建筑工程施工安全管理研究外文翻譯

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）外文翻譯譯文</p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名： </p><p>　　院 （系）： 電子工程學(xué)院 </p><p>　　專業(yè)班級： 安全0803 </p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師：

2、 </p><p>　　完成日期： 20 年 月 日 </p><p>　　開發(fā)一個(gè)評估施工現(xiàn)場安全管理系統(tǒng)有效性的模型</p><p>　　Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety</p><p&

3、gt;　　management systems of construction sites</p><p>　　作者：Evelyn Ai Lin Teoa,_, Florence Yean Yng Linga</p><p>　　起止頁碼：1584~1592</p><p>　　出版日期（期刊號）：2005年 6月 第005版</p><p>

4、;　　出版單位：新加坡環(huán)境國立大學(xué)</p><p><b>　　摘要:</b></p><p>　　在新加坡,實(shí)施了建筑行業(yè)安全管理系統(tǒng)(SMS)和SMS審計(jì)大約有十年之久的現(xiàn)在,安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的提高并不顯著。為了回應(yīng)需要改進(jìn)的有效性(SMS)和安全管理體系審計(jì)的目的,本文提出了一種方法, 人員可以利用測試工具來評估審計(jì)建筑公司安全管理體系的有效性。研究方法采用了15個(gè)步進(jìn)

5、行調(diào)查，安全專家被邀請通過面試或工作表達(dá)自己的意見。層次分析法(AHP)及因子分析是用來協(xié)助識(shí)別影響最為關(guān)鍵的因素和屬性的安全。該模型開發(fā)利用多屬性值模型(MAVT)的方法。該方法可以通過網(wǎng)站得到驗(yàn)證審核,利用模型中施工安全指數(shù)(CSI)可以計(jì)算出來。結(jié)果表明,該模型可以作為一個(gè)客觀CSI衡量不同管理和評估。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞: 安全管理體系;安全審核;施工安全指數(shù)</p><p&g

6、t;　　1 簡介: 支撐這一工作的論據(jù)</p><p>　　安全管理體系(SMS)作為建筑業(yè)一個(gè)正式制度的管理現(xiàn)場安全的體系。承包商預(yù)期管理現(xiàn)場安全通過正常的安全管理體系。如何有效地評價(jià)這些系統(tǒng)是很重要的,這樣可以使不足之處得以更正。該研究工作是在協(xié)作與職業(yè)安全部門監(jiān)督下進(jìn)行的,人力資源部門可根據(jù)當(dāng)局評價(jià)審計(jì)協(xié)議來衡量一個(gè)建筑工地的有效性的安全管理體系。</p><p>　　新加坡建筑行業(yè)

7、服務(wù)實(shí)施了安全管理體系審計(jì)大約有十年之久了,但是提高的安全效果并不顯著。這與影響船舶的修建行業(yè)一樣,經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)穩(wěn)定提高安全性能的階段。實(shí)施后的指標(biāo)(SMS)和安全管理體系審計(jì)缺乏安全的改進(jìn)可能是由于缺少安全管理結(jié)構(gòu)和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在新加坡,沒有規(guī)定管理SMS的方式和政策，缺少的部分由建筑公司起草。事情往往不是這樣,承包商的人認(rèn)為,他們有足夠的時(shí)間來審計(jì)安全管理體系的安全。</p><p>　　以往的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)成功的安全關(guān)系

8、體系在建筑工地有助于防止事故的發(fā)生。因此,必須提供一個(gè)全面的屬性清單以及可能影響其安全工作的性能，同時(shí)也沒有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)協(xié)議上的安全進(jìn)行審計(jì)方法。各項(xiàng)安全審計(jì)事務(wù)有它自己的一套審計(jì)方法, 施工安全管理系統(tǒng)守則基于在新加坡的廣泛使用的規(guī)程實(shí)施。第二十七節(jié)：《 (工廠大樓運(yùn)營工程建設(shè)作品)(修訂)條例草案》規(guī)則1994，除了聲明必須包括14個(gè)主要元素的安全檢查,沒有其他指南標(biāo)準(zhǔn)清單和審計(jì)安全水平來評價(jià)安全管理的有效性。在實(shí)踐中, 各個(gè)公司使用不同的

