See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264623220

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BENCHMARKING

Conference Paper · June 2006

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1274.1769

CITATIONS READS

0 86

4 authors, including:

Abdul Rahim Abdul Hamid Muhd.Zaimi Abd Majid

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
47 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS 155 PUBLICATIONS 611 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bio Suscrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdul Rahim Abdul Hamid on 12 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
IN THE 21 ST CENTURY (ICiBE 2006)
Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
13 – 15 June 2006

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BENCHMARKING

ABDUL RAHIM ABDUL HAMID1 and MUHD ZAIMI ABD MAJID2

1 2
Postgraduate Student and Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.

e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: Safety benchmarking is a planned process by which an organisation

compares its safety process and performance with others to learn how to reduce
accident and ill health, improve compliance with safety law and cut compliance costs.
Benchmarking provides a creative impetus that can lead to highly innovative solutions
safety problems. Benchmarking in areas like production, finance or customer care is
very common, but in safety particularly in the Malaysian construction industry is rare.
Therefore a study was conducted in order to benchmark safety program practices at
our construction sites. A checklist consisted of various safety program elements was
developed and used during the interview process with the targeted respondents. The
result of the study enable further understanding of various safety issues such as
commitment level, approach to safety system and managing safety, behaviour and
culture, hazard and risk identification, work practices, accident investigation and
prevention etc. The study shows that state of construction companies’ safety program
is at the beginning level and safety program elements such as employee involvement,
performance evaluation and audit, hazard analysis, loss prevention, written policy and
training need to be improved.

Keywords: Benchmarking, Safety, Construction, Performance, Best Practices.

1
INTRODUCTION

Generally, the production of construction products is a risky, complex and lengthy process.
The total development of a construction project normally consists of several phases requiring
a diverse range of specialized services. Cost, time, quality and safety are important
characteristic of every project. For the construction industry in Malaysia, there has been
greater emphasis on the first three aspects at the expense of safety. Many employers have
not established comprehensive accident prevention policies but instead concentrate on
maximizing profit. They do not emphasize on safety because they do not know how high the
actual cost of an accident is until it occurs. Lack of adherence to safety requirements has led
to increased exposure of workmen and the general public to risky situation at construction
sites resulting in a high chance of occurrence of accidents.

Issues particularly related to the construction safety and health with regard to Malaysian
construction industry are often associated to high rate of accidents, low wages for high risk
jobs, unconducive work environment, competitive tendering, multi-layered subcontracting
system, unskilled workers, high labor turnover, variable hazards, low priority for safety, harsh
operating conditions, poor project and site management, low technology used, no centralize
system to compile the scattered data and lack of relevant accidents data.

The high accident rate in construction is nothing new but it is not something to be taken
lightly. The number of construction accidents has increased by 5.7 per cent from 4,207 cases
in 1993 to 4,445 cases in 2004. The fatality rate has increased by 51 per cent from 51 cases
in 1993 to 77 cases in 2004. In addition, the cases for Permanent Disablement have
increased by 46.1 per cent from 305 cases in 1993 to 566 cases in 2004. The fatality rate
from construction accidents are among the highest compared to the overall industry (NSTP,
2001a). For the record, the construction accident rate per 1,000 workers are 19.0 (1999), 17.5
(2000), 14.3 (2001), 14.4 (2002) and 12.6 (2003). The fatality rate per 100,000 in construction
are 58.4 (1999), 57.2 (2000), 27.6 (2001), 25.2 (2002) and 25.8 (2003). Our government hope
that the fatality rate of 25.8 per 100,000 workers in 2003 can be further reduced by 30% by
the year 2010 or less than 20 per 100,000 workers by year 2020 (developed nation status) to
be at par with the developed countries like Japan, France and the USA which fatality rate is
below 20 per 100,000 workers (CIDB, 2005).

From the year 1999 to 2003 the employment in construction sector with regard to the overall
industries is only at an average of 7.9% compare to agriculture (17.1%), manufacturing
(25.8%) and services (48.8%) but the percentage of fatalities in the construction sector is
always one of the highest at an average of 2.44% compare to agriculture (0.78%) and
manufacturing (0.66%). International Labour Organisation (ILO) also highlighted the growing
risks for workers worldwide especially in construction works where the rate of fatal accidents
could be 10 or even 20 times higher than the average (ILO, 1996).

