Strategies for construction hazard recognition
Phase 1: Exploratory Research Studies to identify Hazard Recognition Program Elements
Download 2.75 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Phase 1: Exploratory Research Studies to identify Hazard Recognition Program Elements The research process began with an extensive literature search in an effort to identify hazard recognition program elements used in industries such as construction, mining, manufacturing, aviation chemical, and the military. Following this literature review, the expert panel and the research team met fora one-day face-to-face meeting that began with a brief orientation to the research study and a description of the literature review results. Following this introduction, the experts were encouraged to share additional hazard recognition strategies, apart from those identified in literature, that which were being implemented in their respective organizations. They were also encouraged to brainstorm additional methods that maybe theoretically 21 promising. To enhance efficiency, around robin technique was used where each member voiced their experience and opinion. After the first round of idea sharing, a second opportunity was provided to share ideas that may have generated while listening to the first round. All the ideas were recorded on a whiteboard by the meeting facilitator. Following the round-robin discussion the experts provided electronic and hard-copy forms of the strategies implemented in their organizations such as job hazard analyses, safety audit sheets, and leading indicators of safety performance. In total, more than 50 hazard recognition strategies were identified from literature and data provided by the expert panel. Among the identified strategies, several were dismissed (e.g. event tree analysis, HAZOP analysis, failure effect and mode analysis) based on a subsequent evaluation where the expert panel evaluated the suitability of each strategy for site- based implementation specifically in the construction industry. Some reasons provided by the panel to justify dismissal of certain strategies included unsuitability for application in inherently dynamic environments, inappropriate for non-standardized tasks, inaptness for site-based application (e.g. relevant only to design phase, etc. The output of this phase resulted in twenty- one hazard recognition program elements which are summarized in Table 1 along with a succinct description. |