Road testing a health and safety worker engagement ...

4 downloads 0 Views 897KB Size Report
Jan 6, 2006 - and Safety Executive (HSE) Construction Division promotes worker engagement in all aspects of H &. S on site as the next step in ensuring that ...
Paper title: Road testing a health and safety worker engagement toolkit in the construction industry Dr A Meldrum, Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University, School of Built & Natural Environment Dr B Hare, Senior Research Fellow, Glasgow Caledonian University, School of Built & Natural Environment Professor Iain Cameron, Head of Construction Management & Economics Division, Glasgow Caledonian University, School of Built & Natural Environment Engineering, Construction and Architectural management, Vol. 16 No. 6, 2009. Pp612-632

Abstract: Purpose: Worker engagement in H & S is a means to reduce risks in construction projects. A measure for worker engagement in H & S is a first step in ensuring improvement and maintenance of worker engagement in the construction industry. This case study explores the nature of worker engagement in construction and tests a management instrument (WISH) developed to measure it during a construction project. Method: A stratified sample of workers in a construction project organisation was studied to test the effectiveness of a site wide engagement programme (IIF) run by the main contractor. The measurement was repeated 13 months after the first phase to check engagement at that stage of the project and to reduce bias in scoring. Findings: Four key factors emerged as the independent variables upon which worker engagement depends. These are: knowledge and capability to engage, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours and actual involvement in H & S risk management. The IIF gave a check on the validity (face, construct and content) of the instrument as a measure of worker engagement. Reliability of the measure was tested by peer scoring at the second measurement phase. The Spearman-Brown R showed a high degree of interrater reliability in scores, supporting the reliability of the WISH measure. Implications: The study provides a valid and reliable measure of worker engagement in H & S management for construction. The use of this instrument within the construction industry should help managements to improve the effectiveness of their worker engagement programmes. Keywords: UK, Construction, safety, worker engagement, performance measurement. Type of paper: Research case study

Introduction Seventy seven construction workers and four members of the public died from construction accidents in the UK in 2006/7 according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE, 2008), an increase of 28% on the previous year and 32% of all worker deaths. Based on the increasing numbers of workers entering the construction industry in the last few years, this death toll equates to a 3% reduction in fatality rate, which is now estimated to be 3.7 per 100,000 workers. However, this is up from 3 per 100,000 in 2005/6, which was the lowest on record for the UK and approximately a quarter of the EU rate of 13 per 100,000 workers. So there is no room for complacency, as even one death ought to be avoided where possible. The most frequent causes of deaths are falls from height and strikes by loads or materials. Falling from height accounts for 30% of deaths, strikes from loads and materials account for 21% of fatalities, with transport related, electrocution and other accidents constituting the remaining 49% of deaths. However any accident may be the result of a combination of other control failures, so that true root causes may not be reflected by these figures.

Worker Engagement in Health and Safety Worker engagement is the term used to describe an emerging field within health and safety management. It focuses on how workers can be encouraged and supported in taking part in decision making about health and safety management (HSE, 2006). It has emerged in industry due to the failure of a range of regulations1 intended to foster more integrated communications and consultations, coupled with the Pareto effect of continued accidents and deaths despite a high degree of management effort to reduce them. Engagement via consultation is seen as a key element of behavioural safety programmes and research into safe behaviour programmes (Hopkins, 2006) indicates that focus on worker behaviour alone does not ensure a reduction in accidents and incidents and that: “The reality is that unsafe behaviour is often the last link in a causal chain and not necessarily the most effective link to focus on for the purpose of prevention…Given that it is the behaviour of management that is most critical in creating a culture of safety in any organisation, behavioural safety observations are likely to have their greatest impact if directed upwards, at managers”. Also, Fleming and Lardner’s (2002a, b) work on safe behaviours observes that the focus should be on the supporting mechanisms that engender good behaviour and on providing the appropriate resources, organisation and safety arrangements that can prevent and address root causes of accidents rather than treating the visible symptoms, i.e. risky behaviours. In addition, Lingard and Rowlinson (2005) state that for the construction industry, changing behaviour through worker engagement is preferable to the quick fix. Behavioural programmes are a longer term commitment to culture change and: “..... must work in harmony with existing H & S systems, not as a separate entity ……from reactive to proactive…..There is a need to change culture in the construction industry to one in which employees at all levels actively care about not only their own H & S, but also that of others……not only that senior management must demonstrate commitment to H & S, but also that middle managers and supervisors play a key role in creating a safe and healthy work environment……that H & S management systems should not be centralised and bureaucratic…but demonstrated at local, site and work crew level.” This seems to indicate that, from a human factors perspective, there is more to improving H & S performance than simply focusing on behavioural safety and in support of this theory the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Construction Division promotes worker engagement in all aspects of H & S on site as the next step in ensuring that accidents are prevented in the construction industry. In the construction industry worker engagement has been studied with respect to workers spotting hazards and reporting injuries. Various studies (Gherardi et al, 1998, Bell & Phelps, 2001, Carder & Ragan, 2003, Shearn, 2005a) confirmed that this has led to reduction in accidents but reflect that management taking the initiative and providing experienced resources, or encouraging feedback from workers about a range of matters, have been the key contributors to those statistics (Cameron et al, 2006, Hare, 2005). The increased trust, openness and commitment that these approaches 1

Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, Health and Safety (Employee Consultation and Representation) Regulations 2003

engender can change the degree of engagement and desire to be involved. Training has also been identified as a key factor in facilitating engagement, by bringing increased competence and capability to contribute (Maloney, 2003, Cameron et al, 2006, Hare et al, 2006). Depth of engagement is found to depend upon a range of factors including: the nature and scope of issues covered, the scope and objectives in developing solutions to H & S issues, i.e. proactive/prevention or reactive/recovery, the ability of workers to understand accident causation, empowerment to seek appropriate resource and knowledge about the issue and how to resolve it (Cameron et al, 2006). Meaningful engagement then relates to dealing with critical and operational rather than solely welfare issues, to positive improvements rather than negative complaints. It requires empowerment and autonomy and the knowledge and capability that underpin them (Maloney, 2003). Since the inception of business process reengineering, organisational rationalisation and delayering practices in the early 1990s (Hammer 1990, Davenport & Short, 1990), the hierarchical structures of organisations have been broken down or delayered in favour of increased worker responsibility, flexibility, and self-management. Increased worker involvement and engagement in managing day to day operations has resulted. Most industries are now leaner and individuals are working more autonomously in core activity areas such as production. This means that engagement activities have gained ground in the core business areas, despite a lag in using them in wider technical areas such as health and safety management. In practice in the construction industry, worker engagement in H & S is a relatively new phenomenon, which has probably existed informally for some time, but which only the largest contractors have had the resources available to practically support on their sites. In order for this to change, there needs to be a culture change in the industry towards involving everyone in being a ‘safety manager’ (Lingard & Rowlinson, 2005). For focus to change in this way, worker engagement needs to become an accepted performance measure in the industry. This study aimed to measure worker engagement in H & S in construction and investigates the ability of an adapted and contextualised H & S management tool to make that measure.

Worker engagement measurement instrument design Worker engagement is a facet of H & S management that underpins any organisation’s ability to deliver improved and/or sustained H & S performance. Without the willing involvement of workers at all levels in the organisation a safe working environment cannot be guaranteed. Management experts and safety researchers agree that effective management cannot occur without appropriate measures that highlight where failures in performance or opportunities to improve performance lie (You cannot manage what you do not measure – Deming, 1982, Drucker, 1971, Grimaldi and Simonds, 1975). Measuring the effectiveness of worker engagement will then focus the minds of management and workers on how they can improve their communications, attitudes and behaviours regarding H & S, as well as the resources and enablers needed to ensure acceptable levels of H & S performance. The key dimensions that previous researchers deem to be measures of effective worker engagement in H & S (Alder et al 2000, Lancaster et al 2001a, Maloney 2003, Shearn 2004 and 2005a) are:   

“Worker involvement in identifying and defining problems and issues Worker participation in decisions, not exclusively via representatives Participant knowledge and know-how (capability, competence and training)

    

Participant opportunity and motivation to engage Management commitment, consistency of approach and decision making Management providing an open, blame free environment for constructive dialogue Effective communications An ongoing process, not a one-off event”.

So the issues of concern within worker engagement in H & S in the construction industry that need to be measured (Lancaster et al, 2001a, Shearn, 2005a, Lingard, & Rowlinson, 2005, Cameron et al, 2006) are centred around five key themes: how risks are controlled and monitored in a rapidly changing work environment; the attitudes and behaviours of the main contractor, subcontractor managers and trade workers; the H & S resources available to protect workers and assets (human, financial and physical equipment); the way communications are managed, the consistency of communications and decision making and the way learning about H & S is disseminated around the organisation, and within the industry. These require an underlying management system that is effective in providing the environment and support for effective engagement. The tool adapted in this study (WISH – Worker Involvement in Safety & Health) explores the perceptions and knowledge of workers in the project organisation about these issues and how far they are allowed to influence them from their place in the project organisation. The tool is designed to ask semi-structured questions that could gather the perspectives of participants at all levels in the project organisation. This is in order to gauge how engaged each level of the organisation is with other levels in the organisation. Also to explore how the main contractor’s approach to H & S influences other’s behaviours and attitudes about their role and empowerment with respect to H & S management. Each section of the WISH questionnaire has a set of questions that probe the consistency of knowledge and involvement in the key worker engagement dimensions. By gathering these perceptions under the five key themes within the tool it was possible to score the degree of engagement, initially as a baseline measure in Phase 1 of the study, and subsequently (thirteen months later) as a repeat measure in Phase 2. Figure 1 shows a sample of a scoring section from the WISH questionnaire. Every point in a given level must be satisfied to achieve the full level score. Each level has a 20 point range. If a level is partially satisfied, then the score is composed of the score for the fully satisfied lower level, plus the portion of the upper level that has been achieved. For example, say that level b is fully satisfied (40), but level c has only 2 out of 4 attributes satisfied. The score will then be: 40 + (20 X 2/4) = 50. As a tool intended for senior management the structure of the tool is oriented to give a scored result that could be used as a key performance or trailing indicator. It was deemed important to provide a scored measure for the senior management of the research collaborator, BLL, in order that they could gauge the return on investment they were accruing from their IIF programme. The tool was not designed to measure actual impact on accident frequency rates due to more effective engagement. That is a subject for further study.

