Construction Project Management Site Safety Performance in Hong Kong

Transcription

1 Construction Project Management Site Safety Performance in Hong Kong Francis K. W. Wong Associate Professor Department of Building and Real Estate The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Abstract Despite the introduction of new legislation and schemes to improve site safety, the Hong Kong construction industry has continued to suffer from a consistently high accident rate. The general statistical trends have indicated that there is no significant improvement even though there had been additional safety requirements placed upon contractors through legislation. In 2000, there were slightly more than 74,521 site workers in the construction industry (Anson, et al, 2001), and the number of construction accidents amounted to 11,925. This represents an accident rate of 160 per 1,000 workers per annum. Out of the 43 industrial fatal accidents, 29 cases were from the construction industry (Labour Department, 2000). Also, the Construction Industry Review Committee has identified poor site safety record as one of the key problems adversely affecting the local construction industry (CIRC, 2001). Such a high accident rate is not acceptable to humanity in general and to the society in Hong Kong in particular. Since the human resource is one of the most valuable factors for production, it is therefore crucial not only for the construction industry, but for the society as a whole to identify possible remedial measures in order to reduce the number of construction accidents. One of the major problems for improvement of safety performance is the lack of comparable data or indicator to indicate how well or bad, in terms of safety, is a contractor performing on site. This paper is aimed to introduce a method, which can be used effectively to measure the safety performance of construction sites, as well as of construction companies, by the use of a site observation method. Keywords Site Observation, Site Safety Performance, Construction Industry, Hong Kong Introduction Hong Kong Society 1

2 The overall population of Hong Kong in 2000 was at 6,865,600 million, and the population growth rate was at 1.5 % per annum. The total labour force for year 2000 was at 3.4 million, with an increase of 1.2% as compared with the previous year. The overall unemployment rate in 2000 was at 5.0%, as compared to 6.3 % in 1999 (Labour Department, 2000). Economic Contributions In 1999, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for Hong Kong at current market prices was HK$ 1,227,658 million. The most significant economic sector in terms of contribution to the GDP for year 1999 was the services sector at HK$ 980,391 million, followed by the construction sector at HK$ 66,111 million. The manufacturing sector ranked third at HK$ 65,767 million, and the fourth sector was the primary sector (i.e. agriculture and mining) at HK$ 1,999 million. Thus, the contribution made by the construction sector to the overall GDP in 1999 was at 5.4% (Anson, et al, 2001). Industrial Accidents Although the economic contribution by the construction sector is not high, the number of industrial accidents from the construction industry is the highest among all industries in the last few years, except in 2000, as shown in Table 1. It is because of such a high accident rate in the construction industry that this study is important and significant. Table 1 - Number of Industrial Accidents in Selected Industries from 1994 to 2000 Selected Industries Construction 16.4 (37.1%) Catering 12.7 (28.7%) Manufacturing 10.7 (24.2%) Transport, 3.1 Storage & (7.0%) Communication Others 1.3 (2.9%) 15.3 (37.3%) 12.5 (30.5%) 9.2 (22.4%) 3.1 (7.6%) 16.5 (40.9%) 12.4 (30.8%) 7.2 (17.9%) 3.0 (7.4%) 18.6 (43.0%) 13.0 (30.0%) 7.2 (6.9%) 3.0 (6.9%) 19.6 (45.6%) 13.0 (30.2%) 6.3 (14.7%) 2.5 (14.7%) 14.1 (39.2%) 12.5 (34.7%) 5.5 (15.3%) 2.5 (6.9%) 11.9 (35.4%) 12.6 (37.5%) 5.4 (16.1%) 2.2 (6.5%) (2.2%) (3.0%) (3.5%) (3.7%) (3.9%) (4.5%) Total Note: Number of accidents (in thousand) Source: Labour Department (2000) Report of the Commissioner for Labour, and Labour Department (1999) Report of the Commissioner for Labour. 2

3 Definitions In this study, safety performance is defined as an indicator to measure the capability of a construction organization to maintain and improve occupational safety at either company or at project level. In Hong Kong, the Works Bureau has a registration system for contractors, who are eligible to tender for government contracts. These contractors are further classified into Group A, Group B, and Group C. Group A contractors are comparatively small contractors and Group B contractors are medium size contractors. Group C comprises the largest contractors in Hong Kong. Classification is according to their size, human and financial resources, working experiences and past track records. In this study, major contractors are defined as Group C contractors which meet the criteria stated above and are included in the approved list of the Works Bureau of the Hong Kong Government. Research Method Site Observation The site observation method used in this study was adopted from Laitinen, H., Ruohomaki, I., and Marjamaki, M., (1996) who had used the method successfully in the Netherlands to determine the safety index of construction sites. The purpose of having site observation is to have an effective method to measure site safety performance based on its simplicity format, which is easily adaptable and to be implemented by most construction companies. For this research, the site observations were carried out on twelve different sites of seven Group C contractors. Safety officers accompanied the researcher on site throughout the whole observation process, to ensure appropriate access, and to answer questions concerning various sampling areas on site. On average, each site observation took about 3 hours to complete. Results of the observation were recorded using the Standard Observation Form for Safety Performance Assessment (refer to Appendix 1). The six major items for observation adopted by Laitinen, et al (1996) and used in this research are as follows: (a) working habits, (b) scaffolding and ladder, (c) machines and equipment, (d) protection against falling, (e) lighting and electricity, and (f) order and tidiness Details of the observation procedures are as follows: 3

