No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The European Union (EU), in 1992, issued the Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites (TMCS) Directive, which requires EU members to introduce specific law to improve health and safety (H&S) performance outcomes by placing specific duties on key stakeholders. This Directive led to the introduction of the first Construction (Design and Management) (CDM) Regulations in the UK construction industry on 31 March 1995 and since their introduction, the overall performance of construction H&S has improved gradually. However, despite this positive outlook, there are still significant concerns surrounding the implementation of the CDM Regulations, a subject on which empirical research has been very scanty. It is against such a background that this study investigates the practical implementation of the CDM Regulations and extends current knowledge and understanding, and develops a framework for appropriate remedial action by industry. The research method involved a thorough critical review of literature, semi-structured interviews, and two postal questionnaire surveys, using as research informants, practitioners with experience of the Designer, CDM Coordinator (CDM-C), and Principal Contractor (PC) roles under the CDM Regulations. Primary data were collected and analysed from in-depth interviews with six organisations purposively selected based on their construction design expertise and 122 questionnaires returned in total. The finding regarding lack of collaborative working amongst duty holders is a significant outcome of this study; a requirement expressed explicitly within the CDM Regulations, yet questionable in terms of its implementation. Further, the study reveals a number of statistically significant correlations between the extent of discharge of duties and their perceived degree of importance. However, the strength of the majority of these correlations is weak. In particular, the evidence indicates that 50% of the duties of the CDM-C are misaligned in terms of extent of discharge and perceived degree of importance, whereas 25% of the PC duties are also misaligned. This signals a lack of understanding regarding the importance of duties, towards achieving improved H&S management. Surprisingly, a comparison between extent of discharge of duties and their perceived degree of difficulty reveals that all the duties of the PC are statistically significant, meaning that the perceived degree of difficulty does not impede their extent of discharge. While 90% of the CDM-C duties are also statistically significant, again the same interpretation applies. Further, a consensus reached by Designers supports the view that CDM-Cs provide insufficient input throughout the planning and construction phase, raising doubt as to whether the duty holder is fit for purpose. Overall, the results confirm that interdependent working of duty holders is still a challenge, demonstrated by the Designer duty to ensure appointment of the CDM-C (Regulation 18(1)), the CDM-C duty to ensure Designers comply with their duties (Regulation 20(2)(c)), and the PC duty to liaise with the CDM-C and Designer (Regulation 22(1)(b)). Three recurring themes emerge from the results, that is: (i) collaboration, (ii) accountability and compliance, and (iii) facilitation, which in turn inform the remedial action framework comprising 13 remedial actions and 8 change drivers. Validation of the remedial action framework by 15 study participants reveals that, at least 10 remedial actions and 7 change drivers are considered likely to improve CDM implementation. The top three remedial actions are: (i) ensuring adequate arrangements for coordination of H&S measures; (ii) including provisions within the regulations specifying the stages for the appointment of duty holders; and (iii) amending the ACoP to provide guidance on determining what resources are adequate for a particular project. Whereas, the top three change drivers are: (i) management leadership; (ii) the proactive participation of duty holders; and (iii) training to equip duty holders with sufficient knowledge on provision of timely and adequate preconstruction information. Based on these outcomes, conclusions, recommendations, and further areas of research are drawn.

Tendo em vista a crescente disseminação de sistemas de gestão da segurança e saúde no trabalho (SGSST), torna-se cada vez mais relevante a necessidade de instrumentos de avaliação da sua eficiência e eficácia. Nesse contexto, esta tese apresenta a proposta de um método de avaliação de sistemas de gestão de segurança e saúde no trabalho (MASST), o qual apresenta duas características inovadoras: a) a conciliação das abordagens estrutural (sistema prescrito), operacional (o que está acontecendo na prática) e por desempenho (resultados de indicadores); b) a adoção do enfoque da engenharia de resiliência (ER) sobre a segurança e saúde. O MASST foi desenvolvido a partir das contribuições da literatura, na qual foram identificados quatro princípios da ER (comprometimento da alta direção, flexibilidade, aprendizagem e consciência), bem como de um estudo de caso exploratório realizado em uma empresa de implementos agrícolas. Com base nisso, foram propostos vinte e sete itens distribuídos ao longo de sete critérios. Cada item possui um conjunto de requisitos que são avaliados com base em três fontes de evidências básicas: entrevistas, análise de documentos e observação direta. O MASST foi validado em um estudo de caso em uma empresa da cadeia automotiva. Os principais resultados revelaram que, no estudo de caso, em uma escala de pontuação de 0% a 100%, nove dentre quatorze itens relacionados à ER obtiveram pontuação entre 0% e 10%. Além disso, o MASST possibilitou a identificação dos pontos positivos do SGSST, a identificação das causas sistêmicas da falta de segurança e a identificação das prioridades de ação em