[雙語翻譯]建筑施工外文翻譯--影響施工現(xiàn)場安全管理系統(tǒng)實(shí)施的因素（英文）

1、Factors influencing the implementation of a safety management system for construction sitesZubaidah Ismail ?, Samad Doostdar, Zakaria HarunCivil Engineering Department, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysiaa

2、 r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 21 May 2011Received in revised form 1 September 2011Accepted 9 October 2011Available online 4 November 2011Keywords:Construction siteInfluencing safety factorSafety awarenessS

3、afety management systemSelf-administered surveya b s t r a c tThe objective of the study was to determine the influential safety factors that governed the success of asafety management system for construction sites. The

4、number of incidences among construction workersand the level of awareness on matters concerning safety were also determined. The study involved a self-administered three-part questionnaire among the workers and interview

5、s with industry experts involvedin brick-laying, concreting and in related assorted trades. Part A of the questionnaire concerned personalparticulars, Part B involved training and experience and Part C was based on 28 in

6、dustry-accepted safetyfactor elements. The construction sites ranged from high rise buildings, landed houses and infrastructurerenovation. The sample size was 275. From the survey it was found that the most influential s

7、afety factorwas personal awareness followed closely by communication. Suggestions and recommendations onequipment design and improved work practices and procedures to improve the efficiency and productiv-ity of construct

8、ion workers were proposed. Management was urged to get their workers better informedabout safety matters.? 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1. Introduction and scopeConstruction is a complex activity where various

9、stake-holders are present working under constant challenge by demands of the job. Each job will have several of its safety and risk factors, requir- ing quality and safety management systems to be established as indicate

10、d by Mehta and Agnew (2010). Several risk factors includ- ing organizational structure, communication, clear instructions, safety culture, codes and standards, training, leadership and responsibility have been suggested

11、to have influence on the gen- eral safety at the workplace. The objective of this study is to deter- mine the most influential factor contributing to the success of a safety management system as perceived by the workers.

12、 This may assist management in optimizing the utilization of available resources. A well-designed safety management system (SMS) can contrib- ute to the successful implementation of a safety management sys- tem in the wo

13、rkplace. National SMS for construction sites have been designed and implemented in several countries based on the standard practices for that country. The actual numbers of fac- tors used in the development of the SMS di

14、ffer from one country to another depending on the special requirements of the domestic construction industry. There are several levels of classification offactors depending on the degree of detail desired. Table 1 gives

15、the summary of first level safety levels adopted by various coun- tries around the world (Tam and Fung, 1998; Kartam et al., 2000; Koskela, 2000; Wokutch and VanSandt, 2000; Fang et al., 2004; Ali et al., 2005; Teo and L

16、ing, 2006; Aksorn and Hadikusumo, 2008). At the first level of factors most countries on average choose eight factors while Singapore uses four and Malaysia uses 12. The second level or the sub-factors are elements of th

17、e first level fac- tors and again depending on the degree of detail, there could be 20 or 30 of these elements. More or less the elements especially at the second level cover the common areas of safety concerns. The sub-

18、factors could further be divided into sub-sub-factors that cover the entire spectrum of safety factors in the construction industry. The current study adopted a simplified version of the Malaysian standard practice which

19、 included the Resources Factor, the Management Factor, the Personal Factor, the HRM/Incentive Factor, and the Relationship Factor at the first level and a total of 28 sub-factors under these categories as the basis of th

20、e question- naire to be developed for the study survey. The final form is guided by experts from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Construction Industries Development Board (CIDB).1

21、.1. Resources FactorResources Factor includes hardware and software. Safety equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE) and any special0925-7535/$ - see front matter ? 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.101

22、6/j.ssci.2011.10.001? Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 79675284; fax: +60 3 79675318.E-mail addresses: zubaidahjka@gmail.com (Z. Ismail), samaddoostdar@yahoo.com (S. Doostdar), zakariaharun@um.edu.my (Z. Harun).Safety S

23、cience 50 (2012) 418–423Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirectSafety Sciencejournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssciseem to expose only those attitudes that are shared throughout the whole of the organi

24、zation. There are individual differences on atti- tudes on organizational safety as pointed out by Henning et al. (2009). Sónia et al. (2008) showed that the experience of work accidents is an important variable to

25、be considered as a predictor of workers’ perceptions and behavior.1.4. HRM/Incentive FactorHRM/Incentive Factor includes remuneration, promotion, cam- paigns, motivation, merit rating, PPE, welfare, work conditions, and

26、safety rules (Flin et al., 2000). It also includes safety practice, training expert staff, teamwork and group meetings. General wel- fare of workers has been discussed (Murrell, 1965; Oborne et al., 1993; Bridger, 1995).

