol.. 2, pp. 241-242
 350

Dester, W.S. and Blockley, D.I. (1995): ‘Safety Behaviour and Culture in Construction,’
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol.. 2 (1), pp. 17-26

Diamond, M.A. (1998): ‘Organizational and personal vicissitudes of change,’ Public

Productivity and Management Review, vol.. 21, no. 4, pp. 478-483

Dias, L.A. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in Portugal,’ In Gottfried,A., Trani,

L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and Quality in Construction,
Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working Commission 99 and Task
Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 111-120

Dias, L.A. and Coble, R.J. (1999): Construction Safety Coordination in the European
Union, CIB Publication 238, Lisbon, Portugal, CIB Working Commission W99

Dillman, D.A. (1978): Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, New
York, John Wiley and Sons

Drewer, S. (1980): ‘Construction and Development: A New Perspective,’ Habitat

International, vol.. 5, no. 3 / 4, pp. 395-428

Ebohon, O.J., Haupt, T.C., Smallwood, J.J. and Rwelamila, P.D. (1998): ‘Enforcing
Health and Safety Measures in the Construction Industry: Command and Control
versus Economic and other Policy Instruments,’ In Haupt, T.C., Ebohon, O.J. and
Coble, R.J. (eds.), Health and Safety in Construction: Accident Free Construction,
Bellville, South Africa, Peninsula Technikon, pp. 158-166

Edmonds, G.A. and Miles, D.W.J. (1984): Foundations for Change - Aspects of the
Construction Industry in Developing Countries, Intermediate Technology Publications

Enz, C.A. (1986): Power and shared values in the corporate culture, Ann Arbor, UMI
Research Press

Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (1997): Research Methods for Construction, Oxford, Blackwell
Science Ltd.

Ferber, R., Sheatsley, P., Turner, A. and Waksberg, J. (1980): What is a Survey?
Washington, D.C., American Statistical Association

Filby, I. And Willmott, H. (1988): ‘Ideologies and contradictions in a public relations

department: The seduction and impotence of living myth,’ Organizational Studies,
vol.. 9, pp. 335-349

Freda, G., Arn, J.V., and Gatlin-Watts, R.W. (1999): Adapting to the speed of change,’
Industrial Management, Nov/Dec, pp. 31-34
 351

Free, R. (1994): The role of procedural violations in railway accidents, Unpublished

Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester

Gambatese, J. (2000a): ‘Designing for Safety,’ In Coble, R., Haupt, T. and Hinze, J.
(eds.), The Management of Construction Safety and Health, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
Balkema, pp. 169-192

Gambatese, J. (2000b): ‘Designing for Safety: It starts with Education,’ In Gibb, A.,
(ed.), Designing for Safety and Health Conference Proceedings, London, 26-27 June,
Publication TF005/4, Loughborough, United Kingdom, European Construction
Institute, pp. 169-192

Gambatese, J.A., Hinze, J.W. and Haas, C.T. (1997): ‘A Tool to Design for Construction
Worker Safety,’ Journal of Architectural Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), vol.. 3, no. 1, pp. 32-41

Ganzhi, Z. (1996)’ ‘China in its Reform and Opening-up and Chinese Construction
Industry on its Way to Prosperity,’ Proceedings of CIB International Conference,
‘Construction Modernization and Education,’ Beijing, China, 21-24 October, CD-
ROM

Gee, A.F. and Saito, K. (1997): ‘Construction Loads and Other Safety Measures
Specified by U.S., U.K. and Japanese Bridge Standards,’ In Ratay, R.T.(ed.),
Construction Safety Affected by Codes and Standards, Proceedings of a session
sponsored by the Design Loads on Structures During Construction Standards
Committee and the Performance of Structures During Construction Technical
Committee of The Structural Engineering Institute, Minneapolis, 5-8 October, pp. 8-
15

Geller, E.S. (1988): What can Behavior-based Safety do for Me? Neenah, J.J. Keller and
Associates, Inc.

