Making the invisible visible

Making the invisible visible Stimulating work health and safety relevant thinking through the use of infographics in construction design July 2016

Published by the Centre for Construction Work Health and Safety Research Copyright © 2016 RMIT University Except external referenced documents and images All rights reserved. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means or process whatsoever without the prior written permission of the publisher. Acknowledgements This project was funded through an Australian Research Council under the Linkage Project Grant (LP120100587) and supported by Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd.

About the Centre for Construction Work Health and Safety Research The Centre for Construction Work Health and Safety Research provides leading-edge, applied research to the construction and property industries. Our members are able to work with organisations to analyse health and safety (H&S) performance and identify opportunities for improvement. We can develop and evaluate innovative solutions, provide specialised H&S programs or undertake other research-based consulting activities. Our work addresses real-world H&S challenges and our strong international linkages provide a global perspective to our research. Centre for Construction Work Health and Safety Research RMIT University Building 8, Level 8, Room 50 360 Swanston Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: +61 3 9925 2230 Fax: + 61 3 9925 1939 Email: [email protected] www.rmit.edu.au/research/health-safety-research

Making the invisible visible Stimulating work health and safety relevant thinking through the use of infographics in construction design

Acknowledgements This project was funded through the Australian Research Council under the Linkage Project Grant (LP120100587) and supported by Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd.

Published by Centre for Construction Work Health and Safety Research July 2016

Making the invisible visible

Contents Part 1: Introduction 1.1 Safety in design: The policy-practice gap 1.2 The importance of construction process knowledge

3 3 4

Part 2: Aim 2.1 Visual ways of knowing 2.2 Using visual methods in workers’ health and safety and construction 2.3 Infographics

5 5 5 6

Part 3: Research methods 3.1 Q-methodology 3.2 Facilitated workshop 3.3 In-depth interviews

7 7 8 8

Part 4: Results 4.1 Q-sort results 4.2 Facilitated Workshop results 4.3 Physical WHS hazards 4.4 Shaping factors 4.5 Interview results

9 9 11 12 13 15

Part 5: Discussion 5.1 Issue-relevant thinking 5.2 Integrating different types of WHS knowledge 5.3 Combining visual with verbal communication 5.4 The potential to facilitate collaborative decision-making

18 18 19 20 20

Part 6: Conclusions 6.1 Limitations and future research

22 22

Part 7: References Appendix A: Infographics Appendix B: Case Project – Building façade scenario

23 27 30

List of Figures Figure 4.1: Physical WHS hazards identified before and after participants viewed the infographics Figure 4.2: WHS shaping factors identified before and after participants viewed the infographics

13

i

RMIT University Centre for Construction Work Health and Safety Research

14


List of Tables Table 4.1: Likelihood ratings and rankings for each façade design as assessed by WHS professionals and constructors Table 4.2: Attributes used to inform Q-sort patterns Table 4.3: WHS-relevant features of façade design documented in the infographics Table 4.4: : Shaping factors identified before and after workshop participants had access to the infographic

ii


9 10 12 14


Executive summary The practical implementation of safety in design in the construction industry is made more difficult because people involved in designing the product (i.e, the buildings/structures to be built) are not typically involved in the design of construction products and processes. There is an opportunity to improve safety in design outcomes by making detailed knowledge about construction materials, methods and processes available to participants involved in “upstream” design decision-making. Infographics were developed to capture the knowledge about the safety considerations involved in the process of constructing a typical panelised building façade system. These infographics represented three levels of detail: information relating to the site location and surroundings; information relating to the site and the façade construction context; and information about the façade itself. The knowledge that was used to develop the infographics was drawn from a Q-sort exercise with industry subject matter experts and supplemented with in-depth interviews and also a review of literature, including industry reports, codes of practice and guidance materials. A workshop was convened with 20 industry participants involved in design activities. These participants were divided into nine groups. Groups were provided with a case study scenario representing a façade design. The participants were asked to review the case study and potential aspects of the façade design that could possibly present a particular work health and safety (WHS) challenge during the construction stage. These were not necessarily issues that could not be resolved but things that warranted further consideration and discussion. The groups identified a number of potential WHS considerations at this stage. The groups were then shown the infographics. After viewing the infographics, many more potential WHS considerations were identified. Notably, after viewing the infographics, the workshop participants were much better able to identify WHS considerations that were less visible. These included organisational, procurement, ergonomic or erection sequence considerations. Interviews were conducted with five workshop participants. These interviews explored participants’ opinions about the potential usefulness of the infographics. The participants commented that the combination of visual presentation with text to convey the process safety information was helpful. They described how this provided them with a more holistic or global appreciation of the WHS implications of the façade design. Workshop participants did not think that infographics could replace the current paperwork required in safety in design processes but they did think that infographics, like the ones we developed, could provide a useful stimulus for discussion in safety in design workshops and to engage clients and other stakeholders in WHS discussions. They also noted that such infographics would be particularly useful for relatively

1



inexperienced design consultants who may not have site-based experience or knowledge of construction processes. Research in other fields has demonstrated that infographics produce deeper levels of issuerelevant thinking. The results from this research support this in relation to construction WHS. That is, the infographics appear to have stimulated more in-depth discussion of WHS considerations in the workshop situation. This was particularly true in relation to some less visible, but important considerations.

2



Part 1: Introduction 1.1 Safety in design: The policy-practice gap Safety in design has become a core component of work health and safety (WHS) policy in many jurisdictions. For example, The Australian Strategy for Work Health and Safety 2012-2022 establishes health and safety by design as a key action area, and identifies construction as a priority industry. The Strategy calls for: (i) WHS hazards to be eliminated or minimised by design, (ii) structures, plant and substances to be designed to eliminate or minimise hazards and risks before they are introduced into the workplace, and (iii) work, work processes and systems of work to be designed and managed to eliminate or minimise hazards and risks (Safe Work Australia, 2012). Legislative requirements for safety in design have resulted in the implementation of safety in design processes within organisations providing architectural or engineering design services. These processes typically include the development of risk registers to capture and communicate WHS information to constructors, owners and end users of facilities, and the conduct of safety in design reviews at pre-determined points in the design process. Despite the fact that specific responsibilities for safety in design are included in the WHS legislation in all Australian jurisdictions, practical challenges to the implementation of safety in design still exist. Atkinson and Westall (2010) note that many design modifications implemented to improve WHS represent fairly modest solutions to construction WHS issues. They cite examples of designing in rails or anchor points for fall arrest devices, which do not eliminate the inherently dangerous activity, i.e., working at height. Structural impediments to effective safety in design lie in the way in which construction projects are procured and, in particular, in the fragmented supply chain. Vertical segregation between participants engaged in the initiation, design, production, use and maintenance of facilities has been identified as a particular challenge (Atkinson & Westall, 2010). In particular, the traditional separation between the design and construction function can impede the development of shared project goals (Baiden & Price, 2011) and can negatively impact on project outcomes (Love et al., 1998). A recent review of WHS in the UK construction industry identifies separation and poor communication between the design and construction functions as a causal factor in construction fatalities (Donaghy, 2009). The organisational and contractual separation of the design and construction functions reduces the possibility of free flowing communication between constructors and designers (see Atkinson & Westall, 2010). Despite calls for collaborative design decision-making, the use of traditional project procurement methods limits the extent to which the perspectives people whose WHS may be affected by design choices can be incorporated into decision-making. The result is that opportunities to design out H&S hazards/risks are sometimes missed and these risks are passed onto constructors to manage using less effective forms of control, such as administrative controls and personal protective equipment.

