The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of

the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Held at Dauphine Universit, Paris, 2-3 September 2010


ISBN 978-1-84219-619-9

RICS

12 Great George Street
London SW1P 3AD
United Kingdom

www.rics.org/cobra

September 2010


The RICS COBRA Conference is held annually. The aim of COBRA is to provide a platform
for the dissemination of original research and new developments within the specific
disciplines, sub-disciplines or field of study of:

Management of the construction process
Cost and value management
Building technology
Legal aspects of construction and procurement
Public private partnerships
Health and safety
Procurement
Risk management
Project management
The built asset
Property investment theory and practice
Indirect property investment
Property market forecasting
Property pricing and appraisal
Law of property, housing and land use planning
Urban development
Planning and property markets
Financial analysis of the property market and property assets
The dynamics of residential property markets
Global comparative analysis of property markets
Building occupation
Sustainability and real estate
Sustainability and environmental law
Building performance
The property industry
Information technology
Innovation in education and training
Human and organisational aspects of the industry
Alternative dispute resolution and conflict management
Professional education and training

Peer review process

All papers submitted to COBRA were subjected to a double-blind (peer review) refereeing
process. Referees were drawn from an expert panel, representing respected academics from
the construction and building research community. The conference organisers wish to extend
their appreciation to the following members of the panel for their work, which is invaluable to
the success of COBRA.


Rifat Akbiyikli Sakarya University, Turkey
Rafid Al Khaddar Liverpool J ohn Moores University, UK
Ahmed Al Shammaa Liverpool J ohn Moores University, UK
Tony Auchterlounie University of Bolton, UK
Kwasi Gyau Baffour Awuah University of Wolverhampton, UK

Kabir Bala Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria
J uerg Bernet Danube University Krems, Austria
J ohn Boon UNITEC, New Zealand
Douw Boshoff University of Pretoria, South Africa
Richard Burt Auburn University, USA

J udith Callanan RMIT University, Australia
Kate Carter Heriot-Watt University, UK
Keith Cattell University of Cape Town, South Africa
Antoinette Charles Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Fiona Cheung Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong
Samuel Chikafalimani University of Pretoria, South Africa
Ifte Choudhury Texas A and M University, USA
Chris Cloete University of Pretoria, South Africa
Alan Coday Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Michael Coffey Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Nigel Craig Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Ayirebi Dansoh KNUST, Ghana
Peter Davis Curtin University, Australia
Peter Defoe Calford Seaden, UK
Grace Ding University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Hemanta Doloi University of Melbourne, Australia
J ohn Dye TPS Consult, UK

Peter Edwards RMIT, Australia
Charles Egbu University of Salford, UK

Ola Fagbenle Covenant University, Nigeria
Ben Farrow Auburn University, USA
Peter Fenn University of Manchester, UK
Peter Fewings University of the West of England, UK
Peter Fisher University of Northumbria, UK
Chris Fortune University of Salford, UK
Valerie Francis University of Melbourne, Australia

Rod Gameson University of Wolverhampton, UK
Abdulkadir Ganah University of Central Lancashire, UK

Seung Hon Han Yonsei University, South Korea
Anthony Hatfield University of Wolverhampton, UK
Theo Haupt Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa
Dries Hauptfleisch University of the Free State, South Africa
Paul Holley Auburn University, USA
Danie Hoffman University of Pretoria, South Africa
Keith Hogg University of Northumbria, UK
Alan Hore Construction IT Alliance, Ireland
Bon-Gang Hwang National University of Singapore

J oseph Igwe University of Lagos, Nigeria
Adi Irfan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
J avier Irizarry Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Usman Isah University of Manchester, UK

David J enkins University of Glamorgan, UK
Godfaurd J ohn University of Central Lancashire, UK
Keith J ones University of Greenwich, UK

