Qutaiba Qahtan Qaddoori*
| Hatem Khaleefah Breesam
© 2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
In the construction industry, safety issues are considered major concerns. Despite recent attempts to improve safety in the construction sector, this sector is considered dangerous and unsafe. Construction safety management in Iraq is plagued by a high incidence of construction accidents, resulting in a higher number of injuries and fatalities. Creating a safety program is one strategy to alleviate this problem by making safety an intrinsic part of construction projects. Defining which factors are the most significant and have the greatest effect on safety performance is crucial to building a complete safety program. It ensures that construction companies are not wasting money on inadequate safety programs. As a result, this article aims to identify the critical safety factors that influence safety performance in Iraqi construction projects and assign a relative weight to them based on their importance. First, relevant literature was reviewed to identify the safety performance factors. Second, the Pivot Pairwise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment (PIPRECIA), a recently proposed technique for calculating criteria weights, was employed to determine the relative weight of factors. In this paper, a list of 21 sub-factors classified into 8 categories of main factors was identified. Finally, the findings of PIPRECIA show that the "Management Practices" factor has the top rank with a weight of 0.4221 among the other main safety factors. The results also showed that among the 21 sub-factors, the three with the highest weights, 0.0686, 0.0665, and 0.0619, belonged to "Personal protective equipment (PPE)", "First aid and medical care" and "Housekeeping program", which were under the "Management Practices" factor. Further, the "Regular safety inspections" and "Contractor safety rewards and punishment programs" sub-factors were identified as the least important sub-factors with weights of 0.0350 and 0.0333, respectively.
construction site, PIPRECIA, relative weight, pivot pair-wise relative criteria importance assessment, safety factors
One of the world's most dangerous industries has traditionally been the construction industry [1]. The rapid development of new technology has resulted in rapid changes to our society and workplaces, as well as a increased accident complexity and causes [2]. Accidents at work result in the loss of lives, money, and equipment and often create work interruptions [3]. The construction industry has one of the poorest safety records compared to other industries, and it must find a new way to enhance its reputation [4]. A high rate of occupational accidents and deaths in the construction sector is a serious worldwide problem [5].
According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), about 2.78 million people die each year because of work-related occupational accidents or diseases, and 374 million people suffer non-fatal work-related injuries and illnesses. Construction sites are responsible for at least 108,000 fatalities annually, or 30% of all occupational fatalities. In some developed countries, construction workers are 3–4 times more likely than other employees to die in workplace accidents, but in developing nations, the dangers associated with construction employment may be 3–6 times higher [6].
Construction safety management in Iraq is plagued by a high incidence of construction accidents, with 2018 seeing a 38% increase in accidents within the country's construction industry [7]. Atta and Curtis [8] believe that working This could be related to the traditional approach to occupational safety and health management in Iraqi construction projects [9].
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to determine important safety factors affecting safety performance in Iraqi construction projects and assign a relative weight to them based on their importance. The authors also believe that the findings might be applied to evaluate safety performance and choose the most active elements of safety programs, especially in developing countries such as Iraq.
A variety of methods have been proposed so far in the area of multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) to measure the importance of individual criteria. These are some of the most well-known and popular ones currently available: the DEMATEL method [10], the AHP method [11], the CRITIC method [12], the Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) method [13], the Pivot Pair-wise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment (PIPRECIA) Method [14].
The SWARA approach was used to assign relative importance to each criterion in conjunction with other MCDM techniques. From the perspective of the individuals being polled, the SWARA technique is simpler to implement than other approaches designed to calculate the relative importance of various factors [14]. The first step in using the SWARA technique, however, is to choose criteria and rank them in decreasing order of anticipated importance. This indicates that there is a higher threshold for agreement among evaluators when using the SWARA technique, since all participants must agree on the anticipated importance of the criterion. As a result, the SWARA approach is less suitable for tackling specific issues [15].
Therefore, Stanujkic et al. [14] presented the Pivot Pair-wise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment (PIPRECIA) technique, an adaptation of the SWARA approach that does not need the assent of the respondents about the predicted significance of the criteria. The PIPRECIA technique is well-suited to eliciting the respondents' opinions.
Due to this characteristic, the PIPRECIA approach is appropriate for gathering the respondents' views, which is why it was used in this paper.
A safety program is described as the management of processes, workers, and equipment to reduce workplace accidents and injuries [16]. Safety programs are necessary to reduce accident and injury rates by providing a safe workplace for workers and establishing a safety culture within the organization [17].
To improve safety performance, a variety of safety programs and practices may be used. There are also other indicators that can be used to choose and create a construction safety program [16].
In all branches of industry, occupational health and safety are key, particularly in the construction industry. Even though the construction industry is always changing due to new techniques, equipment, and machineries, it is never without safety issues, including fatalities. As a result, health and safety issues are always key concerns in the construction industry, particularly issues related to poor safety performance, such as accidents and illnesses [18].
Construction safety management is essential for improving the construction industry's future [19]. This includes several activities that are taken to develop, monitor, and manage occupational hazards in the industry, as well as mitigate and protect against them. Despite these efforts, the construction industry is nevertheless plagued by high rates of occupational accidents across the world. Therefore, improving safety management requires identifying and grasping the factors that impact construction safety performance [20].