9、清單。許多安全審計(jì)公司要降低安全審計(jì)的費(fèi)用，低費(fèi)用可能使一些公司對抄近路,少花時(shí)間,因此降低的安全檢查的質(zhì)量和力度。</p><p>　　想知道網(wǎng)站是否有一個(gè)有效的安全管理體系，政府被要求每六個(gè)月進(jìn)行一次安全管理體系的檢查。問題是,迄今為止沒有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的工具能客觀的審計(jì)和有效性的去評估公司的安全管理體系。還有一個(gè)大型的審計(jì)之間的差異，摘要的不同，以及安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的疑問。針對需要提高其療效和安全管理體系的審核,這篇文章的

10、目的是提出一種開發(fā)和測試的工具方法,可以用審計(jì)師評估一家建筑公司的有效性及安全管理體系。這個(gè)目標(biāo)是非常重要的,因?yàn)樾袠I(yè)通過一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方法,可以開發(fā)一個(gè)審計(jì)的目的和基準(zhǔn)。</p><p>　　這個(gè)調(diào)查的目的是制定一項(xiàng)審計(jì)協(xié)議來有效的評價(jià)解釋網(wǎng)站的安全管理體系。這是取得的發(fā)展和測試評估使用的工具, 這些網(wǎng)站用來計(jì)算施工安全指數(shù)(CSI)。這是用一個(gè)定量的成績表示一個(gè)建筑工地效能水平的安全管理體系。</p>

11、<p>　　安全審計(jì)是一種收集結(jié)構(gòu)化過程獨(dú)立信息的效率、效果和可靠性的總和，通過安全審計(jì)來對安全管理體系制訂糾正措施。有效性在確定安全管理體系中是很重要的。昆劇和Gibb發(fā)現(xiàn)有監(jiān)測事故發(fā)生前的審計(jì)系統(tǒng)成功實(shí)現(xiàn)了加強(qiáng)的效果，安全管理的安全性能也是至關(guān)重要的?？伎怂购涂伎怂箞F(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)現(xiàn)安全審計(jì)是安全管理體系最重要的因素之一，它為管理者提供進(jìn)一步符合的安全管理體系的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。安全工作源于實(shí)踐, 通過觀察可靠和延續(xù)的反饋安全生產(chǎn)水平。因此,

12、 及時(shí)的安全檢查將幫助確定強(qiáng)項(xiàng)和弱項(xiàng)電流安全程序,使任何可能造成不利影響的問題區(qū)域得以成功的預(yù)防，這使公司能獲得更大的利益且符合程序資源部署。</p><p>　　2 安全管理體系服務(wù)于建筑行業(yè)</p><p>　　在新加坡,MOM是政府調(diào)控機(jī)制研究進(jìn)展的立法機(jī)構(gòu),負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行安全問題的地方。主要制定安全立法網(wǎng)站必須遵守的工廠法案章節(jié)(104)和《工廠大樓運(yùn)營和工作建設(shè)工程)(BOWEC)規(guī)例

13、》,1994。BOWEC法規(guī)要求所有的施工工作城市及合同價(jià)值$ 1000萬基礎(chǔ)上的制定了一個(gè)安全管理體系守則,即建筑安全管理系統(tǒng)(CP)79。工作城市間合同價(jià)值少于1000萬美元的,不需要執(zhí)行安全管理體系,但是他們也鼓勵(lì)要去執(zhí)行。</p><p>　　CP79的14個(gè)主要安全管理元素如下:</p><p><b>　　·安全政策；</b></p>

14、<p><b>　　·安全工作實(shí)踐；</b></p><p><b>　　·安全培訓(xùn)；</b></p><p><b>　　·工作組會(huì)議；</b></p><p><b>　　·事故調(diào)查和分析；</b></p>

15、<p>　　·內(nèi)部安全規(guī)則和條例；</p><p>　　·安全推廣,評價(jià)、選擇和管理承包商；</p><p><b>　　·安全檢查；</b></p><p>　　·維護(hù)政權(quán)所有的機(jī)器和設(shè)備；</p><p><b>　　·危害分析；</b>

16、;</p><p>　　·運(yùn)動(dòng)控制和有害物質(zhì)；</p><p><b>　　·化學(xué)材料；</b></p><p><b>　　·緊急事件處置；</b></p><p><b>　　·職業(yè)健康計(jì)劃。</b></p><p