In 2003 the number of construction accidents reported to SOCSO is 4,654 cases out of
368,476 registered workers with SOCSO for Malaysian workers only. If we considered the
estimated employment in this sector as reported to be around 791,900 (PERKESO, 2003),
then the accidents that went unreported could be higher. We have to bear in mind that 70 to
80 per cent of our construction workers (NSTP, 2002) are foreigner where some of them
might have worked without or with expired work permits so it is generally believed that many
cases of accidents and fatalities involving foreign workers are not reported to the authorities.
The actual figures are much higher if those not subscribing to SOCSO are taken into
consideration. The published statistics are the tip of the iceberg.

In another aspect of level of compliance, inspection conducted by the Department of

Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) from year 2000 to 2003 reveal that the achievement
of satisfactory level of the assessment on the occupational safety and health at construction
sites throughout the country were only between 50% and 80% (NSTP, 2001b and DOSH,
2003). These figures could indicate higher compliance by the contractors to safety and health

2
procedures but that does not necessarily mean the overall safety performance at our
construction sites has reach the satisfactory level. The statistic has proven otherwise. Some
of site that were in the satisfactory level were just at the passing marks. Inspections were not
comprehensive as they were conducted at random sites four times a year and the focus was
more on the five worst negative elements namely unfenced edges, working at height,
scaffolding, holes and platform. The assessment criteria was based mainly on the compliance
to certain aspects of the Building Operation and Work of Engineering Construction 1986
(BOWEC 1986) Regulations and the Occupational Safety and Health Acts 1994 (OSHA 1994)
and not on the overall safety performance of construction sites. In addition to that, report from
DOSH had shown that there were increasing numbers of notification, compound and
prosecution cases for the year 1999 to 2003. As a result of December 30th 2005 highly
publicized accident at Plaza Damas involving a young corporate figure, Construction Industry
Development Board (CIDB) was reported to reveal that there are 700 cases of negligence at
project sites, which include 150 high-profile incidence since 2003 (STAR, 2006).

The statistics of accidents occurred in the construction industry indicate that the accident rate
in our construction industry is still high. The level of compliance and current construction
safety scenario indicate that our construction industry is one of the critical sectors that need a
huge and fast overhaul from the current site safety practices. Can safety in our industry be
moved to a higher level? And if so what will it take to go the extra mile? Improving safety
requires effort and commitment by everyone at a company. Safety is everyone’s job and not
just responsibility of the Safety Manager or Officer. Making everyone responsible for their own
safety and the safety of those around them requires more than just a “safety program”
regardless of how effective it is. Before any improvement could be made, a company must
really understand where it stands in term of safety standard and practices. This could be
achieved through a process called benchmarking.

This paper discusses an exploratory study of benchmarking the safety program of the
selected construction companies. It will give us ideas on the practice of the overall safety
program assessment, safety program elements and improvement areas that need to be look
at carefully.

SAFETY BENCHMARKING

Benchmarking has become a buzzword for companies across all industries that are pursuing
quality and continuous improvement. Based on total quality management (TQM) principles,
the benchmarking tool incorporates the analysis of recognized performance parameters, such
as effective risk management, attitudes to risk, resourcing (human, financial and hardware),
communications and learning by the organization. Benchmarking is the search for best
practices that will lead companies to superior performance in any aspect of their business
(Dorsch and Yasin, 1998).

According to Worksafe Australia (1996) benchmarking is a tool that allows assessment on the
differences between enterprises and world-class performers. It includes an examination of the
safe methods, processes, procedures, products and service performance of enterprise
against those of enterprises that consistently rate a world-class in the same category of
performance. If done correctly, benchmarking will increase knowledge of the improvements
needed to make to become world-class (Zairi and Youssef, 1995). Benchmarking is a guide
on the road to best practice.

Health and Safety Executive (1999) define safety benchmarking as a planned process by
which an organization compares its safety processes and performance with others to learn
how to reduce accidents, improve compliance with safety law and cut compliance costs.
Safety benchmarking also is a measurement to identify organisation’s strengths and
weaknesses. The advantages of benchmarking are to improve organization’s reputation,
avoid reinventing the wheel, develop relationships, save time and costs, and improve overall
management.