Exploring what confirms worker engagement Accepted dimensions that describe worker engagement in H & S were built into the adapted tool and tested within the five scoring themes of the tool. Questions devised to probe engagement require an alignment of understanding, knowledge and involvement of workers at all levels of the project organisation for a certain degree of engagement to be deemed to be present. These emerged as the main factors that determine responses during interview from comparison of data

from the literature, from questionnaire structure and from evidence taken during each phase of measurement. There are identifiable pairs of member categories that engage in different ways within the project organisation. These are indicated by the arrows in Figure 2. In the traditional construction model (Figure 2.a), communication is generally in a downwards direction, and is circumscribed by contractual relationships that limit engagement. Full engagement should break down all barriers to communication, providing a network (Figure 2.b) of communications within the organisation. Although the key contractual (heavy arrows) continue in place, they are bi-directional and what in the traditional model would be incidental downward communications outside the contractual structures, become multi-way communications in the worker engagement model. Each pair of member categories implies common expectations about what sort of activities are appropriate and describes their relationships. The contractual pairings will be the main modes of communication, but the more engaged the organisation is, the more in communication will be the non-contractual pairs. This means that evidence gathered during measurement should support pairings that are not only contractual, but which exhibit a network of engagement, encompassing all levels of the project organisation.

Study Method The method selected for this study was determined by the lack of previous research and models available to draw upon in the field of study. This necessitated an exploratory and more qualitative approach to the research. In addition, the availability of a suitable site for single case study in the fast moving environment of a live construction project was important to developing and understanding the culture of the project organisation and incorporating these considerations into the adaptation of the tool in a coherent and appropriate manner. The chosen site had a H & S worker engagement programme (IIF) in effect and this allowed the tool to be tested in its intended context. The construction timetable also coincided with the field study programme of the researcher, so that she was able to be associated with the site for the complete term of the project in this case eighteen months, from January 2006 to July 2007. The field work was carried out as a single case study within a social setting, which by its very nature was not static; nor did it maintain the same supply chain players over time. Permission to access the site depended upon availability of staff and the goodwill of the collaborating main contractor, Bovis Lend Lease (BLL), and its subcontractors at the Silverburn Shopping Centre site in Glasgow, Scotland. The qualitative research approach allowed the researcher to explore the contextual setting of participants and their activities, the construction project organisation and the relationships between different levels of workers in the project organisation. The methods adopted to gather data for the study in a systematic way included:  

Literature review – a review of research to date in the fields of worker engagement in H & S management and current H & S performance measurement tools Collaborative Interviews – with the Tenant Liaison Manager of BLL to gain an understanding of the contextual environment within which the tool could be applied; to carry out analysis of the content of the existing measure with respect to the construction

   

context and accepted worker engagement dimensions that apply to it; and in order to adapt and tailor the existing questionnaire to the environment for the case study (to form the WISH tool) Participant group interviews – using the WISH tool to ask semi-structured questions of participants about the nature and extent of worker engagement in H & S management on site and check for consistency of response across the project organisation Document review – of the BLL corporate and local site H & S management system documents, in particular how these translated into contractual arrangements with subcontractors and into risk assessments and method statements for activities on site Observation – of workers on site compared with the requirements of method statements, written by subcontractors but approved by BLL BLL worker engagement programme - The researcher also attended a scheduled IIF training programme run by BLL and delivered to every worker during the project. This facilitated understanding of the worker engagement programme for H & S run by BLL.

Development of the WISH measurement instrument Identifying key worker engagement dimensions for measurement Research in the chemical industry (Alder et al, 2000) and by Lancaster et al (2001a) in the construction industry found that effective communications and workforce involvement in health and safety are thought to bring better understanding for the workforce of hazards associated with their work, due to full time involvement in these issues. Also, the workforce are in a better position to manage day to day hazards and involvement brings a better understanding of operational constraints that can impact on H & S issues at the work face. Shearn (2005a) also identified a range of potential measures for engagement that include perceived or measured levels of: effectiveness in improving health and safety performance; workforce/participant awareness of OHS issues; levels of safety and propensity to implement safety initiatives. The key themes within which these measures sit are found to be: risk management and controls, attitudes to risk, resource provision, effective communications and shared learning. Philosophy of worker engagement in construction However, true engagement should be measured by the knowledge and empowerment of the workforce with respect to H & S management and the systems that support that, rather than solely perceptions, which are liable to be inconsistent.2 This is dependent upon the relationships between main contractors, subcontractors and trade workers. Also models that provide an on-going developmental improvement process and which align with other management systems in an organisation are more likely to have sustained impact. This necessitates the identification and development of appropriate key performance indicators (KPI) that focus on either outcomes (lagging indicators) or inputs, processes and preventive measures, e.g. policy, plans and procedures, training, consultation (leading indicators). Those measures that combine both lagging and leading indicators are considered most effective in measurement terms (Jacobs, 1970, Petersen, 1998a). Implementing worker engagement measurement in construction The most effective measures of worker engagement in H & S will therefore be feedback/feedforward indicators that test attitudes and behaviours for consistency and probe knowledge, 2

Author H & S management experience.