17、>　　每個(gè)單元提供詳細(xì)的施工指導(dǎo)意見來組織和管理他們公司的應(yīng)用網(wǎng)站,以確保公司人員和公眾的安全。然而,CP 79注定不會(huì)被封閉在一個(gè)嚴(yán)格的組，因?yàn)槊總€(gè)法規(guī)的建設(shè)項(xiàng)目是不同的。項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理必須小心解釋條款在《實(shí)務(wù)守則》中適應(yīng)這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的環(huán)境指南。</p><p>　　除了新加坡、安全管理體系也需要在其他國家發(fā)展。回顧安全管理體系在香港,澳大利亞，美國和英國的使用發(fā)現(xiàn)79年新加坡的CP綜合非常激動(dòng)人心,并涵蓋所有級別

18、的建設(shè)項(xiàng)目和組織。然而,關(guān)注更高水平的問題,如管理承諾不足相比澳大利亞和英國。這方法采用的體系不同于英國具體豐富的細(xì)節(jié),但他們凸顯需要進(jìn)行管理,在那里他們的參與給出的意見和評論非常重要。很多研究表明,參與管理安全管理體系的核心元素，若沒有聯(lián)合管理的支持是難以執(zhí)行安全生產(chǎn)措施和建立安全文化組織的。</p><p><b>　　3 研究方法</b></p><p>　　第

19、一步是復(fù)習(xí)各種安全管理體系標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和選定發(fā)達(dá)國家已知有且相對較高的安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作為指導(dǎo)方針。這些國家包括香港、澳大利亞、英國和美國。</p><p>　　第二步,相關(guān)屬性的選擇要進(jìn)行基于文獻(xiàn)分析及研究各國安全管理體系。然后以問卷的方式調(diào)查從業(yè)者的感知重要性的順序排列。發(fā)放問卷調(diào)查,隨機(jī)選取新加坡的420名有注冊建筑施工機(jī)構(gòu)的建筑承包商(步驟三)。 </p><p>　　第四步,審核并獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)安全性能獎(jiǎng)

20、(ASPA)來鼓勵(lì)選擇使用安全管理體系的這些組織。</p><p>　　第五步,進(jìn)行訪談的三個(gè)安全審計(jì)人員找出其審計(jì)的實(shí)踐，開發(fā)了一個(gè)以文獻(xiàn)分析及郵政調(diào)查結(jié)果為基礎(chǔ)的初步的框架(步驟六、步驟七)。通過一個(gè)模型來衡量發(fā)明安全管理體系的有效性(第八步)，該模型基于多屬性技術(shù)(MAVT)。在步驟八,所有可能的屬性納入該模型并通過CP79鑒定,這些因素、工具和實(shí)踐來自其他國家。</p><p>　

21、　通過步驟九和步驟十的重要性權(quán)重因素和屬性框架《CSI犯罪現(xiàn)場》確定第一級和二級因素屬性, 30位專家們接受了采訪，分析確定了指標(biāo)的權(quán)重層次分析法(AHP)(步驟9)。由于需要大量的時(shí)間進(jìn)行層次分析法(AHP)和低等級屬性的數(shù)量的比較,在較低的水平屬性權(quán)重點(diǎn)的基礎(chǔ)上,確定李克量表,十二個(gè)行業(yè)的重量級專家接受了采訪體現(xiàn)了它的重要性。</p><p>　　研究評級方法(步驟十一)和驗(yàn)證由業(yè)內(nèi)專家完成。此后,模型的性能

22、通過三個(gè)現(xiàn)場審核進(jìn)行了測試 (第十二步)。基于反饋的信息,步驟十四改進(jìn)算法便成為步驟十五，此次調(diào)查的結(jié)果(步驟七) 曾被張棟梁丁曉萍報(bào)道。本文將集中在第八步開始驗(yàn)證其發(fā)展簡史及提出模型。</p><p>　　4 模型構(gòu)造(第八步)</p><p>　　MAVT模型從文獻(xiàn)研究和調(diào)查結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)許多影響安全的屬性，MAVT方法在解決這個(gè)問題的多重屬性上開發(fā)了一個(gè)得分模型,即每個(gè)屬性指定一個(gè)重量來反

23、映其重要性,每個(gè)施工現(xiàn)場的標(biāo)度上用0 – 1表示其所有屬性，此后,重量乘以評級,產(chǎn)品包含每個(gè)選擇。該模型需要確定如下內(nèi)容:</p><p>　　·屬性列表需要評價(jià);</p><p>　　·屬性重要性的權(quán)重;</p><p>　　·施工現(xiàn)場各個(gè)屬性的評分;</p><p>　　·對確定每一個(gè)聚集規(guī)律的選擇