3



1.2 The importance of construction process knowledge The ‘principle-based’ framework for regulating WHS in Australia assumes duty holders possess knowledge and competence to make professional judgements about WHS risks and ways to control them. In the case of construction design professionals this assumption may be problematic because WHS is not comprehensively embedded into the tertiary curricula of architects and engineers. There is emerging research evidence that design professionals are not sufficiently well versed in knowledge of construction methods and/or WHS to fulfil their responsibilities for safety in design (Yates & Battersby, 2003). Even in the UK, where the Construction Design and Management Regulations have been in place for some 18 years, Brace et al. (2009) report that ‘many designers still think that safety is “nothing to do with me,” although there are a small cohort who want to engage and are having difficulty doing this because they do not fully understand what good practice looks like’ (p. 12). Consequently, Donaghy (2009) recommended that accrediting bodies establish specific requirements to embed WHS in the education of all professionals engaged in the delivery of construction projects, particularly those with ‘upstream’ roles. Lingard et al. (2014; 2015a) report that more effective risk control outcomes were realised in construction projects when people with practical knowledge of construction technologies, methods and materials were involved in design decision-making early in the life cycle of a project, and when they had a central role in design decision-making communication networks. Similarly, Hayne et al. (2014; 2015) report that designers who have practical construction site experience are better able to identify and mitigate construction WHS hazards in their designs. Given the fact that not all construction designers have practical on-site experience, safety in design outcomes could potentially be significantly improved if construction process knowledge, particularly relating to WHS, could be captured and made available to designers.

4



Part 2: Aim In this research we evaluated the potential to use infographics to capture and communicate WHS information relating to the process of constructing a building façade. We first explored the perceptions of multiple construction industry stakeholders relating to the WHS risks implicit in different types of façade system. We developed infographics to capture and present this information, which were then tested with a sample of design professionals in a workshop. We interviewed a subset of these design professionals to explore their views relating to the effectiveness of the infographics in capturing and communicating WHS information, particularly as it relates to construction processes, and supporting improved safety in design decisionmaking.

2.1 Visual ways of knowing The use of visual methods to capture and communicate complicated scientific or technical information is increasing (Brumberger 2007a; Estrada & Davis, 2015) and there is a growing understanding that ‘the visual’ provides a powerful means of representation and argumentation (Pauwels, 2000). Comai (2015) describes how well-designed visuals are not simple checklists of what to do next, but provide suggestions as well as new insights that generate intelligent decision-making. The need to pay more attention to visual thinking in the design and practice of communication is well recognised (Portewig, 2004). In the field of architectural design, Whyte et al. (2007) also explore ways that visual practices and objects are used to facilitate iterative design development and collaborative decisionmaking. There is evidence that using images to convey meaning evokes different types of knowledge, as compared with using the written or spoken word (Harper, 2002). This was evident in recent research examining the use of moving images (digital video) in the Australian construction industry. Workers described how the video captured informal ways of working safely in a way that written documents were unable to do. The ability of the visual to communicate “know how” rather than “know what” was observed (Lingard et al. 2015b). Images have been used to enable people to see their activities from a new perspective. For example, Buchanan (1998) describes how images provided new insight into work processes, in some cases, enabling work to be redesigned to improve various aspects of performance. Research also shows the effectiveness of images for communicating mechanical and spatial relationships in ways that are hard to capture with words alone (Houts et al. 2006).

2.2 Using visual methods in workers’ health and safety and construction Construction health and safety has privileged the written and verbal forms of communication, as instructions are documented in long and often overly complex policy and procedure documents. This is sometimes unhelpful because written and verbal communication have their limitations.

5



Until fairly recently little attention was given to visual communication in work health and safety. However, uses of visual research and communication methods in the fields of construction health and safety are slowly emerging. For example, Reinert et al. (2007) describe the effective use of visual aids to communicate technically complicated information about the safe use of machinery. Bust et al. (2008) trialled the use of images to communicate health and safety information to migrant workers and Hare et al. (2013) also used pictorial aid to communicate health and safety information to workers. Zhang et al. (2014) used photographic images to elicit construction professionals’ perceptions of health and safety risks inherent in building designs and technologies. Images and augmented reality have been used to understand how workers’ identify and respond to health and safety hazards on-site (Albert et al. 2014), while, in an ethnographic study, Tutt et al. (2013) used photography to understand health and safety from the perspective of workers engaged in work tasks. Lyon (2013) also photographs to understand sequences of work and Chan (2013) used video to facilitate and evaluate the learning of construction trade skills.

2.3 Infographics Infographics are one particular type of visual communication tool, increasingly used to communicate information in many fields, including public health (Stones & Gent, 2015) education (Nom et al 2015) and data analysis (Segel and Heer 2010). Infographics - an abbreviation of informational graphics - are defined as graphic representations of information (Lancow et al., 2012). Infographics are now widely used in the mass media, and can take many forms (Lester, 2011). For example, they range from basic arrangements of facts and figures to annotated charts, cartoons, maps and complicated interactive graphics. They can also be static, animated or interactive (Otten et al. 2015). Whatever their form, infographics are not just forms of artistic expression provided to support the text. Because they play a key role in telling a story, infographics should not be seen as secondary to text (Lazard & Atkinson, 2014). Infographics are increasingly used to visually represent complex phenomena and there is ongoing discussion about the role of these infographics as tools of persuasion (Spiegelhalter et al., 2011). Otten et al. (2015) describe how effective infographics help consumers of information to think more critically about a particular issue or problem. They illustrate how infographics are being used to convey complex scientific information relating to food systems, for example problems associated with food waste, fish farming and harvesting and the supply chain and policy decisions that affect the production of basic foods. Patterson et al (2015) draw on theories from brain mapping studies to explain the way in which infographics stimulate cognitive processes. In this paper we examine the potential for infographics to be used to capture and convey information relating to the WHS implications of construction design decisions.