empowerment and involvement of the workforce in: risk controls and management; H & S resource provision (human, financial and hardware); communications and learning (knowledge, experience and know-how). These themes have been built into the tool developed in this study. The Conceptual Model for instrument development: Measuring Worker Engagement in H & S In this study the dependent variable being measured is worker engagement in H & S management. The key aspects, or independent variables that determine whether worker engagement can flourish or not in the construction project organisation have been identified and studied in a growing body of construction safety research (Alder et al, 2000, Lancaster et al, 2001a, Shearn, 2005a, Lingard & Rowlinson, 2005, Cameron et al 2006). Collaboration and the adaptation of thematic scoring content Development of the questionnaire in this study required two phases of analysis: the first taking the generic scoring scales and determining the attributes that describe each level of scoring for the five themes and the second populating the meaningful questions that test worker engagement within each thematic area. First the thematic scoring scales were evaluated with the collaborating Tenant Liaison Manager. This was to ensure that scores were representative of the main contractor and construction industry H & S management system requirements at each level of scoring. The thematic question sets were then evaluated and adapted for suitability to measure worker engagement and for the construction environment, as well as to check that the questions are relevant to the audience rather than only to the researcher. These questions probe factual data via mainly closed questions and opinions, beliefs, judgements and behaviours via mainly open questions. Taking the five themes in turn and applying the attributes at each score level from the generic scoring scale, the H & S management factors that describe each score level were identified. There emerged between three and ten factors per level, depending upon the sophistication of requirements at each level (Figure 1). Dimensions that measure worker engagement: thematic question sets Sets of questions were developed for each theme or sub theme to probe the degree of engagement of the workers in H & S. This engagement is evidenced in several ways:      

Knowledge of or involvement in system and procedural development, review and ongoing update Perceptions or confidence about the organisation and its management and their commitment to H & S Actual involvement and conscious understanding of risk assessment and method statement development Willingness and capacity to engage, give feedback and contribute knowledge, knowhow and experience for the benefit of the organisation Understanding and awareness of compliance, meaning of communications and individual role in H & S Attitudes to risk, working safely and getting the job done.

This type of evidence is hard to fake, as interviewees cannot know from questioning what the interviewer is focusing upon. These types of evidence emerged from data gathering and analysis during each phase of measurement, feedback and adaptation of the measuring instrument and throughout the eighteen month long site study.

Research output– the WISH measurement instrument Measurement instrument and materials The key measurement instrument was the WISH questionnaire. This was the main data gathering device of the tool. The documentation checklist is installed at the rear of this document as an aidememoire as to what documents to review and to note observation outcomes. The questionnaire was supported by a range of analytical instruments:    

Data collation spreadsheet Data analysis table, incorporating evidence of positive engagement and lack of engagement via triangulation of collated responses, documentary and observational evidence Summary tables showing causation of failures or success in engagement (Figures 5 and 6) Data presentation formats: o Rhetorical reports – the content of Phase 1 and phase 2 reports given to BLL o Visual scoring devices – tabular (Figure 3) and achievement wheel (Figure 4) forms of representing scores which can be used as ready reckoners for gap analysis.

The reason for having three presentation formats; some quantitative and some qualitative, is to facilitate the understanding of the data from measurements, to show clearly the gap between past and current performance and to show the scores that could be used for benchmarking, if required by management. An absolute score is not the goal of measurement, but rather a simple indication of the degree of engagement across the project organisation and the gap between current status and ‘best’ practice across the themes. The purpose of having a score is to provide for management a means of gauging what needs to be done to enhance engagement, and by identifying causes of failure, to help them to address the key barriers to engagement that evidence presents.

Findings - Validity & Reliability of the WISH Instrument The face and construct validity of the tool in making the measure it was intended for were tested by using it to measure an actual H & S worker engagement programme, IIF, in operation on site. Face validity is met if the measure looks right as common sense. The selected tool structure and accepted worker engagement dimensions from previous research were incorporated into the tool in order to exactly probe the accepted indicators of worker engagement, so that face validity was built into the tool structure from the start. Taking two measures was intended to demonstrate the same scores for each measure to satisfy this condition. However, BLL took some actions to improve their IIF programme after the first measurement report, thus causing an improvement in scores at the second measurement. The fact that these direct actions by BLL improved the WISH scores at Phase 2, shows that the tool is measuring what it is intended to measure. On the other hand, construct validity is met if the attributes to be measured are actually measured in practice. So, if the tool correlates with member (BLL) perceptions of their programme and gives feedback in terms of systemic failures and causation that gelled with their own knowledge of IIF, then the tool can be said to be making that measure and be valid for its purpose. Feedback from the collaborator regarding the content of management reports after each measure indicated that WISH had picked up the main concerns of Bovis about their IIF programme and its limitations or benefits. BLL then set up an improvement plan to address the key issues identified during the first measure. Similarly, the enhanced scores in Phase 2 show that the construct is being measured and satisfies this condition.

With respect to content validity the tool should be expected to cover all the essential and accepted factors that describe worker engagement. The tool, being built upon exactly those factors and accepted dimensions that indicate the presence of worker engagement, does demonstrate content validity. Ecological validity is determined by the realism of setting and was maintained due the selection of a real live construction case, where the tool was tested in exactly the kind of context it is intended to address. External validity is an indicator of the generalisability of the results of a study. In a single case study with a particular type of project organisation the ability to generalise outputs is limited to similar cases and settings. However, the ability to gather in-depth (rich) data in order to construct and test the tool far outweighs the limitations of generalisability. This can be addressed in further case studies; or by adoption of the tool by the construction industry, with a range of project organisation types and sizes.

Confounding Constructs A potential confounding construct is present in terms of the knowledge gained by the researcher during the study and this may have skewed the Phase 2 measurement scores upwards. It has to be said though, that BLL took on board issues and causations identified in the first measurement phase and made improvements to their resource inputs and communications within the site organisation and with the construction industry generally. These changed attitudes and trust within the project organisation and therefore elevated scores above those of the first phase. Another confounding factor that could have affected scoring was related to the changing profile of trades within the project organisation during the execution of the project. This issue is due to the change of trade work; going from ground clearing, breaking and piling skills to more engineering oriented skills later in the project. The individuals involved in these different activities not only have different skills and competencies, but different attitudes and behaviours and this may have depressed findings in Phase 1, or elevated them in Phase 2. This issue is something that can only be further studied and compared across a range of case studies, and could not be directly addressed in this single case study.