Geller, E.S. (1999): ‘Actively Caring for a Total Safety Culture,’ The 4th Annual
Behavioral Safety NOW! Conference, Las Vegas, 5-8 October

Gereben, Z. (1982): ‘Application of the Performance Concept in the Formulation of

Requirements for the External Vertical Envelope of Buildings,’ Performance Concept
in Building, Proceedings of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal,
March 29 to April 2, vol.. 2, pp. 75-82

Gibson, E.J. (1982): ‘A Report from CIB Commission W60 Working with the
Performance Approach to Building,’ Performance Concept in Building, Proceedings
of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, March 29 to April 2,
vol.. 2, pp. 23-30
 352

Gottfried, A. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in Italy,’ In Gottfried,A., Trani,

L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and Quality in Construction,
Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working Commission 99 and Task
Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 141-148

Gross, J.G. (1996): ‘Developments in the Application of the Performance Concept in

Building,’ In Becker, R. and Paciuk, M. (eds.), Proceedings of 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-
RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, vol.. 1, pp. I-1

Gun, R. (1994): ‘The Worksafe Model Regulations for Chemical Safety: How much
Benefit?’ Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand,
vol.. 10, no. 6, pp.523-527

Hage, J. and Dewar, R. (1973): ‘Elite versus organizational structure in predicting

innovation,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.. 18, pp. 279-290

Hanna, A.S., Isidore, L.J. and Kammel, D. (1996): ‘Safety Evaluation for Frame Building
Contractors,’ In Dias, L.M.A. and Coble, R.J. (eds.), Implementation of Safety and
Health on Construction Sites, Proceedings of the First International Conference of
CIB Working Commission W99, Lisbon, Portugal, 4-7 September, pp. 145-156

Hattis, D. (1996): ‘Role and Significance of Human Requirements and Architecture in

Application of the Performance Concept in Building,’ In Becker, R. and Paciuk, M.
(eds.), Proceedings of 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv,
Israel, vol.. 1, pp. I-3

Haupt, T.C. (1996): An Economic Integration Approach to Infrastructure and

Construction Industry Development: The Case for the Southern African Development
Community (SADC), De Montfort University, Unpublished M.Phil. thesis

Haupt, T.C. and Coble, R.J. (2000): ‘International Safety and Health Standards in
Construction, The American Professional Constructor, vol.. 24, no. 1, pp. 31-36

Helledi, U. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in Denmark,’ In Dias, L.A. and

Coble, R.J. (eds.), Construction Safety Coordination in the European Union, CIB
Publication 238, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 39-54

Hensler, D.J. (1993): ‘Managing change,’ Canadian Manager, vol.. 18, no. 1, pp. 24

Hinings, C.R. (1996): ‘Values and organizational structure,’ Human Relations, vol.. 49,
no. 7, pp. 885-917

Hinze, J.W. (1994): ‘Qualification of the Indirect Costs of Injuries,’ Fifth Annual Rinker
International Conference on Construction Safety and Loss Control, Gainesville, pp.
521-534
 353

Hinze, J.W. (1997): Construction Safety, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey

Hinze, J. (2000): ‘Designing for the Life Cycle Safety of Facilities,’ In Gibb, A., (ed.),
Designing for Safety and Health Conference Proceedings, London, 26-27 June,
Publication TF005/4, Loughborough, United Kingdom, European Construction
Institute, pp. 121-127

Hinze, J., Coble, R. and Elliott, B. (1999): ‘Integrating Construction Worker Protection
into Project Design,’ In Singh, A., Hinze, J. and Coble, R.J. (eds), Implementation of
Safety and Health on Construction Sites, Proceedings of the Second International
Conference of CIB Working Commission 99, Honolulu, Hawaii, 24-27 March,
Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema, pp. 395-401

Hinze, J. and Wiegand, F. (1992): ‘The Role of designers in Construction Workers

Safety,’ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), vol.. 118, no. 4, pp. 677-684

Human Performance Technologies (1998): “Start a Behavioral Safety Program—

Performance-based Safety Programs,” http://qhpt.com/behavioral_safety.html,
08/30/98

Hunt, J. and Killip, R. (1998): ‘Administrative and Legislative Support: The Forgotten
Half of Performance-based Building Controls,’ Address at Pacific Rim Conference of
Building Officials, Hawaii, 3-7 May

International Labour Office (ILO) (1999): Yearbook of Labour Statistics, International

Labour Office, Geneva

Jones, R.A. (1982): ‘Opening Address,’ Performance Concept in Building, Proceedings

of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, March 29 to April 2,
vol.. 2, pp. 19-22

Joyce, Raymond (1995) : The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994
Explained : Thomas Telford Publications : London