Based on a review of the literature, the authors identified 21 subfactors classified into 8 categories of factors. In Table 1, these factors and their references are summarized. Also, the authors provided a brief explanation of each factor and discussed the importance of each factor in construction site safety and health programs.
2.1 Safety performance factor
2.1.1 Management practices
Management practices are a set of safety factors linked to the responsibilities of the contractor regarding safety.
(1) Personal protective equipment (PPE)
PPE are equipment and garments worn to be used by workers to protect themselves against injury in construction sites. PPE is intended to protect different areas of the body, such as the eyes with glasses or safety goggles, the face with a face shield, the head with a hard hat, the feet with safety shoes and footwear, and so on. Workers might potentially be injured if their personal protective equipment fails or if they neglect to utilize it [21].
When working in groups or in dangerous situations, the goal is to achieve maximum safety. As a result, PPE should be chosen based on the necessity and access to the working circumstances. Head protective hats, one of the oldest and most often used PPE, protect against impact strikes, resist penetration, and absorb the shock of hits. The most dangerous sources of injury are direct hits on the head from things such as debris, falling equipment, and moving mechanical gear [22].
(2) Housekeeping program
Appropriate housekeeping is critical to ensuring the safety and health of construction workers. Housekeeping procedure defined as keeping workplace clean and orderly through proper storage and removing of waste materials used in construction sites. It includes all the materials, equipment, and tools on the construction site. also, keeping the site access clear of any obstructions, using steel plates to cover any excavated area on-site, keeping the work area and all equipment orderly [2].
(3) Emergency response plan
Making an emergency response plan is creating a strategy to follow in the event of acritical situation or accidents, such as a death or an occurrence that resulted in major injuries. Employees must be conversant with emergency action plans prior to a crisis to implement an effective emergency response plan [16]. Rashid et al. [23] considered the absence of emergency response planning on construction sites to be an important area that affected safety performance.
(4) Accident investigation program
It includes documenting and reporting the details of all accidents and near-misses to permit accident data analysis and the identification of errors so that remedial measures may be taken [16]. The method involves analyzing accident data to identify safety program weaknesses. The goal of an investigation is to determine the cause of an accident so that suggestions may be made to avoid similar events in the future and to change any safety management methods that are in place [24]. According to Bello [25], companies that reported and documented accidents and near-miss occurrences had superior safety performance and reduced injury rates. Meanwhile, a review by top management and involvement in investigations into recordable injuries would lower the likelihood of future accidents.
(5) Contractor site safety program
When it comes to dealing with safety issues, proper planning in the early phases by addressing safety issues will result in the development of a safe space with a high morale, fewer disagreements, and good mobility. It will save time, save expenses, and increase quality indirectly [26]. According to Rajendran [27], the following aspects should be included in a contractor site safety plan: emergency response planning, return to work program, safety signage, targeted injury reduction strategy, lockout, and tag out.
(6) Drug and alcohol tests
This safety program element planned to identify and prevent substance abuse [28]. Alcohol abuse is often seen as a major hazard to workers' lives, health, and safety, as well as bystanders. It is generally known that drug usage (alcohol, cigarettes, psychotropic substances) has an impact on the likelihood of an accident in several sectors of the economy, including the construction industry [29]. According to Mushi & Manege [30], construction Workers who abuse alcohol are three times more likely to be involved in occupational related injuries. Furthermore, 35% of emergency department patients from work-related incidents had a history of alcohol abuse or substance usage.
2.1.2 Safety trainning
The purpose of safety training is to deliver the content of a safe working process, such as appropriate machine operation, suitable processes for construction tasks, and how to avoid risks [31]. By creating an awareness of accident hazards, safety education and training would improve safety performance.
To establish a safe working culture, construction safety education and training must be given high attention [22].
All newly recruited workers must attend training classes that include the required skills as well as safety awareness. Any training system must be evaluated to guarantee that the training is adequate and that it may be improved further [32].
Table 1. Main and sub-factors influencing safety performance
|
Main factors |
Code |
Sub-factors |
Source |
|
Management Practices |
SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SF6 SF7 |
Personal protective equipment (PPE). Housekeeping program. First aid and medical care. Emergency response plan. Accident investigation program. Contractor site safety program. Drug and alcohol tests for workers. |
[16], [28], [33], [34] |
|
Safety Training |
SF8 SF9 |
Course training on safety for all workers. Safety training for supervisors. |
[18], [20], [35], [36] |
|
Safety Commitment |
SF10 SF11 SF12 SF13 |
Management's safety commitment. Owner's safety commitment. Financial resource allocation for safety. Management and personnel responsibilities definition relating to safety. |
[16], [18], [22], [34], [37] |
|
Safety inspections |
SF14 |
Regular safety inspections. |
[16], [18], [34], [38] |
|
Safety In Contracts |
SF15 SF16 SF17 |
Safety requirements identification in the contract. Owner approval of the safety plan provided by the contractor. High level of safety policies. |
[16], [39 – 41] |
|
Contractor Selection |
SF18 |
Contractor selection by owner. |
[34], [39], [42] |
|
Employee Involvement |
SF19 SF20 |
Set up a safety committee. Safety supervisor appointment. |
[37], [39], [43] |
|
Safety Incentive |
SF21 |
Contractor safety rewards and punishment programs. |
[19], [20], [22], [44] |
2.1.3 Safety commitment
Management commitment is the leadership, vision, and resources provided by management to implement an effective safety and health program [45]. Participating in frequent safety meetings, determining clear safety roles among management and employees, sitting on committees, and providing financing for other safety and health program aspects are all examples of management commitment to comply with safety regulations [46].
