Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia 13

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

Written Policy

Planning

Implementation & Operation

Checking & Corrective Action

Management Review

Elements of Safety Program (keywords)

Resp. Count, NO 6

Rank

Forklift

21

1

Lockout/ Tagout

21

1

Fall

10

Respiratory

11

Safety policy

PPE

4

Hearing

11

Confine Space

12

Electrical work

10

Emergency Action Plan

5

Ergonomics Program

12

Fire Prevention Plan

10

Hazard Communication Program Chemical Labeling

17 5

4

Job Hazard Analysis/ Job Safety Analysis Safety Committee

14 5

11

Loss Prevention Program

16

7

Safety & Housekeeping Inspection Investigate Accidents

3 6

Training Fire Extinguishers

6

Understand Chemicals Label Training each Safety Program & Policy

9 15

Access to Safety Program

6

% NO

111 (Avg. 11.1)

28.5

79 (Avg. 11.3)

28.9

45 (Avg. 8)

19.2

151 (Avg. 11.5)

32.1

63 (Avg. 12.6)

32.3

8

Safety Performance Goal

4

Supervisor Performance Evaluation Manager Performance Evaluation

15 14

8 11

Supervisor Audit Employee Safety Performance

15

8

Employee Audit Along With Supervisor Employee Audit Other Employee

17 18

4 3

Checklist of Audit

12

Discuss Error with Employee Record Good/Bad Safety Performance

11 11

Management & Employee tour team Zero Lost Time Injury Rate

8 13

14

Employees included on teams designing new work practices

17

4

Return Work Program

14

11

Supervisors trained for positive behavior Employees trained for positive behavior Employees trained giving and accepting suggestions to other employees

9 10 13

14

8

Total Count

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.

9