6



Part 3: Research methods The research was undertaken in three stages. These are described below.

3.1 Q-methodology Q methodology was used to explore 30 experienced construction and WHS professionals’ perceptions of the WHS hazards implicit in different building façade designs. Q-sorting has been used to explore people’s cognitive structures, attitudes, and perceptions relating to a particular topic (Anandarajan et al., 2006). In Q-methodology, research participants are asked to put a sample of objects (known as a Q-set) into a rank order according to some predetermined instruction. When the objects are arrayed into categories, the resulting pattern is called a Q-sort. A Q-sort is then taken to be a reflection of a participant’s subjective views about the phenomenon under investigation (Brown, 1993). Photographs have been effectively used as stimuli for Q-sorting in landscaping studies (see, for example, Fairweather et al., 1998; Green, 2005). In this research, photographs of different building façade designs were printed on laminated cards and used as stimuli for the sorting task. These photographs were broadly representative of different options and materials available for façade construction (see Watts and Stenner, 2005; Stenner et al., 2008). Photographs have been effectively used as stimuli for Qsorting in landscaping studies (see, for example, Fairweather et al., 1998; Green, 2005). Before being used, the photographs were subjected to a pilot validation (using industry representatives) to ensure that the images were representative and also provided sufficient information for participants to make judgements about WHS implications associated with each façade design. Following this validation, eight photographs were used in the data collection. The eight façade designs represented the following: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Precast concrete panel system for housing, Precast concrete panel system for car park, Concrete and window panel façade system, Full storey prefabricated façade system, Glazed panel façade system, Mixed glass and concrete panel façade system, In situ reinforced concrete walling, and Concrete block wall façade system.

Unlike questionnaire based research, Q-sort stimuli are not required to have single, unambiguous meaning set by the researcher. Rather, the stimuli are intended to reveal different subjective perspectives of the same issue. Thus, it was a deliberate strategy that the photographs represented different types of WHS hazards/risks at the same time, e.g. falls from height, collision with a vehicle, ergonomic or psycho-social risks.

7



Following approval from the RMIT Human Research and Ethics Committee, a sample of construction contractors and WHS professionals was selected to complete the Q-sort task. These people were selected because of their in-depth knowledge of WHS hazards arising as a result of construction processes implicit in different building designs. Participants were initially asked to sort the photographs into a grid according to their evaluation of the likelihood of an accidental injury arising during the construction/erection of each façade design. The grid contained five columns with a rating scale ranging from ‘–2 Rare’ to ‘+2 Almost certain’. Once participants had completed the sorting task, they were asked to give reasons for their sorting pattern, i.e. to explain why they believed some systems presented a greater likelihood of accidental injury than others. This explanation was audio-recorded. This information was used to inform the development of the infographics used in the research.

3.2 Facilitated workshop Next, a facilitated workshop was held at which a different group of construction design professionals used the infographics in the analysis of WHS hazards/risks associated with a case study façade design. Twenty industry representatives (construction professionals) attended the workshop. Participants included architects, WHS professionals, engineers and project managers; and were selected to represent different stakeholders who typically participate in the design decision making process. Workshop participants were also asked to record the length of their professional experience as well as any specific experience working with façades. The participants were formed into nine groups (seven groups of two people and two groups of three people). Participants were then provided with a building design scenario (Appendix B) based upon the design of a public building in one of Victoria’s largest cities outside Melbourne. This building was selected because the façade design presented some particular WHS issues related to irregular shaped components and curvature related to a dome-shaped structure. Participants were asked to identify WHS hazards presented by this façade design. Participants were given as much time as needed to complete this initial identification of WHS hazards associated with the example building façade. Participants were then provided with the infographics and asked to repeat the exercise to identify any additional WHS hazards that they had not originally noticed in the first assessment, and to assess the risks posed by these hazards. Hazards identified before and after the sharing of the infographics were compared.

3.3 In-depth interviews Finally, in-depth interviews were undertaken two years after the workshop took place. The interview explored participants’ views about the use of the infographics and how they may be applied to support integrating WHS into design decision-making in construction projects. Participants’ views about the potential benefits associated with using infographics were explored.

8



Part 4: Results 4.1 Q-sort results 15 WHS professionals and 15 construction contractors completed the Q-sort. The WHS professionals ranged in experience from 7 to 44 years with a mean of 21.9 years (SD = 10.4). The construction contractors ranged in experience from 2 to 37 years with a mean of 18 (SD = 9.5). The Q-methodology data collection produced both quantitative data (e.g. the rating scores for the photographs) and qualitative data (i.e. the explanatory information). Quantitative analysis techniques were firstly performed to investigate the extent to which the professional groups made similar or different WHS risk judgements. Table 4.1 shows the group mean scores for each photograph, and also the relative ranking derived from the mean scores. Overall, the constructors and WHS professionals rated the full storey prefabricated façade and the glazed panel façade designs to be associated with relatively low likelihood of accidental injury. The in situ reinforced concrete walling and the concrete and window panel façade designs were rated to present the highest likelihood of accidental injury. Table 4.1: Likelihood ratings and rankings for each façade design as assessed by WHS professionals and constructors Façade design

WHS Professional

Constructor

Likelihood

Likelihood

Mean score

Rank

Mean score

Rank

Precast concrete panel system for housing

.33

5

.20

5

Precast concrete panel system for car park

.33

5

.40

7

Concrete and window panel façade system,

.47

7

.27

6

Full storey prefabricated façade system

.00

2

-.27

3

Glazed panel façade system

-.07

1

-.47

2

Mixed glass and concrete panel façade system

.20

4

-.07

4

In situ reinforced concrete walling

.67

8

.40

7

Concrete block wall façade system

.00

2

-.60

1

A Spearman’s rank order correlation found that the WHS professionals ranked the level of WHS risk inherent in the façade systems in a similar way to the constructors (rs = 0.891, p < 0.01). Table 4.2 shows the qualitative attributes that the WHS professionals and constructors used to explain their sorting patterns. These attributes provide an insight into the factors that they consider when they assess the WHS risk implicit in a particular façade design. There were some similarities in the attributes used by both groups to make judgements about the WHS risks implicit in the façade designs. Both the WHS professionals and the constructors identified

9



complexity as a factor that increased WHS risks. Façade designs that involved multiple components presented a greater risk of failure at the interface between components during the erection of the façade. Both groups perceived façade systems that could be fixed from within the building as being less risky - though there were some differences. The WHS professionals and constructors both identified the size of components as being a factor impacting the likelihood of injury. However, the WHS professionals considered small components in blockwork to present a manual handling hazard, while the constructors considered large components that needed to be mechanically lifted to create an elevated risk of somebody being struck or crushed by an object while lifting large and heavy façade components. The constructors identified more attributes than the WHS professionals, including their familiarity or perceived level of competence associated with a particular façade design and the implications of the façade design for the erection of scaffolding and access equipment.