Management's commitment to safety necessitates considering the safety and health of all workers as a primary aim of the company [47]. Previous research has also shown that owner commitment to safety is required to properly execute all safety strategies. Clients' lack of engagement in contractors' safety activities may have a negative impact on the safety performance of a construction project [48].
2.1.4 Safety inspections
The purpose of a safety inspection and monitoring is to evaluate the physical working conditions of a work site to identify uncontrolled and potentially dangerous exposures to workers. Site safety inspections could be executed by (e.g., safety supervisor, project manager, and safety officer, etc.).
Safety inspections are also a good way to find possible safety issues and correct them to minimize the number of accidents [32].
According to Yap et al. [49], daily safety inspection is required to monitor safety performance and reduce the risk of accidents. Furthermore, if safety inspections are conducted rigorously and on a regular basis, construction site performance may be improved.
2.1.5 Safety in contracts
One of the serious issues in construction safety is the absence of explicit contractual safety responsibility. As a result, it is in everyone's best interest to assign suitable contractual safety duties before the contract is executed. In the construction industry, clear assignment of safety obligations in contracts would improve overall project safety performance and reduce claims, disagreements, and disputes connected to safety injuries [41]. In the contract and documents with the contractor, the owner must state safety and health requirements [50].
2.1.6 Contractor selection
One of the key strategies that project owners may use to enhance project safety performance is to choose contractors based on safety [27]. According to Hansen [51], contractors are a critical component of an organization's safety performance. Hansen stated that prequalification and selecting of contractors were key characteristics of the organization's safety management system. Boadu et al. [52] also suggested that to increase health and safety performance, clients should concentrate on choosing safe contractors.
The many criteria to consider while selecting contractors are summarized in the following [53] : Contractor incident rates (involves OSHA recordable injury rates, lost workday injury, first aid injury rates etc.), observation of workers behavior , regular safety inspection , osha records and fines , performance records of key personnel, key personal performance reputation and records, qualification safety surveys of contractor, perception of workers to safety, litigation related to injuries and site specific safety plan.
2.1.7 Employee involvement
All employees should be involved in implementing safety program responsibilities such as attending safety meetings and toolbox presentations, leading a safety committee, and allowing workers to cease work. As a result, a well-organized safety review method is required to ensure that the project meets its goals [46].
Employee involvement has been largely regarded as the significant element impacting organizational safety among all organizational aspects related to safety. Employee involvement gives practical ways to solve safety issues and demonstrate their own commitment to safety, which may raise workers' incentive to take responsibility for safety and prevent potentially dangerous behaviors and accidents in the workplace [54].
2.1.8 Safety incentive
Safety incentive is one of the proactive techniques utilized by management to motivate employees to work safely. in the other word, a safety incentive program provides workers with rewards for achieving certain goals related to the safety at a workplace. Workers might be rewarded with money or non-financial incentives to participate in safety initiatives [55]. According to Bello [25], construction organizations who implemented a safety reward system had a lower injury rate than those that did not. The company should reward workers who do well in terms of safety.
3.1 Data collection
3.1.1 literature review
Based on a critical review of relevant literature related to the factors that affect safety and health performance in worldwide construction projects, the authors identified 21 subfactors classified into 8 categories of factors.
3.1.2 Questionnaire design
After determining factors affecting safety performance, a PIPRECIA questionnaire with pairwise comparisons was developed. The questionnaire was designed to collect views on the relative importance of factors. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to use the PIPRECIA method's relative importance scale to determine the relative importance of all the identified subfactors. Appendix A shows the designed questionnaire.
When using a pairwise comparison between factors, the question form is as follows: "What is the importance of the second factor compared with the first factor". The respondents will choose one of the following responses to indicate the relative significance: 1=two factors have equal importance, <1=the second factor has less importance than the first, >1=the second factor has more importance than the first.
3.2 Sample size
Probability sampling and non-probability sampling are the two types of sampling. A key distinction between probability and non-probability sampling is that the latter does not rely on a random selection process. Quantitative studies often use a random sampling strategy, whereas qualitative studies frequently use a non-random strategy [56]. The choice between probability and non-probability sampling methods depends on the study questions and goals, as well as practical issues like time and resource constraints [57]. Some type of random sample design may be used if research issues need representativeness [58]. On the other hand, non-random sampling is preferable if the research objectives require comparisons between variables [57].
In this study, probability sampling was not applied because of two reasons. First, the respondents include construction safety officers and academic experts, which are a small part of the general population. Second, using probability sampling brings up the risk of excluding important respondents during the process. In non-probability approach the samples would be chosen from a larger population without random selection. The non-probability sampling approaches include purposive, convenience, quota, snowball sampling and self-selection [57].
