Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

Strategic safety management information system for building projects in Singapore

Imriyas Kamardeen
Article information:
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Imriyas Kamardeen, (2009),"Strategic safety management information system for building projects in
Singapore", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 16 Iss 1 pp. 8 - 25
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980910927868
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 18:49 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 17 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1904 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Imanol Nuñez, Mikel Villanueva, (2011),"Safety capital: the management of organizational knowledge
on occupational health and safety", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 56-71 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13665621111097254
Nigel Craig, James Sommerville, (2006),"Information management systems on construction
projects: case reviews", Records Management Journal, Vol. 16 Iss 3 pp. 131-148 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09565690610713192
D. LANGFORD, S. ROWLINSON, E. SAWACHA, (2000),"Safety behaviour and safety management:
its influence on the attitudes of workers in the UK construction industry", Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 133-140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb021138

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:364498 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

ECAM
16,1 Strategic safety management
information system for building
projects in Singapore
8
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Imriyas Kamardeen
Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales,
Received September 2007
Revised August 2008 Sydney, Australia
Accepted September 2008

Abstract
Purpose – The construction industry in Singapore has been recording higher accident rates
compared with other industries. As an initiative to reduce occupational accidents, the Building and
Construction Authority of Singapore proposed to clients to adopt quality-fee method (QFM) for tender
evaluation, departing from the traditional lowest price method. Assessing tenderers’ safety proposals
is a crucial task for clients’ project managers to implement QFM, but it is a difficult and challenging
task. This study aims to provide a tool to facilitate this.
Design/methodology/approach – A triple-index model was developed for estimating potential
accident risks in building projects, given that a contractor’s proposed safety system is in place to
combat the accident hazards inherent in the project. The model was then automated as a decision
support system (DSS). Case studies were conducted to test the reliability and accuracy of the DSS.
Findings – The DSS produces project accident indices, and it was found in the case studies that
values for this index are positively correlated with the number of accidents in building projects. The
findings proved that the DSS makes a significant contribution to the state-of-the-art of risk
assessment.
Practical implications – The proposed model and its DSS would facilitate the implementation of
QFM for tender evaluation and thereby reduce accidents.
Originality/value – The paper presents a novel tool to combat accidents in construction at the early
stage of tender evaluation.
Keywords Procurement, Construction industry, Quality, Safety, Decision support systems
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The construction industry is perceived to be one of the more dangerous industries,
which has a poor safety performance record globally. Singapore’s construction
industry, for only 29 per cent of the total number of industrial workers, accounted for
40 per cent of worksite accidents (Chua and Goh, 2004). Moreover, the latest analysis of
worksite accidents by Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower revealed that the
construction industry recorded the highest accident frequency and severity among
all the industries in Singapore (OSHD-MOM, 2006a). Hence, raising safety standards
by introducing new laws and frameworks has been a goal, following a series of high
Engineering, Construction and profile construction accidents in previous years in Singapore.
Architectural Management The committee of inquiry into the Nicoll Highway collapse recommended that a
Vol. 16 No. 1, 2009
pp. 8-25 strict weightage system should form part of the tender evaluation system (Lian, 2005).
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
The weightage system should include non-technical and non-commercial attributes
DOI 10.1108/09699980910927868 such as safety records and culture of the bidder, and its core or corporate competency.
 Such a weightage system should apply even if the tenderer is a joint venture or a Strategic safety
consortium. It was recommended to clients’ project managers to adopt the quality-fee management
method (QFM) for tender evaluations, departing from the traditional lowest price
method (MND, 2005). According to the QFM, tenders are scored based on pre-defined
weightings for both price and quality attributes. Quality attributes in a tender include
safety management proposal, method statement, resources, programme and
innovations. Then, apply a formula approach to combine price scores and quality 9
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

scores as follows (BCA, 2005):

.
the lowest price tender obtains the maximum price-score and the highest quality
tender yields the maximum quality-score; and
. the tender with the highest overall score would be selected.

