Hindawi

Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

Volume 2020, Article ID 2610306, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2610306

Research Article
Construction Project Safety Performance Management Using
Analytic Network Process (ANP) as a Multicriteria
Decision-Making (MCDM) Tool

Murat Gunduz and Basil K. Khader

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Qatar University, Po Box: 2713, Doha, Qatar

Correspondence should be addressed to Murat Gunduz; [email protected]

Received 2 December 2019; Revised 11 January 2020; Accepted 21 January 2020; Published 25 February 2020

Academic Editor: Carmen De Maio

Copyright © 2020 Murat Gunduz and Basil K. Khader. )is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

)e paper addresses the context in which the construction industry is considered risky, as the intense labor and machine
environment interacts with acceleration and overlapping activities. )is situation results in accidents and fatalities. A high number
of accidents and fatalities leads to additional costs and delays, detrimental to all stakeholders. Hazard identification and
quantification of their impacts on building safety are crucial for planning. Classifying security risks is a complex process, and risks
are interconnected. )ere is a gap in the literature to study the interconnections of these hazards along with the frequency of
occurrences. To bridge this gap, the frequency-adjusted importance index and the ANP (Analytical Networking Process) tool were
used to capture the 14 interconnections and their frequencies based on the results of a survey distributed to 106 construction
professionals. )e main contribution of this work to existing knowledge is to identify and prioritize potential risks in the
construction sector, considering their interconnections and their level of occurrence frequency. )is is the first study in the
literature to combine the frequency-adjusted importance index and the ANP tool, both integrated. )e results from the im-
portance index was used as the base for pairwise comparison for the ANP model. Based on the results from the model, rec-
ommendations to industry professionals are provided and presented.

1. Introduction industry, leading and lagging safety indicators have been

developed to measure safety performance and prevent injury
Construction industry is one of the biggest industries [3]. )e application of BIM is currently experiencing rapid
worldwide. Deplorable safety management practices are growth in construction operations and planning and
damaging the reputation of the construction sector [1]. Due management, as well as in safety management [4]. New
to the increasing complexity of construction projects, the technologies are also used to identify hazards such as BIM
construction industry is acknowledged as having inherent (Building Information Modeling) [5]. However, evaluating
risks with high levels of change and uncertainty [2]. Many the priorities of the hazards is a complex issue as many of
workers and equipment interact together to deliver the final these hazards are interrelated to each other. Traditional risk
project on time. )is interaction would mostly result in analysis methods are not efficient to analyze nonlinear or
accidents. Safety performance monitoring should be per- complex systems such as construction sites [6]. )ere is a gap
formed by all stakeholders to avoid injuries and fatalities in in the literature to study the interconnections of these
the construction sites. hazards along with their frequency of occurrences. To cover
)e first step in evaluating the safety performance of a this gap, frequency-adjusted importance index and ANP
construction site is to identify the hazards, evaluate their (Analytic Network Process) tool were jointly utilized to
priorities and effect, and take adequate measures to avoid capture the interconnections and their frequencies based on
such hazards. Due to the dangers of the construction the results from a survey distributed to construction
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

professionals. )e main contribution of this paper to the this gap in the literature by considering ANP modeling and
existing knowledge is to identify and prioritize potential the frequency of safety hazards together. With the help of
hazards in the construction sector by considering their ANP, the hazards are linked together in an analytic network
interconnections along with their frequency level of oc- to reach a robust model and outcome. In this study, an
currences. Although very few researchers used ANP to study extensive literature review on topics related to safety hazards
construction safety hazards [7–9], they failed to address the in construction projects was conducted. A draft checklist of
frequency component. )is is the first study in the literature 42 hazards in 14 categories (site planning and housekeeping;
to introduce frequency component to the ANP tool for management involvement; handling, storage, and use of
realistic capturing of hazard rankings. materials; welding and cutting; concrete and concrete
After literature review, 42 hazards in 14 categories were framework; crane and lifting equipment; electrical equip-
identified. )ese were presented in a survey and distributed ment; hand and power tools and machinery; working at
online to the construction industry experts. 106 responses height and protection against falling; personal protective
were received, analyzed, and ranked using frequency-ad- equipment; traffic and transportation control; scaffolding
justed importance index and ANP. )e results from fre- and ladders; fire prevention; excavation, trenching, and
quency-adjusted importance index were used as the base for shoring) were collected. Table 1 presents the top forty-two
pairwise comparison for the ANP model. )e ANP tool hazards utilized in the study with their corresponding ref-
reflected the interdependencies between the safety hazards. erences. Based on the identified safety hazards, a ques-
With the help of ANP, the hazards are linked together in an tionnaire was prepared and distributed among the
analytic network to reach a robust model and outcome. )e construction professionals. )e questionnaire helped iden-
ranked hazards are presented and proper recommendations tify the most significant safety hazards in the construction
were made to industry professionals based on the research industry.
outputs. Next sections will introduce the methodology on fre-
quency-adjusted importance index, ANP, and the data
2. Literature Review analysis parts.