Table 4.2: Attributes used to inform Q-sort patterns Professional group

High frequency attributes

Example quotations

Freq.

Rank

WHS group

Complexity of construction methodology (few or many systems/few or many interfaces)

“With use of two construction methods/systems (e.g. concrete and facade), the likelihood is far higher than using one system… integrated system with different crew/contractors involved, create more interfaces”

66.7%

1

Location of installation (inside versus outside building)

“because the person who’s operating or doing the task, like in this photo, is on the other side so there’s a bit of protection, i.e. people working from inside”

33.3%

2

Level of safety control in place (high versus low)

“What they’ve got there seems pretty good. Mid rails, top rails, kickers. Bracing in place, a lot of bracing in place”

33.3%

2

Component handling method (manual handling versus machinery handling)

“Manual lifting of blocks create moderate likelihood of injury…mechanism to system of work (creates higher likelihood)”

26.7%

4

Component scale (large versus small)

“The only reason I say that is because I can see what plant they’re using. I look at the cranes, I look at the EWPs, I look at the heights, I’m looking at the size of the panels… the size panel is much larger than that one”

26.7%

4

10



Professional group

High frequency attributes

Example quotations

Freq.

Rank

Constructor

Complexity of construction methodology (few or many systems/few or many interfaces)

“When [you] put glass panels on concrete walls, it is harder to fix; a lot of things happening, and the degree of difficulty is higher by putting glass façade on concrete wall”

53.3%

1

Level of safety control in place (high versus low)

“Looking at them, fencing, they've all got their hand railings. They've got kickboards. So it's a moderate risk. .. Again, I'm just looking at the precast panel sections. We've got all the blokes down at the site and then I notice over the whole side of the building there's no handrail”

40%

2

Location of installation (inside versus outside building)

“It can be manoeuvred from inside, no way of floor fall, the only issue is dropping tools…work outside is always more unsafe than working inside”

33.3%

3

Component scale (large versus small)

“Mechanical lifting may fail because of big size and big weight, there is more composition to manoeuvre, bigger areas to move”

33.3%

3

Level of familiarity with a particular system (familiar versus unfamiliar)

“Precast technology, cranage, temporary work, identical. Put into unlikely because they have been around in Australia for a long time, familiar due to knowledge and experience”

33.3%

3

Work platform (scaffolding versus mechanical elevated work platform)

“Safe because fully scaffolded system, the block works are tied to the frame, solid work platform…This system can’t be secured from inside, every piece has to be placed by a crane, and [a] worker manoeuvred on a box-hang by another crane to ensure it is located”

33.3%

3

4.2 Facilitated Workshop results The information provided by Q-sort participants was supplemented by a review of literature relating to facade construction and WHS. Appendix A presents a series of three infographics which were developed and revised based on this information. The infographics included pictures of a typical high rise building, with annotations explaining the design features that could present WHS hazards. Each of these features was briefly explained on a few bullet points indicating why the particular design feature could impact WHS. As shown in Appendix A, these infographics were developed showing aspects of the site location and surroundings, the construction site environment, and the detailed components of the façade design. Factors shown on these three infographics are listed in Table 4.3.

11



Table 4.3: WHS-relevant features of façade design documented in the infographics Infographic content Site location and surroundings

Construction site environment

Detailed façade components

Wind

Panel procurement (design detail, quality and supply chain considerations)

Panel weight

Building siting and layout

Workspace (internal/external erection, exclusion zones etc)

Panel maintenance and repair

Working hours and conditions

Panel features

Number of placements per floor level

Site constraints

Construction sequencing

Hazardous substances (e.g sealants and chemicals used in manufacturing process)

Building height

Panel delivery

Façade connections to the structure

Building features

Cranage and lifting arrangements

Location of connection points on the panel

Supply and transportability of façade components (site access)

Fixing façade components (internal or external)

Level of panel specification and detail

Ground stability

Work platforms and access

Installation knowledge

Public safety (adjacent properties and public access)

Manual or mechanical installation

Structural integrity of panels detail design of lifting supports etc

Exposure of workers or others on the site

Façade material

Personal Protective Equipment requirements

Accessibility and adjustment during installation

4.3 Physical WHS hazards Figure 4.1 shows the number of physical WHS hazards identified by each group of participants before and after they had viewed the infographics. After participants viewed the infographics, all groups were able to identify new WHS hazards in the case example provided to them. The number of new hazards identified by each group after the use of infographics varies between 2 and 9. The mean number of new hazards identified by participants in each group was 5.9.

12



20 18 16 14 12 After

10

Before

8 6 4 2 0 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9

Figure 4.1: Physical WHS hazards identified before and after participants viewed the infographics

4.4 Shaping factors Contemporary theories of accident causation hold that accidents can be traced back to systemic or organisational causes, many of which arise as a result of decisions made before the commencement of construction work. WHS shaping factors are one step removed from the physical work condition, equipment failure or behaviour that immediately precedes an accident (See Haslam et al. 2003). However, design decisions are identified as important shaping factors in studies of accident causality (Behm, 2005; Gibb et al. 2014). Figure 4.2 shows the extent to which WHS shaping factors were identified in the workshop before and after participants viewed the infographics. Before viewing the infographics only two groups identified any WHS shaping factors. However, after viewing the infographic, the number of shaping factors identified by each group ranged between 1 and 5 with a mean of 2.3.