The effective assessment of the safety proposal in a tender is one of the key aspects for
project managers to implement the QFM. This study aims at developing a tool to
facilitate project managers’ task of assessing the safety proposals for building
construction projects by means of assessing the potential accident risks given that the
proposed safety management system is in place. The objectives of this paper are to:
.
identify and explore the factors that lead to accidents in building projects;
.
develop a methodology for estimating accident risks in building projects; and
.
develop a decision support system (DSS) for automating the methodology above.

The paper discusses the research via various sections in a logical order. First, an
extensive literature review on the nature of occupational injuries is presented, followed
by an account of hazards in building projects and their assessment parameters. A
safety audit roster for building projects is then explored. Subsequently, a triple-index
model for estimating accident risks on building sites is proposed, followed by the DSS
architecture that automates the triple-index model.

Occupational injuries in construction

Occupational injuries from construction activities in general are defined by Davies and
Tomasin (1996) as:
.
danger of physical injury and fatality; and
.
health problems.

Construction accidents resulting in physical injuries and fatalities can be broadly

categorised into the following eight basic groups (Hinze, 2005; Haslam et al., 2005):
(1) Falling from heights – involves workers falling from higher floors to lower
floors/ground level, and falling from ground level to excavation level.
(2) Struck by falling objects/moving vehicles – primarily involves workers being
struck by equipment, private vehicles, falling materials, vertically hoisted
materials and horizontally transported materials.
(3) Excavation-related accidents – encompass cave-in, contact with underground
utilities, subsidence of nearby structures, falling of materials/vehicles/objects
on to people working in the excavation, fumes, gases, and inrushes of water at
the bottom of excavations.
 ECAM (4) Accident by operation of machinery/tools – caused by toppling of machinery,
16,1 collapse of the parts of machinery, and unsuitable or unsafe hand-held tools.
(5) Electrocution – caused by contact with electric current from machines,
appliances, light fixtures, faulty electrical equipment and tools, and contact
with overhead/underground power lines.
10 (6) Fire/explosion – resulting from the explosion of pressure vessels or gasoline
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

pipes, and fire due to welding/hot works.

(7) Failure of temporary structures – involves the failure of formworks and
scaffoldings.
(8) Others – e.g. slipping on the same level, oxygen deficiency in confined spaces,
lightning strike, etc.

Health problems affecting construction workers are shown in Table I.

Abdelhamid and Everett (2000) intensely analysed the root causes of construction
accidents. Their work can be summarised by the four clusters as shown in Table II.

Health hazard Cause

1. Skin diseases Contact with cement, slaked lime, paint, varnish,

thinner, solvents, strong chemicals, grouts, seals and
adhesives
2. Hardness of hearing Noise
3. Respiratory diseases Inhalation of toxic dusts, vapour and ashes
4. Muscular and bone diseases High static stress and unnatural working postures
5. Cancer Carcinogenic materials
6. Mental illness Stress, inhalation of toxic materials affecting brain
and central nervous system
Table I. 7. Diseases caused by vibration Vibration
Health problems in
construction Source: Imriyas et al. (2007)

Cluster Factor

1. Working condition Type of work

Work location
Status of tools, equipment and temporary structures
Physical layout of the workplace
2. Management failure Poor housekeeping
Violation of workplace safety standards
Poor supervision and checking of work progress,
tools, equipment and temporary structures
3. Unsafe acts of workers Disregarding safety rules
Horseplay
Table II. Skill and training
Root causes of 4. Non-human-related events Unexpected ground conditions/terrain
construction accidents Adverse weather/earthquake/tsunami, etc. on site
 The working condition is the inherent work hazard owing to a project’s scope and the Strategic safety
location. The inherent hazard is managed with a safety management system, which
can cause occupational injuries when flaws exist. The negligent attitude of workers to
management
forego safety standards also causes accidents, although it is less quantifiable.
Non-human related events are beyond control and prediction. Hence, the estimation of
occupational injury risks in construction projects shall assess two factors: the inherent
hazard level in the project, and the safety management level. As portrayed in Figure 1, 11
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

hazards incline the project towards the accident zone while safety pulls it towards the
safe zone. When the safety force is at least equal in magnitude to the hazard imposed,
the project stays in a neutral zone. Safety below hazard level moves the project towards
the accident zone. Hence, the prediction of occupational injuries in a project entails the
assessment and comparison of the magnitudes of project hazard and safety.

