00 safety_quality_construction

IJIE 2003

Quality and Safety Management Systems in Construction: Some Insight from Contractors

Todd W. Loushine, M.S., P.E.

Peter Hoonakker, Ph.D.Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Funding provided by CPWR (no. 1020-48)

Overview Safety statistics for construction indicate high

fatality and injury rates Quality research indicates inefficiencies and

mismanagement are wasting billions of dollars

The nature of construction requires the work processes to deal with uncertainties, continuous changes, and risk

We are investigating a new type of management system, to deal with the dynamic and uncertain nature of construction work

Safety Statistics Construction fatalities account for 22% of the U.S. total,

while employing only 7% of workforce. In comparison, manufacturing employs 15-21% and accounts for only 11% of fatalities (BLS, 2003)

W.C. premiums cost contractors anywhere from 1.5% to 6.9% of total project costs (Agarwal & Everett, 1997)

A construction company operating on a 3% profit margin would need to increase sales by $333,000 to pay for a $10,000 injury, such as amputation of a finger (Construction Chart Book, 2002)

Indirect costs associated with worker medical injuries were estimated up to 20.3 times greater than direct costs (Hinze & Applegate, 1991)

Safety Issues in Construction

Safety Issues in Construction

Cost of Quality in Construction From a quality/productivity standpoint, labor

typically accounts for 30% of project costs (Picard, 2000)

Manpower mismanagement and construction delays were found to contribute to 40-60% non-productive time for onsite work (Jereas et al., 2000)

Rework costs up to 12% of total project costs and up to 11% of total project work hours (Love et al., 1999)

Dun & Bradstreet data indicate that construction business fail at a higher rate than all other businesses (Construction Chart Book, 2002)

The “Nature” of Construction Three primary participants (Carty, 1995):

Owner: wants something “built” Designer: develops a “plan” Contractor: converts a plan into a product

Construction is very complex and non-standardized (Rowlinson & Walker, 1995)

Exposure to weather, dynamic site conditions, coordination of multiple parties, etc.

81% of U.S. contractors have less than 9 employees (Construction Chart book, 2002)

Our Concept: Integrate Quality & Safety Management Apply “traditional safety management” (OSHA,

1989) Management commitment Employee involvement Hazard identification and control Training and education Accident investigation Program documentation and Review

To Quality Management principles (Dean & Bowen, 1994) Customer-focus Team work Continuous Improvement

Our Basic Research Question

Can quality and safety be integrated into a management system?

Literature Review Conducted Fall 2001, updated Fall 2003 Key search engines: ABI inform, WebSPIRS,

ProQuest, PsychINFO, and Web of Knowledge

Key words: quality, TQM, quality management, safety, safety management, occupational safety, construction, and construction industry

18 construction safety articles 26 construction quality articles 2 empirical and 3 theoretical articles on safety

and quality management

Safety Management Articles Positive effect on safety performance indicators

Management commitment (9) Audits/observations (8) Strong safety culture/climate (8) Communication (6) Employee involvement (5) Continuous improvement (4) Safety through Designers (3) Partnerships (1)

Training (alone) was not found to improve safety Safety performance comprised of incidence

rates, EMR, survey response, and observations

Quality Management Articles Positive effect on quality performance indicators:

TQM, in general (7) Employee empowerment (4) Partnering with subs and suppliers (4) Customer focus (3) Team work (3) Management commitment (3) Communication (2) Continuous improvement (2)

Quality performance indicated by cost (budget) and time (schedule) growth, number of defects/errors, survey response, audit/observations, and customer satisfaction rating

Quality Management Articles “Barriers” to successful implementation

“nature” of construction poor understanding of customer

expectations lack of management

commitment/leadership lack of worker empowerment

Self-assessment tools, such as ISO 9000, MBNQA, and BS 5750 were helpful

Also found to improve safety performance in a two studies

Safety and Quality Management Articles Safety and quality criteria used in pre-

qualification for hiring subcontractors The complexity of an integrated S&Q

management system requires expertise and resources

Based on a survey, quality managers were more positive than safety managers about integrating quality and safety