24、。</p><p><b>　　4.1 屬性列表</b></p><p>　　承包商和他們的那些屬性建設(shè)網(wǎng)站需要為了確保高水平的相關(guān)測試行業(yè)范圍的調(diào)查來實(shí)現(xiàn)安全鑒定。這顯著性重要變量被輸入到SPSS軟件進(jìn)行因素和結(jié)構(gòu)分析,以確定是否可以提出與許多方面有聯(lián)系的安全策略。因子分析是受這一事實(shí)變數(shù)影響的有關(guān)重要構(gòu)造的一種可能的參數(shù),可以代表其在簡潔和識(shí)別形式的基本結(jié)構(gòu)。因子

25、分析產(chǎn)生了四個(gè)主要部件,政策因素、工藝因素,激勵(lì)因素和人員因素(3 P + I)。每一個(gè)因素由多個(gè)屬性。見圖1的3P+I模型。</p><p>　　圖 1 3P+I 模型</p><p>　　這四個(gè)因素和相關(guān)屬性安排成五個(gè)層次樹來體現(xiàn)價(jià)值,那里的目標(biāo)在頂部可能是抽象的,在低層級是連貫和富有邏輯性的。更高層次目標(biāo)的決策者通常將目標(biāo)全球化，這些目標(biāo)需要最高的秩序而且必須合計(jì)代表決策者的總目標(biāo)。

26、每一個(gè)高層次的目標(biāo)是先會(huì)分枝,分為中級水平目標(biāo),最后再分為低水平的目標(biāo)。這價(jià)值屬性樹必須要有一個(gè)井然有序結(jié)構(gòu)來幫助評估問題和啟發(fā)權(quán)值樹枝作用的重要性。</p><p>　　在這項(xiàng)研究中,最高水平的目的層次被稱為“因素”。這四個(gè)因素是:政策、過程、人事和激勵(lì)。第二層次的特征具有很重要的意義，其屬性來源于問卷調(diào)查。每一個(gè)二級屬性進(jìn)一步下分直到下級屬性適度降低得到屬性，該列表包含590種屬性和《CSI犯罪現(xiàn)場》清單。&

27、lt;/p><p>　　4.2 屬性重要性權(quán)重</p><p>　　有必要對這兩方面加以區(qū)分,哪些屬性在3 P+I層次框架是理想的,如前面提到的590例屬性細(xì)節(jié)，這是因?yàn)椴煌瑢傩缘闹匾灾С植煌W(wǎng)站的安全。因此,有必要設(shè)立評價(jià)屬性的程度,對各屬性重要性加以分析，其主要是用來決定制造商的重要性,因此它表達(dá)彼此屬性相對于其他屬性的評估,體重指示是決定這個(gè)制造商最關(guān)鍵的一個(gè)定量分析方法。</p

28、><p>　　有幾個(gè)公約來自分配屬性的權(quán)重體系，利用一個(gè)慣例對每枝體重層次樹狀分析得到的增殖透過樹,即重量之和為1的每個(gè)層次樹。本研究采用Saaty(19)的層次分析法(AHP)得到的重要性權(quán)重可以分析更高層次的屬性(等級1和2)。</p><p>　　4.2.1 屬性重要性的應(yīng)用層次分析法(AHP)步驟九</p><p>　　利用問卷調(diào)查來獲得第一和第二水平運(yùn)用層次分

29、析法的權(quán)重。這四個(gè)因素的權(quán)重(政策、過程、人員和激勵(lì))組成第一層次權(quán)重。第二個(gè)層次權(quán)重的3 P +I模型問卷內(nèi)容包括五個(gè)部分: (1)通過相關(guān)因素的現(xiàn)場安全政策、過程和人員激勵(lì) (一級重量);(2)相關(guān)因素現(xiàn)場安全通過政策方面(水平兩個(gè)重量);(3)相關(guān)因素現(xiàn)場安全通過工藝方面(要求等級2重量);(4)相關(guān)因素人事方面(二級重量);(5) 通過的因素與現(xiàn)場安全激勵(lì)方面(二級重量)。</p><p>　　利用層次分