Tool Reliability From the perspective of reliability, the tool ought to be able to be used by any trained user and give similar scores and outputs. The approach taken to assessing reliability in this study was to ask two peers to carry out a scoring exercise using data gathered and analysed by the researcher to see if the scores tallied. One was the replacement tenant liaison manager (Peer 1), who, although new to the actual project organisation under study at the time of the Phase 2 measurement, had several years of work experience with BLL. The other (Peer 2) was an experienced H & S research colleague, who was not familiar with the project organisation under study. Analysis of peer scoring using WISH The purpose of peer scoring was to test the reliability of the WISH tool as a measure that any trained person with a knowledge and understanding of health and safety management could use and produce a similar set of scores of worker engagement with. There is no statistical significance to these scores; they simply emerge from consideration of evidence and the satisfaction of certain thematic factors within WISH. However, from the perspective of reliability of the WISH tool, it is important to see how closely scores align from scorer to scorer. Peers were only involved in Phase 2 scoring, once the tool was already significantly adapted. Figure 7 compares the scores achieved by

peer scorers and the researcher scores at the Phase 2 measurement and shows the differences from the Phase 1 measurement. General observation about peer scores Based on the researcher score as baseline (i.e. 1) Peer 1 scores related closely to researcher Phase 2 scores (0.92 to 1.05), although there were some notable differences in scores for sub-themes 1.1, objectives to control risks (1.05), 1.2 identification and analysis of risks (1.01) and 3, resourcing (1.01). Peer debriefing revealed that Peer 1 more highly rated BLL on risk management due to greater familiarity with his own organisation than with the project organisation as a whole, which was perhaps to be expected. H & S Resourcing in the whole project organisation may not be something he has had the opportunity to consider and he did not hear the interview evidence in person, so that score was depressed. The alternative interpretation would be that the researcher’s familiarity with the organisation under study made her look more favourably on these aspects of evidence at the second measure. However, that would not account for the much higher score for 1.1 from Peer 1. Initiatives taken by BLL between measures as a result of the IIF improvement plan, though, generally support the higher Phase 2 and Peer 1 scores. Figures 8 and 9 show that Peer 2 scores were mostly depressed (0.94 to 1.00) compared with those of the researcher at Phase 2 and in general more closely related (1.01) to Phase 1 scores. Peer 2 debriefing revealed this to be due to the lack of familiarity with the project organisation and documentary evidence supporting worker engagement, which could therefore not be built in to score analysis. The alternative interpretation would be that the researcher’s familiarity with the organisation has made her score more leniently, although the closer association with Peer 1 scores tends to confirm the former proposition. Inter-rater Reliability - Thematic score comparison The Spearman-Brown reliability factor, R (Gwet, 2001) is used to analyse small single reading scores, and was found to be the most suitable inter-rater reliability measure for this data. Using the Spearman-Brown reliability factor, R, for comparing multiple rater score correlations: Reliability,

R =

nř 1 + (n-1)ř

where n = number of raters ř = mean correlation of scores. For this study n = 3 and the mean correlations and R values for each of the theme scores are shown in Figure 10. A value of R = 0 would indicate no correlation /reliability between scores by the three raters and a value of R = 1 would show complete correlation between raters scores across the themes. Any R value over 0.95 shows a high degree of correlation, which is true for this study, where all R values are > 0.97. It can be seen that the R values for the scores using the WISH tool for the three raters: Res-P2 (researcher Phase 2), Peer 1 and Peer 2 show a very high degree of inter-rater reliability, thus supporting the reliability of the WISH tool for this measure.

Conclusions

Individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. They develop subjective meanings of their experiences which are varied and multiple, leading the researcher to look for complexity of views rather than narrow meanings. In this case study this was indicated by the worker engagement member category connections and more complexity indicated more engagement. Four key attributes that emerged during the study were found to support worker engagement in the project organisation under study. These were: knowledge and capability to engage, perceptions (of what was expected), attitudes and behaviours (what they actually thought and did) and actual involvement in H & S risk management. These were found to underpin the relationships between the different levels in the project organisation and the communications, both formal/contractual and informal between member categories. These led to the evidence presented in Figures 5 and 6 which gathered positive and negative evidence about worker engagement in the project organisation. It was clear that as the project organisation matured, so did the positive perceptions and attitudes of the respondents. The tool that emerged from this study came about as a result of a constructivist approach and requires an easily trained person to use it. WISH Tool Validity The WISH tool was found to satisfy a number of validity threats, including face, construct, content, bias and social effects; although further case work is required to establish its external validity. WISH Tool Reliability and peer scoring Reliability of a measure is demonstrated by the ability of any trained person to use the measure in the same scenario and obtain the same results. In order to demonstrate reliability of the WISH tool, two peers were asked to attempt to score worker engagement using evidence gathered and analysed by the researcher. It was notable that all scores were in the upper quartile of scoring. This indicates a general agreement that the project organisation studied was engaged to quite a high degree. The Spearman –Brown R test shows a high degree of inter-rater reliability ( >0.95, with 1.0 as a maximum) as all R values are > 0.97 and this reinforces the reliability of the WISH tool for this measure.