Dean Kashiwagi Arizona State University, USA
Nthatisi Khatleli University of Cape Town, South Africa
Mohammed Kishk Robert Gordons University, UK
Andrew Knight Nottingham Trent University, UK
Scott Kramer Auburn University, USA
Esra Kurul Oxford Brookes University, UK

Richard Laing Robert Gordons University, UK
Terence Lam Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Veerasak Likhitruangsilp Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
J ohn Littlewood University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK
J unshan Liu Auburn University, USA
Champika Liyanage University of Central Lancashire, UK
Greg Lloyd University of Ulster, UK
S M Lo City University of Hong Kong
Mok Ken Loong Yonsei University, South Korea
Martin Loosemore University of New South Wales, Australia

David Manase Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Donny Mangitung Universitas Tadulako, Malaysia
Patrick Manu University of Wolverhampton, UK
Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa
Hendrik Marx University of the Free State. South Africa
Ludwig Martin Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa
Wilfred Matipa Liverpool J ohn Moores University, UK
Steven McCabe Birmingham City University, UK
Annie McCartney University of Glamorgan, UK
Andrew McCoy Virginia Tech, USA
Enda McKenna Queens University Belfast, UK
Kathy Michell University of Cape Town, South Africa
Roy Morledge Nottingham Trent University, UK
Michael Murray University of Strathclyde, UK

Saka Najimu Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Stanley Njuangang University of Central Lancashire, UK

Henry Odeyinka University of Ulster, UK
Ayodejo Ojo Ministry of National Development, Seychelles
Michael Oladokun University of Uyo, Nigeria
Alfred Olatunji Newcastle University, Australia
Austin Otegbulu
Beliz Ozorhon Bogazici University, Turkey
Obinna Ozumba University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Robert Pearl University of KwaZulu, Natal, South Africa
Srinath Perera Northumbria University, UK
J oanna Poon Nottingham Trent University, UK
Keith Potts University of Wolverhampton, UK
Elena de la Poza Plaza Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, Spain
Matthijs Prins Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hendrik Prinsloo University of Pretoria, South Africa

Richard Reed Deakin University, Australia
Zhaomin Ren University of Glamorgan, UK
Herbert Robinson London South Bank University, UK
Kathryn Robson RMIT, Australia
Simon Robson University of Northumbria, UK
David Root University of Cape Town, South Africa
Kathy Roper Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Steve Rowlinson University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Paul Royston Nottingham Trent University, UK
Paul Ryall University of Glamorgan, UK

Amrit Sagoo Coventry University, UK
Alfredo Serpell Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Chile
Winston Shakantu Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa
Yvonne Simpson University of Greenwich, UK
J ohn Smallwood Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa
Heather Smeaton-Webb MUJ V Ltd. UK
Bruce Smith Auburn University, USA
Melanie Smith Leeds Metropolitan University, UK
Hedley Smyth University College London, UK
J ohn Spillane Queens University Belfast, UK
Suresh Subashini University of Wolverhampton, UK
Kenneth Sullivan Arizona State University, USA

J oe Tah Oxford Brookes University, UK
Derek Thomson Heriot-Watt University, UK
Matthew Tucker Liverpool J ohn Moores University, UK

Chika Udeaja Northumbria University, UK

Basie Verster University of the Free State, South Africa
Francois Viruly University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

J ohn Wall Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland
Sara Wilkinson Deakin University, Australia
Trefor Williams University of Glamorgan, UK
Bimbo Windapo University of Cape Town, South Africa
Francis Wong Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Ing Liang Wong Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Andrew Wright De Montfort University, UK
Peter Wyatt University of Reading, UK

J unli Yang University of Westminster, UK
Wan Zahari Wan Yusoff Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia

George Zillante University of South Australia
Benita Zulch University of the Free State, South Africa
Sam Zulu Leeds Metropolitan University, UK


In addition to this, the following specialist panel of peer-review experts assessed
papers for the COBRA session arranged by CIB W113