termos de SST. Dentre as limitações do MASST percebidas durante o estudo de caso, salienta-se a necessidade de experiência do auditor acerca de conceitos e princípios da ER, os quais ainda não são amplamente aplicados de modo sistemático no meio industrial. / Due to the increasing dissemination of health and safety management systems (HSMS), both academics and practitioners have paid more attention to the assessment of their effectiveness and efficacy. This thesis introduces a method for assessing health and safety management systems (MASST) that has two innovative characteristics: a) it takes into account simultaneously the structural approach (prescribed system), the operational approach (what is really happening on the shop floor) and the performance approach (results of performance indicators); b) it adopts the resilience engineering (RE) perspective on health and safety. The MASST was developed based on both the literature review and an exploratory case study in a heavy machinery manufacturer. The literature review pointed out four major resilience engineering (RE) principles: top management commitment, flexibility, learning and awareness. Then, twenty-seven items grouped into seven major criteria were proposed. Each item encompasses a set of requirements that should be assessed based on three major sources of evidence: interviews, analysis of documents and direct observation. The MASST was tested in a case study that was carried out in a supplier of the automotive industry. The results pointed out that, considering a scale from 0% to 100%, nine out of the fourteen items related to the RE obtained a very low degree, ranging from 0% to 10%. Moreover, the MASST pointed out the positive aspects of the HSMS, identified systemic causes of the lack of safety and identified priorities in terms of health and safety management. The case study results also indicated that one of the main limitations of the MASST concerns the necessity of experienced auditors in terms of RE principles and concepts. This drawback is relevant since the RE perspective on health and safety has not yet been adopted by a large extent in the industry.

Tendo em vista a crescente disseminação de sistemas de gestão da segurança e saúde no trabalho (SGSST), torna-se cada vez mais relevante a necessidade de instrumentos de avaliação da sua eficiência e eficácia. Nesse contexto, esta tese apresenta a proposta de um método de avaliação de sistemas de gestão de segurança e saúde no trabalho (MASST), o qual apresenta duas características inovadoras: a) a conciliação das abordagens estrutural (sistema prescrito), operacional (o que está acontecendo na prática) e por desempenho (resultados de indicadores); b) a adoção do enfoque da engenharia de resiliência (ER) sobre a segurança e saúde. O MASST foi desenvolvido a partir das contribuições da literatura, na qual foram identificados quatro princípios da ER (comprometimento da alta direção, flexibilidade, aprendizagem e consciência), bem como de um estudo de caso exploratório realizado em uma empresa de implementos agrícolas. Com base nisso, foram propostos vinte e sete itens distribuídos ao longo de sete critérios. Cada item possui um conjunto de requisitos que são avaliados com base em três fontes de evidências básicas: entrevistas, análise de documentos e observação direta. O MASST foi validado em um estudo de caso em uma empresa da cadeia automotiva. Os principais resultados revelaram que, no estudo de caso, em uma escala de pontuação de 0% a 100%, nove dentre quatorze itens relacionados à ER obtiveram pontuação entre 0% e 10%. Além disso, o MASST possibilitou a identificação dos pontos positivos do SGSST, a identificação das causas sistêmicas da falta de segurança e a identificação das prioridades de ação em termos de SST. Dentre as limitações do MASST percebidas durante o estudo de caso, salienta-se a necessidade de experiência do auditor acerca de conceitos e princípios da ER, os quais ainda não são amplamente aplicados de modo sistemático no meio industrial. / Due to the increasing dissemination of health and safety management systems (HSMS), both academics and practitioners have paid more attention to the assessment of their effectiveness and efficacy. This thesis introduces a method for assessing health and safety management systems (MASST) that has two innovative characteristics: a) it takes into account simultaneously the structural approach (prescribed system), the operational approach (what is really happening on the shop floor) and the performance approach (results of performance indicators); b) it adopts the resilience engineering (RE) perspective on health and safety. The MASST was developed based on both the literature review and an exploratory case study in a heavy machinery manufacturer. The literature review pointed out four major resilience engineering (RE) principles: top management commitment, flexibility, learning and awareness. Then, twenty-seven items grouped into seven major criteria were proposed. Each item encompasses a set of requirements that should be assessed based on three major sources of evidence: interviews, analysis of documents and direct observation. The MASST was tested in a case study that was carried out in a supplier of the automotive industry. The results pointed out that, considering a scale from 0% to 100%, nine out of the fourteen items related to the RE obtained a very low degree, ranging from 0% to 10%. Moreover, the MASST pointed out the positive aspects of the HSMS, identified systemic causes of the lack of safety and identified priorities in terms of health and safety management. The case study results also indicated that one of the main limitations of the MASST concerns the necessity of experienced auditors in terms of RE principles and concepts. This drawback is relevant since the RE perspective on health and safety has not yet been adopted by a large extent in the industry.