外文翻译 - 开发一个评估施工现场安全管理系统有效性的模型

广西科技大学本科毕业设计（论文）外文翻译译文学生姓名：院 （系）：专业班级：指导教师：完成日期：1Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sitesEvelyn Ai Lin Teoa,_, Florence Yean Yng LingaaDepartment of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, SingaporeReceived 16 February 2005; received in revised form 6 May 2005; accepted 9 June 2005Abstract: In Singapore, the construction industry had implemented safety management system (SMS) and SMS auditing for about 10 years now, but the improvement in safety standard is not significant. In response to the need to improve the effectiveness of SMS and SMS audit, the aim of the paper is to propose a method to develop and test the tools that auditors may use to assess the effectiveness of a construction firms SMS. The research methodology adopted in this study consists of 15 steps. Surveys were conducted; safety experts were consulted and invited to express their views, either through interviews or workshops. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Factor Analysis were used to assist in identifying the most crucial factors and attributes affecting safety. The model was developed by means of the multi-attribute value model (MAVT) approach. It was also subject to validation via site audits. Using the model, a Construction Safety Index (CSI) can be calculated. It is concluded that the CSI can act as an objective measure of different sites for management and appraisal purposes.r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Keywords: Safety management system; Safety audit; Construction safety index1. Introduction: Arguments underpinning the workSafety management systems (SMS) are introduced into the construction industry as a formal system of managing site safety. Contractors are expected to manage site safety through formal SMS. It is important to evaluate how effective these systems are, so that deficiencies can be corrected. This study was carried out in collaboration with the Occupational Safety Department, Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and according to the authority there is no audit protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of a construction sites SMS. The Singapore construction industry had implemented SMS and SMS auditing for about 10 years now, but the improvement in safety standard is not significant. This is in contrast to the impact on the ship-building and ship-repairing industry, which experienced a steady improvement in terms of the safety performance indicators following the implementation of SMS and SMS audit.The lack of safety improvement may be due to a loose SMS governing structure and a 2lack of standard protocol for safety auditing. In Singapore, there is no regulation to govern the way in which the SMS policies are drafted by construction firms. More often than not,contractors believed that their SMS are sufficient whilst safety auditors think otherwise 1. Past studies have discovered that the successful implementation of the SMS on construction sites can help to prevent accidents 25. Therefore, it is essential to provide a comprehensive checklist of attributes that may affect the safety performance of worksites.There is also no standard protocol on how safety auditing is to be conducted. Each safety auditing firm has its own set of audit methodology, based on broad guidelines laid down in Singapore Code of Practice on Construction Safety Management System (CP79) and Section 27(A)(2) of the Factories (Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction) (Amendment) Regulations 1994. Besides stating that safety audits must include 14 main elements, there are no other guidelines and no standard checklists to audit the safety level or effectiveness of SMS. In practice, checklists used vary from company to company. Many safety audit companies have to undercut fees to win safety auditing contracts. The low fees may have led some companies to cut corners and spend less time on site, thereby reducing the quality of their safety audits to the minimum.To know whether a site has an effective SMS, the government requires the SMS to be audited every six monthly. The problem is that hitherto there is no standardised audit tool that can objectively and consistently assess the effectiveness of a firms SMS. There is also a large discrepancy between the auditing standards of different safety consultants. In response to the need to improve the effectiveness of SMS and SMS audit, the objective of this paper is to propose a method to develop and test the tools that auditors may use to assess the effectiveness of a construction firms SMS. This objective is important because the industry can adopt a standard auditing methodology and develop a benchmark for safety audit purposes.The objective of this research is to devise an audit protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of a construction sites SMS. This is achieved by developing and testing an assessment tool that calculates the Construction Safety Index (CSI) of a site. This is a quantitative score that indicates the effectiveness level of a construction sites SMS.A safety audit is a structured process of collecting independent information on the efficiency, effectiveness and reliability of the total SMS and draw up plans forcorrection action. It is important in determining the effectiveness of SMS 5. Kunju and Gibb 6 found that the advantage of having an active monitoring system before accidents occur is that the audit measures the success of the system implemented, and thus reinforces positive achievement. A proper measure of the safety performance is also found to be 3crucial for effective safety management 7. Cox and Cox 8 found that safety auditing is one of the major elements of an SMS. It provides managers with further information and on compliance with standards. This promotes safe work practices that stemmed from reliable and continuing feedback through the safety level