3
Benchmarking could become an important part of the solution in addressing the enormous
issue of jobsite safety. While benchmarking in construction safety is not a new concept, in the
past it has relied primarily on comparing lost work days, and number of accidents or fatalities
of one company with those of other companies (Lin and Mills, 2001). These so-called “lagging
indicators” compare safety performance “after the fact” and do not effectively compare apples
to apples. While these metrics are helpful, they told us what happened rather than telling us
what is about to happen precluding the opportunity for preventative action. Construction
safety benchmarking efforts should focus on what are called “leading” indicators. Leading
indicators provide real-time measures of the current safety practices, conditions and
behaviors that are happening on a jobsite before an injury occurs so that the appropriate
preventative action can be taken (Sawacha et al, 1999).

Safety benchmarking is a five-step cycle aimed at ensuring continuous improvement (HSE,

1999):

i. Step 1 – deciding what to benchmark

We can benchmark process (e.g. operations, work practices and business
processes), product (e.g. products and services), and strategic (e.g.
organizational structures, management practices and business strategies)
(Carpinetti and Melo, 2002). In term of safety management process we can
benchmark atmosphere (e.g. vision, values, common goals and safety culture),
systems (e.g. hazard policies and procedures, information system, training,
purchasing and maintenance procedures) and exposure (e.g. state of equipment,
conditions in the workplace and behavior) (Worksafe, 1996).

ii. Step 2 – Analysing where you are

Need to identify current position and plan how to measure the processes.

iii. Step 3 – Selecting partners

Partners may include other units of the same organization, competitors in the
same or different geographical markets and organizations in related or unrelated
industries, in the same or different countries (Carpinetti and Melo, 2002).

iv. Step 4 – Working with your partner

The works have to be realistic, exchange comparable information and respect
your partner.

v. Step 5 – Learning and acting on lessons learned

Devise an action plan that is specific, measurable, agreed, realistic, trackable and
time bound.

Several studies regarding benchmarking indicate its potential to be fully applied in the field of
construction safety. Fang et al (2004) reported their finding on the establishment of a
benchmark to measure real-time safety management performance on construction sites in
China. From the study, it was found that organizational structure, economic investment and
labor-management relations are significantly related to the safety performance on
construction sites. Fuller (1999) reported a case study in which an audit programme, which
was developed and implemented as a safety competition, was also used to produce data for
benchmarking the company’s health and safety management system. The result of the study
showed that the audit programme, in the form of the benchmarking exercise, provided an
initiative for senior management to improve the company’s health and safety management
system.

4
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The study had been conducted through several phases namely literature review, data
collection, data analysis, discussion and conclusion. A literature review was conducted
encompassing all the various means available to obtain the widest range of the relevant
information from books, articles, internet related to the safety benchmarking in construction.
Then a checklist was designed to assist in the investigation during the visit to 39 construction
companies mostly in the State of Selangor, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur and
Putrajaya, Malaysia. Hence, the data shall represent only the localised scenario. The targeted
respondents were persons who are very well verse about the safety program at sites such
project manager, safety manager, safety officer, site engineer, site supervisor and foreman.
Respondents from each site were required to fill in only one questionnaires form. The
questionnaires form was structured in four (4) sections:
1. Section A: Background data of the respondents and the projects.
2. Section B: Overall Safety Program Assessment (5 stages selection).
3. Section C: The Practice of safety program elements (40 questions).
i. Safety Policy (10 questions)
ii. Safety Planning (7 questions)
iii. Safety Implementation and Operation (6 questions)
iv. Safety Checking and Corrective action (12 questions)
v. Safety Management Review (5 questions)

4. Section D: Comments or observations on the improvement area with regard to safety

program elements.