Assessing project hazards

The combination of work by Davies and Tomasin (1996), and Jannadi and Assaf (1998)
produced a list of high hazardous trades in building construction projects for
facilitating hazards assessments. The hazardous trades are as follows:
(1) Demolition works.
(2) Excavation works.
(3) Scaffolding and ladder works.
(4) False works (temporary structures).
(5) Roof works.
(6) Erection of structural frameworks.
(7) Crane use.
(8) Construction machinery and tools usage.
(9) Works on contaminated sites.
(10) Welding and cutting works.
(11) Works in confined spaces.
A particular project may have many of these trades and the level of hazard inherent in
each trade is determined by its respective risk attributes. An extensive literature
review was carried out to identify the significant attributes that contribute to the level
of hazard in each of the above hazardous trades. The fishbone diagram in Figure 2
summarises these risk attributes.

Figure 1.
Hazard vs safety trade-off
 ECAM
16,1

12
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Figure 2.
Fishbone
diagram-building hazard
attributes

Measuring contractors’ safety performance

There are several methods for measuring the safety performance on construction sites:
(1) Applying the concept of profiling that consists of the development of a
corporate safety performance standard in a number of categories that are
considered important by clients’ project managers. Companies are then
compared to these categories and a profile is made showing this comparison
(Fletcher, 1972).
(2) Conducting a safety audit – a comprehensive audit is a review of the company’s
safety programme. A properly conducted safety audit will determine the
strengths and weaknesses of the current safety programme (Kavianian and
Wentz, 1990).
(3) The injury frequency, which is the number of lost-time injuries per million
hours of exposure, can also be used to measure the safety performance (Jannadi
and Al-Sudairi, 1995).

Nevertheless, conducting a safety audit can give a leading indicator of the safety
performance of a contractor whereas the other two methods provide with lagging
indicators. Jannadi and Assaf (1998) also recommended that safety auditing is better
than other methods to assess the safety performance of contractors.
Teo et al. (2004) developed a (3P þ I) model for measuring the effectiveness of
safety management systems of construction firms in Singapore by assessing policy
factors, process factors, personnel factors and incentive factors. Policy factors refer
to safety principles and structures that are in place to ensure safety on site. These
include relevant codes of practice, and in-house safety rules and regulations. Process
factors comprise safety attributes that are directly associated with construction
operations. Among the attributes are management of sub-contractors, safe work
procedures, communication and information transfer, hazard identification, and
housekeeping. Personnel factors refer to key human-related variables that affect site
safety such as training and competency, and the structure of the safety committee.
Finally, incentive factors are defined as the system that a project has in place to
motivate site personnel and sub-contractors to work safely. A roster for a
 project-specific safety assessment model was derived from the (3P þ I) model, the Strategic safety
Code of Practice for Safety Management Systems for Construction Sites (SPSB, management
1999) and Singapore’s new Workplace Safety and Health Act (OSHD-MOM, 2006b).
The safety auditing for construction projects has to scrutinise the effectiveness of
the aspects listed in Table III.

13
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Triple-index model for estimating accident risks

Based on the findings from the preceding literature reviews, a triple-index model was
formulated to predict accident risks in building projects, as shown in Figure 3. As per
the proposed model, the estimation of accident risks in a building construction project
involves three main phases:
(1) Estimation of a project hazard index (PHI) based on the framework shown in
Appendix 1. This framework assesses the degree of hazard in the project. The
project is broken down into 11 hazardous trades, as identified in the literature
review, and the degree of hazard in each trade is assessed by analysing its
hazard driving variables as identified in Figure 2.
(2) Estimation of a project safety index (PSI) exploiting the framework shown in
appendix 2. This framework assesses the safety preparedness by analysing
eight safety factors with their respective sub-factors that are shown in Table III.
The variables that are pertinent to the assessment of safety in each factor were
identified through an extensive literature review and arranged in the
framework in appropriate orders.
(3) Estimating a project accident index (PAI) by a trade-off analysis between the
PHI and the PSI.