J ohn Adriaanse London South Bank University, UK
J ulie Adshead University of Salford, UK
Alison Ahearn Imperial College London, UK
Rachelle Alterman Technion, Israel
Deniz Artan Ilter Istanbul Technical University, Turkey

J ane Ball University of Sheffield, UK
Luke Bennett Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Michael Brand University of New South Wales, Australia
Penny Brooker University of Wolverhampton, UK

Alice Christudason National University of Singapore
Paul Chynoweth University of Salford, UK
Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong
J ulie Cross University of Salford, UK

Melissa Daigneault Texas A&M University, USA
Steve Donohoe University of Plymouth, UK

Ari Ekroos University of Helsinki, Finland

Tilak Ginige Bournemouth University, UK
Martin Green Leeds Metropolitan University, UK
David Greenwood Northumbria University, UK
Asanga Gunawansa National University of Singapore

J an-Bertram Hillig University of Reading, UK
Rob Home Anglia Ruskin University, UK

Peter Kennedy Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Anthony Lavers Keating Chambers, UK
Wayne Lord Loughborough University, UK
Sarah Lupton Cardiff University

Tim McLernon University of Ulster, UK
Frits Meijer TU Delft, The Netherlands
J im Mason University of the West of England, UK
Brodie McAdam University of Salford, UK
Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa
Francis Moor University of Salford, UK

Issaka Ndekugri University of Wolverhampton, UK

J ohn Pointing Kingston University, UK

Razani Abdul Rahim Universiti Technologi, Malaysia

Linda Thomas-Mobley Georgia Tech, USA
Paul Tracey University of Salford, UK

Yvonne Scannell Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Cathy Sherry University of New South Wales, Australia
J ulian Sidoli del Ceno Birmingham City University, UK

Keren Tweeddale London South Bank University, UK

Henk Visscher TU Delft, The Netherlands

Peter Ward University of Newcastle, Australia

An Approach for Evaluating the Health and Safety Risk
Associated with Construction Project Features Based on their
Contribution to Accident Causation
Patrick Ackom Manu
University of Wolverhampton
Patrick.Manu@wlv.ac.uk

Nii Ankrah
University of Wolverhampton
Nii.Ankrah2@wlv.ac.uk

David Proverbs
University of Wolverhampton
D.Proverbs@wlv.ac.uk

Subashini Suresh
University of Wolverhampton
S.Subashini@wlv.ac.uk


Abstract

The evaluation of health and safety (H&S) risk and the implementation of risk control measures is a
hugely important requirement on construction projects. In this light, several risk assessment methods
and tools have been developed to enable the evaluation of the H&S risk posed by factors that have the
potential to cause harm. A review of accident causation literature reveals that construction project
features (CPFs) such as the nature of project, method of construction, site restriction, project duration,
procurement system, design complexity, level of construction, and subcontracting contribute to
accident causation and thus have the potential to cause harm. Beyond this, the review also reveals that
the insight given by literature in relation to the H&S risk associated with CPFs remains an elusive
issue which requires investigation. Drawing on existing risk assessment methods, the study puts forth
a method for evaluating the H&S risk associated with CPFs. This method evaluates the H&S risk
associated with CPFs based on the extent of their contribution to accident causation coupled with the
extent of exposure of the construction workforce to CPFs. By this method, the H&S risk associated
with a CPF is thus the combined effect of the extent to which the CPF contributes to accident
causation, and the degree of exposure of the workforce to the CPF. Seeing that the need to evaluate
risk is a crucial requirement on construction projects, this method will assist project participants in
assessing the H&S risk posed by CPFs based on which appropriate risk control measures can
subsequently be implemented.
Keywords: accident causation, health and safety, literature review, risk assessment