30、析法(AHP)的Saaty(19)技術(shù),受訪者比較每個(gè)元素或順次列舉反對的理由或?qū)Ρ攘硪粋€(gè)9點(diǎn)規(guī)模來說明它們的相對重要性。強(qiáng)度的重要性措施的由打分得來,分值范圍為1 – 9來表示其“絕對的重要性”。每一個(gè)元素或順次排列并與另一個(gè)是互相抵觸來建立其重要性。例如,元素在政策因素部分是對比了工藝因素、雙向0 - 9的各個(gè)方向的規(guī)模顯示相對重要性或過程的因素。選擇一個(gè)號碼相對人的居住所做的經(jīng)驗(yàn)審判和建設(shè)工程他/她是否積極參與，這樣做是為了減少一

31、個(gè)特定的項(xiàng)目可能出現(xiàn)的偏差。</p><p>　　運(yùn)用層次分析法確定指標(biāo)的權(quán)重,30位經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的專家進(jìn)行了現(xiàn)場安全研究。他們代表不同利益相關(guān)者在建設(shè)的價(jià)值鏈如承建商、公營部門的客戶,政府安全部門和安全審計(jì)咨詢公司，所有受訪者有超過5年的建筑行業(yè)工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)。他們提倡邀請專家是因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為必要的知識(shí)和工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)對處理的建筑項(xiàng)目安全管理的相當(dāng)必要的。收集相關(guān)資料及面對面問卷調(diào)查，每場面談都持續(xù)了約2小時(shí)。</p>

32、;<p>　　通過四個(gè)因素(一級)調(diào)查比較來解他們，受訪者請求比較變量,他們必須為他們提高安全管理體系的城市建設(shè)給出分?jǐn)?shù),其真實(shí)可靠性是基于受訪者的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和不影響任何變量而歸納的。</p><p>　　第一，二級重量是總結(jié)16位受訪者并取近似的海損重量計(jì)算的。3p+I模型其相對的重要性的因素，按由小到大的次序依次是:</p><p><b>　　·人員因素，

33、</b></p><p><b>　　·刺激因素，</b></p><p><b>　　·進(jìn)程因素，</b></p><p><b>　　·政策因素。</b></p><p><b>　　9 結(jié)論</b></

34、p><p>　　本文所描述的模型開發(fā)和測試計(jì)算CSI和其隨行的工具，可用于審核建筑公司安全管理體系的有效性。一個(gè)全面的名單已確定了590個(gè)屬性，可用于評估施工安全。使用層次分析法以確定第一和第二級重量方法的描述過程。 5點(diǎn)李克特量用來表示確定低級別屬性的重要性權(quán)重，3P+ I模型用來檢驗(yàn)這些權(quán)重是否正常。</p><p>　　本文還討論了評價(jià)方法、模型及所有組件的聚合規(guī)則。在該評級方法的基礎(chǔ)上

35、，五位專家采訪和定稿的評價(jià)方法是四種可能的評價(jià)選項(xiàng)：0/1，0-1，0/1/NA0-1/ NA。該模型還通過現(xiàn)場審核驗(yàn)證，審計(jì)的主要目的是測試評價(jià)方法的客觀性，這是一個(gè)非常重要的審計(jì)工具可以用在許多方面。五個(gè)技師在三個(gè)不同的地點(diǎn)進(jìn)行審計(jì)，表明該模型是客觀的，因?yàn)闇顦?biāo)準(zhǔn)偏差范圍從0.019到0.057。此外，滬深清單也得到了改善從而確保其可用性和可理解性。</p><p>　　通過框架計(jì)算滬深開發(fā)和測試在這項(xiàng)研究

36、是非常重要，因?yàn)樗梢宰鳛楹饬恳粋€(gè)項(xiàng)目安全管理體系考核成效的參考。</p><p>　　該模型以建造業(yè)的方式也很重要，用來確定安全管理體系和安全管理體系審核的有效性。這是因?yàn)橐恢睕]有規(guī)范的審計(jì)工具，它可以客觀地評估安全管理體系一貫的實(shí)力和弱點(diǎn)。在這項(xiàng)研究中開發(fā)和測試的模型作為行業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的審計(jì)方法，達(dá)到安全審計(jì)的目的，以減少不同的安全顧問及審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則之間的差異。無效的安全管理體系可以通過低滬深分?jǐn)?shù)確定。從那里采取措施以