27、 Conducive working conditions contribute to safety (Raja Prasad and Reghunath, 2010). Programs had been developed to reduce physical work demands (Scott and Renz, 2006) and reduce worker injuries through improved use of

28、equip- ment (Kirkeskov and Friche, 2006) with tailored education and training (Dempsey and Mathiassen, 2006). More studies need to be conducted for construction sites (Hunter, 1992; European Con- struction Institute, 199

29、5; Trethewy et al., 2000a,b; Goetsch, 2005; van der Molen et al., 2005). Effectiveness of management suport has been demonstrated by Mearns and Flin (2001), Gordon et al. (2001), and Hale et al. (2010). Reports of near m

30、isses are useful information to prevent accident. Near misses are more frequent than accidents. Cambraia et al. (2010) conducted a study on near misses and found that the main results were dramatic increases in both the

31、number and quality of reports. Wu et al. (2010) devel- oped a system to interrupt near misses which improves safety at construction sites. The effectiveness of introducing instructions on systems and procedures at the wo

32、rkplace needs to be gauged (Cooper et al., 1993). Effectiveness of an occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS) have not been conclusive Robson et al., 2007).1.5. Relationship FactorRelationship Factor inc

33、ludes globalization and interfaces with the stake-holders as well as internal personal relationships. Glob- alization has an impact on growth of mental work, expansion of the services sector, working hour changes, unempl

34、oyment and industrial relations. Flexibility in coping with diversity, managing changes in competency demands, definition and meaning of work all have significant effects on the workers (Wilpert, 2008). Baram (2009) obse

35、rved that the introduction of hazardous technological activities into less-developed nations poses risks to health, safety and natural resources, and most immediately endangers the work- ers involved. Koukoulaki (2010) p

36、ointed out that countries have been subject to tremendous changes in terms of flexibility of work and labor in response to macro trends like globalization and the resulting fierce market competition. Such changes in the

37、world of work can give rise to new safety risks from work environment including new work organizational forms, new contractual rela- tionships, new technologies and changes in the workforce. Man- zey and Marold (2008) re

38、ported that in 1998 the average estimated number of fatal occupational accidents was 350,000 and there were 264 million non-fatal accidents. Within the orga- nization it is important to have considerate and responsible e

39、mployees who care about the safety of their co-workers (Burt et al., 1998, 2008). Related variables examined were co-worker knowledge, opener ability, team tenure, co-worker and supervisor support, group orientation and

40、group cohesion. Explicit and impli- cit trust is an important influence on relationships (Burns et al., 2006).2. Materials and methodsThe projects involved a construction of a 39-storey apartment building in Section 8, P

41、etaling Jaya, Selangor; a 12-storey office building, several dining outlets; a 13-storey and a 17-storey office towers also in Petaling Jaya. The group of workers comprised of brick-layers, concreting workers and assorte

42、d workers. The ques- tionnaires were designed based on the elements of the safety fac- tors. They were designed to be simple and brief. They were checked by experts from NIOSH for suitability and completeness. Sugges- ti

43、ons of industry experts from CIDB on the language level, rele- vance and comprehensiveness of questions and the general approach of the survey were also incorporated. The materials for the study were records and reports

44、and results of the question- naires. Gillham (2005) suggested that a properly conducted inter- view was required in order to make meaningful suggestions for improvements on equipment or working methods. The question- nai

45、re was constructed in three parts; Part A on personal particu- lars, Part B on training and work experience and Part C on issues consisting of the five clusters of factors and the 30 elements of the clusters as shown in

46、Table 2. Further refinements to reduce errors and ambiguity were made after the questionnaires were tried on a sample of ten undergraduate volunteers. It was accepted that the main constraint to the conduct of the study

47、was the time availability of the workers. Questionnaire forms were sent by post and potential respondents were initially given 2 weeks to respond. Verification interviews were then arranged and conducted during breaks an

48、d after shift periods. Part A and Part B are straight- forward. For Part C respondents were requested to rate each of the 28 questions on the safety elements on the five-point Likert scale, varying from ‘‘not important’’

49、 (1) to ‘‘extremely important’’ (5). The distribution of the Likert-point score from the respondents for each safety element was computed to determine the mode for each factor. The mode for each element was further stren

50、gthened by examining the maximum, the minimum, the mean and standard deviation as the value for the strongest probable Lickert score value for the element. The most influential factor could then be determined by examinin

51、g and comparing the overall scores for each factor. A similar analysis was conducted for the sub-factors of the most influential factor to determine the most influential sub-factor among them.3. Results and discussionThe

52、 total number of respondents was 275. Based on this sample size together with a confidence level of 95% the margin of error is 5.89%. Table 3 shows that the construction industry engages 92% male workers. Employers have

53、the perception that male workers had better abilities and endurance than their female counter-partsTable 2Elements of SMS.InfluencingFactorElementsResourcesFactorSafety equipment, personal protective equipment, First Aid

54、,emergency shut-down system, control systemManagementFactorLeadership, vision, direction, supervision, commitment,statement of objectives, safety analysis, preventionplanningPersonalFactorsAwareness, good communication,

55、personal attitude,positive groups, personal competencyHRM/IncentiveFactorSafety practice, training expert staff, teamwork, frequencyof staff group meetings, safety promotion, campaigns,personal motivation, work place con