Introduction

Construction project features (CPFs) such as the procurement system, nature of project, method of
construction, site restriction, project duration, design complexity, level of construction, and
subcontracting are organisational, physical and operational attributes that characterize construction
projects. As acknowledged by several studies (cf. Loughborough University and UMIST (2003)),
these CPFs contribute to the causation of accidents on construction projects, and this causal
phenomenon cannot be underestimated as it has adverse health and safety (H&S) consequences. In
reporting the accident causal influence of CPFs, studies have mainly focused on the extent of their
contribution to accident causation (i.e. their potential to cause harm) with a diminutive look at the
H&S risk associated with CPFs. Given that effective accident prevention requires the knowledge of
the risk associated with factors that have the potential to cause harm there is therefore the need for an
examination of the H&S risk posed by CPFs. This study thus examines the risk associated with CPFs.
By reviewing literature on the contribution of CPFs to accident causation and risk assessment, the
study presents an expression for evaluating the H&S risk associated with CPFs.

The Contribution of Construction Project Features to Accident Causation

Through an extensive review of construction H&S literature, Manu et al. (2010) reported the
contribution of CPFs to accident causation. The review by Manu et al. (2010) (summary of which is
provided by Table 1) clearly demonstrates the undeniable existence of the contribution of CPFs to
accident causation and its adverse H&S consequences. As pointed by Manu et al. (2010), CPFs do not
directly cause accidents but rather do so through other accident causal factors which they (i.e. CPFs)
introduce into the construction process. This insight of the indirect causal influence of CPFs is
underpin by the causation models by Suraji et al. (2001) and Haslam et al. (2005) which indicate two
key hierarchies of causal factors: distal/originating factors and proximal factors. CPFs, emanating
from pre-construction decisions by clients, designers and the project management team are distal
causal factors and those causal factors which they introduce into the construction phase to give rise to
accidents are proximal factors. Drawing on the studies by Suraji et al. (2001) and Haslam et al. (2005)
the process by which CPFs contribute to accident causation can thus be represented as shown by
Figure 1.
Table 1: Summary of literature highlighting the contribution of CPFs to accident causation















Literature
Source

















Const. Project
Features
M
a
y
h
e
w
&

Q
u
i
n
l
a
n

(
1
9
9
7
)

E
g
b
u

(
1
9
9
9
)

H
S
L

(
1
9
9
9
)

G
i
b
b

(
1
9
9
9
,

2
0
0
1
)

E
n
t
e
c

U
K

L
t
d

(
2
0
0
0
)

M
c
K
a
y

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
2
)

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c

F
o
r
u
m

f
o
r

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
2
0
0
2
)

W
r
i
g
h
t

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
3
)

P
e
r
t
t
u
l
a

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
3
)

L
o
u
g
h
b
o
r
o
u
g
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

&

U
M
I
S
T

(
2
0
0
3
)

L
o
u
g
h
b
o
r
o
u
g
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y


&

M
i
l
a
n

P
o
l
y
t
e
c
h
n
i
c

(
2
0
0
4
)

C
h
u
a

&

G
o
h

(
2
0
0
5
)

L
o
u
g
h
b
o
r
o
u
g
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y


(
2
0
0
6
)

A
n
k
r
a
h

(
2
0
0
7
)

H
u
g
h
e
s

&

F
e
r
r
e
t
t

(
2
0
0
8
)

L
o
u
g
h
b
o
r
o
u
g
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y


(
2
0
0
9
)

H
S
E

(
2
0
0
9
)

Nature of Project
Method of Construction
Site Restriction
Project Duration
Procurement System
Design Complexity
Level of Construction
Subcontracting
Clients brief, Design decisions &
Project management decisions
Proximal Factor (PF)
Accident
Construction stage
Construction Project Feature(CPF)
Pre-construction stage
Figure 1: Process of contribution of CPFs to accident causation (Adapted from Suraji et al.
(2001) and Haslam et al. (2005))

Concerning the extent to which CPFs contribute to accident causation, Manu et al. (2010) pointed out
that it varies and this variation is influenced by the degree of prevalence of proximal factors within
their associated CPFs. This implies that the more common/prevalent a proximal factor is within a CPF
the greater the extent to which the CPF contributes to accident causation as shown by the continuum in
Table 2.