Moreover, the major purpose of the research is to determine important safety factors affecting safety performance in Iraqi construction projects and assign a relative weight to them based on their importance, which requires investigation of relationships between different types of theoretically important variables. Therefore, it was essential to select a sample, that contained the characteristics of theoretically relevant variables. The use of a Non-random purposeful sampling method allows respondents with expertise in the safety and health performance of construction projects in Iraq to be included in samples.
Table 2. Experts' demographic profile
|
No |
Position |
Education level |
Experince years |
Sector |
|
1 |
Project manager |
MSc |
18 |
Private sector |
|
2 |
Director |
MSc |
25 |
Private sector |
|
3 |
Site engineer |
BSc |
15 |
Government |
|
4 |
Director |
PhD |
30 |
Private sector |
|
5 |
Consultant |
PhD |
20 |
Independent Consultant |
|
6 |
Researcher |
MSc |
16 |
Government |
|
7 |
Project manager |
PhD |
21 |
Private sector |
|
8 |
Senior manager |
BSc |
26 |
Government |
In this study, non-random purposive sampling was used. Purposive sampling involves the researcher making a decision about what kind of sample units to include in the study and the knowledge of respondents is one of the key issues in the process [56]. As Tansey [59] believed, only specific group of respondents are qualified and needed to be involved in the research process.
Non-random, purposeful sampling was used in this study. In non-random sampling processes, Experts' quality is more significant than their number [16]. In the PIPRECIA method, the number of participants in the research study's sample size can be as small as a select group of specialists [14].
In line with previous study by [16, 58], 10 experts were contacted, and 8 of them consented to take part. Table 2 lists the number of experts who contributed to this study.
3.3 Data analysis techniques
3.3.1 PIPRECIA method
According to Stanujkic et al. [14], the methodology used by the PIPRECIA technique to determine criterion weights may be appropriately summed up as follows:
Step 1. Determine the important evaluation criteria and put them in order from most important to least important. Arranging the criteria, however, is optional and may be ignored.
Step 2. Start with the second criterion and set the relative importance Sj as follows:
$S j=\left\{\begin{array}{l}>1 \text { if } C j>C j-1 \\ =1 \text { if } C j=C j-1 \\ <1 \text { if } C j<C j-1\end{array}\right.$ (1)
where, Cj represents the importance of criterion j and Cj-1 represents the importance of the previous j-1 criterion.
Step 3. The Kj coefficient can be calculated based on:
$K j=\left\{\begin{array}{c}1 \text { if } j=1 \\ 2-s j \text { if } j>1\end{array}\right.$ (2)
Step 4. Calculate the recalculated weight qj as follows:
$q j=\left\{\begin{array}{c}1 \text { if } j=1 \\ q j=\frac{q j-1}{k j} \text { if } j>1\end{array}\right.$ (3)
Step 5. Calculate the relative weight wj of the criteria as follows:
$w_j=\frac{q_j}{\sum_{k=1}^n \quad q_j}$ (4)
Step 6. Calculate the group weights of the criteria as follows:
$\mathrm{w}_{\mathrm{j}}^*=\left(\prod_{k=1}^k w_j^r\right)^{1 / k}$ (5)
$w_{j_F}=\frac{w_j^*}{\sum_{j=1}^{\bar{n}} \quad w_j^*}$ (6)
where, $w_j^*$ represents the geometric mean of the weights of criterion j obtained by surveying respondents and k represents the respondents’ number.
The questionnaire survey was distributed by hand to eight experts, the eight experts made their pair-wise comparisons between the sub-factors. Table 3 presents respondents’ attitudes.
After determining the (Sj) value for all factors, the next step is to use Eq. (2), Eq. (3), and Eq. (4) to calculate the relative weight of the safety performance factors. The calculations and weight obtained from the first responder are shown in Table 4.
The same steps that were followed to obtain the weight of factors from the first respondent, as shown in Table 4, were used to obtain the weight of factors for all respondents. Table 5 shows the weights collected from all respondents and illustrates the group's weights computed using Eq. (5) and Eq. (6).
Table 6 and Figure 1 illustrate the final weights of each safety performance factor obtained by using the PIPRECIA technique.
The calculation of the relative weight of the safety performance factors and the measurement of each factor's contribution to the influences on safety performance are essential part of this research.
Referring to Table 6, among the 21 sub-factors, the six with the highest weights of 0.0686, 0.0665, 0.0619, 0.0603, 0.0599 and 0.0561 belonged to "Personal protective equipment (PPE)", "First aid and medical care", "Housekeeping program", "Contractor site safety program", "Emergency response plan" and " Accident investigation program ".
According to the weights calculated above, it can be seen that the first six factors with the highest weight belong to the management practices factor.
The management practices factor includes many safety subfactors linked to the responsibilities of the contractor regarding safety at the construction site. Evidently, experts place the highest significance on the factor of management practices. This indicates that the primary responsibility for safety lies with the contractor.
The majority of safety incidents happen during construction. As a result, regularly assessing contractor safety compliance is essential to reducing safety risks.
The current study's findings agree with previous research [18, 60] indicating personal protective equipment is the most significant factor impacting construction site safety performance. When working in groups or in dangerous situations, the goal is to achieve maximum safety. As a result, PPE should be chosen based on the necessity and access to the working circumstances.