37、改善工地安全。</p><p>　　該模型作為實(shí)際的安全測試工具。其研究的目的是現(xiàn)實(shí)的需要，用以確定安全管理體系和安全管理體系審核的有效性。顯然，在這項(xiàng)研究中開發(fā)的模型不可能解決所有項(xiàng)目上的安全問題。減少事故的數(shù)量要有一個(gè)適當(dāng)?shù)目蚣?，對于加?qiáng)建筑工地的安全什么是最重要的需要認(rèn)真考慮。在這項(xiàng)研究中開發(fā)的新框架要求通過共同的努力來處理安全危險(xiǎn)源，所有利益相關(guān)者必須識(shí)別風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，承擔(dān)相關(guān)責(zé)任，采取措施防止或減輕安全危害并使

38、安全文化根深蒂固。</p><p>　　參考文獻(xiàn)[1] Teo HP.新加坡國會(huì)的報(bào)告，2004年5月。[2] Hinze J.建設(shè)工程與管理2003 - 129（2）:159-64。[3] Tam CM, Fung IWH, Chan APC.建筑管理與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)2001;19:393-403。[4] Kunju AR, Gibb AGF.建設(shè)研究2003;4（1）:29-44。[5] Chin KS,

39、Choi TW.建設(shè)工程與管理2003;126（6）:599-609。[6] Cox S, Cox T. 人與安全系統(tǒng)，倫敦：里德教育和專業(yè)出版;1996年。[7] Lee H.健康安全審計(jì)手冊。第二版。紐約：麥格勞 - 希爾，1995年。[8] Petersen KE.概率安全評估與管理。柏林：施普林格; 1996年6月1799-803。[9] Levitt RE, Samelson NM.施工安全管理。紐約：麥格勞 - 希爾

40、公司，1987。[10] Keeney RL, Rafiffa H.多目標(biāo)決策的好處與價(jià)值權(quán)衡。紐約：Wiley，1976年。[11] Teo EAL, Ling FYY, Cho</p><p>　　Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sites</p&

41、gt;<p>　　Evelyn Ai Lin Teoa,_, Florence Yean Yng Linga</p><p>　　aDepartment of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Sin

42、gapore</p><p>　　Received 16 February 2005; received in revised form 6 May 2005; accepted 9 June 2005</p><p>　　Abstract: </p><p>　　In Singapore, the construction industry had impleme

43、nted safety management system (SMS) and SMS auditing for about 10 years now, but the improvement in safety standard is not significant. In response to the need to improve the effectiveness of SMS and SMS audit, the aim o

44、f the paper is to propose a method to develop and test the tools that auditors may use to assess the effectiveness of a construction firm’s SMS. The research methodology adopted in this study consists of 15 steps. Survey

45、s were co</p><p>　　Keywords: Safety management system; Safety audit; Construction safety index</p><p>　　1. Introduction: Arguments underpinning the work</p><p>　　Safety management s

46、ystems (SMS) are introduced into the construction industry as a formal system of managing site safety. Contractors are expected to manage site safety through formal SMS. It is important to evaluate how effective these sy

47、stems are, so that deficiencies can be corrected. This study was carried out in collaboration with the Occupational Safety Department, Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and according to the authority there is no audit protocol

48、to evaluate the effectiveness of a constr</p><p>　　The lack of safety improvement may be due to a loose SMS governing structure and a lack of standard protocol for safety auditing. In Singapore, there is no

49、regulation to govern the way in which the SMS policies are drafted by construction firms. More often than not,contractors believed that their SMS are sufficient whilst safety auditors think otherwise [1]. Past studies ha

50、ve discovered that the successful implementation of the SMS on construction sites can help to prevent accidents [2–5]. There</p><p>　　There is also no standard protocol on how safety auditing is to be conduc

51、ted. Each safety auditing firm has its own set of audit methodology, based on broad guidelines laid down in Singapore Code of Practice on Construction Safety Management System (CP79) and Section 27(A)(2) of the Factories

52、 (Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction) (Amendment) Regulations 1994. Besides stating that safety audits must include 14 main elements, there are no other guidelines and no standard chec</p>&

53、lt;p>　　To know whether a site has an effective SMS, the government requires the SMS to be audited every six monthly. The problem is that hitherto there is no standardised audit tool that can objectively and consistent

54、ly assess the effectiveness of a firm’s SMS. There is also a large discrepancy between the auditing standards of different safety consultants. In response to the need to improve the effectiveness of SMS and SMS audit, th