Table 2: Extent of contribution of CPFs to accident causation
Proximal Factors Extent of Contribution of CPF to Accident Causation
(Prevalence of proximal factor within CPF)
Low High
Uncertainty and
complexity of hazards
(Egbu, 1999;
Loughborough
University, 2006)

New work Refurbishment

Demolition
Manual handling (McKay
et al., 2002; Wright et al.,
2003)
Pre-assembly construction Conventional on-site construction
Site congestion
(Loughborough
University and UMIST,
2003; Loughborough
University, 2009)

Unrestricted site Restricted site
Time pressure
(Loughborough
University and UMIST,
2003; Loughborough
University, 2009)

Unconstrained duration Constrained duration
Fragmentation of project
team (HSL, 1999; Entec
UK Ltd, 2000;
Loughborough University
and UMIST, 2003 )

Design and Build Traditional procurement Management contracting

Partnering
Difficulty in constructing
(Loughborough
University and UMIST,
2003; Loughborough
University, 2009)

Simple Design Complex Design
(Simple aesthetic qualities) (Intricate aesthetic qualities)
Working at height /
Confined space (Hughes
and Ferrett, 2008; HSE,
2009)

Low-level construction Multi/High-level construction

Underground construction
Fragmentation of work
force (Mayhew and
Quinlan, 1997;

Single-layer subcontracting Multi-layer subcontracting
Loughborough University
and UMIST, 2003)

Despite the influence of the degree of prevalence of proximal factors on the extent to which CPFs
contribute to accident causation, it can also be argued that the extent to which CPFs contribute to
accident causation is primarily influenced by the extent to which their related proximal factors
contribute to accident causation (Manu et al., 2010). This is because it is by reason of the related
proximal factors contributing to the causation of accidents in the first place that the CPFs are also able
to contribute to accident causation as a result of their introduction of the proximal factors. This means
that if a proximal factor does not contribute to accident causation, no matter its prevalence within a
CPF that CPF will not also contribute to accident causation. Advancing this argument further, the
extent to which a CPF contributes to accident causation is therefore the combined influence of;
the extent to which the related proximal factor contributes to accident causation (represented
by R) ; and
the extent to which the proximal factor is prevalent/common within the CPF (represented by
r).
In order therefore to obtain a holistic measure of the extent to which CPFs contribute to accident
causation, Manu et al. (2010) put forth a mathematical expression which combines rated measures of
R and r. The extent to which CPFs contribute to accident causation indicates the extent to which
they contribute to harm and hence an indication of their potential to cause harm. The combined
influence of R and r which gives a holistic measure of the extent to which CPFs contribute to
accident causation thus gives an indication of the potential of CPFs to cause harm. This measure of
potential to cause harm is useful for accident prevention as it enables the identification CPFs that have
a high potential to cause harm. Despite the usefulness of the knowledge of the potential of a thing to
cause harm, the knowledge of the risk posed by that thing presents a greater opportunity for accident
prevention as the risk demonstrates the likelihood of the occurrence of harm (cf. Risk & Policy
Analyst limited (1999)). An insight into the H&S risk posed by CPFs is therefore valuable in dealing
with the accident causal influence of CPFs. However, regardless of the several reports that have
mentioned the contribution of CPFs to accident causation, the extant literature provides sparing insight
into the H&S risk associated with CPFs. For instance refurbishment has been associated with a higher
risk than new work (cf. Loughborough University (2006)), and conventional construction has also
been associated with a higher risk than pre-assembly construction (cf. McKay et al. (2002)). This
limitation by literature therefore implies the need to evaluate the risk associated with CPFs as it is
inadequate to use the extent to which CPFs contribute to accident causation (i.e. potential to cause
harm) as the sole basis for accident prevention. The subsequent section of the study thus examines
methods/expressions for assessing risk to identify a suitable expression for evaluating the risk
associated with CPFs.