On the other hand, the "Regular safety inspections" and "Contractor safety rewards and punishment programs" sub factors were identified as the least important sub factors with weights of 0.0350 and 0.0333, respectively.
“Regular safety inspections” and “Contractor safety rewards and punishment programs” are ranked at the lowest level of importance. These two factors appear to have received relatively low weights from the experts.
According to Hallowell [61], site safety inspections are executed by the safety committee. It is possible that experts have considered safety inspections one of the safety committee's responsibilities. As a result, they assigned relatively low weight to the safety inspection factor.
Table 3. Respondents’ attitudes about the significance of the factors
|
Expert |
SF2 ↔SF1 |
SF3 ↔SF2 |
SF4 ↔SF3 |
SF5 ↔SF4 |
SF6 ↔SF5 |
SF7↔SF6 |
SF8↔SF7 |
SF9↔SF8 |
SF10↔SF9 |
SF11↔SF10 |
SF12↔SF11 |
SF13↔SF12 |
SF14↔SF13 |
SF15↔SF14 |
SF16↔SF15 |
SF17↔SF16 |
SF18↔SF17 |
SF19↔SF18 |
SF20↔SF19 |
SF21↔SF20 |
|
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
1 |
0.7 |
1.2 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
1.2 |
1 |
1.2 |
1 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
1 |
|
2 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
|
3 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
1 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
|
4 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.8 |
1 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
|
5 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
|
6 |
1 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
1 |
0.7 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
1 |
1 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1 |
0.8 |
|
7 |
0.7 |
1 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
1 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
|
8 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
1 |
0.7 |
1 |
Table 4. The weight of factors obtained from the first respondent
|
Factor |
sj |
kj |
qj |
wj |
|
SF1 |
- |
1 |
1 |
0.06657 |
|
SF2 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
0.909 |
0.06052 |
|
SF3 |
1 |
1 |
0.909 |
0.06052 |
|
SF4 |
1 |
1 |
0.909 |
0.06052 |
|
SF5 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
0.758 |
0.05043 |
|
SF6 |
1 |
1 |
0.758 |
0.05043 |
|
SF7 |
0.7 |
1.3 |
0.583 |
0.03879 |
|
SF8 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.728 |
0.04849 |
|
SF9 |
1 |
1 |
0.728 |
0.04849 |
|
SF10 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
0.662 |
0.04408 |
|
SF11 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
0.552 |
0.03674 |
|
SF12 |
0.7 |
1.3 |
0.424 |
0.02826 |
|
SF13 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.531 |
0.03532 |
|
SF14 |
1 |
1 |
0.531 |
0.03532 |
|
SF15 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.663 |
0.04415 |
|
SF16 |
1 |
1 |
0.663 |
0.04415 |
|
SF17 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.829 |
0.05519 |
|
SF18 |
0.7 |
1.3 |
0.638 |
0.04246 |
|
SF19 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.797 |
0.05307 |
|
SF20 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
0.725 |
0.04825 |
|
SF21 |
1 |
1 |
0.725 |
0.04825 |
|
|
|
SUM |
15.022 |
1.00000 |
Table 5. The group weights of the factors
|
Factors |
Expert 1 W j |
Expert 2 W j |
Expert 3 W j |
Expert 4 W j |
Expert 5 W j |
Expert 6 W j |
Expert 7 W j |
Expert 8 W j |
w*j |
W j f |
|
Sf1 |
0.0666 |
0.0418 |
0.0632 |
0.0819 |
0.0651 |
0.0814 |
0.0760 |
0.0746 |
0.0675 |
0.0686 |
|
Sf2 |
0.0605 |
0.0380 |
0.0632 |
0.0683 |
0.0591 |
0.0814 |
0.0585 |
0.0678 |
0.0609 |
0.0619 |
|
Sf3 |
0.0605 |
0.0475 |
0.0632 |
0.0621 |
0.0739 |
0.1018 |
0.0585 |
0.0678 |
0.0655 |
0.0665 |
|
Sf4 |
0.0605 |
0.0432 |
0.0527 |
0.0564 |
0.0672 |
0.0848 |
0.0585 |
0.0565 |
0.0590 |
0.0599 |
|
Sf5 |
0.0504 |
0.0540 |
0.0479 |
0.0564 |
0.0611 |
0.0707 |
0.0532 |
0.0514 |
0.0552 |
0.0561 |
|
Sf6 |
0.0504 |
0.0675 |
0.0599 |
0.0564 |
0.0555 |
0.0707 |
0.0532 |
0.0642 |
0.0594 |
0.0603 |
|
Sf7 |
0.0388 |
0.0562 |
0.0461 |
0.0470 |
0.0463 |
0.0544 |
0.0483 |
0.0494 |
0.0480 |
0.0488 |
|
Sf8 |
0.0485 |
0.0562 |
0.0576 |
0.0470 |
0.0579 |
0.0544 |
0.0604 |
0.0618 |
0.0552 |
0.0561 |
|
Sf9 |
0.0485 |
0.0511 |
0.0720 |
0.0470 |
0.0579 |
0.0494 |
0.0604 |
0.0515 |
0.0542 |
0.0551 |
|
Sf10 |
0.0441 |
0.0426 |
0.0600 |
0.0427 |
0.0579 |
0.0380 |
0.0504 |
0.0468 |
0.0473 |
0.0480 |
|
Sf11 |
0.0367 |
0.0426 |
0.0545 |
0.0534 |