observed. Thus, a safety audit conducted in a timely manner will help to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the current safety program, and any problem areas that might adversely affect the success of the program will be identified. This allows firms to derive the maximum benefit from the program consistent with the resources deployed 9.2. SMS for the construction industryIn Singapore, the MOM is the government regulatory body responsible for enforcement of legislations relating to safety. The main safety legislations that construction sites have to comply with are the Factories Act (Chapter 104) and the Factories (Building Operations and Work of Engineering Construction) (BOWEC) Regulations,1994. The BOWEC Regulations require all construction worksites that have contract values of S$10 million (US$1 _ S$1.70) or more to implement an SMS based on the Code of Practice on Construction Safety Management System (CP) 79. Worksites with contract values of less than S$10 million do not need to implement an SMS,but these sites are encouraged to do so.The CP79 consists of 14 main safety management elements as follows: safety policy, safe work practices, safety training, group meetings, incident investigation and analysis, in-house safety rules and regulations, safety promotion, evaluation, selection and control of sub-contractors, safety inspections, maintenance regime for all machinery and equipment, hazard analysis, movement control and use of hazardous substances and chemicals, emergency preparedness, occupational health programmes.Each element provides specific guidelines on how construction firms should organise and manage their sites to ensure safety of their personnel and the public. However, CP 79 4is not meant to be a stringent set of rules and regulations because each construction project is different. The project manager has to carefully interpret the clauses in the code of practice and adapt the guidelines to the context of his project.Besides Singapore, SMS is also a requirement in many other countries. From the review of the SMSs used in Hong Kong 3,10, Australia 11, UK 4 and USA 5,12 it was found that Singapores CP 79 is very comprehensive and covers all levels of the construction project and organisation. However, the focus on the higher level issues like management commitment is inadequate as compared to Australia and the UK. The SMS approaches employed by the UK are not as extensive in terms of specific details, but they highlightthe need for management participation where their opinions and reviews are given very high importance. Many studies have shown that management commitment and involvement is the core element of any SMS 1316. Without management support, it is difficult to enforce safe practices and inculcate a safety culture into the organisation.3. Research methodologyThe research methodology is shown in Fig. 1. The first step was to review the various SMS standards and guidelines of selected developed countries that are known to have relatively high safety standards. These countries include Hong Kong, Australia, UK and USA.In step 2, relevant attributes were selected and collated based on the literature review and study of various countries SMS. A questionnaire was then designed to survey practitioners perception of the importance of the collated attributes. The developed questionnaires were sent to 420 randomly selected general building contractors who were registered with the Building Construction Authority (BCA) of Singapore(step 3).In step 4, a review was done on selected award winning companies of the Annual Safety Performance Award (ASPA) documents to determine their best practices and SMS used within these organisations.In step 5, preliminary interviews were conducted with three safety auditors to find out their auditing practices. A preliminary framework was developed (step 6) based on the literature review and the postal survey results(step 7). From the results a model to measure the effectiveness of SMS was invented (step 8). This model is based on multi-attribute value technique (MAVT) 17. In step 8, all possible attributes to be incorporated into the model were identified through reviewing the CP79, checklists, tools and practices adopted in other countries.In steps 9 and 10, the importance weights for the factors and attributes of the CSI 5framework were determined. For the first level factors and second level attributes, the weights were determined through Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (step 9), where 30 industry experts were interviewed. Due to the relatively large amount of time needed to conduct AHP, and the large number of lower level attributes e4500T, the lower level attributes weights were determined based on 5-point Likert Scale (step 10), where 1 ? not important;3 ? neutral; and 5 ? very important/critical. Twelve industry experts were interviewed to obtain the importance weights.A rating method was developed (step11) and verified by nine industry experts. Thereafter the model was tested through three site audits (step 12). Based on the feedback,minor improvements were made (step 14) before the final version was presented (step 15). The survey results (step7) had been reported in Teo et al. 18. This paper focused on step 8 onwards, describing the development of the proposed model and its validation.4. Model construction (step 8)From the literature review and survey results 18, the many attributes affecting safety were found. These were structured into an MAVT model. The MAVT approach to solving problems with multiple attributes is to develop a scoring model, where each attribute is assigned a weight to reflect its importance, and each construction site is rated on a scale of 01 against all attributes. Thereafter, the weight is multiplied by the rating, and the product is summed for each alternative. The inputs to the model which need to be determined are as follows 17: list of