The answer selection for the questionnaires consist of yes or no mode for the given safety
program elements being implemented (Section C) and proposed answer by the respondents
for improvement areas with regard to safety program elements (Section D). The answer for
Section B require respondents to benchmark the stage that best describes the state of their
company’s current and future (two to four years) safety program. A total of 39 questionnaires
forms was collected and then analysed. The frequency of the answer was calculated in the
percentage forms. The percentage is used to review the actual situation and the significant of
the safety program being practiced at construction sites.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Summary of the results and discussion presented below are based on the analysis of the
questionnaires surveys primarily related to section B, C and D. Figure 1 shows the five stages
of safety program practices from poor (stage 1) to excellent (stage 5) that correspond to how
safety practices evolve from merely awareness to engineering control, then safety
management system to safety culture and ultimately behavioral based safety. With regard to
these stages, the respondents are being asked to indicate the state of their company’s current
safety program and how they would like to be two to four years from now. Figure 2 illustrates
the respondents’ opinion on their company’s current and future state of safety program (the
number in bracket attached to the stage indicate the number of companies at that particular
stage in term of safety program). The results show that majority of the companies are just at
the beginning of implementing safety program (17 and 15 companies at stage 1 and 2
respectively), while two companies at stage 3 and five companies at stage 4 and none are at
stage 5. When asking further about how do they see themselves in the next two to four years
in term of safety program, surprisingly companies who are currently at stage 1 and 2 react
rather optimistically that some of them could even be at stage 5 (direction of arrows indicate
future expectation of safety program and figure on the arrows indicate the number of
companies).

5
The survey results as shown in Table 1 for section C are tabulated according to the NO
answer that indicate the elements of safety program which were not being implemented by
the corresponding companies. This is to make it clear for us to see the area for improvement.
The results show that the safety program elements that need to be improve are associated
with management review, checking and corrective action, and planning. It is still a common
practice not to easily accept workers ideas, suggestions, cooperation and involvement when it
comes to auditing and making improvement. Perhaps we all should learn to appreciate the
concept of quality circle championed by Shimizu Corporation that empowers workers to look
after their own or their buddy quality of works. By applying the same concepts, safety then will
be seen as everybody business. Safety performance evaluations were found to be lacking
even though majority of the respondents agreed that they have set performance goal. From
the comments, majority of respondents still could not understand the concept of safety
performance not to mention how to go about measuring it.

In term of safety planning most of the safety program elements need to be improved. There
are still some misconception about the term ergonomic and its impact in construction. Hazard
communication, job hazard analysis or job safety analysis are the terms associated with risk
management that require specific training. Improvement in this area could lead to predicting
the probable accidents and subsequently avoiding them if preventive measures are being
designed and implemented. Having a written policy could be an indicator of management
commitment toward successful safety management. But a written general safety policy alone
is not going to be enough. High risk construction activities should be governed by written
policy. From the survey, written policy regarding forklift, lockout/tagout and confined space
were inadequate. This could be acceptable as they are usually associated with specialized
job and not every contractor involved with such works. Lacks of consideration for health
aspect such as hearing and respiratory protection as indicated from the survey are quite
typical in our construction industry. With regard to implementation and operation, training is
one aspect that requires a lot of attention. Training by a virtue of green card and induction
course requirement is deemed to be insufficient. Companies need to view training as part of
investment toward loss prevention program. Training program should be more comprehensive
and continuous including shaping safe behavior to achieve ultimate safety culture.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking has developed into a valuable business improvement tool which can be
applied to any area of an organisation’s work. When it comes to safety, benchmarking is
about identifying criteria which are key to safety performance in a company and comparing
these against the performance of other companies. There is an increasing pressure on
companies to produce comparative safety performance data. This is partly a result of the
pressures for improved company reporting arising from institutional investors, governmental
and non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders. In safety, if taken as part of a
commitment towards continual improvement, benchmarking can lead to increased
performance by the individual company and other companies who are part of the comparative
network. The results of this study indicate that majority of construction companies surveyed
are only at the very beginning stage of safety program implementation. They are not even
close to be having an ultimate safety program driven by a safety culture. Further analysis of
the questionnaires reveal that there are elements of safety program such as employee
involvement, performance evaluation and audit, hazard analysis, loss prevention, written
policy and training that need to be improved. This study shows that benchmarking concept is
useful in helping to pinpoint problem area regarding safety program.