Kashef, A.E., Salim, M., Betts, M.R. and Choudry (1996): ‘The Role of ISO 9000
Standards in the Construction Industry,’ Proceedings of CIB W89 Beijing
International Conference, 21-24 October, pp. 10-19

Kerns, W.R. (1991): Use of Incentives to Enhance Water Quality Program Effectiveness,
Virginia Cooperative Extension, Publication 448-104, Virginia Tech

Khalid, A.G. (1996): ‘Construction Site Injuries: The Case of Malaysia,’ In Dias, L.M.A.
and Coble, R.J. (eds.), Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites,
 354

Proceedings of the First International Conference of CIB Working Commission W99,

Lisbon, Portugal, 4-7 September, pp. 93-102

Kidder, L. (1981): Research Methods in Social Relations, New York, Holt-Saunders

Krause, T. (1993): ‘Safety and Quality: Two Sides of the Same Coin,’ Occupational
Hazards, pp. 23-26

Kreijger, P.C. (1982): ‘Chairman’s Introductory Remarks,’ Performance Concept in

Building, Proceedings of the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal,
March 29 to April 2, vol.. 2, pp. 99-106

Kuhn, T.S. (1970): The Structure of Scientific Revol.utions, Chicago, University of

Chicago Press

Lan, A. and Arteau, J. (1997): ‘Limits and Difficulties in Applying the Quebec Safety
Code for the Construction Industry - The Case of Excavations,’ In Ratay, R.T.(ed.),
Construction Safety Affected by Codes and Standards, Proceedings of a session
sponsored by the Design Loads on Structures During Construction Standards
Committee and the Performance of Structures During Construction Technical
Committee of The Structural Engineering Institute, Minneapolis, 5-8 October, pp. 16-
34

Lapping, J.E. (1997): ‘OSHA Standards that require Engineers,’ In Ratay, R.T.(ed.),
Construction Safety Affected by Codes and Standards, Proceedings of a session
sponsored by the Design Loads on Structures During Construction Standards
Committee and the Performance of Structures During Construction Technical
Committee of The Structural Engineering Institute, Minneapolis, 5-8 October, pp. 1-7

Latham, M. (1994): Constructing the Team, HMSO

Lawson, J. (1996): ‘Workplace Hazardous Substances Regulations--A Performance-

based and Risk management Approach’ Risk Engineering, University of New South
Wales, The Munro Centre for Civil and Environmental Engineering

Leedy, P.D. (1993): Practical Research - Planning and Design, New York, Macmillan
Publishing Company

Levitt, R.E. and Samelson, N.M. (1993): Construction Safety Management, New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Loafman, B. (1998): ‘Behavior-based Safety: Power and Pitfalls,’ Professional Safety,

August, pp. 20-23
 355

Lorent, P. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in Belgium and Luxembourg,’ In

Gottfried, A., Trani, L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and Quality in
Construction, Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working Commission
99 and Task Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 7-26

Low, S.P. and Christopher, H.Y.L. (1992): ‘A Revisit to Turin’s Paridigm, Construction
and Development in the 1970’s and 1980’s,’ Habitat International, vol.. 16, pp. 103-
117

Marshall, G. (1994): Safety Engineering, American Society of Safety Engineers

Marsicano, L. (1995): ‘Getting Lost in the Rubble,’ Synergist, vol.. 6, no. 8, pp. 18-19

Matthews, G., McSween, T.E. and Myers, W. (1999): ‘Initiating the Behavioral Safety
Process: Issues and Challenges,’ The 4th Annual Behavioral Safety NOW! Conference,
Las Vegas, 5-8 October

May, T. (1997): Social Research: Issues, methods and process, Buckingham, Open
University Press

McCabe P.J. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in Ireland,’ In Gottfried,A.,

Trani, L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and Quality in Construction,
Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working Commission 99 and Task
Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 69-82

McSween, T.E. (1993): ‘Improve your Safety Program with a Behavioral Approach,’
Hydrocarbon Processing, August, pp. 119-128

McSween, T.E. (1995): The Values-based Safety Process--Improving Your Safety

Culture with a Behavioral Approach, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Müngen, U, Kuruoglu, M, Türkoglu, K, Haupt, T.C, and Smallwood, J. (1998):

‘Scaffolding accidents in Construction: An International Examination’ In Haupt, Theo
C., Ebohon, Obas John and Coble, Richard J. (ed.): Health and Safety in Construction:
Accident Free Construction, Peninsula Technikon, Cape Town, pp. 43-54

Munro, W.D. (1996): ‘The Implementation of the Construction (Design and

Management) Regulations 1994 on UK Construction Sites’ In Alves Dias, L.M. and
Coble, R.J. (eds), Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites,
Proceedings of the First International Conference of CIB Working Commission 99,
Lisbon, Portugal, 4-7 September, Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema, pp.53-66

Nadler, D. (1988): ‘Concepts of the Management of Organizational Change,’ In

Tushman, M. and Moore, W. (eds.), Readings in the Management of Innovation,
Cambridge, Ballinger
 356

Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1989): ‘Beyond the Magic Leader: Leadership and
Organizational Change,’ In Tushman, M., O’Reilly, C. and Nadler, D. (eds.), The
Management of Organizations, New York, Harper and Row, pp. 533-546

Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1990): ‘Beyond the Charismatic Leader: Leadership and
Organizational Change,’ California Management Review, vol.. 32, pp. 77-97

Ngowi, A.B. and Rwelamila, P.D. (1997): ‘Holistic approach to occupational health and
safety and environmental impacts’ In Haupt, Theo C. and Rwelamila, Pantaleo D
(ed.): Health and Safety in Construction: Current and Future Challenges, Pentech,
Cape Town, pp. 151-161

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1993): OSHA Standards Interpretation

and Compliance Letters, 06/16/1993 - Variance Informational Handout, Information
leaflet

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1994): OSHA Standards Interpretation

and Compliance Letters, 12/20/1994 - Machine-guarding requirements, Information
leaflet

Occupational Safety and Health Service (1995): Guidelines for the Provision of Facilities
and General Safety in the Construction Industry to Meet the Requirements of the
Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and Regulations 1995, Te Tari Mari,
Department of Labour

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1998): OSHA Standards Interpretation

and Compliance Letters, 05/28/1998 - Numerous clarifications regarding underground
construction; variances; joint ventures, Information leaflet

Office of Management and Budget (1996) : ‘Report to the President on the Third
Anniversary of Effective Order 12866 : More Benefits Fewer Burdens : Creating a
Regulatory System which Works for the American People,’ Office of Management
and Budget and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Ofori, G. (1988): ‘Construction Industry and Economic Growth in Singapore,’

Construction Management and Economics, vol.. 6, pp. 57-70

Onsten, G. and Patay, A. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in Sweden,’ In

Gottfried,A., Trani, L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and Quality in
Construction, Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working Commission
99 and Task Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 135-140

Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J. and Tannebaum, P.H. (1957): The Measurement of Meaning,
Illinois, University of Illinois Press
 357

Papaioannu, K. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in Greece,’ In Gottfried,A.,

Trani, L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and Quality in Construction,
Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working Commission 99 and Task
Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 61-68

Parker, D., Reason, J., Manstead, A. and Stradling, S. (1995): ‘Driving errors, driving
violations and accident invol.vement,’ Ergonomics, vol.. 38, pp. 1036-1048

Petersen, D. (1996): Human Error Reduction and Safety Management, New York, Van
Nostrand Reinhold

Porteous, W.A. (1999): ‘Characteristics of the Building Industry and its Clients,’ Global
Building Model in the Next Millenium Convention, 12-15 April 1999

Porter-O’Grady, T. (1997): ‘Process leadership and the death of management,’ Nursing

Economics, vol.. 15, no. 6, pp. 286-294

Quinn, R. (1996): Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within, San Francisco, Jossey-
Bass

Ranson, S., Hinings, C.R., Greenwood, R., and Walsh, K. (1980): ‘Value preferences and
tensions in the organization of local government,’ In Dunkerly, D. and Salaman, G.
(eds.), The International Yearbook of Organizational Studies, London, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, pp. 197-221

Ratay, R.T. (1997): Construction Safety Affected by Codes and Standards, Proceedings of
a session sponsored by the Design Loads on Structures During Construction Standards
Committee and the Performance of Structures During Construction Technical
Committee of The Structural Engineering Institute, Minneapolis, 5-8 October

Reason, J. (1998): ‘Organizational controls and safety: the varieties of rule-related

behavior,’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol.. 71, no. 4,
pp. 289-301

Rogers, B. (1999): ‘Developing Pro-Active and Effective Strategies to Manage Health

and Safety Risk on Site - A Practitioners Perspective,’ Presentation at 2nd Annual
Building and Construction Series, Auckland

Rowlinson, S. (2000): ‘Human Factors in Construction Safety - Management Issues,’ In

Hinze, J., Coble, R., and Haupt, T. (eds), Construction Safety and Health
Management, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, pp. 59-86

Salant, P. and Dillman, D.A. (1994): How to design your own survey, New York, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
 358

Saunders, L.M., and Kwon, M.L. (1990): ‘The management of change: Minimizing the
negative impact on staff and patrons,’ Library Software Review, vol.. 9, no. 6, pp.386-
387

Schaefer, W.F. and de Munck, M. (1999): ‘Construction Safety Coordination in The

Netherlands,’ In Gottfried,A., Trani, L., and Dias, L.A. (eds), Safety Coordination and
Quality in Construction, Proceedings of International Conference of CIB Working
Commission 99 and Task Group 36, Milan, Italy, 22-23 June, pp. 99-110

Schneider, S. and Susi, P. (1993): ‘Ergonomics and Construction: A Review of Potential

Hazards in New Building Construction- Report E1-93, Washington, D.C., Center to
Protect Workers’ Rights

Schuman, H. and Presser, S. (1981): Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys –

Experiments on question form, wording, and context, New York, Academic Press

Simenko, P. (1996): ‘Performance-based regulations - A Fire Engineer’s View,’ Risk

Engineering, University of New South Wales, The Munro Centre for Civil and
Environmental Engineering

Sink, D.S. and Morris, W.T. (1995): By What Method? Norcross, Industrial Engineering
and Management Press

Site Safe (1999): Construction Safety Management Guide - Best Practice guidelines in
the Management of Health and Safety in Construction, Wellington, New Zealand, Site
Safe New Zealand

Site Safe (2000): ‘The Facts about Construction Injuries,’ October 23,
http://www.sitesafe.org.nz/facts.html

Smallwood, J. and Haupt, T. (2000): ‘Safety and Health Team Building,’ In Hinze, J.,
Coble, R., and Haupt, T. (eds), Construction Safety and Health Management, New
Jersey, Prentice-Hall, pp. 115-144

Sneck, T. (1993): ‘Performance Evaluation,’ Some Examples of the Application of the

Performance Concept in Building, CIB Publication 157, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp.
203-212

Sonquist, J.A., and Dunkelberg, W.C. (1977): Survey and Opinion Research: Procedures
for processing and Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Spector, P.E. (1981): Research Designs, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications

SPSS (1999): SPSS Base 10.0 Applications Guide, Chicago, SPSS Inc.
 359

Statistics South Africa (1998): Census in Brief - Report No: 03-01-11 (1996), Statistics
South Africa, Pretoria

Statzer, J.H. (1999): ‘An integrated approach to business risk management,’ Professional
Safety – American Society of Safety Engineers, August, pp. 30-32

Stavrianidis, P. (1998): ‘Reduce risk with performance-based safety standards,’

Hydrocarbon Processing, vol.. 77, no. 10, pp. 91-95

Strah, T.M. (1996): ‘On the Record: George Reagle, An Interview with Uncle Sam’s
Safety Director,’ Transport Topics, vol.. 2, number 26,
http://www.ttnews.com/weekly.archive/02.26.tw4.html

Strassman, W.P. (1975): Building Technology and Employment in the Housing Sector of
Developing Countries, East Lansing, Michigan State University

Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1999): ‘Safer Behavior; Fewer Injuries,’ The 4th Annual Behavioral
Safety NOW! Conference, Las Vegas, 5-8 October

Szana, Tibor and Smallwood, John (1998): ‘The Role of Culture and Management
Systems in the Prevention of Construction Accidents’ In Haupt, Theo C., Ebohon,
Obas John and Coble, Richard J. (ed.): Health and Safety in Construction: Accident
Free Construction, Peninsula Technikon, Cape Town, pp. 21-35

Todd, J.A. and Geissler, S. (1999): ‘Regional and Cultural Issues in Environmental
Performance Assessment for Buildings,’ Building Research and Information, vol.. 27,
pp. 247-256

Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1994): ‘Organizational survey nonresponse,’ Administrative

Science Quarterly, vol.. 39, no. 3, pp. 439-458

Trahant, B. and Burke, W.W. (1996): ‘Traveling through transitions,’ Training and
Development, vol.. 50, no. 2, pp. 37-41