Safety element Audit aspect

1. Project safety organisation Adequacy of the team and duties and responsibilities
2. Risk assessment and management Adequacy of the in-house risk assessment system for the
project
3. Safe work practices Application of safe work procedures and codes of practice
Permit-to-work systems
Personal protective equipment usage
4. Safety training and competency of Safety training to management team
people Certification & safety training of operators
In-house safety training to workers
5. Safety inspection Regular inspection of hazardous activities and the work site
Housekeeping
6. Machinery and tools use and Testing and certification of machinery
maintenance regime Inspection systems for machinery and tools
Maintenance systems for machinery
7. Sub-contractors’ safety systems Sub-contractors’ safety management systems
Sub-contractor monitoring
8. Emergency management system Emergency response plan Table III.
Emergency response team Project safety auditing
Emergency response equipment and facilities roster
 Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

14
16,1
ECAM

Figure 3.
Triple-index model
 The estimation of the PHI entails six steps as described as follows: Strategic safety
(1) Identification of relevant hazardous trades for the project, which are agents for management
the occurrence of accidents, out of the 11 trades listed in the PHI estimation
framework (see appendix 1). That is, when a project is to be hazard-rated, the
risk assessor will study the project scope and location, and identify relevant
hazardous trades.
15
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

(2) Once relevant hazardous trades are identified, the next step is to identify
the hazard-rating attributes from the PHI estimation framework for each
trade.
(3) Performing a detailed study on the scope and location of the work for the
identified hazardous trade, and rating the level of hazard posed by each
attribute, based on the PHI estimation framework.
(4) Aggregating the attribute hazard ratings, normalising the ratings and
computing a trade hazard index so that 0 # trade hazard index # 1.00.
Reiterating the process for all the hazardous trades in the project.
(5) Aggregating the estimated trade hazard indices and normalising them based on
a suitable trade hazard weightage. Each trade is considered to have the same
influence over the total project hazard because accidents can happen in any
trade and therefore equal scrutiny is essential to avoid venues for mishaps.
Thus, a hazard weightage of 1/m is suggested for each trade to normalise the
trade hazard indices, where m is the number of hazardous trades that are
applicable to the project.
(6) Finally, aggregating the normalised hazard trade indices and deriving a PHI.

The estimation of the PSI involves seven steps as described as follows:

(1) Identification of the factors that are to be safety-rated in a project and their
pertinent sub-factors, as per the PSI estimation framework in appendix 2. The
parameters for safety auditing of each factor were identified in the literature
and listed in here.
(2) Upon the identification of the safety factors and sub-factors, the next step is to
identify the safety attributes for each sub-factor from the PSI estimation
framework.
(3) Studying the safety management system in place as opposed to the hazards
in the project, and rating the adequacy of safety attributes for each
sub-factor. That is, when a project is to be safety-rated, the risk assessor will
assess the suitability and adequacy of the safety management for each
attribute in each safety sub-factor, and rate it based on the PSI estimation
framework.
(4) Aggregating the attribute safety ratings for each sub-factor and normalising
the ratings to compute the sub-factor safety index so that 0 # sub-factor safety
index # 1.00. Reiterating the process for all the sub-factors.
(5) Aggregating the sub-factor safety indices of the safety factor and normalising
them to compute the factorial safety index. Reiterating the process for all the
safety factors in the PSI estimation framework.
 ECAM (6) Aggregating the factorial safety indices and normalising them with a suitable
safety weightage. Each safety factor is considered to have the same bearing
16,1 towards the PSI, and therefore a safety weightage of 1/n is suggested for
normalising factorial safety indices, where n is the number of safety factors that
are applicable to the project.
(7) Finally, aggregating the normalised factorial safety indices, and deriving a PSI.
16
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Decision support system (DSS) architecture

The DSS architecture that automates the proposed triple-index model is depicted in
Figure 4. The proposed DSS consists of two major components: graphical user
interface (GUI) and processing unit (PU). The GUI consists of three major interfaces to
interact with the user:
(1) The interface for keying-in of values for project hazard attributes to compute
the PHI.
(2) The interface for feeding-in of values for project safety attributes to compute the
PSI.
(3) The interface for displaying the final output – the PAI.