6
Figure1. Stages of safety program

Figure 2. Correspondents vision of their current and future safety program

7
Table 1. Distribution of opinion about non-implemented elements of safety program
Safety Program Elements of Safety Program (keywords) Resp. Rank Total %
Count, Count NO
NO
Written Policy Safety policy 6 111 28.5
Forklift 21 1 (Avg.
11.1)
Lockout/ Tagout 21 1
Fall 10
Respiratory 11
PPE 4
Hearing 11
Confine Space 12
Electrical work 10
Emergency Action Plan 5

Planning Ergonomics Program 12 79 28.9

Fire Prevention Plan 10 (Avg.
11.3)
Hazard Communication Program 17 4
Chemical Labeling 5
Job Hazard Analysis/ Job Safety Analysis 14 11
Safety Committee 5
Loss Prevention Program 16 7

Implementation & Safety & Housekeeping Inspection 3 45 19.2

Operation Investigate Accidents 6 (Avg.
Training Fire Extinguishers 6 8)

Understand Chemicals Label 9

Training each Safety Program & Policy 15 8
Access to Safety Program 6

Checking & Safety Performance Goal 4 151 32.1

Corrective Action Supervisor Performance Evaluation 15 8 (Avg.
11.5)
Manager Performance Evaluation 14 11
Supervisor Audit Employee Safety 15 8
Performance
Employee Audit Along With Supervisor 17 4
Employee Audit Other Employee 18 3
Checklist of Audit 12
Discuss Error with Employee 11
Record Good/Bad Safety Performance 11
Management & Employee tour team 8
Zero Lost Time Injury Rate 13 14

Management Employees included on teams designing 17 4 63 32.3

Review new work practices (Avg.
Return Work Program 14 11 12.6)
Supervisors trained for positive behavior 9
Employees trained for positive behavior 10
Employees trained giving and accepting 13 14
suggestions to other employees

8
REFERENCES

Carpinetti, L.C.R. and Melo. A.M.d. (2002) What to Benchmark? A Systematic Approach and
Cases. Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp 244-255.

Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB), 2005. Master Plan for
Occupational Safety and Health in Construction Industry 2005-2010. Kuala Lumpur: CIDB

Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) (2003) Annual Report 2003. Kuala
Lumpur: DOSH

Dorsch, J.J. and Yasin, M.M. (1998) A Framework for Benchmarking in the Public Sector:
Literature Review and Directions for Future Research. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp 91-115.

Fang, D.P., Huang, X.Y. and Hinze, J. (2004) Benchmarking Studies on Construction Safety
Management in China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130, No.
3, pp 424-432.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (1999) Health and Safety Benchmarking – Improving
Together Leaflet. UK: HSE

International Labour Organisation (ILO) (1996) Press Release: ILO Highlights Growing Risks
to Worker Health and Safety, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/96-13.htm, 22
April 1996 {Accessed: April 1996}

Lin, J. and Mills, A. (2001). Measuring the Occupational Health and Safety Performance of
Construction Companies in Australia. Facilities Vol. 19, No. 3/4, pp 131-138.

New Straits Times Press (NSTP) (2001a) No Induction Course Attendance, No Construction
Workers, Developers, Contractors Have Until July 1 to Comply,
http://www.aboutsafety.com/article.cfm?id=683, 9 April 2001 {Accessed: May 2001}

New Straits Times Press (NSTP) (2001b) Building Sector to Achieve ‘Zero Accident’ Rate by
2003, http://www.aboutsafety.com/article.cfm?id=726, 19 April 2001 {Accessed: May 2001}

Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO) (2001) Statistik Kemalangan Industri,

http://www.perkeso.gov.my/statistik.htm, {Accessed: May 2001}

Sawacha, E., Naoum, S. and Fong, D. (1998). Factors Affecting Safety Performance on
Construction Sites. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 309-315

STAR (2006). What Went Wrong at 700 Sites, Asks Fong, http://www.mystar.com.my, 8
January 2006 {Accessed: February 2006}

Worksafe Australia (Worksafe) (1996) Benchmarking Occupational Health and Safety: Team
Member’s Workbook, Australia: Worksafe.

Zairi, M. and Youssef, M. (1995) A Review of Key Publications on Benchmarking: part I.

Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp 65-72.