An Expression for Evaluating the H&S Risk Associated with CPFs

According to Smith et al. (2006) the term risk originated from the French word risqu, and began to
appear in England, in its anglicized form, around 1830, when it was used in insurance transactions.
The term risk has evolved over time and it has been used differently in several contexts and this is
reflected by the several definitions of risk. Given the many perspectives on risks, it is not surprising
that Aven (2009) noted that the terminology and methods used in dealing with risk vary a lot, and thus
making it difficult to communicate across the various areas of application and disciplines. For instance
the Institution of Civil Engineers and The Actuarial Profession (2005) defined risk as a threat (or
opportunity) which could affect adversely (or favourably) the achievement of the objectives of an
investment. The Project Management Institute (PMI) (1996) also defined risk as a measure of the
probability and consequence of not achieving a defined project goal. Generally, the various definitions
for risk and methodologies for assessing risk are valid depending on the industry or sector or the
discipline within which it is being used (Smith et al., 2006).

In the context of H&S, there are also several definitions/expressions for risk. Some of the common
definitions used for risk are that: risk is the likelihood of a substance to cause harm (Hughes and
Ferrett, 2008); and risk is a combination of the likelihood of an occurrence of a hazardous event or
exposure(s) and the severity of injury or ill health that can be caused by the event or exposure(s) (BSI,
2008). Other expressions used for risk are;

Risk = probability x severity x frequency; Risk = severity x likelihood x exposure; and
Risk = probability x severity (Risk & Policy Analyst limited, 1999).

A widely accepted and hence commonly used definition/expression for H&S risk is that risk is a
function of hazard and exposure (Chicken and Posner, 1998; The Canadian Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety (CCOHS), 2008). This is expressed mathematically as, Risk = hazard x exposure,
with the severity of the hazard accounting for the severity of the harm/impact. Duffus and Worth
(2001) argued that risk is a function of hazard and exposure because, no matter the severity of a hazard
if there is no exposure, there would be no risk of harm. Hazard is the potential of a source or
substance to cause harm and risk is the likelihood of harm resulting from the potential of the source or
substance to cause harm (CCOHS, 2008; Hughes and Ferrett, 2008). Exposure is the extent to which
people are subjected to the hazard (CCOHS, 2008) and can be assessed in terms of duration (cf.
Duffus and Worth (2001) and CCOHS (2008)). Given that the extent to which CPFs contribute to
accident causation indicates their potential to cause harm, the above risk expression could thus be well
adapted for use in assessing the H&S risk posed by CPFs. The H&S risk posed by a CPF (represented
by Rk) will thus be the mathematical product of the extent of contribution of the CPF to accident
causation (i.e. its potential to cause harm, represented by C) and the degree of exposure of the
construction workforce to the CPF (represented by E) i.e. Rk =C x E.

Regarding the extent to which CPFs contribute to accident causation Manu et al. (2010) put forth a
mathematical expression which could be used to obtain a quantitative measure of the extent to which
CPFs contribute to accident causation. The expression combines the determinant factors of the extent
to which a CPF contributes to accident causation (i.e. R and r) by multiplication in a manner
similar to the combination by multiplication as used in mathematical risk expressions. As put forth by
Manu et al. (2010) the extent to which a CPF contributes to accident causation can be expressed as the
mathematical product of R and r based on the aforementioned fundamental argument that if a
proximal factor does not contribute to accident causation, no matter its prevalence within a CPF that
CPF will not also contribute to the causation of accident through the introduction of the proximal
factor. This argument is similar to the argument put forth by Duffus and Worth (2001) in support of
risk being the combined influence of hazard and exposure (i.e. risk = hazard x exposure). The extent
to which a CPF contributes to accident causation is thus; C =R x r (Manu et al., 2010), implying a
product of the potential of the proximal factor to cause harm, and the degree of prevalence of the
proximal factor within the CPF. Substituting C =R x r, into Rk = C x E, Rk = (R x r) x E. By this
expression, the H&S risk associated with a CPF is thus the combined effect of;
the extent to which the related proximal factor contributes to accident causation (i.e. the
potential of the proximal factor to cause harm, represented by R) ;
the extent to which the proximal factor is prevalent/common within the CPF (represented by
r); and the
duration of exposure of the construction workforce to the CPF (represented by E).

