cib w099 - hong kong - may 2002 one country - two systems conca accident causality preliminary...

CIB W099 - Hong Kong - May 2002One Country - Two Systems

ConCAAccident Causality

Preliminary Results

Alistair Gibb, Roger Haslam, Diane Gyi, Sophie Hide, Sarah Hastings

Loughborough University

Roy Duff, UMIST, Manchester


25 (of 100) incident studies

• Method covered in detail elsewhere

(Hide et al, cib W99, London, 2000)

Focus Groups

Review

Incident identification

Site inspection

Site interviews

Prelim report

Follow-up

Independent review

Analysis

Incorporation


Model of Construction Accident CausationP

RO

JE

CT

BR

IEF

PR

OJ

EC

T D

ES

IGN

PR

OJ

EC

T D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

CONSTRUCTION PLANNING

CONSTRUCTION CONTROL

SITE CONDITION

INJ

UR

Y a

nd

/ o

r D

AM

AG

E

ENVIRONMENT

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

ENVIRONMENT

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

OPERATIVE ACTION

INC

IDE

NT

AC

CID

EN

T

CONSTRUCTIONOPERATION

Adapted from Suraji & Duff, 2000


Project Type


Project Phase


Worker ‘trade’


Incident type


IP Age


IP Experience


Key aspects

• Accident investigation• Time, cost & work pressure• Management / supervision• Method statements / risk

assessments• Communication, language

& instructions• Abilities, skills transfer &

training

• Tools, equipment, materials, PPE & task execution

• Working environment, ergonomics & health

• Individual factors, motivation, culture & tradition

• Legal & contractual• Design


Accident investigation

• Incorrect or insufficient detail entered in the accident book

• Insufficient exploration of peripheral factors• Concentration on blame• Assumptions on causes• Unwillingness to confront reality - method

statements veracity / non PC issues


Time, cost & work pressure

• ‘Time’ not given as a cause• But clear evidence of time pressures• Even though ‘piece-work’ was not the norm• ‘Out of hours’ work on ‘job and knock’• Cost linked to time but not seen as such by

operatives


Management / supervision

• Relationships varied considerably from site to site

• Some good examples of supportive, proactive management

• Some ‘them and us’ examples• Safety role seen as ‘referee’ or ‘police’• Reactive safety performance monitoring


Method statements / risk assessment

• Rarely cover the incident activity

• Often ‘standard’ wording• Little consultation in

preparation• Updates done ‘after the

event’• Exact on process

sequence but imprecise on work techniques

• Assume optimal conditions• Volume, presentation &

style do not suit training or information transfer role

• Often read out or given to read as worker’s brief

• Signing to record MS issued seeks to transfer responsibility


Communication, language & instructions

• Often communication breakdown - lack of consultation or information not reaching ‘at-risk’ persons

• Poor sense of common ownership• Lack of ‘English’ ability was a factor• Poor or non-existent info from manufacturers


Abilities, skills transfer & training

• High dependence on core skills• Determining new-starter competence is ad-hoc• Most training is ‘sitting with nellie’• Trainers are untrained as trainers• Inductions almost completely seen as a waste

of time


Tools, equipment, materials, PPE & task execution

• Not acknowledged as problems• Ad hoc purchase of tools and equipment• Poor equipment design cf other industries• Operatives reluctant to complain• No clear responsibility chain for materials,

tools or equipment


Working environment, ergonomics & health

• Work environment not seen as important by most operatives and supervisors

• Acceptance of poor conditions• Housekeeping and welfare expose poor

health & safety culture• No evidence of ergonomic assessments (e.g.

manual handling)


Individual factors, motivation & tradition

• Evidence of prejudice, conflict, relationships and attitude to work

• Poor morale and motivation endemic• Strong ‘macho’ culture pervades• ‘That’s just the way things are done’


Design issues

• Surprisingly, design problems were rarely raised by IPs

• There are so many other obvious proximal causes that design doesn’t seem to be considered

• Design of tools and equipment IS a key issue but not normally considered as design


Conclusions

• Accident investigation• Time, cost & work pressure• Management / supervision• Method statements / risk

assessments• Communication, language

& instructions• Abilities, skills transfer &

training

• Tools, equipment, materials, PPE & task execution

• Working environment, ergonomics & health

• Individual factors, motivation, culture & tradition

• Legal & contractual• Design

The following factors influence accident causality:

cib w099 - hong kong - may 2002 one country - two systems conca accident causality preliminary...

Documents