0.0482 |
0.0293 |
0.0458 |
0.0425 |
0.0434 |
0.0441 |
|
Sf12 |
0.0283 |
0.0387 |
0.0454 |
0.0534 |
0.0438 |
0.0244 |
0.0381 |
0.0354 |
0.0374 |
0.0380 |
|
Sf13 |
0.0353 |
0.0387 |
0.0349 |
0.0486 |
0.0398 |
0.0203 |
0.0381 |
0.0322 |
0.0351 |
0.0357 |
|
Sf14 |
0.0353 |
0.0484 |
0.0349 |
0.0441 |
0.0398 |
0.0254 |
0.0381 |
0.0403 |
0.0377 |
0.0383 |
|
Sf15 |
0.0442 |
0.0605 |
0.0349 |
0.0441 |
0.0362 |
0.0254 |
0.0477 |
0.0403 |
0.0405 |
0.0412 |
|
Sf16 |
0.0442 |
0.0504 |
0.0318 |
0.0368 |
0.0329 |
0.0254 |
0.0367 |
0.0366 |
0.0362 |
0.0367 |
|
Sf17 |
0.0552 |
0.0458 |
0.0318 |
0.0368 |
0.0412 |
0.0317 |
0.0367 |
0.0458 |
0.0399 |
0.0406 |
|
Sf18 |
0.0425 |
0.0417 |
0.0318 |
0.0307 |
0.0317 |
0.0289 |
0.0333 |
0.0381 |
0.0345 |
0.0350 |
|
Sf19 |
0.0531 |
0.0521 |
0.0397 |
0.0307 |
0.0317 |
0.0361 |
0.0417 |
0.0381 |
0.0397 |
0.0403 |
|
Sf20 |
0.0482 |
0.0434 |
0.0331 |
0.0307 |
0.0288 |
0.0361 |
0.0347 |
0.0293 |
0.0350 |
0.0355 |
|
Sf21 |
0.0482 |
0.0395 |
0.0414 |
0.0255 |
0.0240 |
0.0301 |
0.0316 |
0.0293 |
0.0328 |
0.0333 |
Table 6. Final weights of safety performance factors
|
Rank |
Safety Performance Factors |
Final weight |
|
1 |
Personal protective equipment (PPE). |
0.0686 |
|
2 |
First aid and medical care. |
0.0665 |
|
3 |
Housekeeping program. |
0.0619 |
|
4 |
Contractor site safety program. |
0.0603 |
|
5 |
Emergency response plan. |
0.0599 |
|
6 |
Accident investigation program. |
0.0561 |
|
7 |
Course training on safety for all workers. |
0.0561 |
|
8 |
Safety training for supervisors. |
0.0551 |
|
9 |
Drug and alcohol tests for workers. |
0.0488 |
|
10 |
Management's safety commitment. |
0.0480 |
|
11 |
Owner's safety commitment. |
0.0441 |
|
12 |
Safety requirements identification in the contract. |
0.0412 |
|
13 |
High level of safety policies. |
0.0406 |
|
14 |
Set up a safety committee. |
0.0403 |
|
15 |
Contractor selection by owner |
0.0383 |
|
16 |
Financial resource allocation for safety. |
0.0380 |
|
17 |
Owner approval of the safety plan provided by the contractor. |
0.0367 |
|
18 |
Management and personnel responsibilities definition relating to safety. |
0.0357 |
|
19 |
Safety supervisor appointment. |
0.0355 |
|
20 |
Regular safety inspections. |
0.0350 |
|
21 |
Contractor safety rewards and punishment programs. |
0.0333 |
Figure 1. Ranking and weights of safety performance Factors
Meanwhile, it was found that the experts did not give attention to the incentive program, which was found to be the least influential factor on safety performance.
Incentives can be counterproductive when applied to safety programs. This is due to the fact that certain workers may be tempted to hide injuries and illnesses and not report them to the management in order to obtain rewards [44].
Further, according to OSHA [62], safety incentive programs do not influence workers' behavior regarding safety but rather result in chang the rate of accidents reporting.
While the authors believe that safety incentives have the potential to improve safety performance, they stress the need for tailoring incentive programs to the needs of each worker in order to reduce the likelihood that workers may feel pressured to keep health issues hidden.
Together, the top ten sub-factors constitute approximately 58.13% of the total weight of all sub-factors . Among the top ten sub-factors, seven sub-factors were under the "Management Practices" factor, two sub-factors were under the "Safety Training" factor, and one sub-factor was under the "Safety Commitment" factor. These factors must be given the most attention because they have the most important elements to address safety in construction projects.
This study presented the important safety factors that have an impact on the safety performance of construction projects in Iraq. The Pivot Pairwise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment (PIPRECIA), a recently proposed technique for calculating criteria weights, was employed to determine the relative weight of factors. The PIPRECIA tool has a substantial influence on decision-making and calculating the final weight of factors. This technique distinguishes itself in that it does not need to arrange the criteria according to their expected importance. In other words, the experts are not forced to follow a specific order of the factors. Each expert assigns importance according to his opinion. The authors also confirm the applicability of this technique with pairwise comparison questionnaires.