Having put forth the above risk expression for evaluating the H&S risk posed by CPFs, the following
section of the study examines its implications for accident prevention.

Implications for Accident Prevention and Research

As previously mentioned, CPFs emanate to a large extent from decisions by the client, design team
and project management team at the pre-construction stage of project procurement. As demonstrated
by Szymberski (1997) and Entec UK Ltd. (2000) this stage offers project participants the greatest
scope to influence the H&S outcomes of project. Risk management is a form of decision making
within project management (Smith et al., 2006), and so being a robust mechanism for assessing the
H&S risk associated with CPFs, the above risk expression provides pre-construction decision-makers
(the employer, project manager, quantity surveyor, and designers) the opportunity to make decisions
that will promote positive on-site H&S on the basis of the assessed H&S risk posed by CPFs.
However, at present, there are no quantitative measures for the determinant factors of the extent to
which CPFs contribute to accident causation (i.e. R and r) and thus implies the need for further
studies to determine these inputs for subsequent application in the derived H&S risk expression.
Efforts to obtain the quantitative measures of R and r through a cross-sectional survey are
currently underway. From the outcome of the quantitative study, it is envisaged that pre-construction
decision-makers would be able to evaluate the potential of CPFs to cause harm and consequently the
H&S risk implications and on that basis select CPFs that have low potential to cause harm and/or a
low risk. Where such selections are not practicable depending on constraints faced by pre-
construction decision-makers (cf. Suraji et al. (2001)) other risk mitigation measures (e.g. measures to
eliminate or reduce the prevalence of proximal factors) could be introduced by the decision-makers
(through certain aspects of the project design and management), and also by the construction team
when preparing the construction phase plan. Given that the pre-construction stage offers project
participants the greatest opportunity to influence the H&S outcomes of projects, it is anticipated that
the derived mathematical risk expression will be useful to pre-construction decision-makers and also
to the construction team in redressing the accident causal influence of CPFs.

Conclusions

Beyond demonstrating the diminutive look at the H&S risk posed by CPFs, this study has presented a
mathematical risk expression that offers the opportunity for evaluating the H&S risk associated with
CPFs. This expression approaches the evaluation of the risk associated with CPFs in a systematic
manner: first by determining the extent to which CPFs contribute to accident causation (i.e. their
potential to cause harm) and then combining this measure with the degree of exposure of the
construction workforce to CPFs. The expression offers a robust systematic approach for the
comparative analysis of the potential of CPFs to cause harm and consequently the H&S risk
implication. The quantitative inputs for determining the potential of CPFs to cause harm are presently
unknown and this is currently informing an ongoing research which aims to develop a H&S risk
evaluation model based on the extent of contribution of CPFs to accident causation. It is anticipated
that the eventual outcome of the research will contribute towards improving H&S on construction
projects through the systematic analysis of H&S risk for subsequent application in pre-construction
decision-making/planning.

References

Ankrah, N. A. (2007) An investigation into the impact of culture on construction project performance.
PhD thesis, School of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Wolverhampton.

Aven, T. (2009) Perspectives on risk in a decision making context- Review and discussion. Safety
Science, 47(6), 798- 806.

British Standard Institution (2008) Guide to achieving effective occupational health and safety
performance- BS 18004: 2008. BSI.

CCOHS (2008) Risk versus hazards. CCOHS.

Chicken, J . C. & Posner, T. (1998) The philosophy of risk. Thomas Telford.