4 1. The researcher starts the observations from the uppermost floor if practicable, continues floor by floor and also observes the outside area. Every floor is divided into sampling areas, small enough for the researcher to see the whole area well from one standpoint. 2. Each worker in the sampling area is observed first. If the worker uses all the relevant safety equipment and does not take any obvious risk, the Correct column is marked. 3. Each scaffolding and ladder in the sampling area is scored as Correct if it complies with the safety standards. 4. Each machine, and each separate protection solution against falling is scored in the same way. 5. The electrical safety and lighting are observed differently: only one scoring on electrical safety, and another relating to the general artificial lighting (only if artificial lighting is necessary) is made in each sampling area. Electrical safety is scored as Correct if the temporary electric installations and cables are safe and properly located. 6. Order and tidiness is scored last, one score relating to the general order of the sampling area, one to each work post, and one relating to each waste container in the sampling area. Order is scored as Correct if gangways are open, there are no unnecessary remnants on the floor, and if the waste container is not too full. 7. If the researcher is not sure how to score, the item is not scored at all. Safety Index Score = Correct / (Correct + Not Correct) x 100 %. The maximum score achievable is 100% (Laitinen, et al, 1996). The averaged safety observation scores of the construction companies, which are derived from the site observations, are compared with the site safety performance indices. The site safety performance indices were evaluated by the use of safety model developed by Wong (2000). The safety performance indices, together with the site observation scores are then plotted on a common scale to determine their comparative relationships. The two sets of data are further analysed by the use of Pearson Correlation Analysis to determine their correlations. Analysis of the Results The results obtained from the site observation analysis represent an independent verification of actual safety practice. The purpose of this verification is to compare the site observation scores produced for each site and company against the site safety performance industry norm and the site safety performance index of each of the 7 Group C Contractors comprising the study. 4

5 Table 2 - Priority Score Sheet for Site Observation Score % and Project Ranking Project Nature Size of Company Project Code Score % and Company Ranking 93.3 (1) Public Housing (HOS) C C1 (C1+C2)/2 = 76.0 (3) 86.2 (2) Public Housing (Rental) C D1 (D1+D2)/2 = 83.8 (1) 82.1 (3) Public Housing (Rental) C E1 E1 = 82.1 (2) 81.4 (4) Public Housing (Rental) C D (5) Public Housing (Rental) C A1 (A1+A2)/2 = 73.3 (4) 70.3 (6) Public Housing (HOS) C G1 (G1 + G2)/2 = 62.1 (5) 68.9 (7) Medical Rehab. Centre C A (8) Public Housing (Rental) C C (9) Health Care Centre C G (10) Commercial Building C F1 F1 = 48.1 (6) 45.0 (11) Private Residential C B1 (B1+B2)/2 = 42.4 (7) 39.7 (12) Private Residential C B2 Table 2 indicated the site observation scores of all twelve construction sites from seven construction companies. The scores of construction sites ranged from 39.7 % to 93.3% respectively. Based on the site observation scores of construction sites, scores and priority ranking of the seven construction companies are evaluated. The scores of construction companies ranged from 42.4% to 83.8%. Contractor B is a subsidiary company of the same developer for Projects B1 and B2. It is likely that the developer is comparatively loose on its own subsidiary company on the issue of construction safety when it is working on the developer's own projects. This gives the reasons why the score for safety index for Projects B1 & B2 are particularly low. 5

6 Table 3 - Site Safety Performance Indices for Individual Parameters for Group C Contractors Parameters for Safety Performance on Site Communication on Site Site Safety Committee C G A E D F B Safety Training Safety Practice and Procedures Participation and Consultation Site Safety Performance Index for Group C Contractors Based on literature review and questionnaire survey, variables affecting safety performance on site were selected. Factor analysis was used to examine how factors are grouped in accordance with their common relationships between variables. The six identified major factors affecting safety performance on site are: communication on site, site safety committee, safety training, safety practice & procedures, and participation & consultation. As refer to Table 3, the site safety performance indices ranged from to As compared with the industry norm for site safety performance at (Wong, 2000), the site safety performance for five out of those seven construction companies is above, and two is below the industry norm. Table 4 - Comparative Analysis between Site Observation Score and Site Safety Performance Index for Group C Contractors Company Code Site Observation Score for Group C Site Safety Performance Index for Group C Contractors + D 83.8% (0.838) E 82.1% (0.821) C 76.0% (0.760) A 65.6% (0.656) G 62.1% (0.621) F 48.1% (0.481) B 42.4% (0.424)