)ere is a growing body of the literature on assessing 3. Methodology

perceptions of safety climate [10]. Construction sites are
known for its complex environments where many unsafe )is study gathered a list of 42 safety hazards from the
acts and/or unsafe conditions exist [6]. literature review. A survey approach was adopted as means
Identifying hazards was performed in many studies such of collecting data for the data analysis. )e survey aimed to
as [11–18]. Gunduz et al. [19] conducted an extensive lit- investigate perceptions of the respondents on safety hazards
erature review to identify 168 observable variables in 16 attributes in the construction industry. A ranking analysis
latent dimensions that affect safety. )e study then proposed was applied between respondents based on their organiza-
a multidimensional safety performance model utilizing tion type, job designation, industry type, total construction
structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. Analytic hi- experience, and size of their companies. )e respondents
erarchy process (AHP) then was used to assess the severity of were requested to evaluate the attributes based on a (1–9)
each. On the other hand, Esmaeili et al.[20] adopted a scale for the importance and frequency levels of the factors.
preconstruction safety management in which they have )e (1–9) scale is depicted in Figure 1. )e survey was sent to
identified 22 fundamental attributes with highest impact on construction professionals that play key roles in the con-
safety to predict the safety outcome. struction industry worldwide.
Traditional risk analysis methods are not efficient to A total number of 106 completed surveys was received
analyze nonlinear or complex systems such as construction from the respondents worldwide. Frequency-adjusted im-
sites [6]. Traditional risk analysis methods are not efficient to portance index and ANP analysis were applied on the
analyze nonlinear or complex systems such as construction collected data. Ranked attributes were interpreted based on
sites [6]. the statistical analyses performed. Finally, recommendations
Few studies in the literature adopted the use of ANP to to industry professionals were carried based on the out-
rank hazards. Yang et al. [8] assessed metro construction comes of the data analysis.
safety risk by the use of ANP-grey clustering method. Zhou
et al. [9] assessed high-risk hydropower-construction project 4. Data Characteristics
work system hazards by the analytic network process (ANP)
and decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory An online website tool (SurveyMonkey) was employed in
(DEMATEL). High-rise construction safety culture among developing, distributing the questionnaire, and collecting
job positions with Fuzzy ANP and Fuzzy Decision Trail and responses. Moreover, hardcopies were also distributed to
Evaluation Laboratory and methods was studied by [7]. )e authors’ networks. )e motivation of the respondents was to
past studies usually study one type of construction without receive the outcome of this study after its completion. )e
considering their frequency of occurrence on the con- main results came from international construction
struction site. )ere is a gap in the literature to study the companied based in Qatar, the USA, Japan, Turkey, and
interconnections of safety hazards along with the consid- Jordan. Respondents are from different companies with
eration of their frequency of occurrences. )is study covers different functions, departments, and projects/project types.
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 3

Table1: )e top 42 hazards from the literature review and their relevant references.
Code Description References
C1 Site planning and housekeeping
C1H1 Insufficient working spaces/wrong site layout/no access/no lights
C1H2 No housekeeping (scattered garbage and material, dusts, excessive noise, vibration, etc.) [20–26]
C1H3 Insufficient food, drinking water, toilets, rest shelters, and medical facilities
C2 Management involvement
C2H1 Lack of company’s safety policy
C2H2 Insufficient safety training
[12, 20, 24, 25, 27–31]
C2H3 Insufficient safety motivation and incentives
C2H4 Negative management attitude to safety
C3 Handling, storage, and use of materials.
C3H1 Lack of proper planning and workforce for storage
[32–34]
C3H2 Unsafe storage/stacking of materials and exceeding safe loading limits
C4 Welding and cutting
C4H1 Failure in handling, inspection, and maintenance of equipment (cylinders, machines, hoses, and cables)
Lack of special PPE (personal protective equipment), such as face shield, special gloves, and goggles for welding/
C4H2 [19, 34–37]
cutting
C4H3 Welders without training, license, and certificates
C5 Concrete and concrete framework
C5H1 Failure to perform form works under the supervision of a competent person
[33, 38]
C5H2 Use of weak and deformed forms
C6 Crane and lifting equipment
C6H1 Unavailability of a safe lift plan on-site
C6H2 Lack of licensed trained riggers and operators [34, 37–40]
C6H3 Lack of safe working load indicator/inspection stickers/latches/barricades
C7 Electrical equipment
C7H1 Unsafe installation of the temporary power (old, damaged, and wrong rating of panels, sockets, wires, etc.)
C7H2 Failure to apply access limit, lockout-tagout, permit system, and signage systems [19, 33, 34, 37]
C7H3 Lack of inspection for the electric tools, cables, and equipment
C8 Hand and power tools and machinery
C8H1 Tools are in bad condition with no regular inspection
C8H2 Use of tools other than its intended use [20, 24, 33, 34, 41]
C8H3 Use or operation by untrained and unauthorized operators (lack of training system)
C9 Working at height and protection against falling
C9H1 Failure to place adequate barriers and warning signs for open edges and holes
C9H2 Falling of hand tools and other materials
[19, 21, 22, 34, 38]
C9H3 Failure to use required PPE (fall arrest systems) and safety nets
C9H4 Unsafe access to high places by damaged ladders, lifts, etc.
C10 Personal protective equipment
Failure to provide appropriate and adequate personal protective equipment for workers (head, eye, face, hand,
C10H1
foot, and hearing protection) [31, 41, 42]
C10H2 Failure in enforcing, motivating, and training workers to use them.
C11 Traffic and transportation control
Vehicles (buses/pickups/trucks/others) are in bad condition and do not have regular maintenance/first aid
C11H1
equipment/fire extinguishers/lights [20, 34, 38, 43]
C11H2 Failure in enforcing traffic regulations (seat belt, speed limit, license, and training)
C12 Scaffolding and ladders
C12H1 Use of defective and worn fasteners, components, settings, and material in scaffolding system
C12H2 Lack of proper design, workmanship, and regular inspections
[37, 38, 44, 45]
C12H3 Inadequate scaffolding stability (guardrails, toe boards, secured ties, etc.)
C12H4 Failure to provide safe access against slipping, sliding, or falling
C13 Fire prevention
C13H1 Lack of fire extinguishing training, escape plans, and drills
C13H2 Failure in controlling of ignition sources and fire watches, fire blankets, etc
[19, 34, 37, 46]
C13H3 Fire extinguishers are not enough, not in proper locations, not accessible, and not regularly maintained
C13H4 Failure in storage of flammable liquids and combustible materials
C14 Excavation, trenching, and shoring
C14H1 Wrong procedures (with slab, timber, trench, boxes, shoring, lining, etc.)
C14H2 Failure to locate underground services and to take precautionary measures [19, 38]
C14H3 Lack of proper barriers/warning signs/lights for the excavation
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

Choice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderate Strong Very strong Extreme

Impact No impact
impact impact impact impact

Unlikely Likely Very likely Certain

Frequency May happen
to happen to happen to happen to happen

Figure 1: Scale definition for the importance and frequency levels for each hazard.

