Rethinking Safety Indicators in the Norwegian Construction Industry

Casper Pilskog Orvik, Eirik Albrechtsen, Markus Angvik, Mareno Sæther, Siri Holen
{"title":"Rethinking Safety Indicators in the Norwegian Construction Industry","authors":"Casper Pilskog Orvik, Eirik Albrechtsen, Markus Angvik, Mareno Sæther, Siri Holen","doi":"10.1088/1755-1315/1389/1/012035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The construction industry is known for being accident-prone, and it experiences a high number of occupational hazards and workplace incidents. This sector is characterized by fragmentation and temporariness, with high technical and organizational complexity which impacts the safety. A measure of safety often relates to this reactive nature of historical events such as accidents and incidents. Despite widespread recognition of their limitations, the Total Recordable Injury Rate (TRIR) and Lost-Time Injury Rate (LTIR) remain the predominant (lagging) safety indicators in the Norwegian construction industry. However, criticisms regarding their statistical insensitivity, neglect of severity, and vulnerability to manipulation persist. This paper explores the paradox of these lagging indicators’ popularity, examining their role and the industry’s reliance on them in light of known deficiencies and criticism. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen key actors from clients and contractors of varying degrees in size, both private and public, to gain insights into the context and the current use of these lagging indicators. The results show that the stakeholders have collectively expressed their desire to move towards including a more proactive set of safety indicators. Learning from incidents and near misses and fostering organizational learning through enhanced communication are seen as relevant for more proactive safety measurement. Additionally, to meet the challenges in the context of increasing societal challenges, complexity, and uncertainty it is important to understand performance levels better. However, the research also emphasizes the retained relevance of incident measures, suggesting a nuanced balance between proactive and reactive indicators for overall safety performance measurements. The study highlights the need for the construction industry to move beyond traditional safety measures and embrace a performance-driven approach under complex conditions.","PeriodicalId":14556,"journal":{"name":"IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1389/1/012035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The construction industry is known for being accident-prone, and it experiences a high number of occupational hazards and workplace incidents. This sector is characterized by fragmentation and temporariness, with high technical and organizational complexity which impacts the safety. A measure of safety often relates to this reactive nature of historical events such as accidents and incidents. Despite widespread recognition of their limitations, the Total Recordable Injury Rate (TRIR) and Lost-Time Injury Rate (LTIR) remain the predominant (lagging) safety indicators in the Norwegian construction industry. However, criticisms regarding their statistical insensitivity, neglect of severity, and vulnerability to manipulation persist. This paper explores the paradox of these lagging indicators’ popularity, examining their role and the industry’s reliance on them in light of known deficiencies and criticism. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen key actors from clients and contractors of varying degrees in size, both private and public, to gain insights into the context and the current use of these lagging indicators. The results show that the stakeholders have collectively expressed their desire to move towards including a more proactive set of safety indicators. Learning from incidents and near misses and fostering organizational learning through enhanced communication are seen as relevant for more proactive safety measurement. Additionally, to meet the challenges in the context of increasing societal challenges, complexity, and uncertainty it is important to understand performance levels better. However, the research also emphasizes the retained relevance of incident measures, suggesting a nuanced balance between proactive and reactive indicators for overall safety performance measurements. The study highlights the need for the construction industry to move beyond traditional safety measures and embrace a performance-driven approach under complex conditions.
重新思考挪威建筑业的安全指标
众所周知,建筑行业是事故多发行业,职业危害和工作场所事故频发。该行业的特点是分散性和临时性,技术和组织高度复杂,这对安全产生了影响。安全的衡量标准往往与事故和事件等历史事件的被动性有关。尽管人们普遍认识到总可记录工伤率(TRIR)和损失工时工伤率(LTIR)的局限性,但它们仍然是挪威建筑业的主要(滞后)安全指标。然而,人们对它们在统计上的不敏感性、对严重性的忽视以及易受操纵性的批评依然存在。本文探讨了这些滞后指标广受欢迎的悖论,根据已知的缺陷和批评意见,研究了它们的作用以及该行业对它们的依赖。为了深入了解这些滞后指标的背景和当前的使用情况,本文对来自不同规模的客户和承包商(包括私营和公共承包商)的 14 位主要参与者进行了半结构式访谈。结果表明,利益相关方共同表示希望纳入一套更加积极主动的安全指标。从事故和险情中学习,以及通过加强沟通促进组织学习,被认为与更积极主动的安全衡量相关。此外,为了应对日益严峻的社会挑战、复杂性和不确定性,必须更好地了解绩效水平。不过,研究还强调了事故测量的保留相关性,建议在整体安全绩效测量的主动和被动指标之间保持微妙的平衡。这项研究强调,建筑行业需要超越传统的安全衡量标准,在复杂的条件下采用以绩效为导向的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信