55、e objective of this paper is to propose a method to develop and test t</p><p>　　The objective of this research is to devise an audit protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of a construction site’s SMS. This

56、is achieved by developing and testing an assessment tool that calculates the Construction Safety Index (CSI) of a site. This is a quantitative score that indicates the effectiveness level of a construction site’s SMS.<

57、;/p><p>　　A safety audit is a structured process of collecting independent information on the efficiency, effectiveness and reliability of the total SMS and draw up plans for</p><p>　　correction ac

58、tion. It is important in determining the effectiveness of SMS [5]. Kunju and Gibb [6] found that the advantage of having an active monitoring system before accidents occur is that the audit measures the success of the sy

59、stem implemented, and thus reinforces positive achievement. A proper measure of the safety performance is also found to be crucial for effective safety management [7]. Cox and Cox [8] found that safety auditing is one of

60、 the major elements of an SMS. It provides mana</p><p>　　2. SMS for the construction industry</p><p>　　In Singapore, the MOM is the government regulatory body responsible for enforcement of legi

61、slations relating to safety. The main safety legislations that construction sites have to comply with are the Factories Act (Chapter 104) and the Factories (Building Operations and Work of Engineering Construction) (BOWE

62、C) Regulations,1994. The BOWEC Regulations require all construction worksites that have contract values of S$10 million (US$1 _ S$1.70) or more to implement an SMS based on the Code of Prac</p><p>　　The CP79

63、 consists of 14 main safety management elements as follows:</p><p>　　? safety policy,</p><p>　　? safe work practices,</p><p>　　? safety training,</p><p>　　? group m

64、eetings,</p><p>　　? incident investigation and analysis,</p><p>　　? in-house safety rules and regulations,</p><p>　　? safety promotion,</p><p>　　? evaluation, selec

65、tion and control of sub-contractors,</p><p>　　? safety inspections,</p><p>　　? maintenance regime for all machinery and equipment,</p><p>　　? hazard analysis,</p><p>　

66、　? movement control and use of hazardous substances and chemicals,</p><p>　　? emergency preparedness,</p><p>　　? occupational health programmes.</p><p>　　Each element provides sp

67、ecific guidelines on how construction firms should organise and manage their sites to ensure safety of their personnel and the public. However, CP 79 is not meant to be a stringent set of rules and regulations because ea

68、ch construction project is different. The project manager has to carefully interpret the clauses in the code of practice and adapt the guidelines to the context of his project.</p><p>　　Besides Singapore, SM

69、S is also a requirement in many other countries. From the review of the SMSs used in Hong Kong [3,10], Australia [11], UK [4] and USA [5,12] it was found that Singapore’s CP 79 is very comprehensive and covers all levels

70、 of the construction project and organisation. However, the focus on the higher level issues like management commitment is inadequate as compared to Australia and the UK. The SMS approaches employed by the UK are not as

71、extensive in terms of specific details,</p><p>　　the need for management participation where their opinions and reviews are given very high importance. Many studies have shown that management commitment and

72、involvement is the core element of any SMS [13–16]. Without management support, it is difficult to enforce safe practices and inculcate a safety culture into the organisation.</p><p>　　3. Research methodolog

73、y</p><p>　　The research methodology is shown in Fig. 1. The first step was to review the various SMS standards and guidelines of selected developed countries that are known to have relatively high safety sta

74、ndards. These countries include Hong Kong, Australia, UK and USA.</p><p>　　In step 2, relevant attributes were selected and collated based on the literature review and study of various countries’ SMS. A ques

75、tionnaire was then designed to survey practitioners’ perception of the importance of the collated attributes. The developed questionnaires were sent to 420 randomly selected general building contractors who were register

76、ed with the Building Construction Authority (BCA) of Singapore(step 3).</p><p>　　In step 4, a review was done on selected award winning companies of the Annual Safety Performance Award (ASPA) documents to de

77、termine their best practices and SMS used within these organisations.</p><p>　　In step 5, preliminary interviews were conducted with three safety auditors to find out their auditing practices. A preliminary

78、framework was developed (step 6) based on the literature review and the postal survey results(step 7). From the results a model to measure the effectiveness of SMS was invented (step 8). This model is based on multi-attr

79、ibute value technique (MAVT) [17]. In step 8, all possible attributes to be incorporated into the model were identified through reviewing the CP79, chec</p><p>　　In steps 9 and 10, the importance weights for