)ey mainly are construction engineers, managers, safety technique considers both the importance and the frequency.
supervisions, design engineers, consultants, and owners. )e In order to calculate the FAII, both the relative importance
questionnaire consists of 20 questions. )e first 6 are related index (RII) and the frequency index (FI) are required. )e
to the respondents’ location, organization type and size, equations for FAII, RII, and FI are shown below:
construction type, job designation, and total years of ex- 􏽐 I​
perience. Other 14 questions are related to scaling (1 to 9) of RII(%) � × 100,
A(N)
each hazard in terms of impact and frequency. (1)
)e questionnaire link was sent out by emails or via 􏽐 F​
professional networks worldwide. Data collection resulted in FI(%) � × 100,
A(N)
106 completed questionnaires. Contractors are the largest
portion of respondents with 58 responses (54.7%). Con- where I � weight given to importance by the respondent (1 to
sultants, the second largest contributors of the survey, form 9), F � weight given to frequency by the respondents (1 to 9),
almost 17% of the total participants. Project engineer and A � the highest weight (in this case 9), and N � total number
project/construction managers make a total of 60% of the of respondents (in this case 106)
responses. Participants involved in infrastructure and oil Based on both the RII (%) and FI% equations, the fre-
and gas construction projects hold the significant portion of quency-adjusted importance index will be calculated as
participants with 28% and 23% of responses, respectively. follows:
Participants were categorized based on total years of work
experiences in construction based on four groups, which are (RII(%) × FI%)
FAII(%) � . (2)
0 to 5 years, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, and more than 16 years. A 100
percentage of 40% of responses was yielded from profes- FAII provides better ranking results because it reflects
sionals with experience between 6 and 10 years. the effects of importance and frequency all together.

5. Data Analysis
5.2. Analytic Network Process (ANP). )e ANP came as a
One of the objectives of this paper is to get the perceptions of generalized form of the AHP as many decision problems
the construction professionals about the major safety haz- cannot be dealt with as a linear hierarchy structure. )is is
ards in construction projects. Survey participants rated each because of the existence of interdependences and inter-
hazard importance and frequency based on a (1–9) scale. action between the factors. While AHP depends on a
Participants were asked to evaluate the importance (the hierarchical form of levels of goal, criteria, and sub-
impact) of the hazard on safety performance. Frequency was criteria, the ANP deals with all factors as clusters in a
also rated in order to decide on how often the hazard is come network, which are all connected to the main goal (safety
across in construction projects. performance in this paper). )e other advantage of the
As an example, considering the factor “use of weak and ANP is the network connecting the clusters and its ele-
deformed forms,” the questions to the respondent related to ments together.
this hazard are )e safety performance in construction is a complex
decision problem as many factors are interrelated. Hazards
(i) What is the impact of “use of weak and deformed
of a certain nature and under a certain category can have
forms” on safety performance?
obvious influence and can develop other risks in a different
(ii) How often the “use of weak and deformed forms” category. Hence, it cannot be dealt as independent criteria.
would likely to happen on a construction site? Similarly, hazards in a certain category can influence hazards
)e survey was sent to construction industry profes- under the same category. )is is called the inner depen-
sionals. )e data analysis is presented in the following dence, while the previously described relation between
sections. categories is called the outer dependence. In such problems,
ANP would be a very powerful alternative to AHP and other
methods.
5.1. Frequency-Adjusted Importance Index (FAII). A similar Figure 2 illustrates the proposed ANP model. )e model
yet inventive ranking approach adopted in this research to is a network that consists of categories called clusters. Each
rank safety attributes in the construction industry is the cluster contains the elements, which are called the hazards.
Frequency-Adjusted Importance Index (FAII) [35]. )is )e safety performance is connected to all clusters. Until this
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 5