7 @ Refer to Table 2 Priority Score Sheet for Site Observation + Refer to Table 3 Site Safety Performance Indices for Individual Parameters for Group C Contractors Table 4 has provided very useful information for Group C Contractors to compare their site safety performance indices with other construction companies, as well as to benchmark with the industry norm, in order to make improvement for safety performance on site. The site observation exercise was carried out between 1998 and Table 4 compares and verifies the site safety performance indices for Group C Contractors against their site observation scores. The site safety performance indices for the seven construction companies ranged from to 0.900, as compared to their respective site observation scores ranged from to By the use of Pearson Correlation Analysis, the correlation coefficient between site observation scores and site safety performance indices is determined, which equals to The analysis demonstrates the positive correlation between site observation scores and site safety performance indices, and it also indicates that these two sets of data are directly proportional. The comparisons show that there is correlation between the ranking based on the site observation scores, and the site safety performance indices for Group C Contractors that are evaluated by the safety performance model. The comparative analysis has verified the validity of the model for Group C Contractors safety performance on site, by the use of scores derived from the site observations. Conclusion Site observation as a research method has its limitations. The site observation results only provide information concerning the safety practice and procedures that are obviously visible on site, such as safety practice and procedures. It does not provide more subtle background information such as 'safety training', and 'communication on site'. Nevertheless, this research method is still judged to be effective in this study as a tool for verification of the factor affecting safety performance of construction sites, by concentrating on safety practice and procedures. To conclude, site observation can be used as a very simple and effective tool to measure the safety performance on construction sites. The site observation scores could be used as a comparison either between projects of the same contractors, as well as to compare the aggregated scores between construction companies. By knowing the relative safety performance of a construction project, as compared with others, the site management team can make better judgment and decision on the deployment of their limited resources to tackle safety problems, as well as to reduce the number of accidents on construction sites. 7

8 References Anson, M., Chan, E., Chiang, Y.H., Choy, L., Hui, E., Raftery, J., Sujeet, S., and Tse, R. (2001) An Annual Report of the Construction Industry of China Hong Kong, The 7 th Asia Construct Conference, 3-6 October, New Dehli, India, 53 pp. CIRC (2001) Construct for Excellence, Report of the Construction Industry Review Committee, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, January, 207 pp. Labour Department (1999) Report of the Commissioner for Labour, Hong Kong, 153 pp. Labour Department (2000) Report of the Commissioner for Labour, Hong Kong, 136 pp. Laitinen, H. and Ruohomaki, I. (1996) The Effects of Feedback and Goal Setting on Safety Performance at Two Construction Sites. Safety Science, 24(1), Laitinen, H., Ruohomaki, I., and Marjamaki, M., (1996) TR-Method for Measuring the Safety on Building Construction Sites, in Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp Wong, K.W. (2000) Construction Safety in Hong Kong the Development of Models for the Safety Performance Assessment of Major Contractors, Unpublished PhD Thesis, South Bank University, September, 230 pp. 8

9 Appendix 1 Standard Observation Form for Safety Performance Assessment on Construction Sites Staff Name: Phone: Mobile: Position: Fax: Site: Company: Date: Time: Item Correct Total Not Correct Total 1. Working Habit 2. Scaffolding and Ladder 3. Machines and Equipment 4. Protection Against Falling 5. Lighting and Electricity 6. Order and Tidiness Total Correct Total Not Correct Correct Safety Index Score = x 100 = x 100 = Correct + Not Correct Project Particulars: Client: Contract Sum: 9

10 Contract Period (Months): Stage of Development: Observation Remarks: Observation Standpoints (i.e. Sampling Areas): Principles of Sampling and Criteria for Scoring Item Principles of Sampling Criteria for Correct Score Working habits One observation (obs.) for each worker The worker uses the required safety devices and does not take any obvious risk Scaffolding One obs. for each separate Fulfills the safety standards & ladder structure and equipment Machines & One obs. for each machine Fulfills the safety standards Equipment Protection against falling One obs. for each edge Fulfills the safety standards Lighting & electricity Order & tidiness One obs. for artificial lighting at each work post One obs. for the artificial lighting in each observation area One obs. for electrical safety in each observation area One obs. for each waste container One obs. at each work post One obs. at each observation area Lighting is sufficient Temporary electric installations are safe & cables are properly located The waste container is not full There are no remnants on the floor, and gangways are kept free Source: Laitinen, H. and Ruohomaki, I. (1996) The Effects of Feedback and Goal Setting on Safety Performance at Two Construction Sites. Safety Science, 24 (1),