The PU contains three sub-components namely, PHI computer, PSI computer and PAI
computer, and their respective functions are described below.

Figure 4.
DSS architecture
 PHI computer Strategic safety
The PHI computer estimates the project hazard level via the PHI, based on the framework management
in Appendix 1. Hence, the PHI is derived by the following normalised formula:

" #
1 DMH score þ EXH score þ SLH score þ FLH score RFH score þ ERH score
PHI ¼ ð1Þ
m þCRH score þ MTH score þ CsiteH score þ WCH score þ CspaceH score 17
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

where: 0 , m # 11
DMHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by demolition works.
EXHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by excavation works.
SLHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by scaffolding and ladder use.
FLHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by false works.
RFHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by roof works.
ERHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by erection works.
CRHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by crane use.
MTHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by machinery and tools use.
CsiteHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by works on contaminated sites.
WCHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by welding and cutting works.
CspaceHscore = Degree of hazard contributed by works in confined spaces.

However, not every hazard trade may be applicable to a given project. Relevant trades
need to be chosen and hazard-rated. Hence, the PHI computation will exploit the
following algorithm:

IF demolition hazard ¼ true THEN

X
3
DMH score ¼ 13 £ 15 Demolition hazard attribute scorea
a¼1 ð2Þ
ELSE DMH score ¼ 0
ENDIF

The coefficients of 1/3 and 1/5 are included because the hazard score for demolition
works is computed by equally assessing three obligatory attributes on a 1-5 scale, and
then the score is normalised to 1.00. A similar approach is pursued to compute other
hazardous trade scores too.

PSI computer
The PSI computer estimates the effectiveness of the project safety management system
via the PSI, based on the framework in appendix 2. Hence, the PSI is derived based on
the following normalised formula:
 ECAM PSI ¼
1
{PSOscore þ RAM score þ SWP score þ STC score þ SI score
16,1 n ð3Þ
þ SMT score þ SM score þ EM score }

where: 0 , n # 8
PSOscore = Adequacy score for project safety organisation.
18
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

RAMscore = Adequacy score for risk assessment and management system.

SWPscore = Adequacy score for safe work practices.
STCscore = Adequacy score for safety training and competency of people
involved.
SIscore = Adequacy score for safety inspection system.
SMTscore = Adequacy score for safe use and maintenance of machinery and tools
regime.
SMscore = Adequacy score for sub-contractors’ safety systems.
EMscore = Adequacy score for emergency management system.
For each safety factor the score is the sum of the attribute scores divided by the
number of obligatory attributes, and divided again by the range of the scoring system.
For example, PSOscore is computed by equally assessing three obligatory attributes of
the factor on a 1-5 scale. Therefore, the PSOscore is calculated as per formula (4). A
similar method is adopted to calculate the scores for the other safety factors too:

1 1X 3
PSOscore ¼ £ PSO attribure scorea
3 5 a¼1

PAI computer
The PAI computer peruses a trade-off between the PHI and the PSI, and derives a PAI
value for the project based on the following algorithm:
If PSI , PHI
Then PAI ¼ 1 2 ðPSI =PHI Þ Else PAI ¼ 0 ð5Þ
Endif