stage, the model is linear and categories are independent. noncompliance will be 0%. )en, the safety index will be the
)e red and black arrows represent the interdependences, site compliance for each hazard, multiplied by the limiting
which is the nonlinear part of the model. As explained, these vector of the hazards.
show the effect of relevant hazards in influencing others. As )e SPI can be given according to the following formula:
an example, the C2H1, “lack of safety policy” has its in- SPI � ΣL.E, (3)
fluence on C10H2, “failure in enforcing use of PPE.”
)e steps to implement ANP model can be seen in where L is the limiting vector resulted from the ANP, which
Figure 3. Steps one and two are presented in Figure 2. )e is normalized for all hazards, and the summation will equal
3rd step is to develop a pairwise comparison between the to 1, and E is site evaluation of each hazard (0–100%)
elements in a matrix format and then to put these sub- measured by a safety expert.
matrices together to form the unweighted supermatrix However, the formula is not considering that some of
(Figure 4). )e pairwise comparison is calculated based on the hazards can be not applicable in some construction
FAII ranking of factors. As an example, the FAII rank of sites due to the type of construction. As an example,
C1H2 is 5, while the FAII rank of C1H3 is 29. )e difference welding is not considered as hazard in the building site
in ranking is 24. Using linear interpolation to scale the and concrete work can be ignored in a mechanical
differences in a (1–9) scale by considering the maximum pipeline project. In such cases, inapplicable hazards are
rank difference of 31 (maximum rank difference is between ignored, and then all other hazards will be normalized to
factors C4H1 and C4H2), the result will be 7/9. )e scaling the new summation.
table can be seen in Table 2. And this is inserted in the W11 )e new limiting vector can be called Ln (normalized
matrix in Figure 4. )e rest of the pairwise comparison was limiting vector). )e final general formula will be
similarly carried out.
SPI � ΣLn .E, (4)
)e fourth step is to do pairwise comparison at the
cluster level to develop the cluster matrix. )e weight of the where Ln is the normalized limiting vector and E is site
cluster is determined by the weights of its components, evaluation of each hazard (0–100%) measured by safety
which are the nodes (in this case “hazards”). )e average expert.
value of the hazard weight in FAII was already calculated for As an example, refer to Table 4 below. It shows the
the main category. As an example, weight of calculation of an SPI for a random construction site. )e
C1 � (C1H1 + C1H2 + C1H3)/3, which is (0.32404 + safety index is found to be 83.7%. )e same table is showing
0.35800+0.29878)/3 � 0.3269. Similarly, cluster weights were the safety index of each main category. C1-“site planning
calculated for all main categories. and housekeeping” is 58.3 and C2-“management involve-
Multiplication of each block in the unweighted super- ment” is 88.4, etc. that some hazards are not applicable. Each
matrix by the weight of the corresponding cluster weight will category’s SPI index was calculated by the formula below.
result in the weighted supermatrix. Raising the weighted )is calculation helps the construction team to take action
supermatrix to high power will make it convergent as the against each category:
limiting matrix. )e results are the rank of the hazards,
which is given by the priority vector in the limit matrix. ΣLn .E
SPI(each category) � . (5)
)ese calculations can be carried out with the help of Σ100 ∗ Ln
software such as SuperDecision. )e result of FAII and ANP
can be seen in Table 3 below.
From Table 3, it was seen that the top 5 ranked safety 6. Discussion of Results and
hazards based on ANP results are (1) lack of company’s Practical Implications
safety policy, (2) insufficient safety training, (3) failure in
enforcing, motivating, and training workers to use PPE, (4) 42 hazards in 14 categories were identified and offered in a
no housekeeping (scattered garbage and material, dusts, survey after reviewing the literature. )e survey was dis-
excessive noise, vibration, etc.), and (5) insufficient safety tributed to construction industry professionals. 106 re-
motivation and incentives. spondents assessed the 42 hazards based on impact (the
hazard impact on safety performance in construction
projects) and frequency (how often the hazard is likely to
5.3. Safety Performance Index (SPI). )e previous results will happen). )e collected data of 106 responses were then
be utilized to measure the safety performance in con- analyzed by frequency-adjusted importance index.
struction sites. )e 42 hazards will be used to measure safety )e resulted ranking of the hazards was then utilized to
performance in construction sites. )ese hazards will be perform ANP (Analytic Network Process) as a second stage
used for calculating SPI (safety performance index), which ranking tool in a purpose to reveal the root causes of these
then can be used to measure safety performance in con- hazards. )e ANP was selected as it is a powerful multi-
struction sites, compare sites together, and benchmarking. criteria decision-making technique for complex problems.
)e main idea is to do site inspection focusing on these )e complexity is due to the existence of interdependencies
hazards and evaluate if the site under inspection is com- between hazards from or across different categories.
plying with the safety procedures to avoid such hazard. It can be concluded from Table 3 that the hazards, which
Compliance will be given a weight of 100% and is considered most significant, is the “lack of company’s
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

C4-welding and cutting

C3-storage of material C5-concrete and formework

C2-management C6-cranes and lifting

involvement C4H1-failure in
C1-site planning and inspection/maintenance C7-electrical equipment
housekeeping C3H1-lack of C5H1-failure to
of equipment
proper planning for perform formworks by
C2H1-lack of storage a competent person C6H1-no safe lift
safety policy C4H2-lack of plans C7H1-unsafe
C1H1-insufficient/ special PPE for installation of the
wrong site layout... C3H2-unsafe welding/cutting C5H2-use of weak temporary power
storage, exceeding
and deformed forms C6H2-no licensed
C2H2-insufficient loading limits
C4H3-Welders riggers and
safety training C7H2-failure to
C1H2-no without training, license operators
apply access
housekeeping & certificates limit, lockout-tagout
C2H3-insufficient C6H3-no safe working
C1H3-insufficient safety motivation load indicator ... C7H3-lack of
food, water, toilets, inspection for the
shelters electric tools
C2H4-negative
management
attitude Safety performance
C14-
excavation, trenching,
and shoring
C13-fire prevention
C12-scaffolding and C14H1-wrong
C8-hand and power C9-working at height
ladders procedures of
tools & machinery C13H1-lack of fire trenching
extinguishing
C12H1-use of
training
C9H1-failure to defective & worn C14H2-failure to
C8H1-tools are in place adequate C10-personal protective C11-traffic & fasteners locate underground
bad condition barriers & warning signs equipment transportation control C13H2-failure in services
controlling of
C12H2-lack of
ignition sources
C9H2-falling of proper design/ C14H3-lack of
C8H2-use of tools
tools & materials C10H1-failure to C11H1-vehicles are workmanship proper barriers/
other than its
provide PPE in bad condition C13H3-fire warning signs
intended use
extinguishers are
C12H3-inadequate not enough
C9H3-failure to use
C8H3-use required PPE (fall C10H2-failure in C11H2-failure in scaffolding stability
or operation by arrest systems) enfocing use of enforcing traffic
untrained operators PPE regulations C13H4-failure in
C12H4-failure to storage of
C9H4-unsafe combustible
prevent sliding
access to high materials
or falling
places

Main links
Inner links
Outer links

Figure 2: ANP safety performance model with relevant categories.

Step-1 C1 C2 ... CN
Resulted matrices
Identify elements and clusters
e11e12...e1n1 e21e22...e2n2 eN1eN2...eNnN
Step-2
Relationship matrices C1 e11
Define relationships e12 ...
W11 W12 W1N
...

Step-3
Unweighted supermatrix e1n1
Elements pairwise compare ...
e21 W21 W22 W2N
Step-4 W = C2 e22
Cluster matrix
Clusters pairwise compare ...
...

...

...

...
e2n2
...

Weighted supermatrix eN1

CN eN2 WN1 WN2 ... WNN
...