13



7 6 5 4 After 3

Before

2 1 0 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9

Figure 4.2: WHS shaping factors identified before and after participants viewed the infographics Table 4.4 shows the shaping factors that were identified before and after participants viewed the infographics. Table 4.4: : Shaping factors identified before and after workshop participants had access to the infographic Shaping factors identified Before viewing the infographic ●

Geometry of the panel is not of a compatible size compared to the buildings structural elements ● Number of panels increases risk of improper installation ● Install support structure-complex structure , different connections, more chance to make mistakes & redo, more risky operation

After viewing the infographic ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ●

14

Installation knowledge. Façade type is rare and would require specialist expertise Specification, level of details Material suitability/compatibility Site constraint, restricted space below and through level sweep line, unusual shape of building Limited capacity of storage Site access for delivery Not enough set back The shape of building creating wind turbulence Panel system (matrix of panel numbering system) Panel elements manufactured off site-risk of delay Detailing of fixings made more complex by multiple points of connection = more room for documentation error Risks of installation panels incorrectly, form/pattern of hexagon can be installed upside down needing correction Required highly skilled contractor/specialist knowledge Lack of façade uniformity (design) Bad manufacture due to poor docs, remedial site works



● ●

● ●

●

●

Installation knowledge, sub-contractor not done before Under- design of panels may lead to "shortcuts " by contractor to maintain budget (documentation control) Material testing/specification of GRC mix if inadequate could lead to panel failure Irregular shaped panels influencing manual handing/lifting incident, pre-fabricating hexagonal parts and fixing a number of hexagons together offsite may then introduce greater installation difficulties & chance of injury/incident Local produced panels encourage construction/engagement with stakeholders’ ability to walk site and control/change design to improve installation. Construction sequencing increased degree of difficulty for panels installation in specific order, acknowledgment of constructor to remove damaged /defective panels? (difficult process)

4.5 Interview results In-depth interviews were conducted with five design professionals who participated in the workshop. Of the five interviewees, three were architects, one was an engineer, and one an interior designer. They all had extensive experience in the Australian building industry (more than 20 years each). Most of the interviewees noted that the infographics provided clear and useful prompts for considering WHS, “to sort of visualise the areas that you’re supposed to be addressing”. Participants indicated that the prompts were better understood or acknowledged to exist when graphically represented than if the prompts were contained in a written structured checklist. One participant commented: “I thought [the infographics] were good prompts because most of us are quite visual and I thought that they raised a whole load of issues, whereas sometimes if it’s in word format no one really wants to read it”. The visual characteristic of the infographics was identified as being more engaging and also easier to comprehend than written forms of WHS information. For example, one participant described how he was “definitely swayed towards the graphical representation in a way, like either picking up things from visual representation than from the written word, and so for me it helped.” Another described how “the visual prompts were a lot more welcoming, you know, reading through codes and standards, and were able to be pictures, memorised better than words, you could say.” The graphical nature of the infographics was also seen to contribute to presenting a “fair representation of a normal site” which was more useful than trying to deal with “sketches” or a more simplistic mock-up of a site. Another participant commented that “it’d be almost impossible to describe verbally or in written text all the [WHS] issues at hand”. Another participant described how the infographic encouraged him to look at design elements in a different way, because “it’s there in front of you…and there’s not much guess work about what the environment looks like...so it’s much more informative, it gives you much more information at a glance.”

15



Visual communication style was preferred by the interview participants. One explained that “there’s no doubt the visual is much, much more powerful… and certainly we prefer that to having just a great written thing.” Another participant described the benefits associated with combining images with written guidance, saying “written guidelines can be dry so graphics in conjunction with that can help”. Although the participants liked their visual nature, they also noted that the infographics were likely to be best used as a prompt, to be supplemented with more detailed written guidance material. One participant expressed concern that it was not possible to “convey everything that’s required for compliance in our industry in an infographic”. Another commented that “even for an experienced person to say ‘have you considered these things?’, you need to know how to consider them and the information that needs to be brought into the project. So I suppose it depends on the practice that you’re working in and the support that’s available there with other resources, checklists and QA and risk management”. Rather than as a substitute for written materials, the participants noted the usefulness of infographics in prompting them to investigate and research particular WHS issues in more detail. One described how the infographics “encourage you to look and consider…motivating you to dig deeper and become engaged [in construction WHS]”. Another participant thought that a webbased interactive infographic would be effective “so you might start with the infographic and be able to go in there somehow and either click on things or find a link to the information that you’re after, if there’s something that the infographic is presenting to you, to know what then the next step is”. Participants also commented that the infographics enabled them to consider aspects of a design in a more holistic way to better understand the inter-connectedness of the various design elements. One participant noted, “I suppose at a glance you can see the whole environment. Whereas when something’s in writing you just focus on the one issue and not the whole environment. It’s a much more global thing”. Other participants described how the infographics reinforced their existing knowledge and “brought to the fore the risks and got you to look a bit deeper into a situation”. The potential for infographics to improve collaboration and create a shared understanding of WHS was also noted: “because people do have different backgrounds, different ways of looking at things.” Participants expressed the belief that infographics could be particularly helpful to young designers or those with little experience of construction site environments. For example, one described how experience provides a “broader perception and broader interpretation”, whereas “[the infographic] may make a difference to somebody who’s less experienced…and provide some trigger for them”. The potential for infographics to provide important information to novice designers was noted with one participant commenting that, because “they don’t think about all the possibilities. They’ve got a narrow field of expertise on which to draw from.” The infographics were identified as a useful way to improve communication and coordination of WHS issues in design decision-making: “if you’ve got young inexperienced people, then it makes communication far more critical and that’s where infographics [could help].” One participant commented that the infographics could usefully be used in a collaborative design review “where there will be various ideas of how to get the information, how to solve the

16



problems and how to record all that information.” However, they also identified the need for this to be a facilitated activity: “[You] need to have someone pointing out a few things as well. You can’t just use the graphics on their own…I think there needs to be a conversation and it needs to be with people from different backgrounds.” In particular, one participant commented that the infographics helped to understand design decisions from the perspective of a constructor: “I think at that stage of a project…when we don’t have everything fully resolved, these things will be very useful for a project team to look at to try to understand some of the issues the builder will encounter when they are actually erecting and constructing the scene.” Several of the participants suggested ways that the infographics could be provided in a digital format. One suggested a web-based version so that design teams could “slide through it, and if it is generic … many things are always the same … it could work quite well in an initial workshop or collaboration session”. Another described how digital infographics could provide a userfriendly way to perform WHS reviews because “… usually [we] don’t have the time at the end of a phase when they’re trying to meet deadlines, to actually sit down and go through the checklists, because they’re just so long…and cumbersome. So I think if we had a checklist system based on something like this that had graphics to it, that’d make them more easy to absorb”. Another participant suggested a three dimensional version of the infographics would be a powerful way to bring the WHS information depicted to life: “just imagine an aerial shot zooming into a building and moving around all the different elements.”