80、 the factors and attributes of the CSI framework were determined. For the first level factors and second level attributes, the weights were determined through Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (step 9), where 30 industry

81、experts were interviewed. Due to the relatively large amount of time needed to conduct AHP, and the large number of lower level attributes e4500T, the lower level attributes’ weights were determined based on 5-point Like

82、rt Scale (step </p><p>　　A rating method was developed (step11) and verified by nine industry experts. Thereafter the model was tested through three site audits (step 12). Based on the feedback,minor improve

83、ments were made (step 14) before the final version was presented (step 15). The survey results (step7) had been reported in Teo et al. [18]. This paper focused on step 8 onwards, describing the development of the propose

84、d model and its validation.</p><p>　　4. Model construction (step 8)</p><p>　　From the literature review and survey results [18], the many attributes affecting safety were found. These were struc

85、tured into an MAVT model. The MAVT approach to solving problems with multiple attributes is to develop a scoring model, where each attribute is assigned a weight to reflect its importance, and each construction site is r

86、ated on a scale of 0–1 against all attributes. Thereafter, the weight is multiplied by the rating, and the product is summed for each alternative. The inputs to th</p><p>　　? list of attributes that need to

87、be evaluated;</p><p>　　? importance weights of attributes;</p><p>　　? the construction site’s rating for each attribute; and</p><p>　　? an aggregation rule, to determine the scor

88、e of each alternative.</p><p>　　4.1. List of attributes</p><p>　　The attributes that contractors and their construction sites need to achieve in order to ensure high level of site safety were id

89、entified through literature review and their relevance tested in an industry wide survey [18]. The significantly important variables (identified through ttest) were input into the SPSS software and factor analysis was ca

90、rried out, to ascertain if there is any further relationship among the many proposed safety strategies. Factor analysis is motivated by the fact that m</p><p>　　Fig. 1 3P+I Model</p><p>　　Fig. 2

91、. 3P + I hierarchical framework</p><p>　　The factor analysis produced four principal components, labelled as Policy Factor, Process Factor,Personnel Factor and Incentive Factor (3P + I). Each factor comprise

92、d several attributes. See Fig. 2 for the 3P+ I model.</p><p>　　The four factors and relevant attributes were organized into a hierarchy tree or value tree, where the goals at the top may be abstract, but low

93、er down on the hierarchy, the goals are measurable, non-conflicting, coherent and logical (see Fig. 2). Higher level objectives are usually the decision maker’s objectives in global terms. These objectives need to be of

94、the highest order and must collectively represent the decision maker’s total objectives. Each higher level objective is successively sub</p><p>　　In this study, the highest level objective in the hierarchy i

95、s known as a ‘factor’. The four factors are: policy; process; personnel and incentive (see Fig. 2,Level 1). Second level attributes were the significant attributes derived from the survey questionnaire, t-test and factor

96、 analysis. Each second level attribute was further opertionalised to lower level attributes until a measurable lowest level attribute was obtained. The finalised list contained 590 attributes and these make up the CSI c&

97、lt;/p><p>　　4.2. Importance weights of attributes</p><p>　　There is a need to make a distinction between what are essential and what are desirable attributes in the 3P+ I hierarchical framework whi

98、ch as mentioned earlier, contained 590 detailed attributes. This is because different attributes are of different importance with respect to site safety. It is therefore necessary to find out the degree of importance of

99、each attribute by assigning them weights. The weight is important to decision makers because it expresses the importance of each attribute rel</p><p>　　There are several conventions to follow in assigning we

100、ights to attributes [17]. One convention is that the final weight for each twig on the hierarchy tree is obtained by ‘multiplying through the tree’. The next convention is to normalise the weights, that is, to make weigh

101、ts sum to 1 at each level of the tree. This study adopted two methods to obtain the importance weights, using:</p><p>　　? Saaty’s [19] AHP for higher level attributes (levels 1 and 2).</p><p>　　

102、? Likert Scale for lower level attributes (level 3 onwards).</p><p>　　4.2.1. Importance weights for higher level attributes using AHP (step 9)</p><p>　　The questionnaire to obtain the first and

103、 second level weights using AHP. The weights of the four factors (Policy, Process, Personnel and Incentives) make up the first level weights. The second level weights are the 17 sub-factors of the 3P + I model (see Fig.