Junjia Yin, A. Alias, N. A. Haron, Nabilah Abu Bakar
{"title":"制定评估吊装风险应对战略价值的方法:多方利益相关者的视角","authors":"Junjia Yin, A. Alias, N. A. Haron, Nabilah Abu Bakar","doi":"10.1108/ecam-12-2023-1257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeHoisting is an essential construction work package, but there is still a high incidence of accidents due to insufficient attention to coping strategies. This study aims to provide decision support to practitioners on safety protocols by developing a multi-stakeholder risk response model and a novel evaluation method.Design/methodology/approachFirstly, the study summarizes the hoisting risk response strategies system through a literature review and stakeholder theory. Secondly, the study constructed a quantitative theoretical model based on GLS-SEM and questionnaires. Third, the EWM-VA evaluation method was developed to determine the value coefficients of strategies.FindingsThe strategic interaction between government and consultants, consultants and builders, and government and builders are in the top three pronounced. Three coping strategies, “Increase funding for lifting equipment and safety devices,” “Improve the quality of safety education and training on lifting construction,” and “Conduct regular emergency rescue drills for lifting accidents,” have the optimal ratio of benefits to costs.Originality/valueThe hoisting risk strategy model from the perspective of multi-interested subjects proposed by the study is based on the global thinking of the project, which reduces the troubles such as the difficulty of pursuing responsibility and the irrational allocation of strategies that were brought by the previously related studies that only considered a single interested subject. In addition, the EWM-VA evaluation method developed in the study also provides new options for evaluating risk strategies and has the potential to be extended to other fields.","PeriodicalId":11888,"journal":{"name":"Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing a method for evaluating the value of hoisting risk response strategies: a multi-stakeholder perspective\",\"authors\":\"Junjia Yin, A. Alias, N. A. Haron, Nabilah Abu Bakar\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ecam-12-2023-1257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeHoisting is an essential construction work package, but there is still a high incidence of accidents due to insufficient attention to coping strategies. This study aims to provide decision support to practitioners on safety protocols by developing a multi-stakeholder risk response model and a novel evaluation method.Design/methodology/approachFirstly, the study summarizes the hoisting risk response strategies system through a literature review and stakeholder theory. Secondly, the study constructed a quantitative theoretical model based on GLS-SEM and questionnaires. Third, the EWM-VA evaluation method was developed to determine the value coefficients of strategies.FindingsThe strategic interaction between government and consultants, consultants and builders, and government and builders are in the top three pronounced. Three coping strategies, “Increase funding for lifting equipment and safety devices,” “Improve the quality of safety education and training on lifting construction,” and “Conduct regular emergency rescue drills for lifting accidents,” have the optimal ratio of benefits to costs.Originality/valueThe hoisting risk strategy model from the perspective of multi-interested subjects proposed by the study is based on the global thinking of the project, which reduces the troubles such as the difficulty of pursuing responsibility and the irrational allocation of strategies that were brought by the previously related studies that only considered a single interested subject. In addition, the EWM-VA evaluation method developed in the study also provides new options for evaluating risk strategies and has the potential to be extended to other fields.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-12-2023-1257\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-12-2023-1257","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Developing a method for evaluating the value of hoisting risk response strategies: a multi-stakeholder perspective
PurposeHoisting is an essential construction work package, but there is still a high incidence of accidents due to insufficient attention to coping strategies. This study aims to provide decision support to practitioners on safety protocols by developing a multi-stakeholder risk response model and a novel evaluation method.Design/methodology/approachFirstly, the study summarizes the hoisting risk response strategies system through a literature review and stakeholder theory. Secondly, the study constructed a quantitative theoretical model based on GLS-SEM and questionnaires. Third, the EWM-VA evaluation method was developed to determine the value coefficients of strategies.FindingsThe strategic interaction between government and consultants, consultants and builders, and government and builders are in the top three pronounced. Three coping strategies, “Increase funding for lifting equipment and safety devices,” “Improve the quality of safety education and training on lifting construction,” and “Conduct regular emergency rescue drills for lifting accidents,” have the optimal ratio of benefits to costs.Originality/valueThe hoisting risk strategy model from the perspective of multi-interested subjects proposed by the study is based on the global thinking of the project, which reduces the troubles such as the difficulty of pursuing responsibility and the irrational allocation of strategies that were brought by the previously related studies that only considered a single interested subject. In addition, the EWM-VA evaluation method developed in the study also provides new options for evaluating risk strategies and has the potential to be extended to other fields.
期刊介绍:
ECAM publishes original peer-reviewed research papers, case studies, technical notes, book reviews, features, discussions and other contemporary articles that advance research and practice in engineering, construction and architectural management. In particular, ECAM seeks to advance integrated design and construction practices, project lifecycle management, and sustainable construction. The journal’s scope covers all aspects of architectural design, design management, construction/project management, engineering management of major infrastructure projects, and the operation and management of constructed facilities. ECAM also addresses the technological, process, economic/business, environmental/sustainability, political, and social/human developments that influence the construction project delivery process.
ECAM strives to establish strong theoretical and empirical debates in the above areas of engineering, architecture, and construction research. Papers should be heavily integrated with the existing and current body of knowledge within the field and develop explicit and novel contributions. Acknowledging the global character of the field, we welcome papers on regional studies but encourage authors to position the work within the broader international context by reviewing and comparing findings from their regional study with studies conducted in other regions or countries whenever possible.