Score level

Factors describing objective setting to control risks at each level

a (0 - 20)

1. There is no systematic assessment of what realistic health and safety objectives should be within the company or at site 2. There is a knee-jerk reaction to external factors, which prompt goal setting 3. There is little assessment of risks presented by trade/subcontractors in carrying out contract packages 4. There is no planning as to how new H & S objectives and targets can be achieved 5. Projects are undertaken for commercial reasons only 1. There is some system for setting H & S objective and goals 2. Some historical performance data is used to analyse and plan what new objectives and goals should be 3. Rudimentary resource analysis is used to set timeframes for achievement 4. Some assessment of risks presented by trade/subcontractors is made but this is mainly financially oriented 1. A systematic approach is taken to health and safety objective and goal setting for the company and for projects 2. This includes review of historical performance by management, review of practices which have lead to good or bad performance in the past and resources/training/ finances needed to achieve new goals 3. A business case/project risk assessment is given for objectives and goals set and this is communicated down the organisation to the workforce and to trade/subcontractors 4. Past performance of trade/subcontractors is reviewed with a view to selection based on financial, quality and H & S performance 1. Health and safety objectives are part of the business planning process and subject to the same systematic rigours as other parts of the business 2. Health and safety performance statistics form part of the company’s communications with its stakeholders and are regularly reviewed and reported 3. Resources for H & S performance improvement are reviewed annually and costed into business plans and project risk assessments 4. Trade/subcontractors are selected for excellence in financial risk and H & S management as well as project performance and are consulted on site risk management 1. Corporate goals are set at top management level, with local objectives and targets set to suit the risk profile of each project 2. Responsibility for achieving corporate goals lies in the operations and how these are achieved is an operational management issue 3. Corporate audits are used to check objectives have been met 4. H & S goals and targets are agreed with the workforce, which uses the safety committee framework to offer ideas and suggestions on objectives and how to achieve them 5. Communication down, up and across the organisation ensures that ownership for achievement is situated where it can be delivered 6. Subcontractors are consulted on project and H & S risk management before package award and via a variety of site fora during project execution 7. Site workers are fully engaged in productive dialogue on site H & S matters

b ( 21 -40)

c (41 – 60)

d (61 – 80)

e (81 -100)

Figure 1: Scoring factors for objective setting to control risks (Sub theme 1.1)

Main contractor

Main contractor

Senior management

Senior management

Main contractor Middle management

Subcontractor

Main contractor

Management/

Middle management

Subcontractor Management/

supervisors

Trade worker

a). Traditional construction communication model with downward communication and lack of engagement Key:

Contractual communications Informal communications

supervisors

Trade worker

b). Worker Engagement model with a network of positive engagement found during CASE STUDY

Contractual relationships Informal relationships

Figure 2: Communication models, traditional and with worker engagement

Figure 3: Comparative scoring from Phase 1 and Phase 2 measurements

WISH© Tool Worker Involvement In Safety and Health in the Construction Industry BLL, Silverburn, Glasgow Scoring Sheet

Scores Jun 06

Jul 07

1.1 Objectives to control risks

75

91

1.2 Identification and analysis of risks

75

93

1.3 Controls on risks, review and revision

75

77

2 Attitudes to Risk

70

74

3 Resourcing (Human, Financial, Hardware)

80

95

4 Communications

78

88

5 Learning by the Organisation

78

78

531

596

76

85

1 Risk Management

Total Benchmark Score (Total/7), %

Figure 4: The WISH Achievement Wheel for BLL at Silverburn, July 2007, showing improvement in worker engagement between the Baseline (Phase 1) and Phase 2 studies

Figure 5: Summary of evidence of positive worker engagement on site Facet of H & S management

Risk management

Attitudes to risk

Resourcing

Phase 1 Engagement programme issues H & S culture evident at all levels of project organisation; management open to suggestion on H & S improvements; generally no blame culture; people generally work safely even when not supervised; recognition of role everyone plays in improving H & S

Causal factors Policing and CSCS or equivalent requirements for everyone in order to work on site. Method statement review by company before work proceeds and toolbox talks inform trade workers of requirements from risk assessments and method statements

Hazards understood and safety comes first most of time; consistency of H & S messages from safety advisors, management and supervision on site Resourcing at the workface is a subcontractor responsibility, H & S adviser presence managed differently from core activity

No blame culture; safety seen as everyone’s responsibility; acceptance that procedures assist with work; toolbox talks and direct supervisor intervention seen as best methods of monitoring and reinforcing good H & S behaviours CSCS or equivalent certification required by main contractor to work on site; training is given as needed for job, though this is a subcontractor issue generally; H & S roles and responsibilities well defined in main contractor organisation Different channels for different types of communications; at the workface direct communications most effective with workers rather than e.g. paper or email messages; some subcontractors review communications for effectiveness and clear receipt of messages Some evidence of shared practice and information about accidents, incidents and near misses and learning opportunities, though not consistent across the project organisation

Systems and a variety of channels in place for effective communication and engagement Communications

Organisational learning

Training appropriate to role and responsibility is given at all levels in the project organisation; web resources/ bulletins available to spread learning from both successes, failures and near misses in main contractor organisation; main contractor actively engaged in H & S issues at industry level

Phase 1 + 2 (positive changes in italics) Engagement programme issues H & S culture evident at all levels of project organisation; but opportunities to raise issues still not always taken up possibly due to blockage in feedback system at middle management level; still generally no blame culture perceived; Positive response at all levels to IIF programme and its purpose. Highest possible safety aimed at by all, increased consultation at all levels Hazards understood and safety comes first most of time; consistency of H & S messages from safety advisors, management and supervision on site