17



Part 5: Discussion 5.1 Issue-relevant thinking The results provide some preliminary evidence that infographics can be a useful way to capture and communicate information about WHS risks inherent in construction processes and make this information available to construction design professionals. It is noteworthy that WHS professionals and construction contractors shared similar perceptions of the WHS implications associated with different façade design options, but that some of these factors were not readily apparent to design professionals. The results suggest that the infographics produced to communicate knowledge about WHS hazards associated with façade construction increased the ability of the design professionals who participated in the workshop to recognise WHS hazards. Brumberger (2007b) describes visual thinking as an active problem-solving process, in which familiar objects and processes are seen in new ways from different perspectives. The results reveal deeper thinking about the WHS implications of design decisions after workshop participants viewed the infographics. Before participants viewed the infographics, they were able to identify physical WHS hazards related to issues in the immediate work environment, for example hazards associated with falling from height, being struck by a moving load etc. These hazards were relatively easy for participants to envisage in the example façade design scenario provided to them in the workshop. However, after participants viewed the infographics, they were able to identify many more design-related issues that could potentially create a situation in which the risk of injury or harm was increased, i.e. shaping factors. These included issues relating to component quality and supply chain issues, as well as working schedule arrangements and erection sequencing. Ergonomic/manual handling hazards were also identified after participants had viewed the infographics. Despite the potential to eliminate ergonomic hazards or significantly reduce risks through design, musculoskeletal disorders are one of the most prevalent, long term and costly forms of occupational injury experienced by construction workers (Hess et al. 2004). These shaping factors are difficult to see when considering the WHS implication of a design because they reflect organisational factors that are implicit in the design, such as erection sequence, issues relating to the timing and scheduling of work (for example, if road closures are required to install components), product quality control issues and the compatibility between different building technologies or systems. The identification of such shaping factors is important as previous research indicates they are factors in accident causation in the construction industry (Haslam et al. 2003). Thus the infographic appears to have helped to create a deeper level of issue-relevant thinking in relation to WHS among the workshop participants. The ability to better understand WHS hazards from the perspective of constructors was identified by one of the workshop participants with whom we undertook an in-depth interview. The interview participants also described how the infographics had helped them to understand WHS risks inherent in façade design more holistically, such that they better understood the interrelatedness of design elements and the WHS issues in the context of the whole site environment.

18



5.2 Integrating different types of WHS knowledge Lazard & Atkinson (2014) differentiate between central and peripheral cognitive processing. They argue that central cognitive processing reflects a deeper level of consideration of an issue or problem. Testing the proposition that infographics stimulate a greater level of central (compared to peripheral) processing, they found that people engaged in a deeper level of issuerelevant thinking when they received information in the form of an infographic (Lazard & Atkinson, 2014). This finding applied to people irrespective of whether they indicated a preference for visual or verbal learning. Holding textual messages constant, Lazard and Atkinson (2014) found that a visually integrated message was more persuasive, produced deeper insight and enduring attitudinal change. Our results are consistent with this finding and indicate that infographics may be a more effective way to communicate technical information about construction WHS to design decision-makers than textual information commonly found in legislation, codes of practice and industry guidelines. Again, the in-depth interviews reinforced participants’ strong preferences for visual forms of information as being more engaging, more readily comprehended and also more easily remembered than written forms of information. Masud et al. (2010) identify different types of visual communication. They suggest three kinds of visualisation that have different purposes and contexts of use. These are: ●

●

●

Analytical visualisations – which convert data into information in order to let a user know something and understand the implications of the data. This type of visual communication produces declarative knowledge (explained as ‘know what’ or ‘know about’ knowledge). Communicative visualisations – which are used for storytelling and/or the communication of meaning and relationships in the data. According to Masud et al. (2010) the represented information in communicative visualisations helps users to understand something or to know how to do something. Examples are instruction manual diagrams, and infographics about procedures. These types of visualisations produce both declarative and also procedural knowledge (explained as ‘know how’ knowledge). Formative visualisations – which are used to facilitate knowledge sharing within cooperative work groups. Information communicated is actionable not only communicating how to do things (procedural knowledge) but, importantly, also communicating knowledge of when and why the information user should apply this knowledge, referred to as conditional knowledge. These types of visualisation often communicate knowledge that is strongly linked to experience.

The infographics we developed were intended to be analytical in their content. Thus we intended to capture “know what” knowledge about WHS hazards involved in the construction of a building façade. Interviews with design professionals who participated in the workshop suggest that the infographics were a useful way to communicate this type of knowledge. Indeed, these participants described how they were able to absorb a lot of WHS information “at a glance” using the infographic. However, participants also identified the need for making detailed written forms of WHS guidance available to designers so that, once identified, they would know how to address the

19



WHS hazards. Thus, rather than being seen as a substitute for written procedures, guidelines and standards (which provide critical “know how” about how to eliminate or reduce WHS risks), the infographics were identified as being an effective “gateway” to these forms of more detailed information. Thus, WHS hazards or issues could be readily identified using the infographics, prompting designers to seek out more information about how best to deal with the identified hazards. It is noteworthy that the infographics we developed in the research were two dimensional drawings with relatively simple annotations pointing out potentially hazardous aspects of the façade design. Workshop participants were provided with paper-based versions of these infographics. The opportunity to combine analytical (‘know what’) with communicative (‘know how’) and formative ‘know why’) type WHS knowledge in an integrated web-based format was also identified by the interview participants as a potentially useful future direction.

5.3 Combining visual with verbal communication However, our research suggests that, even the very simple two dimensional infographics we developed have the potential to promote deeper thinking about WHS in construction design than visual or verbal information used in isolation because the messages are perceived holistically. A key feature of infographics is that visual and verbal elements are seen as one integrated message from the outset. Images are not seen as subsidiary. This may be particularly important in communicating WHS information relating to construction design because textual WHS information is combined with images depicting the physical construction site context and material reality of the building components, plant, equipment and workspace. Interview participants described benefits in being able to visualise the façade erection work context.