Normalized weighted supermatrix eNuN

Limit priorities
Limit matrix
(final ranking) C1H1 C1H2 C1H3
Figure 3: ANP implementation steps and resulting matrices at C1H1 1 1/6 3
each step. W11 = C1H2 6 1 7
C1H3 1/3 1/7 1

safety policy” (ANP rank 1). )is is related to the organi- Figure 4: )e supermatrix formulation.
zation safety management at the planning phase of the
project. )e safety policy is a strong evidence of commit- required PPE (fall arrest systems) and safety nets,” which
ment toward safety and the methods to implement safety ranked 4th in FAII.
procedures on-site. It is to be noted that this ranked 19th in In this study, it has been proved that safety experts shall
FAII. )is result shows the strength of the ANP technique in focus their attention to the root cause of the hazards, that is,
representing the real causes, or the latent hazards, which the latent hazards, which actually drive the accidents and
stand behind many hazards. “Insufficient safety training” injuries. However, focusing on solving the apparent hazards
(ANP rank 2) is another hazard under the management in a reactive way would not improve safety performance and
category. )is hazard ranked the first in FAII, and to which will keep such hazards repeating as long as construction is
most of the accident in construction is referred. )is hazard ongoing. Hence, the most important is to solve the root
is explicit and latent, as many other hazards are connected to causes of the problems.
it. “Failure in enforcing, motivating, and training workers to From the study, it has been found that management
use PPE” ranked as third in ANP compared to seventh in involvement is the most important factor in improving the
FAII. )is is also considered as a latent or causing hazard of safety performance by adopting a robust clear safety policy,
many hazards related to using PPE such as the “failure to use which shall include safety and craft training, motivation and
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 7

Table 2: Scaling table through linear interpolation based on the differences between the factors.
Difference (1–9) scale Difference (1–9) scale
1 2 17 6
2 2 18 6
3 2 19 6
4 3 20 6
5 3 21 7
6 3 22 7
7 3 23 7
8 4 24 7
9 4 25 8
10 4 26 8
11 4 27 8
12 5 28 8
13 5 29 9
14 5 30 9
15 5 31 9
16 5 32 9

Table 3: FAII (%) values and ranking of safety attributes by ANP.

Rank Rank
CODE Name FAII ANP
1 2↓
C2H1 Lack of company’s safety policy 0.28753 19 0.271236 1
C2H2 Insufficient safety training 0.40116 1 0.080684 2
C10H2 Failure in enforcing, motivating, and training workers to use PPE 0.32259 7 0.074344 3
C1H2 No housekeeping (scattered garbage and material, dusts, excessive noise, vibration, etc.) 0.33981 5 0.054578 4
C2H3 Insufficient safety motivation and incentives 0.39506 2 0.052904 5
C9H3 Failure to use required PPE (fall arrest systems) and safety nets 0.34568 4 0.051955 6
C2H4 Negative management attitude to safety 0.38752 3 0.03552 7
C9H2 Falling of hand tools and other materials 0.32693 6 0.032775 8
C14H2 Failure to locate underground services and to take precautionary measures 0.31173 11 0.031273 9
C11H2 Failure in enforcing traffic regulations (seat belt, speed limit, license, and training) 0.30476 13 0.0285 10
C13H4 Failure in storage of flammable liquids and combustible materials 0.31005 12 0.027115 11
C6H3 Lack of safe working load indicator/inspection stickers/latches/barricades 0.31981 8 0.02209 12
C9H1 Failure to place adequate barriers and warning signs for open edges and holes 0.31855 9 0.019644 13
Lack of special PPE (personal protective equipment), such as face shield, special gloves, and
C4H2 0.31741 10 0.019333 14
goggles for welding/cutting
Unsafe installation of the temporary power (old, damaged, and wrong rating of panels,
C7H1 0.2758 24 0.018633 15
sockets, wires, etc.)
C8H3 Use or operation by untrained and unauthorized operators (lack of training system) 0.29729 15 0.01509 16
Failure to provide appropriate and adequate personal protective equipment for workers
C10H1 0.28235 20 0.014869 17
(head, eye, face, hand, foot, and hearing protection)
Fire extinguishers are not enough, not in proper locations, not accessible, and not regularly
C13H3 0.29127 17 0.014117 18
maintained
C14H3 Lack of proper barriers/warning signs/lights for the excavation 0.28929 18 0.01344 19
C3H2 Unsafe storage/stacking of materials and exceeding safe loading limits 0.29321 16 0.012805 20
C1H1 Insufficient working spaces/wrong site layout/no access/no lights 0.28045 22 0.012462 21
C7H2 Failure to apply access limit, lockout tag-out, permit system, and signage systems 0.26612 26 0.011738 22
C12H3 Inadequate scaffolding stability (guardrails, toe boards, secured ties, etc.) 0.2809 21 0.009772 23
C9H4 Unsafe access to high places by damaged ladders, lifts, etc. 0.30041 14 0.008982 24
C7H3 Lack of inspection for the electric tools, cables, and equipment 0.26452 27 0.007395 25
C6H2 Lack of licensed trained riggers and operators 0.27984 23 0.005696 26
C1H3 Insufficient food, drinking water, toilets, rest shelters, and medical facilities 0.26155 29 0.005691 27
C13H2 Failure in controlling of ignition sources and fire watches, fire blankets, etc. 0.26296 28 0.005473 28
C5H1 Failure to perform form works under the supervision of a competent person 0.21498 39 0.005426 29
C12H4 Failure to provide safe access against slipping, sliding, or falling 0.27511 25 0.005256 30
Vehicles (buses/pickups/trucks/others) are in bad condition and do not have regular
C11H1 0.25774 31 0.00475 31
maintenance/first aid equipment/fire extinguishers/lights
C4H3 Welders without training, license, and certificates 0.2516 34 0.003663 32
C14H1 Wrong procedures (with slab, timber, trench, boxes, shoring, lining, etc.) 0.25274 33 0.003465 33
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

Table 3: Continued.
Rank Rank
CODE Name FAII ANP
1 2↓
C8H2 Use of tools other than its intended use 0.24863 35 0.00301 34
C13H1 Lack of fire extinguishing training, escape plans, and drills 0.25591 32 0.002861 35
C5H2 Use of weak and deformed forms 0.19334 42 0.002713 36
C6H1 Unavailability of a safe lift plan on-site 0.25873 30 0.002448 37
C3H1 Lack of proper planning and workforce for storage 0.20988 40 0.001829 38
C12H2 Lack of proper design, workmanship, and regular inspections 0.23285 36 0.001809 39
C8H1 Tools are in bad condition with no regular inspection 0.21674 38 0.001801 40
Failure in handling, inspection, and maintenance of equipment (cylinders, machines, hoses,
C4H1 0.19444 41 0.00162 41
and cables)
Use of defective and worn fasteners, components, settings, and material in scaffolding
C12H1 0.23167 37 0.001233 42
system

Table 4: Safety performance index calculation.