Causal factors Regular walkabout by main contractor and safety staff now appreciated as demonstration of care, not censure. Focus on safety by main contractor seen as better than on other sites workers have experience of. Most workers would not endanger themselves or others and would not walk past bad practice. CSCS or equivalent requirements for everyone in order to work on site. Procedures and competency in H & S are used for standard setting. Accident numbers will trigger resource reviews for task and inspections

Resourcing at the workface is a subcontractor responsibility, H & S adviser presence managed differently from core activity

Safe practices and resources now recorded via competency register and inspections. Increased presence of trained H & S adviser resource in both main and subcontractor management levels, thought largely attributed to scale of site

Systems and a variety of channels in place for effective communication and engagement. Culture of openness about H & S on site and no blame culture recognised by all levels of worker

The lower down the organisation the more direct the communication (i.e. face to face). General awareness that tool box talks have greatest impact at work face. Increased use of bulletins by subcontractors to disseminate site wide and industry H & S issues - some have access to main contractor web reports. Checks by main contractor on delivery and understanding of messages and information. No perceived bottlenecks at any level More evidence of shared practice and information about accidents, incidents and near misses and learning opportunities, though not consistent across the project organisation. Updates on law via training and regular bulletins to all levels above trade workers. New issues informed to trade workers at tool box talks. Trade workers believe managers are trained to deal with H & S issues

Training appropriate to role and responsibility is given at all levels in the project organisation; web resources/ bulletins available to spread learning from both successes, failures and near misses in main contractor organisation; main contractor actively engaged in H & S issues at industry level

No blame culture – fix and retrain is seen as mode of remedy by all levels; Rewards for good behaviour in some subcontractors. Site observation revealed method statement compliance. Consistency of messages from management, safety advisers and supervisors now perceived at all levels.

Figure 6: Summary of evidence of lack of worker engagement on site Facet of H & S management

Risk management

Phase 1

Phase 1 + 2 (positive changes in italics)

Engagement programme issues

Causal factors

Engagement programme issues

Causal factors

Workers not engaged in risk assessment, development of method statements or in consultation on new techniques or technologies; different perception of risk at different levels in the project organisation

Management style and toeing the contractual line for subcontractors militates against true engagement; workers perceive risk assessment as trial and error rather than a systematic tool; workers generally do not understand how resources or tools for jobs are decided; trades are insular in perception of risks and do not appreciate site risk as whole, which is seen a main contractor issue; workers not involved in accident investigation and do not know if root causes are identified; workers perceive negative messages and clamp downs and not learning opportunities Tough love perceived by trade workers, not caring management; policing seen as main attitude shaper and not engagement training programme; H & S decision making and risk reduction systems not understood

Increased consultation on and understanding of risk assessment, development of method statements or in consultation on new techniques or technologies; consistency of perception of risk at different levels in the project organisation

Workers perceive risk assessment as a systematic tool; workers still do not understand how resources or tools for jobs are decided; trades appreciate more site risk as whole due to IIF training; trade workers still not involved in accident investigation and still do not know if root causes are identified but some contribute to solutions; trade workers perceive learning opportunities from accident reports

Main contractor engagement seen as care for workers

Work planning systems not understood; broad ignorance of how to capture past experience and expertise and succession planning; paperwork overload prevalent with management at both main and subcontractor levels in the project organisation Lack of upward issue communication; confused messages not controlled; local accidents not consistently communicated; no facilities for communicating H & S with trade workers whose first language is not English

Resourcing not seen as a trade worker issue at main and subcontractor levels, so no access to experience on job; trade workers pass on H & S knowledge and know-how but this does not seem to be done at any management level; H & S succession planning not present; communication resources and their usage are not understood by trade workers; contractual issues prevent full engagement

Work planning systems not understood; broad ignorance of how to capture past experience and expertise and succession planning; paperwork overload prevalent with management at both main and subcontractor levels in the project organisation Lack of upward issue communication; confused messages not controlled; local accidents not consistently communicated; no facilities for communicating H & S with trade workers whose first language is not English

Caring management perceived by trade workers; policing seen as main attitude shaper but trade workers now understand meaning; Middle management in both main and some subcontractors now understand risk decision making system. Management more in tune with effectiveness of middle management/ subcontractor H &S controls on unsafe behaviours on site; Trade workers now perceive management to be H & S trained Critical/emergency plans more widely understood; More feeding of past experience into resource planning after accidents; more knowledge of important standards/COPs/ regulations that relate to tasks

Limited learning due to lack of consistent and comprehensive communication on learning issues

Trade workers not fully or consistently engaged in learning opportunities that would reduce risk, nor in updates in H & S law and how to apply it

Main contractor engagement not understood by trade workers

Attitudes to risk

Resourcing

Communications

Organisational learning

Management not perceived to act upon worker suggestions which causes apathy; no review of channels and their appropriateness and effectiveness in delivering certain types of H & S message; local accidents may be contained due to contractual distrust; lack of consistent communication of learning from accidents, incidents and near misses across project organisation; crisis management systems and communications not uniformly understood by trade workers

Improved consultation at all levels on learning points from accident and incident reviews, both local and industry wide

Workforce feedback on H & S issues influences policy and procedural improvement as well as risk assessments; all managers now review channels and their appropriateness and effectiveness contractual distrust being overcome with respect to communications about learning from accidents; both positive and negative messages discussed; Trade workers still not fully or consistently engaged in updates in H & S law and how to apply it

WISH© Tool Worker Involvement In Safety and Health in the Construction Industry BLL, Silverburn, Glasgow Scores Scoring Sheet

Res-P1

Res-P2

Peer 1-P2

Peer 2- P2

1

Risk Management

1.1

Objectives to control risks

75

91

96

80

1.2

Identification and analysis of risks

75

93

86

78

1.3

Controls on risks, review and revision

75

77

78

76

2

Attitudes to Risk

70

74

80

74

3

Resourcing(Human, Financial, Hardware)

80

93

86

78

4

Communications

78

88

83

80

5

Learning by the Organisation

78

78

76

74

531

594

585

540

76

85

84

77

Total Benchmark Score (Total/7), %

Figure 7: Comparison of Phase 2 Peer scores with Phase 1 and 2 researcher scores

2 Deviation

1.5

Res - P2

1

Peer 1 Peer 2

0.5

R

Le ar ni ng

is k

ob je ct iv es R is k an al ys is R is k co nt ro ls At ti t ud es R es ou rc C es om m un ic at io ns

0

Scoring themes

Figure 8: Deviation of Peer scores from Phase 2 scores (Res – P2 = 1) Theme or sub-theme

Researcher scores Phase 2

Ratio of Peer 1 score to researcher Phase 2 score

Ratio of Peer 2 score to researcher Phase 2 score

1.1

91

1 : 1.05

1 : 0.88

1.2

93

1 : 0.92

1 : 0.84

1.3

77

1 : 1.01

1 : 0.99

2

74

1 : 1.08

1 : 1.00

3

95

1 : 0.92

1 : 0.84

4

88

1 : 0.94

1 : 0.91

5

78

1 : 0.97

1 : 0.95

Total

594

1 : 0.98

1 : 0.91

Aggregate

85

1 : 0.99

1 : 0.91

Figure 9: Deviation of Peer scores from researcher Phase 2 measure scores

Theme

Res-P2

Peer 1

Peer 2

Mean, ř

R

1.1

1

1.05

0.88

0.98

0.99

1.2

1

0.92

0.84

0.92

0.97

1.3

1

1.01

0.99

1.00

1.00

2

1

1.08

1.00

1.03

1.00

3

1

0.92

0.84

0.92

0.97

4

1

0.94

0.91

0.95

0.98

5

1

0.97

0.95

0.97

0.99

Figure 10: Inter-rater reliability per theme using Spearman-Brown’s R

References Alder, A, Tipping, A, Meldrum, A, Brabazon, P, Wright, M, (2000). Examples of workforce involvement in health and safety in the chemical industry. Health & Safety Executive CRR 291/2000. Bell, J and Phelps, C (2001). Employee involvement in health and safety: Some examples of good practice. Health & Safety Laboratory WPSS/00/03. Cameron, I, Hare, B, Duff, R, Maloney, W (2006). An investigation into approaches to worker engagement. Health & Safety Executive, Research report RR516/2006. Carder, B & Ragan, P (2003). A survey-based system for safety measurement and improvement. Journal of Safety Research 34 (2003) 157-165. Davenport, T & Short, J (1990). The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, Summer 1990, pp 11-27. Deming, W.E (1982). Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Studies, Cambridge, MA. (1982). Drucker, P F (1971). What We Can Learn From Japanese Management. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 49, No. 2 (March–April) 1971: pp. 110 - 122. Fleming, M & Lardner, R (2002a). Behaviour modification programmes. Health and Safety Executive Offshore Technology Report. Fleming, M & Lardner, R (2002b). Strategies to promote safe behaviour as part of a health and safety management system. Health and Safety Executive Contract research report 430/2002. Gherardi, S, Nicolini, D & Odella, F (1998). What do you mean by safety? Conflicting perspectives on accident causation and safety management in a construction firm. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol 6, Number 4, December 1009, pp 202-213.

Grimaldi R H & Simonds, J V (1975). Safety management (1975). Richard D Irwin Publishers, Homewood, Illinois. Gwet, K (2001). Handbook of Inter-rater reliability. Gaithersburg: Stataxis Publishing. ISBN 09708062-0-5. Hammer, M (1990). Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, Jul/Aug 1990, pp 104-112. Hare, B, Cameron, I & Duff, R. (2006). Exploring the integration of health and safety with preconstruction planning. Engineering, Construction & Architectural management, Vol 13, No. 5, 2006 pp 438-450. Hopkins, A (2006). What are we to make of safety behaviour programmes? Safety Science, accepted 6 January 2006 HSE (2006). Worker involvement in health and safety. HSE website: www.hse.gov.uk/involvement/index.htm, Accessed May 2006. HSE (2008). Work related injuries and ill health in construction. www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/construction.htm. Accessed August 2008.

HSE website:

Lancaster, R, McAllister, I, Alder, A (2001a). Establishing effective communications and participation in the construction sector. Health & Safety Executive CRR 391/2001. Lingard, H & Rowlinson S M (2005). Occupational health and safety in construction project management. Spon Press, 2005. ISBN 0-419-26210-5. Maloney, W F (2003). Employee involvement, consultation and information sharing in health and safety. EPSRC, report GR/S25494/01, September 2003. Shearn, P (2004). Workforce Participation in the Management of Occupational Health & Safety. Health & Safety Executive ERG/04/01. London. Shearn, P (2005a). Workforce participation in the management of occupational health and safety. Health & Safety Laboratory, Report number HSL/2005/09.