5.4 The potential to facilitate collaborative decision-making The interviews also suggested that infographics also have the potential to create a collective understanding of WHS issues in construction project teams. Construction design is a particularly multi-disciplinary, complex and iterative process. The effective integration of WHS considerations into design decision-making in the construction industry thus requires the input of many participants with different levels of experiential and often tacit WHS knowledge. Previous research suggests that shared mental models of WHS in construction project teams are difficult to achieve because each project participant brings their prior experiences, different perspectives and professional and organisational interests to each project. Notwithstanding this, shared mental models are important because they are linked to team performance (Banks & Millward, 2007). Our results provide some preliminary evidence that infographics are a potentially useful tool for sharing WHS knowledge and prompting communication in multi-disciplinary construction project teams. The benefits that flow from the use of visual communication are likely to be enhanced when multiple different stakeholders contribute to the visual representations of WHS information. Collaboratively developed infographics may be able to provide knowledge about how to do things (procedural knowledge) as well as knowledge of why some design decisions may produce

20



particular health and safety hazard/risk outcomes. In doing so, infographics have the potential to create the type of formative knowledge transfer described by Masud et al. (2010) in relation to designing for safe and healthy construction. Infographics could, for example, be used in safety in design workshops to stimulate discussion between project participants and stakeholders. However, infographics used for this purpose should not be regarded as being final and complete. Rather, they should be subject to discussion, evaluation and revision as new knowledge, insights and experiences are shared. Thus, infographics used in a dynamic, iterative way could provide an effective mechanism for knowledge sharing and learning in project teams.

21



Part 6: Conclusions Our research shows the potential for infographics, combining textual and graphic information about WHS, to produce more issue-relevant consideration among construction design professionals. The relatively simple two-dimensional infographics were favourably received by construction designers who participated in a workshop. At this workshop participants were better able to identify less visible WHS hazards after they had viewed the infographics than before. Interviews with a subset of workshop participants indicated that the infographics helped these participants to consider issues that could impact construction workers’ WHS more holistically. The infographics that we developed for use in this research were deliberately kept simple. While they did not contain a great deal of detailed information about WHS risk mitigation strategies, our research indicates that the visual and textual prompts provided in the infographics identified WHS-relevant issues about which participants could seek out more detailed information. This was perceived by the participants we interviewed to be particularly helpful for younger, less experienced designers.

6.1 Limitations and future research The infographics developed in this research were relatively simple two dimensional representations produced and presented in hard copy format. Although the interviews we conducted with workshop participants suggest that the visual nature of the infographics made them more engaging and encouraged WHS issues to be understood more holistically, it is possible that written forms of information, such as a structured checklist could have produced similar results. It is also possible that more sophisticated forms of infographic could have produced different results. There is a significant opportunity to further develop multimedia tools that can be integrated with and accessed through digital design processes. Further research is recommended to evaluate the extent to which infographics, of varying degrees of complexity, can improve the WHS knowledge and decision-making of construction designers and communication between all stakeholders. In particular, future research should examine variations in the effectiveness of different forms of infographic for novice and experienced designers. Research should also examine the way in which different forms of WHS knowledge, e.g. ‘know what’, ‘know how’ and ‘know why’ can most effectively be made available to designers through the digital platforms that now form part of their standard design practices.

22



Part 7: References Albert, A., Hallowell, M.R., Kleiner, B., Chen, A. & Golparvar-Fard, M. (2014). Enhancing construction hazard recognition with high-fidelity augmented virtuality. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(7), 04014024. Anandarajan, M., Paravastu, N. & Simmers, C.A. (2006). Perceptions of personal web usage in the workplace: a Q-methodology approach. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(3), pp. 325–35. Atkinson, A.R. & Westall, R. (2010). The relationship between integrated design and construction and safety on construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 28(9), pp. 1007–17. Baiden, B.K. & Price, A.D.F. (2011). The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), pp. 129–36. Banks, A.P. & Millward, L.J. (2007). Differentiating knowledge in teams: the effect of shared declarative and procedural knowledge on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 11(2), pp. 95–106. Behm, M. (2005) Linking construction fatalities to the design for construction safety concept. Safety Science, 43(8), pp. 589-611. Brace, C., Gibb, A., Pendlebury, M. & Bust, P. (2009). Health and safety in the construction industry: Underlying causes of construction fatal accidents – External research, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Inquiry into the underlying causes of construction fatal accidents, Loughborough: Loughborough University. Brown, S.R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, pp. 91–138. Brumberger, E.R. (2007a). Visual communication in the workplace: A survey of practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, pp. 369-395. Brumberger, E.R. (2007b). Making the strange familiar: A pedagogical exploration of visual thinking. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21, pp. 376-401. Buchanan, D. (1998). Representing process: the contribution of a re-engineering frame. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(12), pp. 1163-1188. Bust, P.D., Gibb, A.G.F. & Pink, S. (2008). Managing construction health and safety: migrant workers and communicating safety messages. Safety Science, 46, pp. 585–602. Chan, S. (2013). Using videos and multimodal discourse analysis to study how students learn a trade. International Journal of Training Research, 11(1), pp. 69–78. Comai, A. (2015). Decision-making support: The role of data visualization in analyzing complex systems. World Future Review, 6(4), pp. 477-484.

23



Donaghy, R. (2009). One Death Is Too Many: Inquiry into the Underlying Causes of Construction Fatal Accidents, Report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, TSO, Norwich. Estrada, F. C. R., & Davis, L. S. (2015). Improving visual communication of science through the incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication, 37(1), pp. 140-148. Fairweather, J.R., Swaffield, S.R. & Simmons, D.G. (1998). Understanding Visitors’ Experiences in Kaikoura Using Photographs of Landscapes and Q Method, Tourism Research and Education Centre (TREC) Report No. 5, Lincoln University, New Zealand. Gibb, A., Lingard, H., Behm, M. & Cooke, T. (2014). Construction accident causality: learning from different countries and differing consequences. Construction Management and Economics, 32(5). pp. 446–459. Green, R. (2005). Community perceptions of environmental and social change and tourism development on the island of Koh Samui, Thailand. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), pp. 37–56. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), pp. 13-26. Hare, B., Cameron, I., Real, K. & Maloney, W. (2013). Exploratory Case Study of Pictorial Aids for Communicating Health and Safety for Migrant Construction Workers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (ASCE), 139(7), pp. 818–825. Haslam, R., Hide, S., Gibb, A., Gyi, D., Atkinson, S., Pavitt, T., Duff, R. & Suraji, A. (2003). Causal factors in construction accidents – Research Report 156. Norwich, UK: Health and Safety Executive, HMSO. Hayne, G., Kumar, B. & Hare, B. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of modern building engineering studios to deliver design for safety (DfS). In Proceedings of CIB W099 Belfast, UK, pp. 160-168. Hayne, G., Kumar, B. & Hare, B. (2014). The Development of a Framework for a Design for Safety BIM tool. Computing in Civil Engineering and Building Engineering. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, pp. 49-56. Hess, J.A., Hecker, S., Weinstein, M. & Lunger, M. (2004). A participatory ergonomics intervention to reduce risk factors for low-back disorders in concrete laborers. Applied Ergonomics, 35(5), pp. 427-441. Houts, P.S., Doak, C.C., Doak, L.G. & Loscalzo, M.J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, Recall and Adherence. Patient Education and Counseling, 61, pp. 173-190. Lancow, J., Ritchie, J. & Crooks, R. (2012). Infographics: The power of visual storytelling, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