DSS implementation and validation

The proposed DSS was prototyped using VBATM and MS AccessTM. Subsequently, an
empirical study was conducted to ascertain the accuracy and reliability of the proposed
triple-index model and the DSS. Five building projects, which are nearing completion,
were chosen for a predictive verification of the DSS. Accident data on these projects were
first collected. Then, hazards and safety assessments were carried out, in collaboration
with site safety officers, using the proposed model. The assessment data were then keyed
into the prototype DSS and the PAI value for each project was derived. The results are
shown in Table IV. A graph was plotted, as depicted in Figure 5, to observe the
relationship between the PAI values and the number of accidents. It showed a strong
 correlation between the computed PAI values and the actual number of accidents. That Strategic safety
is, the higher the PAI value, the higher the frequency of accidents. management
Conclusion
As part of its strategies to improve safety standards in construction projects,
Singapore conceptualises the implementation of the QFM for tender evaluation,
departing from the traditional lowest price method. Under the QFM, tenders are scored 19
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

based on both price and quality attributes. Safety management proposal is one of the
key quality attributes. The effective assessment and scoring of tenderers’ safety
proposals is therefore a crucial task for clients’ project managers.
It is hypothesised that the effectiveness or flaw of the proposed safety proposal can
be assessed by establishing the potential accident risks given that the proposed safety
system is in place. This study therefore proposes a triple-index model for estimating
accident risks in building construction projects. The model firstly assesses the degree
of hazards in a given project and then measures the safety preparedness of the
contractor to arrest the hazards that cause accidents. Subsequently, it performs a
trade-off analysis between hazard and safety preparedness to derive an accident index,
which reveals the potential accident risks in the project. Subsequently, the model was
automated as a DSS exploiting MS AccessTM and VBATM, tested empirically and
found to be reliable.
The proposed triple-index model and its DSS address one of the current challenges
faced by clients’ project managers in the implementation of the QFM for tender
evaluations. The study also reveals a systematic approach for predicting accident risks in

Project Number of accidents PAI value

A 26 0.450
B 5 0.110
C 15 0.375
D 39 0.570 Table IV.
E 24 0.430 Empirical test results

Figure 5.
PAI vs number of
accidents
 ECAM building projects. Nevertheless, the proposed model covers only building projects. It could
be extended in future research efforts to accommodate any type of construction projects.
16,1
References
Abdelhamid, T.S. and Everett, J.G. (2000), “Identifying root causes of construction accidents”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126 No. 1, pp. 52-60.
20
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Building and Construction Authority (BCA) (2005), “Framework for quality-fee selection method
(QFM) system”, available at: www.bca.gov.sg/PanelsConsultants/others/QFMFramework.
pdf (accessed 1 July 2006).
Chua, D.K.H. and Goh, Y.M. (2004), “Incident causation model for improving feedback of safety
knowledge”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 4,
pp. 542-51.
Davies, V.J. and Tomasin, K. (1996), Construction Safety Handbook, 2nd ed., Thomas Telford,
London.
Fletcher, J. (1972), The Industrial Environment, National Profile Ltd, Willowdale.
Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. and Duff, A.R. (2005),
“Contributing factors in construction accidents”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 401-15.
Hinze, J. (2005), “Use of trench boxes for worker protection”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 131 No. 4, pp. 494-500.
Jannadi, M.O. and Al-Sudairi, A. (1995), “Safety management in the construction industry in
Saudi Arabia”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 15-24.
Jannadi, M.O. and Assaf, S. (1998), “Safety assessment in the built environment of Saudi Arabia”,
Safety Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 60-3.
Kamardeen, I., Low, S.P. and Teo, A.L. (2007), “A decision support system for predicting accident
risks in building projects”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 149-62.
Kavianian, H.R. and Wentz, C.A. (1990), Occupational and Environmental Safety Engineering and
Management, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Lian, G.C. (2005), “LTA acts to boost circle line site safety”, The Straits Times, April 20, p. H3.
Ministry of National Development (MND) (2005), “Government response to the final report of the
committee of inquiry into the Nicoll Highway collapse”, available at: www.mnd.gov.sg/
newsroom/newsreleases/2005/news170505.htm (accessed 1 July 2006).
Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower (OSHD-MOM) (2006a), “MOM
statistics”, available at: www.mom.gov.sg/Statistics/OSHD/Accidents Injuries (accessed
15 December 2005).
Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower (OSHD-MOM) (2006b),
“Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA)”, available at: www.mom.gov.sg/OSHD/
Legislation/Workplace þ Safety þ and þ Health þ Act.htm (accessed 18 April 2006).
Singapore Productivity and Standards Board (SPSB) (1999), Code of Practice for Safety
Management System for Construction Worksites (SS CP 79:1999), Spring, SPSB,
Singapore.
Teo, A.L.E., Ling, Y.Y.F. and Chua, K.H.D. (2004), “Measuring the effectiveness of safety
management systems of construction firms”, unpublished report, Department of Building,
National University of Singapore, Singapore.
 Appendix 1 Strategic safety
management
Estimating project hazards Low High