Turin, D.A. (1969): The Construction Industry: It’s Economic Significance and It’s Role
in Development, London, University College Environmental Research Group

Tyler, A.H. and Pope A. (1999): ‘The Integration of Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations into Small and Medium Companies’ In Singh, A., Hinze, J.
and Coble, R.J. (eds), Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference of CIB Working Commission 99,
Honolulu, Hawaii, 24-27 March, Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema, pp.447-452
 360

Walker, G.R. (1997): ‘Internationalisation of Housing Standards,’ Proceedings 1997

International Building Construction Standards Conference/Workshop, Sydney,
Australia, Department of Industry-Science-Tourism, pp. 102-108

Walker, G.R. (1998): Update on International Standards for Performance Criteria for
Single Family Dwellings, 2nd International Conference on Building Better Global
Standards, Australia

Walsh, P. and Blair, C. (1996): ‘Effectiveness of performance-based standards for risk

and safety,’ Risk Engineering, University of New South Wales, The Munro Centre for
Civil and Environmental Engineering

Watson, T.J. (1982): ‘Group ideologies and organizational change,’ Journal of

Management Studies, vol.. 19, pp. 259-275

Weatherall, D. (1995): Science and the quiet art: medical research and patient care,
Oxford, Oxford University Press

Wells, J. (1986): The Construction Industry in Developing Countries: Alternative

Strategies for Development, London, Croom Helm

Weston, Simon (1998): ‘The challenge of change,’ Ivey Business Quarterly, vol.. 63, no.
2, pp. 78-81

Whetton, Chris (2000): ‘Loose change,’ Hydrocarbon processing, vol.. 79, no. 3, pp. 3

Wright, J.R. (1982): ‘Final Statement,’ Performance Concept in Building, Proceedings of

the 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, March 29 to April 2, vol..
2, pp. 239-240
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Theodore (Theo) Conrad Haupt was born on March 18, 1955 in Cape Town,

South Africa. He completed the National Higher Diploma in Building Surveying at

Peninsula Technikon, Cape Town, South Africa in 1989. He enrolled at The School of

the Built Environment, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom in 1994,

where he graduated with a Master of Philosophy in Construction in 1996. In 1996, he

also completed the National Higher Diploma in Post School Education at Peninsula

Technikon. In the Spring of 1998, Theo was admitted to the University of Florida to

pursue his Ph.D. on a fellowship award from the United States Agency for International

Development. He was admitted to doctoral candidacy in June, 1999 and has since been

working on his dissertation as well as other avenues of research.

Throughout his academic career Theo has received several scholarships, awards

and honors. In 1999 and 2000 he received the International Students Academic

Performance Award at the University of Florida for earning a cumulative 4.0 GPA. He

received a scholarship from the Ernest Oppenheimer Memorial Trust in 1998. Other

awards were received from the De Beers Chairman’s Educational Trust Fund, Foundation

for Research Development, Architects and Surveyors Institute, South African Institute of

Building, Building Industries Federation of South Africa, Peninsula Technikon,

Association of South African Quantity Surveyors, Fred Harris Trust and Floating Trophy,

and Rotary International.

361
 362

Theo has considerable experience in the construction industry in various

capacities. Since 1975, his involvement has included property administration, property

development, project management, real estate, financial and building consulting, and staff

training. He has been a lecturer (faculty member) since 1989 in the Department of

Construction Management and Quantity Surveying at Peninsula Technikon, Cape Town,

South Africa.

He has served as the chairperson of the Western Cape branch of the South African

Institute of Building (SAIB). He remains a National Council member of SAIB and enjoys

membership in Architects and Surveyors Institute (ASI), Chartered Institute of Building

(CIOB), and Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economics (CASLE).

Theo’s research interests include infrastructure policy and delivery in the context

of developing countries. However, his major focus has been on construction safety issues.

He has published several safety-related articles and conference papers. He has co-edited

several conference proceedings. In 2000, he co-edited 2 books in each of which he co-

authored a chapter. He has served as a referee for several international journals.

He is currently the CIB W99 international area coordinator for Africa. He has

served on the scientific and technical committees of international conferences, reviewing

several of the abstracts and papers submitted.

Theo Haupt is divorced with 2 children, Jamie and Matthew.

362