Limiting Limiting Evaluation of
SPI per
Category Code Name vector (normalized) hazard Ln E
category
L Ln E
Insufficient working spaces/wrong site layout/no
C1H1 0.0123 0.0132 80 1.1
access/no lights
No housekeeping (scattered garbage and material,
C1 C1H2 0.0538 0.0579 50 2.9 58.3
dusts, excessive noise, vibration, etc.)
Insufficient food, drinking water, toilets, rest
C1H3 0.0056 0.006 90 0.5
shelters, and medical facilities
C2H1 Lack of company’s safety policy 0.2799 0.3012 90 27.1
C2H2 Insufficient safety training 0.0813 0.0875 90 7.9
C2 88.4
C2H3 Insufficient safety motivation and incentives 0.0521 0.0561 80 4.5
C2H4 Negative management attitude to safety 0.035 0.0377 85 3.2
C3H1 Lack of proper planning and workforce for storage 0.0018 0.0019 70 0.1
C3 Unsafe storage/stacking of materials and exceeding 78.7
C3H2 0.0126 0.0136 80 1.1
safe loading limits
Failure in handling, inspection, and maintenance of
C4H1 0.0016 0.0017 80 0.1
equipment (cylinders, machines, hoses, and cables)
Lack of special PPE (personal protective
C4 70.7
C4H2 equipment), such as face shield, special gloves, and 0 0 70 0
goggles for welding/cutting
C4H3 Welders without training, license, and certificates 0.0036 0.0039 70 0.3
Failure to perform form works under the
C5H1 0.0053 0.0058 85 0.5
C5 supervision of a competent person 83.7
C5H2 Use of weak and deformed forms 0 0 81 0
C6H1 Unavailability of a safe lift plan on-site 0.0024 0.0026 56 0.1
C6H2 Lack of licensed trained riggers and operators 0.0056 0.006 55 0.3
C6 82.1
Lack of safe working load indicator/inspection
C6H3 0.0218 0.0234 92 2.2
stickers/latches/barricades
Unsafe installation of the temporary power (old,
C7H1 damaged, and wrong rating of panels, sockets, wires, 0.0184 0.0198 81 1.6
etc.)
C7 Failure to apply access limit, lockout-tagout, permit 71.7
C7H2 0 0 61 0
system, and signage systems
Lack of inspection for the electric tools, cables, and
C7H3 0.0073 0.0078 65 0.5
equipment
Tools are in bad condition with no regular
C8H1 0.0018 0.0019 73 0.1
inspection.
C8 C8H2 Use of tools other than its intended use 0.003 0.0032 98 0.3 90.4
Use or operation by untrained and unauthorized
C8H3 0.0149 0.016 91 1.5
operators (lack of training system)
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 9

Table 4: Continued.
Limiting Limiting Evaluation of
SPI per
Category Code Name vector (normalized) hazard Ln E
category
L Ln E
Failure to place adequate barriers and warning signs
C9H1 0.0194 0.0208 87 1.8
for open edges and holes
C9H2 Falling of hand tools and other materials 0.0323 0.0348 84 2.9
C9 Failure to use required PPE (fall arrest systems) and 87
C9H3 0.0512 0.0551 89 4.9
safety nets
Unsafe access to high places by damaged ladders,
C9H4 0 0 86 0
lifts, etc.
Failure to provide appropriate and adequate
C10H1 personal protective equipment for workers (head, 0.0147 0.0158 96 1.5
C10 eye, face, hand, foot, and hearing protection) 96.8
Failure in enforcing, motivating, and training
C10H2 0.0733 0.0788 97 7.6
workers to use them
Vehicles (buses/pickups/trucks/others) are in bad
C11H1 condition and do not have regular maintenance/first 0.0047 0.005 89 0.4
C11 aid equipment/fire extinguishers/lights 59
Failure in enforcing traffic regulations (seat belt,
C11H2 0.0281 0.0302 54 1.6
speed limit, license, and training)
Use of defective and worn fasteners, components,
C12H1 0.0012 0.0013 70 0.1
settings, and material in scaffolding system
Lack of proper design, workmanship, and regular
C12H2 0 0 63 0
inspections
C12 62.6
Inadequate scaffolding stability (guardrails, toe
C12H3 0.0096 0.0104 63 0.7
boards, secured ties, etc.)
Failure to provide safe access against slipping,
C12H4 0.0052 0.0056 60 0.3
sliding, or falling
Lack of fire extinguishing training, escape plans, and
C13H1 0.0028 0.003 80 0.2
drills
Failure in controlling of ignition sources and fire
C13H2 0.0054 0.0058 67 0.4
watches, fire blankets, etc.
C13 Fire extinguishers are not enough, not in proper 72.2
C13H3 locations, not accessible, and not regularly 0.0139 0.015 96 1.4
maintained
Failure in storage of flammable liquids and
C13H4 0 0 60 0
combustible materials
Wrong procedures (with slab, timber, trench, boxes,
C14H1 0.0034 0.0037 69 0.3
shoring, lining, etc.)
Failure to locate underground services and to take
C14 C14H2 0.0308 0.0332 70 2.3 73
precautionary measures
Lack of proper barriers/warning signs/lights for the
C14H3 0.0132 0.0143 81 1.2
excavation
0.929 1 3223 83.7