attributes that need to be evaluated; importance weights of attributes; the construction sites rating for each attribute; and an aggregation rule, to determine the score of each alternative.4.1. List of attributesThe attributes that contractors and their construction sites need to achieve in order to ensure high level of site safety were identified through literature review and their relevance tested in an industry wide survey 18. The significantly important variables (identified through ttest) were input into the SPSS software and factor analysis was carried out, to ascertain if there is any further relationship among the many proposed safety strategies. Factor analysis is motivated by the fact that measured variables can sometimes be correlated in such a way that their correlation may be reconstructed by a smaller set of parameters, which could represent the underlying structure in a concise and interpretable form.6Fig. 1 3P+I ModelFig. 2. 3P + I hierarchical frameworkThe factor analysis produced four principal components, labelled as Policy Factor, Process Factor,Personnel Factor and Incentive Factor (3P + I). Each factor comprised several attributes. See Fig. 2 for the 3P+ I model.The four factors and relevant attributes were organized into a hierarchy tree or value tree, where the goals at the top may be abstract, but lower down on the hierarchy, the goals are measurable, non-conflicting, coherent and logical (see Fig. 2). Higher level objectives are usually the decision makers objectives in global terms. These objectives need to be of the highest order and must collectively represent the decision makers total objectives. Each higher level objective is successively subdivided into twigs which are intermediate level 7objectives, and finally to lower level objectives. The value tree allows attributes to be presented in an orderly structure that helps in problem evaluation, and elicitation of importance weights for twigs.In this study, the highest level objective in the hierarchy is known as a factor. The four factors are: policy; process; personnel and incentive (see Fig. 2,Level 1). Second level attributes were the significant attributes derived from the survey questionnaire, t-test and factor analysis. Each second level attribute was further opertionalised to lower level attributes until a measurable lowest level attribute was obtained. The finalised list contained 590 attributes and these make up the CSI checklist.4.2. Importance weights of attributesThere is a need to make a distinction between what are essential and what are desirable attributes in the 3P+ I hierarchical framework which as mentioned earlier, contained 590 detailed attributes. This is because different attributes are of different importance with respect to site safety. It is therefore necessary to find out the degree of importance of each attribute by assigning them weights. The weight is important to decision makers because it expresses the importance of each attribute relative to the others. For those attributes being evaluated, a weight indicates what the decision makers are most concerned about in a quantitative way.There are several conventions to follow in assigning weights to attributes 17. One convention is that the final weight for each twig on the hierarchy tree is obtained by multiplying through the tree. The next convention is to normalise the weights, that is, to make weights sum to 1 at each level of the tree. This study adopted two methods to obtain the importance weights, using: Saatys 19 AHP for higher level attributes (levels 1 and 2). Likert Scale for lower level attributes (level 3 onwards).4.2.1. Importance weights for higher level attributes using AHP (step 9)The questionnaire to obtain the first and second level weights using AHP. The weights of the four factors (Policy, Process, Personnel and Incentives) make up the first level weights. The second level weights are the 17 sub-factors of the 3P + I model (see Fig. 2).The questionnaire consists of five sections. They are (1) factors relating to site safety through policy, process, personnel and incentive aspects (level one weights); (2) factors relating to site safety through policy aspect (level two weights); (3) factors relating to site safety through process aspect (level two weights); (4) factors relating to personnel aspect (level two weights); and (5) factors relating to site safety through incentive aspect (level two weights).8Using Saatys 19 AHP technique, respondents were asked to compare each element or sub-factor against one another based on a 9-point scale using pairwise comparison method to indicate their relative importance. The measure of intensity of importance is determined by a scale of 1 as equal importance to 9 as absolute importance. Each element or sub-factor was pitted against one another in order to establish the importance weightage. For example, in the elements section where policy factor was compared against the process factor, a two-way scale of 19 in each direction indicates the relative importance over either the policy factor or the process factor. The selection of a number is done in accordance with the respondents experienced opinion and judgment for all construction projects s/he had been involved in. This is to minimise the possibility of a bias decision based on a particular project.To determine the weights using AHP, 30 experts with extensive experience in site safety were identified. They represent various stake holders in the construction value chain such as contractors, public-sector client, government safety department and safety auditing consultancy firm. All respondents have more than 5 years of working experience in the construction industry. They are considered subject matter experts because they have the necessary knowledge and working experience in handling construction projects. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews using the structured questio