Chua, D. K. H. & Goh, Y. M. (2005) Poisson model of construction incident occurrence. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 131(6), 715-722.

Duffus, J . & Worth, H. (2001) The science of chemical safety. International Union of Pure and
Applied chemistry.

Egbu, C. O. (1999) Skills, knowledge and competencies for managing construction refurbishment.
Construction Management and Economics, 17(1), 29-43.

Entec UK Ltd. (2000) Construction health and safety for the new millennium. Contract Research
Report 313/2000. HSE.

Gibb, A. G. F. (1999) Principles in off-site fabrication. Whittles, Caithness.

Gibb, A. G. F. (2001) Standardization and pre-assembly distinguishing myth from reality using case
study research. Construction Management and Economics, 19(3), 307315.

Haslam, R. A., Hide, S. A., Gibb, A. G. F., Gyi, D. E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. & Duff, A. R. (2005)
Contributing factors in construction accidents. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4), 401415.

HSE (2009) Construction intelligence report: Analysis of construction injury and ill-health
intelligence. HSE. Available online at www.hse.gov.uk/construction/pdf/conintreport.pdf. [Accessed
on 7th December, 2009].

Hughes, P. & Ferrett, E. (2008) Introduction to health and safety in construction, 3rd edition. Elsevier
Ltd, Oxford.

HSL (1999) The impact of procurement and contracting practices on health and safety - A review of
literature. Report: RAS/99/02. HSL.

Institution of Civil Engineers and The Actuarial Profession (2005) Risk analysis and management for
projects, 2nd edition. Thomas Telford, London.

Loughborough University (2006) Avoiding structural collapses in refurbishment - A decision support
system. HSE Research Report 204, HSE.

Loughborough University (2009) Phase 2 Report: Health and safety in the construction industry:
Underlying causes of construction fatal accidents External research. HSE.

Loughborough University & Milan Polytechnic (2004) Health and safety in refurbishment involving
demolition and structural instability. HSE Research Report 204. HSE.

Loughborough University & UMIST (2003) Causal factors in construction accidents. HSE Research
Report 156. HSE.

Manu, P., Ankrah, N., Proverbs, D., Suresh, S. (2010) An approach for determining the extent of
contribution of construction project features to accident causation. Safety Science, 48 (6), 687-692.

Mayhew, C. & Quinlan, M. (1997) Subcontracting and occupational health and safety in the
residential building industry. Industrial Relations Journal, 28(3), 192-205.

McKay, L. J ., Gibb, A. G. F., Haslam, R. & Pendlebury, M. (2002) Implications for the effect of
standardization and pre-assembly on health, safety and accident causality- preliminary results. In:
Greenwood, D. (Ed.) 18th Annual ARCOM Conference. University of Northumbria, Association of
Researchers in Construction Management.

Perttula, P., Merjama, J ., Kiurula, M. & Laitinen, H. (2003) Accidents in materials handling at
construction sites. Construction Management and Economics, 21(7), 729-736.

Project Management Institute (1996) A guide to project management body of knowledge. PMI
Publishing Division.

Risk & Policy Analyst Ltd. (1999) Risk ranking for small and medium enterprises. Contract Research
Report 256/1999. HSE.

Smith, N. J ., Merna, T. & J obling, P. (2006) Managing risk in construction, 2nd edition. Blackwell
Publishing.

Strategic Forum for Construction (2002) Accelerating change: a report by the Strategic Forum for
Construction, chaired by Sir J ohn Egan. Rethinking Construction, London.

Suraji, A., Duff, A. R. & Peckitt, S. J . (2001) Development of a causal model of construction accident
causation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(4), 337-344.

Szymberski, R. (1997) Construction project safety planning. TAPPI Journal, 80, 69-74.

Wright, M., Bendig, M., Pavitt, T. & Gibb, A. (2003) The case for CDM: better safer design-a pilot
study. Research Report 148. HSE.