|
Key actions by owners
can dramatically improve the safety record of construction
projects. A study of 59 projects found that 25 steps taken
by owners meant almost six times fewer injuries per 1,000
employees. The study, one of the first to focus on owners
and safety, was released along with other research studies
by the Construction Industry Institute.
"The role that owners play
in project safety has been ignored until now," said John
J. Mathis, leader of the CII project team and manager of safety
services for Bechtel Corp., at CIIs annual conference
in Orlando, Fla., July 29-31. "We now have clear data
that shows owners can play a major role." The team produced
a "scorecard" that lets owners determine whether
or not they have a strong involvement in safety.
The research involved personal
interviews, usually with the owners representative who
had responsibility for safety. Safety performance, measured
by total recordable incident rate, was related to a range
of practices of owners. TRIR is the total number of injuries
per 200,000 work hours of exposure (the average number of
hours worked by 100 workers in a year).
The project team found that owners
influence safety by setting the number of days worked and
shifts, selecting contractors and by putting safety requirements
in contracts. They also exert influence by detailing requirements
for contractor safety programs, staying on top of the project
and keeping a representative who participated in site safety
programs.
A. Dennis Cobb, regional safety
consultant for DuPont Engineering, said that five specific
contract requirements can reduce the recordable incident rate
from 2.77 (when only one or two are used) to 1.22 (when all
five are present). These contracts require at least one full-time
safety professional, owner approval of safety professionals,
specified minimum training for workers, a site-specific safety
plan and submission of a safety policy signed by its CEO.
The TRIR for the industry as a
whole was 7.28 in 2001, compared to 1.02 for CII members.
The study had low incident rates overall because most projects
studied were member projects. By implementing all 25 measures
studied, recordable incidents fell from 46 to just 8 per 1,000
workers.
|
|
| Activity-based
costing |
Peer Review |
| Chartering
project teams |
Planning
for Startup |
| Choosing
by advantages |
Post-Occupancy
Evaluation |
| Classes
of facility quality |
Predictive
Maintenance |
| Constructability |
Pre-Project
Planning |
| Constrcution
simulation |
Process
Simplification |
| Design
effectiveness |
Project
Delivery Methods |
| Design
for maintainability |
Project
Execution Plan |
| Design
to capacity |
Quality
Functional Deployment |
| Design
to cost |
Risk Management |
| Energy
optimization |
Schedule
Optimization |
| FAST diagrams |
Six Sigma |
| Function
analysis concept development |
Sourcing
Strategies |
| Individual
value engineering |
Successive
Estimating |
| Knowlege
manangement lessons learned |
Sustainable
Design & Construction |
| Lean construction |
Technology
Gatekeeper |
| Life-cycle
costing |
Technology
Selection |
| Mechanical
reliability modeling |
Total Quality
Management |
| Minimum
standards and practices |
VE Change
Proposal |
| Modularization/Mass
customization |
Value Engineering |
| Owner values
and expectations |
Waste Mimimization/Pollution
Prevention |
| Partnering |
No. of
VMP's with Benefit |
The institute also announced its
Web-based value management tool kit. "Value management
has been absent from CIIs best practices," said
project team leader Katherine Fisher Bethany, value engineering
manager for Overseas Buildings Operations at the Dept. of
State. She clarified that "value" is a measure of
how well the owners objectives are met, and that to
make the list, value management tools had to be established,
documented, have proven benefits and yet not be standard practices
on every job.
The toolkit can be used to evaluate
44 optional value management processesfrom peer review
to lean construction to total quality managementto determine
how beneficial they will be to a particular project or program.
Value management objectives include factors such as security,
regulatory compliance, operating cost- efficiency and risk
containment.
Another Web-based tool is the new
questionnaire developed for small projects benchmarking. CIIs
benchmarking and metrics program collects project data, and
there are now 222 small projects with a value of $5 million
or less in the 1,112-project database. "Small projects
are a big piece of the market we need to measure," said
project team member Frank K. Suhan, a project consultant for
Johnson Controls. He said Johnson Controls works on about
16,000 small projects a year.
CII Chairman John Zachry, president
of Zachry Construction Co., also announced that Hans Van Winkle
will become director of CII. Recently retired as deputy chief
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Van Winkle will manage
research and development efforts of CIIs 98 owner and
contractor members. CII is based at the University of Texas
at Austin. Van Winkle said CII gives him an opportunity to
"continue serving the public and to work with leading-edge
companies committed to improving the industry." Outgoing
CII Director Kenneth Eickmann will serve on the National Research
Councils study of the national aerospace initiative
and continue work-ing with the Texas Homeland Defense Task
Force.
The program drew more than 500
members and invited guests, but the same research projects
will be presented again at a Sept. 21-23 public forum in Austin.
For more information visit www.construction-institute.org/cpi2003.
|
|
|
Project Context,
Contractor Selection, Contractual Safety Requirements
and Owner Involvmemt in Project Safety
|
Answer
|
| Project
Context: |
| (1)
Does the project work on shift? |
Y |
N |
| (2)
Does the project work five days a week or less? |
Y |
N |
| Selection
of contractor: |
| (3)
Is the TRIR requirement for the contractor selection less
than 2.0? |
Y |
N |
| (4)
Are the qualifications of the project team reviewed? |
Y |
N |
| (5)
Are the qualifications of the safety staff reviewed? |
Y |
N |
| (6)
Does the evaluation of each contractor's safety perfromance
make a difference |
Y |
N |
| Contractual
Safety Requirements: |
| (7)
Does the project use a design-build contract? |
Y |
N |
| (8)
Does the contract require the contractor to place at least
one full-time safety representative on the project site? |
Y |
N |
| (9)
Does the contract rquire the contractor to submit all
safety personnel resumes for the owner's approval? |
Y |
N |
| (10)
Does the contract require the contractor to prepare a
site-specific safety plan? |
Y |
N |
| (11)
Does the contract require the contractor to submit a safety
policy signed by its CEO? |
Y |
N |
| (12)
Does the contract rquie the contractor to provide minimum
specified amount of training to the construciton worker? |
Y |
N |
| Contractor
Safety Program Requirements: |
| Which
of the following are required to be included in the contractor's
safety program? |
Y |
N |
| (13)
Contractor must prepare a plan for site emergencies? |
Y |
N |
| (14)
Contractor must conduct pre-task safety planning on the
project site |
Y |
N |
| (15)
Contractor must implement a substance abuse testing program? |
Y |
N |
| Owner's
involvement in project safety management? |
Y |
N |
| (16)
Does the owner's safety represenetative investigate near
misses? |
Y |
N |
| (17)
Are injury statistics on the projects maintained separately
on each computer? |
Y |
N |
| (18)
Are all project injuries included in the owner's overall
measure of safety performance? |
Y |
N |
| (19)
The owner actively participates (gives presentations)
during worker safety performance? |
Y |
N |
| (20)
Comprehension of safety trainining is evaluated through
testing? |
Y |
N |
| Which
of the following activities are performed by the owner's
site safety representative? |
Y |
N |
| (21)
Enforcing safety rules and regulations |
Y |
N |
| (23)
Participating in safety recognition programs |
Y |
N |
| (24)
Participating in safety and/or tool box meeting |
Y |
N |
| (25)
Does the owner set zero injury as its safety expectation
before the commencement of site work? |
Y |
N |
|
Total Count of
Yes Reponses
|
|
|
|
Multiply the Yes Count by 4 (x4)
|
% |
|
|
What the score means:
85% or better is strong owner involvement
40% or less indicates weak owner involvement
|
|
|
|