incentives, and enforcing and accountability toward safety in and overlapping activities. )is situation would result in
all levels of the work force. )is proactive attitude will help high number of accidents and fatalities. High number of
make safety as a culture at the construction sites. )erefore, accidents and fatalities lead to additional cost and delay on
the recommendation to construction industry leadership is all stakeholders including public agencies, project owners,
to focus on safety policies and management commitment to development companies, consultants, and construction
safety when selecting their stakeholders of consultants and companies. Identifying hazards and quantifying their im-
contractors. pacts on construction safety are crucial for planning,
Furthermore, this paper recommends safety experts to budgeting, and management purposes. Safety hazards
identify hazards, prioritize them, and distribute the budget ranking is a complex process as these hazards are inter-
wisely to prevent accidents. connected. )ere is a gap in the literature to study the in-
terconnections of these hazards along with their frequency
7. Conclusion of occurrences. )is is the first study in the literature to
combine frequency adjusted importance index and ANP
)e construction industry is considered risky as labor and tool together. Past literature conducted targeting the safety
machinery intense environment interacts with accelerating performance evaluation were focusing on identifying the
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

observable hazards and evaluating their apparent effects. A Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, vol. 10, pp. 1–16. in
frequency-adjusted importance index analysis was carried Press, 2018.
out in this paper as a first stage by ranking the hazards. )e [6] D. G. C. Jamot and J. Y. Park, “System theory based hazard
top three hazards according to FAII were (1) insufficient analysis for construction site safety: a case study from
safety training, (2) negative management attitude to safety, Cameroon,” Safety Science, vol. 118, pp. 783–794, 2019.
and (3) insufficient safety motivation and incentives. [7] A. Ardeshir and M. Mohajeri, “Assessment of safety culture
among job positions in high-rise construction: a hybrid fuzzy
A second stage ranking was carried out by using the ANP
multi criteria decision-making (FMCDM) approach,” Inter-
(Analytic Network Process). )is technique has proven its
national Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion,
benefits in solving complex decision problems due to ex- vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 195–206, 2018.
istence of interdependences between its parts, which is the [8] T. Yang, P. Song, J. Liu, and M. Wang, “)e assessment of
case in safety hazards where some hazards are interrelated. metro station construction safety risk based on ANP-grey
)e ANP ranking gave a close ranking similar to FAII where clustering method,” in Proceedings of the 7th International
the top three hazards were (1) lack of company’s safety Symposium on Project Management, ISPM, pp. 153–158,
policy, (2) insufficient safety training, and (3) failure in Chongqing, China, July 2019.
enforcing, motivating, and training workers to use PPE. [9] J.-L. Zhou, Z.-H. Bai, and Z.-Y. Sun, “A hybrid approach for
)e results of both analyses confirm that the role the safety assessment in high-risk hydropower-construction-
management plays is an important role to improve the safety project work systems,” Safety Science, vol. 64, pp. 163–172,
performance by establishing a safety policy, adopting safety- 2014.
training procedures, enforce safety procedures through [10] L. S. Marı́n, H. Lipscomb, M. Cifuentes, and L. Punnett,
incentives, and control measures. “Perceptions of safety climate across construction personnel:
)e outcome of this paper would help the construction associations with injury rates,” Safety Science, vol. 118,
pp. 487–496, 2019.
and the safety professionals on assessing and quantifying the
[11] W. M. Alruqi and M. R. Hallowell, “Critical success factors for
most critical safety hazards in the construction industry. construction safety: review and meta-analysis of safety leading
Moreover, the construction and safety professionals would indicators,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
utilize the safety performance index calculation to quanti- agement, vol. 145, no. 3, Article ID 04019005, 2019.
tatively measure their site safety level. [12] M. Grill and K. Nielsen, “Promoting and impeding safety—a
)is study could be extended further by developing a qualitative study into direct and indirect safety leadership
practical tool to measure the safety performance index and practices of constructions site managers,” Safety Science,
conducting case studies on comparison of the safety per- vol. 114, pp. 148–159, 2019.
formance index in construction projects. [13] Y. Han, R. Jin, H. Wood, and T. Yang, “Investigation of
demographic factors in construction employees’ safety per-
Data Availability ceptions,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 23, no. 7,
pp. 2815–2828, 2019.
)e data used to support the findings of this study are [14] A. Mohammadi, M. Tavakolan, and Y. Khosravi, “Factors
available from the corresponding author upon request. influencing safety performance on construction projects: a
review,” Safety Science, vol. 109, pp. 382–397, 2018.
[15] M. T. Newaz, P. R. Davis, M. Jefferies, and M. Pillay, “De-
Conflicts of Interest veloping a safety climate factor model in construction re-
)e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. search and practice: a systematic review identifying future
directions for research,” Engineering, Construction and Ar-
chitectural Management, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 738–757, 2018.
References [16] Q. Suo and D. Zhang, “Investigation and identification of
factors affecting migrating peasant workers’ usage of safety
[1] R. Akram, M. J. )aheem, A. R. Nasir, T. H. Ali, and S. Khan,
footwear in the Chinese construction industry,” International
“Exploring the role of building information modeling in
construction safety through science mapping,” Safety Science, Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, vol. 23, no. 3,
vol. 120, pp. 456–470, 2019. pp. 424–430, 2017.
[2] M. T. Trinh and Y. Feng, “Impact of project complexity on [17] J. Wang, P. X. W. Zou, and P. P. Li, “Critical factors and paths
construction safety performance: moderating role of resilient influencing construction workers’ safety risk tolerances,”
safety culture,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 93, pp. 267–279, 2016.
Management, vol. 146, no. 2, Article ID 04019103, 2020. [18] W. Zhang, X. Zhang, X. Luo, and T. Zhao, “Reliability model
[3] K. Versteeg, P. Bigelow, A. M. Dale, and A. Chaurasia, and critical factors identification of construction safety
“Utilizing construction safety leading and lagging indicators management based on system thinking,” Journal of Civil
to measure project safety performance: a case study,” Safety Engineering and Management, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 362–379,
Science, vol. 120, pp. 411–421, 2019. 2019.
[4] M. D. Martı́nez-Aires, M. López-Alonso, and M. Martı́nez- [19] M. Gunduz, M. T. Birgonul, and M. Ozdemir, “Fuzzy
Rojas, “Building information modeling and safety manage- structural equation model to assess construction site safety
ment: a systematic review,” Safety Science, vol. 101, pp. 11–18, performance,” ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
2018. Management, vol. 143, no. 4, 2017.
[5] S. Alizadehsalehi, I. Yitmen, T. Celik, and D. Arditi, “)e [20] B. Esmaeili, M. Hallowell, and B. Rajagopalan, “Attribute
effectiveness of an integrated BIM/UAV model in managing based safety risk assessment. II: predicting safety outcomes
safety on construction sites,” International Journal of using generalized linear models,” Journal of Construction
 8483, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2610306 by Jordan Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [12/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 11