24



Lazard, A. & Atkinson, L. (2014). Putting environmental infographics center stage: The role of visuals at the elaboration likelihood model’s critical point of persuasion. Science Communication, pp. 1-28. th

Lester, P.M. (2011). Visual communication: Images with messages, (5 edition), Independence, KY, Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. Lingard, H., Pirzadeh, P., Blismas, N., Wakefield, R. & Kleiner, B. (2014). Exploring the link between early constructor involvement in project decision-making and the efficacy of health and safety risk control. Construction Management and Economics, 32(9), pp. 918–931. Lingard, H., Zhang, R., Blismas, N., Wakefield, R. & Kleiner, B. (2015a). Are we on the same page? Exploring construction professionals’ mental models of occupational health and safety. Construction Management and Economics, 33, pp. 73 – 84. Lingard, H., Pink, S., Harley, J. & Edirisinghe, R. (2015b). Looking and learning: Using participatory video to improve health and safety in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 33(9), pp. 741-752. Love, P., Gunasekaran, A. & Li, H. (1998). Concurrent engineering: a strategy for procuring construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 16(6), pp. 375-383. Lyon, D. (2013). The labour of refurbishment: the building of the body in space and time, in Pink, S., Tutt, D. and Dainty, A. (eds.) Ethnographic Research in the Construction Industry, Taylor & Francis, Oxford, pp. 23–39. Masud, L., Valsecchi, F., Ciuccarelli, P., Ricci, D. & Caviglia, G. (2010). From data to knowledgevisualizations as transformation processes within the data-information-knowledge continuum. In Information Visualisation (IV), 2010 14th International Conference (pp. 445-449). IEEE. Noh, M. A. M., Shamsudin, W. N. K., Nudin, A. L. A., Jing, H. F., Daud, S. M., Abdullah, N. N. N., & Harun, M. F. (2015). The Use of Infographics as a Tool for Facilitating Learning. In International Colloquium of Art and Design Education Research (i-CADER 2014) (pp. 559-567). Springer Singapore. Otten, J.J., Cheng, K. & Drewnowski, A. (2015). Infographics and public policy: Using data visualization to convey complex information. Health Affairs, 34(11), pp. 1901-1907. Patterson, R. E., Blaha, L. M., Grinstein, G. G., Liggett, K. K., Kaveney, D. E., Sheldon, K. C., ... & Moore, J. A. (2014). A human cognition framework for information visualization. Computers & Graphics, 42, 42-58. Pauwels, L. (2000). Taking the visual turn in research and scholarly communication: key issues in developing a more visually literate (social) science. Visual Sociology, 15(1), pp. 7-14. Portewig, T.C. (2004). Making sense of the visual in technical communication: A visual literacy approach to pegagogy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34(1), pp. 31-42.

25



Reinert, D., Brun, E. & Flaspöler, E. (2007). Complex machinery needs simple explanation. Safety Science, 45, pp. 579-587. Segel, E., & Heer, J. (2010). Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 16(6), 1139-1148. Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M. & Short, I. (2011). Visualising uncertainty about the future. Science, 333(9), pp. 1393-1400. Stenner, P., Watts, S. & Worrell, M. (2008). Q methodology, in Willig, C. and Stainton-Rogers, W. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, London: Sage. Stones, C. & Gent, M. (2015). “If the Guardian can do it, we should be able to do it!” Examining public health infographic strategies using public health professionals. In Proceedings of the Design4Health 2015 conference, 14-16 July 2015, Sheffield Hallam University. Tutt, D., Pink, S., Dainty, A. & Gibb, A. (2013). ‘Our own language’ in S. Pink, D. Tutt & A. Dainty (eds) Ethnographic Research in the Construction Industry, London: Routledge, pp. 40–57. Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), pp. 67–91. Whyte, J.K., Ewensteinn, B., Hales, M. & Tidd, J. (2007). Visual practices and the objects used in design. Building Research & Information, 35(1), pp. 18-27. Yates, J.K. & Battersby, L.C. (2003). Master builder project delivery system and designer construction knowledge. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(6), pp. 635–44. Zhang, R., Lingard, H., Blismas, N., Wakefield, R. & Kleiner, B. (2014). Work-Health and SafetyRisk Perceptions of Construction-Industry Stakeholders Using Photograph-Based Q Methodology. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000954

26



Appendix A:Infographics

Image reproduced by kind permission of McBride Charles Ryan.

27




28




29



Appendix B:Case Project – Building façade scenario The Project The project is the construction of a new library in Geelong. The new facility will replace the old library and will utilise the existing footprint. The design incorporates a distinctive dome which is the most striking feature of the building. The new building consists of 6 storeys above ground creating over 6,000 m2 of space.

The Site The north and east sides of the new building are connected to the existing 3-storey heritage Centre. The southern boundary of the site is a narrow 2 lane road with limited on-road parking space. The western edge of the site is bounded by a public park. Buildings across the road on the southern boundary are between 2 and 4 storeys in height. The heritage Centre will remain operational during the works. The site is situated approximately 500m from the sea.

The Building façade The façade of the building consists of two materials. The dome is made of Glass Reinforced Concrete (GRC) roof panels, whilst two main sides (not abutting existing buildings) consist of glass curtain walling. The main dome consists of 18 standard hexagonal tiles and 1 standard pentagonal tile. 332 panels make up the dome skin. 242 panels will go on the main dome and 90 on the ‘shield’. The panels are locally manufactured.

An artist's impression of the Library and Heritage Centre (http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/news/item/8d19a5e3b0f1318.aspx)

30



31



Image from Google maps

32