The other important finding is that the data obtained from this research may be utilized for prioritizing key factors when building a complete safety program and ensuring that construction companies are not wasting money on inadequate safety programs. Further, the authors also believe that the obtained weights of the factors can be used to evaluate safety performance at the construction site and monitor the contractor's compliance with the safety issues.
Finaly , It's worth stressing that the surveys were done with Iraqi industry practitioners and within the framework of this study. What this implies is that local environment and culture have a role in determining the relative importance of impact strengths for components in safety programs.
[1] Son, D.T.V.T. (2022). Significant factors affecting the effect of safety program implementation on construction projects in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal Of Science-Engineering And Technology, 12(1): 119-124. https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.tech.en.12.1.1961.2022
[2] Shaikh, A.Y., Osei-Kyei, R., Hardie, M. (2021). A critical analysis of safety performance indicators in construction. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(3): 547-580. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-03-2020-0018
[3] Rasheed, E.K. (2016). A program applying professional safety basics in construction projects. Journal of Engineering, 22(4): 1-21. https://www.joe.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/main/article/view/240
[4] Hatem, W. (2017). Evaluation of safety systems in Iraqi construction projects. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(21): 11714-11726.
[5] Chen, W.T., Tsai, I.C., Merrett, H.C., Lu, S.T., Lee, Y.I., You, J.K., Mortis, L. (2020). Construction safety success factors: A Taiwanese case study. Sustainability, 12(16): 6326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166326
[6] ILO. (2022). Safety and health at work (Safety and health at work). https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/lang--de/index.htm (accessed May 12, 2022).
[7] Buniya, M.K., Othman, I., Sunindijo, R.Y., Kashwani, G., Durdyev, S., Ismail, S., ... & Li, H. (2021). Critical success factors of safety program implementation in construction projects in Iraq. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(16): 8469. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168469
[8] Atta, H.A., Curtis, A. (2015). Using spatial videos, google earthtm and geographic information system to dynamically monitor built environment changes in a challenging environment: Baghdad, Iraq. Journal of Engineering, 21(5): 115-130. https://www.joe.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/main/article/view/438
[9] Saeed, Y., Aziz, E., Zelentsov, L. (2021). Technology role in safety management of Iraqi construction projects. In E3S Web of Conferences, 263: 04043. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126304043
[10] Gabus, A., Fontela, E.J.B.G.R.C. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland, 1(8).
[11] Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making. In Kobe, Japan, 1: 69.
[12] Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7): 763-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
[13] Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2): 243-258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12
[14] Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E.K., Karabasevic, D., Smarandache, F., Turskis, Z. (2017). The use of the pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment method for determining the weights of criteria. Infinite Study.
[15] Jauković-Jocić, K., Karabašević, D., Jocić, G. (2020). The use of the PIPRECIA method for assessing the quality of e-learning materials. Ekonomika, 66(3): 37-45.
[16] Bavafa, A., Mahdiyar, A., Marsono, A.K. (2018). Identifying and assessing the critical factors for effective implementation of safety programs in construction projects. Safety Science, 106: 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.025
[17] Othman, I., Kamil, M., Sunindijo, R.Y., Alnsour, M., Kineber, A.F. (2020). Critical success factors influencing construction safety program implementation in developing countries. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1529(4): 042079. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1529/4/042079
[18] Wong, S.S., Soo, A.L. (2019). Factors influencing safety performance in the construction industry. Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 16(3): 1-9.
[19] Jia, S.Z., Wei, G.C., Yutang, L.W. (2022). Factors affecting construction sector safety performance: exploratory factor analysis evidence from China. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Project Management, 6(1): 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2020.1838774
[20] Muñoz-La Rivera, F., Mora-Serrano, J., Oñate, E. (2021). Factors influencing safety on construction projects (FSCPs): Types and categories. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20): 10884. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010884
[21] Ammad, S., Alaloul, W.S., Saad, S., Qureshi, A.H. (2021). Personal protective equipment (PPE) usage in construction projects: A scientometric approach. Journal of Building Engineering, 35: 102086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102086
[22] Yap, J.B.H., Lee, W.K. (2020). Analysing the underlying factors affecting safety performance in building construction. Production Planning & Control, 31(13): 1061-1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1695292
[23] Rashid, H.A., Al-juboori, O.A., Mahjoob, A.M.R. (2021). Safety management in private construction project in Iraq. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 9(1): 322-335.
[24] Hallowell, M.R., Gambatese, J.A. (2009). Construction safety risk mitigation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(12): 1316-1323. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000107
[25] Bello, M.A. (2012). Minimizing impediments to design for construction safety (DFCS) implementation on capital projects. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
[26] Teo, E.A.L., Ling, F.Y.Y. (2006). Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sites. Building and Environment, 41(11): 1584-1592.
[27] Rajendran, S. (2007). Sustainable construction safety and health rating system. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.
[28] Hallowell, M.R., Hinze, J.W., Baud, K.C., Wehle, A. (2013). Proactive construction safety control: Measuring, monitoring, and responding to safety leading indicators. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(10): 04013010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000730
[29] Sawicki, M., Szóstak, M. (2020). Impact of alcohol on occupational health and safety in the construction industry at workplaces with scaffoldings. Applied Sciences, 10(19): 6690. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10196690
[30] Mushi, F.V., Manege, S.L. (2018). Alcohol abuse and illicit drug use at construction sites: Perception of workers at construction sites. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 7(2): 65-72.