The Deming approach was applied to safety management (theoretical)

Objectives for Interviews The literature review indicated:

Characteristics of safety programs Safety performance indicators: EMR, IR Characteristics of quality programs Quality performance indicators: budget and

schedule growth Safety and quality integration has been given

minimal attention by researchers We wanted to know what contractors were

doing for safety and quality, and what they thought about integrating quality and safety

Methods Interviews (face-to-face and telephone) were

conducted in the Summer and Fall of 2002. A list of interview candidates was provided by

the WI ABC, attempted to provide a variety of work specialty and contractor size

Out of 12 candidates, nine interviews were conducted

Semi-structured interview format was used Interviews ran between 30-75 minutes, and

were tape recorded for transcription

Study SampleType of Contractor

Union or Merit*

Size Category

Years in Business

Annual Sales

Insurer Status

EMR Quality Awards

ST: concrete

Union 20-99 20+ $3M Private 0.78 None

ST: mechanical

Merit 10-19 20+ $1.5M Private 1.02 None

ST: roofing Merit 20-99 10-20 $3M Private 0.61 None

Both: carpentry

Merit 1-9 10-20 $150K Private 0.83 None

GC Both 100-499 20+ $60M Private 0.43 Many

GC Merit 20-99 20+ $30M Private 0.50 Many

ST: electrical

Merit 500+ 20+ $100M Self 0.66 Many

GC Merit 20-99 20+ $10M Private 0.62 Some

ST: paint/glass

Union 100-499 20+ N.R. Both 1.04 Some

Results - Safety 5 contractors felt that the EMR was the best

representation of safety performance Safety “goals” cited varied, zero accidents(6)

and/or reduction of the EMR(3) Education/training of workers(3), more

involvement by GC(3), and management commitment(2) were cited for safety performance improvement

Contractors felt that worker attitude(3) and nature of construction(5) were barriers

“I think the biggest barrier (to safety) is the worker himself. They have an uncanny belief that it’s not going to happen to them, and they don’t need to do it (work safely).”

Results - Quality Cited measures for quality: how it “looks”, work

hours to complete, productivity or efficiency rating, meeting schedule deadlines, visual inspections, number of building defects, repeat business, customer satisfaction rating, and cleanliness of jobsite

Quality improvement methods reported: education/training(4), teamwork(2), accountability(2), audits(2), and use of pre-qualification(1) data for hiring subs

Reported barriers to quality improvement included: worker attitude(4), lack of awareness(3), product/supply problems(2), and the nature of the construction process(2)

“Boy, I don’t know how you would collect data on the quality performance.”

Results – Quality and Safety Concerning similarities, 2 acknowledged the

potential benefits (improved productivity, happier workers, better business)

6 contractors felt that safety and quality were two entirely different issues (and required special attention)

3 contractors indicated that a strong safety program would probably improve quality performance

“You have people that either have their stuff together and are doing well, and then those who are not following safety are not running a good business either.”

Discussion Safety response were similar to the literature

Use of EMR & IR for safety performance Traditional safety characteristics However, focus on worker

Quality responses were not similar to the literature Varying definition of quality, and metrics Limited acknowledgement of a formal system Similar to safety, focus on worker

Integration of quality and safety not well understood, limited application

Summary Construction is a complex process, involving

multiple parties (with individual interests) to transform a mental concept into a physical structure.

The non-standard or unpredictable nature of construction increases the variability within the process

An integrated safety and quality management system could help reduce some variability in the construction process, however it is not very well understood at this time

Acknowledgements Professors P. Carayon, M.J. Smith, UW-

Madison Professor E.A. Kapp, UW-Whitewater WI ABC Safety Director Don Moen CPWR for support

Thanks for Listening! For more information or copies of reports,

contact Todd W. Loushine at [email protected]