1 Ch16 Safety and Middle Managers Faculty of Applied Engineering and Urban Planning Civil Engineering Department Lecture 17- Week 12 2 nd Semester 2008/2009.

1

Ch16 Safety and Middle Managers

Faculty of Applied Engineering and Urban Planning

Civil Engineering Department

Lecture 17- Week 12

2nd Semester 2008/2009

UP Copyrights 2008

Const

ruct

ion S

afe

ty

Managem

ent

Eng: Eyad Haddad

(Superintendents)

2

(if you cut enough corners, you may

eventually have a hole to fall into)

3

Main Factors Affect Safety Performance:

• Foreman

• Middle Management

• Top Management

4

Introductions

• Definition:

- The top personnel at the project level

- Resident at the site of the construction project

- Small projects; superintendent

- Projects out of home office; project manager

- Large highway project; PM, Project Eng., Project Superintendent,

5

Roles and Safety levels

• First-line supervisors:

- role is crucial in achieving safe performance at the crew level

• Superintendents:

- Safe performance at the project level

- Foremen and superintendent assist each others

6

Superintendent and New Workers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

50% and Over Under 50%

Gulf StudyBay Study

Frequency

Of medical-case injuries

(per 200000 hours)

Project workers who worked for same

superintendent in other projects

Figure 16.1 the Number of Project workers who worked with superintendent on other projects

7

Superintendent and New Workers

• New workers must be addressed for the manager to stay in control of safety

• New workers most likely to be involved in accidents

• Superintendent may transfer his workers from project to project for safer projects

• Such workers already “know the drill”

8

Superintendent and New Workers

Frequency

Of medical-

Case injuries

(per 200000 hr)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Personallyinvolved

not very involved

Bay StudyGulf study

Figure 16.2 The extend of the superintendent’s involvement to new workers

9

Superintendent involvement with new workers

• Simple introduction• Informal conversation• Humanize the project• New worker is assimilated into project team • Personal contact with SUP. Helps new

workers feel comfortable in new setting• Safer projects, foremen pay closer attention

to new workers

10

Safer Superintendents Are Good Managers

A good manager is :

• leader, planner, organizer, and good model for others

• Sensitive to personal needs and feelings of workers

• Keep close contact with job-site activities

• Assess problems before they become critical

11

Safer Superintendents Are Good Managers

• Characteristics of SUP. Tends to be subjective matter

• Results of efforts• Can’t be quantified in objective terms • (Hinze 1987) examined :Interviewed 35 sup., Described each sup. In

general terms, no knowledge about past safety performance,

12

Safer Superintendents Are Good Managers

0

5

10

15

20

25

Excellent Good Weak Poor

Good Safety Record

Poor safety record Per

cent

age

Of

sup

erin

tend

ent

Rating of Superintendent’s management ability

Figure 16.3 Distribution of Superintendents by Management Qualities and Safety Performance

13

Safer Superintendents Are Good Managers

• Personnel management is important component

• Every worker has personal life, feelings, needs, concerns

• Good management skills and Good Safety Performance go together

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sensitive/flexible Insensitive/inflexible

Utility contractor study

Gulf coast study

Fre

quen

cy o

f

Med

ical

-cas

e in

juri

es

(per

200

000

hour

s)

Figure 16.4 Safety Performance Related to a Superintendent’s sensitivity and Flexibility in addressing problems

15

Superintendent Keep Job Pressures Down

• Job pressures may be unavoidable

• Productivity and Safety are mutual achievement

• Project completed on/ahead of schedule, within budget have exemplary safety record

Get job done (productivity) Adverse impact on safety

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Excellentachievement

Averageachievement

Budget goalsSchedule goalsF

requ

ency

of

med

ical

-cas

e in

juri

es (

per

200,

000

hour

s

Figure 16.5 The Superintendent’s Ability to Meet Corporate Goals

17

Superintendent’s Philosophy about cost information

• Safe SUP. Know ,subordinates are motivated to do good jobs

• Not necessary to place extra pressure on them

• If items begin to overrun, foremen put pressure on themselves

• Added pressure may be the root cause of injuries

• Superintendent has to examine problem, suggests to bring costs under control

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Apply pressureregarding costs

No pressureregarding costs

Injuries

Fre

quen

cy o

f m

edic

al-c

ase

inju

ries

(pe

r 20

0,00

0 ho

urs)

Figure 16.6 The Superintendent’s Philosophy about the Use of Cost Information

19

Superintendent’s Philosophy about schedule information

• Running behind schedule does not please any body

• Personnel are motivated that they keep track of their production status

• Schedule is viewed as a tool to help performance on project, not a tool to put pressure

• Pressure is more detrimental to safety than it is beneficial to progress

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Advocate ofcompetition

Indifferent tocompetition

Opposed tocompetition

Injuries

Fre

quen

cy o

f

Med

ical

-cas

e in

juri

es

(per

200

,000

hou

rs)

Figure 16.7 The Superintendent’s Philosophy about Competition

21

Comments

As middle managers , superintendents and project managers are in key positions to set the tone for safety at the project level

they possess overall control of the project

company policies are viewed as being implemented by middle managers

middle managers communicate project concerns to top management

to avoid any communication problems , middle managers must be careful to transmit accurate and clear information

22