[31] Mohammadi, A., Tavakolan, M. (2020). Identifying safety archetypes of construction workers using system dynamics and content analysis. Safety Science, 129: 104831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104831
[32] Li, Y., Ning, Y., Chen, W.T. (2018). Critical success factors for safety management of high-rise building construction projects in China. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018: 1516354. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1516354
[33] Awolusi, I.G., Marks, E.D. (2017). Safety activity analysis framework to evaluate safety performance in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(3): 05016022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001265
[34] Mohammadi, A., Tavakolan, M., Khosravi, Y. (2018). Factors influencing safety performance on construction projects: A review. Safety Science, 109: 382-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.017
[35] Ning, D.C., Wang, J.P., Ni, G.D. (2010). Analysis of factors affecting safety management in construction projects. In 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science, pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSS.2010.5576911
[36] Ismail, Z., Doostdar, S., Harun, Z. (2012). Factors influencing the implementation of a safety management system for construction sites. Safety Science, 50(3): 418-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.10.001
[37] Liu, H., Jazayeri, E., Dadi, G.B. (2017). Establishing the influence of owner practices on construction safety in an operational excellence model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(6): 04017005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001292
[38] Mahmoudi, S., Ghasemi, F., Mohammadfam, I., Soleimani, E. (2014). Framework for continuous assessment and improvement of occupational health and safety issues in construction companies. Safety and Health at Work, 5(3): 125-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2014.05.005
[39] Rajendran, S., Gambatese, J.A. (2009). Development and initial validation of sustainable construction safety and health rating system. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(10): 1067-1075. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:10(1067)
[40] Karakhan, A., Gambatese, J. (2018). Hazards and risk in construction and the impact of incentives and rewards on safety outcomes. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 23(2): 04018005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000359
[41] Abdul Nabi, M., El-adaway, I.H., Fayek, S., Howell, C., Gambatese, J. (2020). Contractual guidelines for construction safety–related issues under design–build standard forms of contract. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(7): 04020074. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001855
[42] Hinze, J., Gambatese, J. (2003). Factors that influence safety performance of specialty contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(2): 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(159)
[43] El-Nagar, R., Hosny, H., Askar, H.S. (2015). Development of a safety performance index for construction projects in Egypt. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 3(5): 182-192.
[44] Al-Aubaidy, N.A., Caldas, C.H., Mulva, S.P. (2022). Assessment of underreporting factors on construction safety incidents in US construction projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(1): 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1613211
[45] Liu, K.H., Tessler, J., Murphy, L.A., Chang, C.C., Dennerlein, J.T. (2019). The gap between tools and best practice: an analysis of safety prequalification surveys in the construction industry. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 28(4): 683-703.
[46] Asghar Bavafa, A., Motamed, S., Marsono, A.K., Ressang, A., Sadeghifam, A.N., Ghafourian, K. (2016). Significant factors affecting safety program performance of construction firms in Iran. Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 4(3): 71-77.
[47] Alruqi, W.M., Hallowell, M.R. (2019). Critical success factors for construction safety: Review and meta-analysis of safety leading indicators. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(3): 04019005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001626
[48] Huang, X., Hinze, J. (2006). Owner’s role in construction safety. J Constr Eng Manag, 132(2): 164-173. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:2(164).
[49] Yap, J.B.H., Lee, K.P.H., Wang, C. (2021). Safety enablers using emerging technologies in construction projects: Empirical study in Malaysia. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology.
[50] Toole, T.M. (2002). Construction site safety roles. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(3): 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:3(203)
[51] Hansen, M.D. (2006). Management systems. Prof Saf, 51(10): 34.
[52] Boadu, E.F., Sunindijo, R.Y., Wang, C.C., Frimpong, S. (2022). Client-led promotion of health and safety through the procurement process on public construction projects in developing countries. Safety Science, 147: 105605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105605
[53] Khoza, J.D., Haupt, T.C. (2021). Measuring health and safety performance of construction projects in South Africa. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 654(1): 012031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/654/1/012031
[54] Tsao, M.L., Hsieh, C.J., Chen, L.Y. (2017). The role of management commitment and employee involvement in safety management. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 10(2).
[55] Ghasemi, F., Mohammadfam, I., Soltanian, A.R., Mahmoudi, S., Zarei, E. (2015). Surprising incentive: an instrument for promoting safety performance of construction employees. Safety and Health at Work, 6(3): 227-232.
[56] Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. John Wiley and sons Australia, Ltd.
[57] Punch, K.F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage.
[58] Poplawska, J. (2014). Decision support framework for resources allocation to corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes. University of Portsmouth.
[59] Tansey, O. (2009). Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politik-und Sozialwissenschaft, pp. 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_24
[60] Zekri, M.K.S. (2013). Construction safety and health performance in Dubai. Unpublished thesis, Heriot Watt University, Dubai
[61] Hallowell, M.R. (2008). A formal model for construction safety and health risk management. Oregon State University.
[62] OSHA. (2003). Voluntary protection programs: policies and procedures manual
