Search

Strategy and tools for optimising standardisation and pre-assembly

This manuscript presents a comparative research about the perception of safety needs in the design and use of formworks. Needs were evaluated compiling opinions from different stakeholders in the construction sector in Spain and United Kingdom. Research methodology involved different phases: definition of the territorial and population context, research tool design, data collection and data analysis and findings. Thus, an ad-hoc questionnaire was designed and distributed to project designers, construction companies and manufacturing formwork companies, in order to identify needs in the design phase, construction phase and legal issues. The findings in both countries showed a high agreement in items related with productivity and final cost during the design phase of the formwork/falsework. Suppliers and customers showed different perception about the training services, especially in Spain. This study has allowed the identification of the sector's needs through the opinion of the main participants in the formwork trade. This should be a good basis for the development of measures that improve health and safety levels in formwork activities. Resumen Este trabajo presenta una investigación comparativa sobre la percepción de las necesidades de seguridad en el diseño y uso de encofrados. Dichas necesidades fueron evaluadas recabando opiniones de diferentes grupos de interés en el sector de la construcción en España y Reino Unido. La metodología de investigación implicó diferentes fases: definición del contexto, diseño de la herramienta de investigación, recolección de datos y análisis y hallazgos. Así, se diseñó un cuestionario ad-hoc y se distribuyó a diseñadores de proyectos, empresas de construcción y empresas de fabricación de encofrados, para identificar las necesidades en fase de diseño, fase de construcción y problemas legales. Los hallazgos en ambos países mostraron un alto acuerdo en los items relacionados con la productividad y el coste final durante la fase de diseño del encofrado. Proveedores y clientes mostraron una percepción diferente sobre los servicios de formación, especialmente en España. Este estudio ha permitido identificar las necesidades del sector a través de la opinión de los principales participantes en el mercado de encofrados. Esta debería ser una buena base para el desarrollo de medidas que mejoren los niveles de salud y seguridad en las actividades de encofrado.

This research was funded by B&CE (a non-profit organisation offering products and benefits to working people in the construction sector). The research was supported by the Design for Health Task Group (DfHTG) of the Health in Construction Leadership Group (HCLG). While construction workers’ health has long been neglected at the expense of safety, it is now an important focus of the industry. Aligned to this, there is a growing recognition that design decisions have a major influence on the occurrence of health hazards in construction (e.g. noise, dust) that can lead to work-related or work-exacerbated conditions such as hearing loss and respiratory illnesses. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) requires that those designing “should eliminate foreseeable health and safety risks to anyone affected by the work (if possible) and take steps to reduce or control risks that cannot be eliminated” (HSE 2019). The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM 2015), an important mechanism for addressing health (and safety) hazards in design, requires individuals working on projects to have relevant skills, knowledge and experience to enable them to design for health. Additionally, clients recognise the importance of designers’ abilities in understanding how and why to incorporate more healthy products and processes into projects. However, to date the industry continues to struggle with the make-up of these attributes, that are essential for designers to be able to design safe and healthy projects. This is particularly the case in respect of ‘Design for Health’ given the long neglect of health issues in construction. This project, designed to be a collaboration between key experts in the industry, allowed for further discussion on the key attributes required of designers to enable them to Design for Health in the construction industry (reviewing skills, knowledge, attitude, training, experience - SKATE). Workshops were the main data collection method. However, in order to engage a broader participant sample, these were supplemented by interviews and questionnaires. Although all workshops and interviews commenced with a brief introduction to the concept of ‘Designing for Health’ of construction workers, many participants appeared to fail to grasp the concept specifically, as they had a tendency during discussions to keep highlighting safety examples. Comments made by respondents strongly suggest that many design teams are still struggling to apply the principles of the CDM Regulations to construction safety challenges, let alone occupational health challenges of construction workers. This may be due to the focus of information and training being more towards safety rather than health. Most designers were aware of the risks of falls from height and asbestos, but were less likely to be aware of other risks such as dust or noise. The findings suggest that company size and project size were relevant with regards to an individual’s levels of competence in the SKATE qualities and ease of access to other individuals with the required SKATE within teams. However, project type did not appear relevant to SKATE: there was no clear view that a particular type of project required particular SKATE. While different projects may require different solutions, the key is that designers have general health awareness to identify where and how their design decisions can make a difference. While participants highlighted positive suggestions that could help achieve better Design for Health in the future, many also raised various limitations. Responses from a number of participants highlighted the concern about the ‘unregulated’, smaller residential, Do-it-yourself (DIY) self-build market. Participants also discussed concerns about challenges of Designing for Health due to competing priorities, cost constraints, design time pressures, fragmentation of the role, lack of ownership, lack of health awareness, lack of site experience and limited available guidance. It would appear that the term ‘Design for Health’ could be misleading, as there was a tendency to focus only on the end user and not the construction worker. Taking into account the findings of this research, the research team suggest that greater use of the term ‘Prevention through Design’ (which is commonly used in the United States of America (USA)), rather than the terms usually used in the United Kingdom (UK), ‘Designing for Safety’, ‘Designing for Health’ may increase the chance that occupational health is taken as seriously as safety. First, this report describes limiting factors in designing for occupational safety and health (i.e. mainly ‘safety’ and the requirements of CDM) and secondly, focuses on opportunities for designing specifically for the occupational health of construction workers.

Design for occupational safety and health (DfOSH) is growing in prominence in the construction sector. Consequently, designers (as individuals or organisations) are expected to mitigate occupational health and safety risks through design. In order for design firms to effectively do this, they need to have adequate capability in respect of DfOSH. However, there is limited empirical insight regarding DfOSH capability as well as robust mechanisms for ascertaning the DfOSH capability of design firms. Drawing on the capability maturity concept, this study through three iterations of expert focus group discussion presents a preliminary DfOSH capability maturity model. The preliminary model captures DfOSH capability attributes mapped unto five stages of capability maturation. The model is undergoing review and testing by industry experts to ensure its practical utility within industry. It is anticipated that through the testing of the preliminary model, the eventual DfOSH capability maturity model would be beneficial to several industry stakeholders, particularly design firms by way of self-assessing their capability in order to understand the areas of capability deficiency and strength. Clients who appoint design firms could also use the model as part of pre-qualification arrangements in selecting design firms with adequate DfOSH capability.