Engineering and Management, vol. 141, no. 8, Article ID [39] Y. Fang and Y. K. Cho, “Effectiveness analysis from a cog-
04015022, 2015. nitive perspective for a real-time safety assistance system for
[21] A. S. J. Holt, Principles of Construction Safety, Blackwell mobile crane lifting operations,” Journal of Construction
Science Ltd., Oxford, UK, 2006. Engineering and Management, vol. 143, no. 4, Article ID
[22] O. A. Jannadi and M. S. Bu-Khamsin, “Safety factors con- 05016025, 2017.
sidered by industrial contractors in Saudi Arabia,” Building [40] G. Raviv, A. Shapira, and B. Fishbain, “AHP-based analysis of
and Environment, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 539–547, 2002. the risk potential of safety incidents: case study of cranes in the
[23] A. N. Kheni, A. G. F. Gibb, and A. R. J. Dainty, “)e man- construction industry,” Safety Science, vol. 91, pp. 298–309,
agement of construction site health and safety by small and 2017.
medium-sized construction businesses in developing coun- [41] T. S. Abdelhamid and J. G. Everett, “Identifying root causes of
tries: a Ghana case study,” in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual construction accidents,” Journal of Construction Engineering
ARCOM Conference, pp. 295–304, Birmingham, UK, Sep- and Management, ASCE, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 52–60, 2000.
tember 2006. [42] I. Awolusi, E. Marks, and M. Hallowell, “Wearable technology
[24] S. Rajendran and J. A. Gambatese, “Development and initial for personalized construction safety monitoring and trending:
validation of sustainable construction safety and health rating review of applicable devices,” Automation in Construction,
system,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage- vol. 85, pp. 96–106, 2018.
ment, vol. 135, no. 10, pp. 1067–1075, 2009. [43] C. Zhou and L. Y. Ding, “Safety barrier warning system for
[25] C. D. Reese and J. V. Eidson, OSHA Construction Safety and underground construction sites using internet-of-things
technologies,” Automation in Construction, vol. 83, pp. 372–
Health, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999.
389, 2017.
[26] C. Sooyoung and L. Fernanda, “Construction safety planning:
[44] K. Kim, Y. Cho, and S. Zhang, “Integrating work sequences
site-specific temporal and spatial information integration,”
and temporary structures into safety planning: automated
Automation in Construction, vol. 84, pp. 335–344, 2017.
scaffolding-related safety hazard identification and prevention
[27] A. R. Abdul Hamid, M. Z. Abd Majid, and B. Singh, “Causes of
in BIM,” Automation in Construction, vol. 70, pp. 128–142,
accidents at construction sites,” Malaysian Journal of Civil
2016.
Engineering, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 242–259, 2008. [45] J. C. Rubio-Romero, M. Carmen Rubio Gámez, and
[28] S. Aminbakhsh, M. Gunduz, and R. Sonmez, “Safety risk J. A. Carrillo-Castrillo, “Analysis of the safety conditions of
assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during scaffolding on construction sites,” Safety Science, vol. 55,
planning and budgeting of construction projects,” Journal of pp. 160–164, 2013.
Safety Research, vol. 46, pp. 99–105, 2013. [46] J. Bregulla, S. MacKay, and S. Matthews, “Fire safety on timber
[29] M. Gunduz and H. Laitinen, “A 10-step safety management frame sites during construction,” in Proceedings of the 11th
framework for construction small and medium-sized enter- World Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE 2010, vol. 4,
prises,” International Journal of Occupational Safety and pp. 2805–2813, Trentino, Italy, June 2010.
Ergonomics, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 353–359, 2017.
[30] M. Gunduz, M. Talat Birgonul, and M. Ozdemir, “Develop-
ment of a safety performance index assessment tool by using a
fuzzy structural equation model for construction sites,” Au-
tomation in Construction, vol. 85, pp. 124–134, 2018.
[31] C. M. Tam, S. X. Zeng, and Z. M. Deng, “Identifying elements
of poor construction safety management in China,” Safety
Science, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 569–586, 2004.
[32] CALOSHA, Pocket Guide for the Construction Industry,
CALOSHA, Oakland, CA, USA, 2015, http://www.dir.ca.gov/
dosh/dosh_publications/constguideonline.pdf.
[33] M. Gunduz and H. Laitinen, “Observation based safety
performance indexing method for construction indus-
try—validation with SMEs,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engi-
neering, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 440–446, 2018.
[34] H. Laitinen, M. Vuorinen, A. Simola, and E. Yrjänheikki,
“Observation-based proactive OHS outcome indica-
tors—validity of the elmeri+ method,” Safety Science, vol. 54,
pp. 69–79, 2013, 0925-7535.
[35] M. Gunduz and B. Ahsan, “Construction safety factors as-
sessment through frequency adjusted importance index,”
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 64,
pp. 155–162, 2018.
[36] D. Jescovitch, “Safety tips for weld prep in pipe fabrication,”
Welding Journal, vol. 94, no. 11, pp. 52–54, 2015.
[37] QCS, 2014, Qatar Construction Standards, Section 1, Part 10,
pp 12-13.
[38] H. Laitinen, M. Marjamäki, and K. Päivärinta, “)e validity of
the TR safety observation method on building construction,”
Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 463–472,
1999.