1. Demolition works
Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in demolition works in this project
21
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Volume/size of demolition 1 2 3 4 5
Type of structure 1 2 3 4 5
Method of demolition 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

2. Excavation works
Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in excavation works in this project
Excavation configuration (depth, width and length) 1 2 3 4 5
Geological condition (soil type, water table, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Underground utilities (electrical, water and sewer
lines) 1 2 3 4 5
Nearby vehicular traffic (vibration and surcharge) 1 2 3 4 5
Nearby structures 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

3. Scaffolding and ladder usage

Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in scaffolding and ladder usage in this
project
Volume of scaffolding and ladder usage 1 2 3 4 5
Height of the scaffold/ladder that is to be used 1 2 3 4 5
Adequacy of design (type of material, member size,
bracing, guardrails, platform size, toe board) 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

4. False works (temporary structures)

Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in false works in this project
Volume of false work involved in the project 1 2 3 4 5
Adequacy of design (material, member size, bracing,
guardrails, platform size, toe board) 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

5. Roof works
Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in roof works in this project
Volume of roofing involved 1 2 3 4 5
Height of the roof 1 2 3 4 5
Roofing material property such as slippery,
brittleness, asbestos etc. 1 2 3 4 5
Inclination of the roof 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

6. Erection of steel/pre-cast concrete structures

Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in erection of steel/pre-cast concrete
structures in this project
Volume of erection work 1 2 3 4 5 Table AI.
Height of erection work 1 2 3 4 5 Framework for
(continued) estimating PHI
 ECAM Estimating project hazards Low High
16,1
Erection method (partial/full erection at height,
labour involvement level) 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

22 7. Crane use
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in lifting and crane use in this project
Volume of lifting involved 1 2 3 4 5
Nature of materials lifted 1 2 3 4 5
Operating platform 1 2 3 4 5
Nature of site vicinity (nearby structures, overhead
cables, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

8. Construction tools and machinery use

Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in plant and tools use in this project
Volume of plant and machinery used 1 2 3 4 5
Operating platform of plant and machinery (i.e. slope
etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Site layout 1 2 3 4 5
Volume of tools used 1 2 3 4 5
Type of tools used 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

9. Works on contaminated sites

Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in working on contaminated site in this
project
Type of contaminants on the site 1 2 3 4 5
Quantity of contaminants present 1 2 3 4 5
Duration of work on contaminated site 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

10. Welding and hot works

Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in welding and hot works in this project.
The volume of welding and hot works 1 2 3 4 5
Location of welding (confined space, underground,
on ladders etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score

11. Works in confined spaces

Rate the level of hazard posed by the following parameters in confined space works in this project
The volume of confined space works 1 2 3 4 5
Confined space configuration 1 2 3 4 5
Type of activity to be involved (e.g. welding,
waterproofing etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Current usage of the confined space (if any) 1 2 3 4 5
Trade score
Table AI. Total project score (PHI)
 Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Appendix 2
management

Framework for estimating

Figure A1.
Strategic safety

PSI
23
 Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

24
16,1
ECAM

Figure A1.
 Strategic safety
management

25
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 18:49 30 January 2016 (PT)

Figure A1.

Corresponding author
Imriyas Kamardeen can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints