Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon
Department of Construction Management, College of Built Environments, University of Washington, 120 Architecture Hall, Box 351610, Seattle, WA 98195, United States
Center for Weather Climate and Disaster Research, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
Department of Construction Management, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
d
Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
b
c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 14 August 2013
Received in revised form 16 August 2014
Accepted 27 August 2014
Available online 16 September 2014
Keywords:
Construction safety
Safety inspection
Site inspection
Field inspection
Safety audit
Field data collection
User-centered design
Information and communication technology
Safety technology
Research to practice
a b s t r a c t
Occupational safety is imperative in construction, and safety inspection is among the most common practices
that help enforce job safety on site. The safety inspection process, however, suffers from several drawbacks
that hinder the efciency, effectiveness, and analytical learning capacity of the process. Dedicated tools for
user-centered information and communications technology could signicantly reduce such drawbacks. This
paper discusses the use of an original two-step user-centered design approach to develop and evaluate an iPad
application that aims to address such drawbacks and improve the day-to-day practices and management of safety inspections. Evaluation results indicate the usefulness and practicality of the application and identify innovative uses not previously envisioned. Furthermore, the developed tool allows consistent data collection that can
eventually be used to aid the development of advanced safety and health data analysis techniques.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Workforce safety is an important topic across global construction industries [1]. According to the United States (US) Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 1000 work-related fatalities took place each year
between 1994 and 2011 in the US construction industry on average.
Furthermore, construction consistently ranks as one of the top three
most dangerous industries in the US, with the greatest total number of
work-related fatalities among all industries.
In the US, safety regulations, in particular the General Duty Clause
from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), require that employers provide their employees with safe and healthy
working environments free from recognized hazards. To meet this requirement, contractors typically adopt a mix of safety approaches,
such as regular safety meetings, substance abuse programs, task specic
safety training, and pre-project safety planning. Among these common
approaches, conducting regular and frequent construction site safety
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 206 616 1915.
E-mail addresses: kenyulin@uw.edu (K.-Y. Lin), menghan@caece.net (M.-H. Tsai),
ucg@uw.edu (U.C. Gatti), jacob@caece.net (J. Je-Chian Lin), piggyhoward@caece.net
(C.-H. Lee), sckang@caece.net (S.-C. Kang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.08.012
0926-5805/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
inspections is particularly important [2,3]. Abudayyeh et al. [4] conducted a survey concluding that the injury and illness incidence rates of
companies that performed safety inspections were signicantly lower
than those that did not. By analyzing the total OSHA recordable injury
rate of 59 projects, the Construction Industry Institute [5] concluded
that the practice of checking safety inspection records on a regular
basis is generally associated with projects that have better safety performance. Kaskutas et al. [7] determined that safety inspections could
measure the risks of observed projects. Aksorn and Hadikusumo [6] suggested that safety inspections are very effective in preventing accidents.
Although safety inspections are a successful and widely used strategy for improving safety in construction, the inspection process lacks a
comprehensive and structured procedure and is accompanied by ineffectiveness and inefciency throughout. For instance, during a typical
safety inspection, a safety specialist looks for violations on site and
takes notes to record observed issues. However, inspection notes
taken by different safety specialists may vary greatly for the same type
of issues, making it difcult to have a systematic understanding of the
observed issues. Current practices do not take advantage of the time
and resources that safety professionals have already committed during
site inspections. Therefore, repetitive steps are taken to transform eld
notes into ofce les and then administrative reports. In addition,
54
Phase 1: Collecng
Project Informaon
Phase 2: Recording
Observed Violaons
Phase 3: Administrang
Inspecon Results
Bid informaon
Site Inspecon
Project and
project
parcipant
informaon
55
56
these tools are intended to support safety specialists in recording observed issues and violations during site inspections and administrating
inspection results, they provide signicantly different functions.
Safety auditing tools mainly provide functions for recording the
inspection results. For instance, iAuditor presents templates of site inspection checklists for user selection and customization, and creates inspection reports that can be printed or saved in a digital format. A typical
inspection report contains an overall safety score to indicate the safety
performance of a project. However, iAuditor does not support integrated
communication with subcontractors, and cannot analyze the collected
data (e.g., to identify trends of unsafe working conditions/behaviors) or
merge them with other project performance measurements.
Field management tools provide comprehensive functions for quality
and safety management. For instance, BIM 360 Field consists of a series
of eld data management applications that allow construction project
activities to be recorded and stored in a centralized cloud database.
Since project participants can access this database, it can support integrated communication between project managers and subcontractors.
BIM 360 Field can also store the collected data and generate summary
reports to assess delays, rework, and punchlist items. However, BIM
360 Field does not have an integrated application to further analyze
the collected inspection records.
Data analysis tools provide powerful applications to perform comprehensive and statistical analysis. For instance, SafetyNet provides
Phase 1: Collecng
Project Informaon
Phase 2: Recording
Observed Violaons
Project and
project parcipant
informaon precongured lists
(For drawbacks 1, 3 & 5)
data learning algorithms to analyze the collected data in order to identify and examine safety-related issues. This tool specically aims to predict workplace injuries by determining leading indicators and can be
used to record issues and violations identied during site inspections.
Hardware
portability
Phase 3: Administrang
Inspecon Results
Safety score
Photo capturing
Integrated
communicaon
with project
parcipants
Pre-congured
safety checklists
(For drawbacks 1, 2 & 5)
Access to
applicable safety
standards
iAuditor
SafetyNet
Project
administraon
communicaon
(For drawback 5)
of the tools
provide the funcon
None
in the Seattle area in late 2012, 85% of them still resorted to the penand-paper approach for conducting safety inspections, even though integrated project or quality management solutions generally have a
placeholder for safety records. As such, the safety inspection process
continues to suffer from the drawbacks outlined above.
3. Methodology
In this section, the authors explain the user-centered approach they
adopted in the development of an ICT tool, which incorporates the
technological requirements from Section 2 so that potential users can
experience how the tool can support the day-to-day practices and management of safety inspections. Although user-centered design has been
extensively discussed in several publications, no preferred method has
been advocated. For instance, the International Organization for Standardization [30] determines the overarching process and phases
(Fig. 3) but does not detail the exact methods.
By applying user-centered design principles and the ow chart in
Fig. 3, two main development phases were performed (Fig. 4). First,
the authors designed a paper prototype based on actual safety inspection procedures and administered two evaluations (i.e., interim and expert evaluations) using mock-up violation scenarios and an evaluation
questionnaire. Second, the authors developed an application prototype
based on the rened paper prototype and consulted safety specialists
to evaluate the application prototype through eld tests. The development and evaluation stages were heavily informed by user inputs and
are described in detail in the following sections.
3.1. Informed design of the template
The rst step of the development and evaluation of the ICT safety
inspection tool was to initiate a paper prototype that can help communicate and reect the process of safety inspection. The draft design of the paper prototype was informed by the experience of one
of the co-author faculty internship with a general contractor from
the greater Seattle area [38]. A single internship cannot serve as the
only point of reference but is a good starting point with the exibility
START
Idenfy need for usercentered design
57
YES
END
Fig. 3. General user-centered design ow chart.
NO
58
Tool Safety
Powder Actuated Tool
Scaffold
Fall Hazards
Guardrail
Fall Protection
Other, please specify:
Power Tool
Machine Guard
Saw Guard
Other, please specify:
Trenching
Policy
Smoking
Electrical
Cord
Other, please specify:
Headphones
Other, please specify:
Ladder Safety
PPE (Personal Protective Equipment)
Face Shield
Safety Glasses
Hard Hat
Gloves
Other, please specify:
House Keeping
Equipment Operation
Crane
Scissor Lift
Forklifts
Vehicles
Other, please specify:
Hazardous Chemicals
Fuel Gas
59
this purpose, both the basic and advance sets of violation scenarios
were used. Six eld practitioners from ve companies, including one
safety consulting rm and four general contractors from the greater Seattle area, participated in the expert evaluation. Among the six participating practitioners, one was a superintendent and ve were safety
directors. Together, these practitioners had over 60 years of experience
in construction site safety, with one practitioner having between 5 and
10 years of experience and the others each having more than 10 years of
experience. Each expert recorded the 20 given violation scenarios using
the paper prototype, responded to the evaluation questionnaire, and answered additional open-ended questions. The additional questions
were intended to collect concerns about (1) the current safety inspection practices, the forms used for such practices, and existing analytical
applications of the inspection data records; (2) the applicability of the
classication and terminologies used in the form; and (3) prototype
revision and improvement required. It took each practitioner about
70 min to complete the process.
Although the number of participating practitioners was limited
owing to the nature of the interview approach, the researchers were
able to obtain consistent feedback from the six practitioners. The most
signicant input from these experts was about the coverage of safety
issues. This contradicted the student input, which could be explained
by the safety knowledge these experts had accumulated as their frame
of reference when they evaluated the comprehensiveness of the paper
prototype. As a result, additional violation types and subtypes were
identied. Two new types, Fire Protection and Required Documents,
and their related subtypes were added to the paper prototype. New subtypes under existing violation types including Scaffold, House Keeping, Trenching/Excavation, and Ladder Safety were also added.
Finally, the names of some violation types and subtypes were also revised (e.g., Work and Public to Worker and Public Safety). For the
process-related recommendations, expert feedback further indicated
the hidden relationships between some violation types (e.g., if the
violation is related to Electrical, then it has a high chance of also
being a Tool Safety violation). These relationships, if built into the prototype, could help potential users perform site inspections more rigorously. Some also suggested that the violation types and subtypes be
numbered for easy reference. These recommendations were more related to the inspection process and were considered during the tool prototype development and evaluation. Compared to the initial paper
prototype, the total number of violation types increased from 13 to 15
and the total number of subtypes more than doubled, increasing from
25 to 51. The rst 14 types categorize the most common violations,
whereas type Other (15) allows the recording of rare issues. As a result of this process, the framework of how safety issues should be organized and described in order to practically support the recordkeeping
requirement during site inspections was shaped. Two requirements on
what an ideal inspection tool should do to streamline the inspection
process were also identied.
60
inspection records with other project data was not explored, as this
topic was outside the user-centered focus of this study, the existing
data-exporting capability engages end-users to brainstorm potentially
benecial data fusion scenarios.
Integrated communication with project participants. The application
prototype provides cloud capabilities (Fig. 9) by hosting an online database operable through FileMaker's services. Furthermore, the system allows safety specialists to email inspection reports to related
project participants (e.g., subcontractors).
Analysis of violation trends/patterns. To identify possible violation
trends, the application prototype is capable of presenting different
charts about the violations. Users can choose to view violation distributions by projects or by subcontractors and understand the violations over different aspects.
Project administration communication. This function supports users in
keeping track of the violation statistics and provides the related violation pictures in the cloud. The application prototype shows the overall
violation distribution of all the projects, and the site safety statistics
displayed in the charts would change immediately when a new violation is recorded. This gives administrators or the leadership immediate feedback.
61
Fig. 10. A safety expert using the prototype tool for site inspection.
introduce them to the application prototype, assess their user experience, and collect their feedback through interviews.
As a user provides feedback, the application prototype improved the
safety inspection process by minimizing repetitive data preparation
tasks and increasing work efciency, thus addressing issues caused by
the limited availability of safety specialists. For instance, many of the application prototype functions helped to reduce the overall amount of
paperwork required (e.g., integrated communication with project participants) and the efforts that safety specialists take to collect project information (e.g., pre-congured lists of project and project participant
information), record observed violations (e.g., hardware portability,
photo capturing), and administer inspection results (e.g., project
administration communication). Repetitive data preparation-related issues were reduced by the functions related to communication, because
once inspection records are generated, they can be reused in different
communication formats, such as emails.
62
Table 1
Survey results for the application prototype evaluation.
Criteria
Avg. agreement
level
5.00
5.00
4.71
4.50
5.00
4.87
4.87
4. Discussions
The developed ICT tool has proved to be benecial in improving the
efciency and effectiveness of the safety inspection process for the
subject experts studied. In fact, the most noticeable benets identied
in the eld evaluation were the reduction of paperwork and faster communication between project participants. In addition to addressing the
limited availability of safety specialists and repetitive data preparation-related issues, implementing the ICT tool minimizes other drawbacks in the safety inspection process. For instance, the use of precongured lists of project and project participant information allows
safety specialists to store and quickly retrieve project data and, therefore, improve their access to project information. Then, functions such
as pre-congured safety checklists, reminders of related violations,
and integrated communication with project participants can improve
process standardization by making these steps an automatic part of
the process. Finally, the lack of standardized documentation can be
reduced by the use of pre-congured safety checklists.
Although the ICT tool functions were developed to support safety
specialists, some functions have both positive and negative impacts
and, as a result, not all the possible features were integrated in the application prototype. For example, the ability to edit the pre-congured
safety checklists is desirable for contractors who want to design safety
checklists specic to each project and/or special clients. However, a consistent schema for labeling violation data will be hard to create, making
it difcult to analyze violation data for trend and pattern recognition.
Thus, as an informed design decision, the application prototype does
not allow users to customize the pre-congured safety checklists. To
provide users with a certain level of customization without affecting
the quality and consistency of the collected data, the application prototype has a place in the pre-congured safety checklists where users can
add options that are not already in the list.
The collection of consistent and high-quality eld safety inspection
data can have a tremendous inuence on the development of advanced
data analysis techniques. For instance, a statistical report of the results
can reveal the most frequent violations in the eld and direct further
research to understand the relationships between weather conditions
(e.g., temperature) and violation features (e.g., trade type involved).
Eventually, it will be possible to develop ICT tools capable of autonomously identifying the priority inspection items and presenting the potential workplace safety issues based on the site weather, worker, and/
or trade information. Therefore, although additional uses of the collected data beyond recordkeeping applications still need to be explored,
this research established a structured safety inspection process and
included related functions in the preliminary process to facilitate advanced data analysis. This enhances our systematic understanding of
the inspection process and provides researchers as well as practitioners
the opportunity to explore and experience potential benets, echoing
Mitropoulos and Tatum's suggestions [25] on minimizing uncertainty
when introducing and developing innovative technologies for construction applications.
Regardless of all the possible benets, the integration of an innovative ICT tool with existing procedures and business practices remains
a critical challenge. In fact, one safety specialist who participated in
the eld evaluation decided to stop using the application prototype
tool because the integration was an additional workload for him. The
general resistance to change and technology in the construction industry remains an additional barrier. Although a user-centered design approach was used in developing the application prototype, another
safety specialist involved in the eld evaluation demonstrated a clear
reluctance to shift their inspection process from paper to ICT. Therefore,
best practices in the use of technological innovations for eld safety inspections should be established in order to showcase success stories and
provide incentives for adopting innovations within the industry. Such
best practices need to highlight how technological innovations benet
not only day-to-day practices and safety inspection processes but also
overall safety management.
Finally, it is important to point out that the implementation of a
user-centered design approach in the reported study was extremely
benecial. By working with industry practitioners closely, the authors
captured and understood the end-users' business needs, preferences,
practices, and objectives. Similarly, by participating in the research
study, the industry partners better understood the technological capabilities and were motivated to envision new ICT tool uses not previously
considered.
5. Conclusion
Safety inspection is imperative for reinforcing and promoting job
site safety. However, it is often undermined by the inefciency and
ineffectiveness of the process. The authors concluded that the safety inspection process is hampered by several drawbacks, including lack of
standardized processes and documentation, restricted access to information, repetitive data preparation, and limited availability of safety
specialists. Among other negative impacts, these drawbacks prevent
current practices from generating consistent and high-quality inspection records and therefore limit the potential of advanced safety and
health data analysis.
By analyzing the features of the safety inspection process, its drawbacks, and available ICT tools, the authors determined a series of key
ICT functions that can improve the safety inspection process. A twostep user-centered design approach was implemented to investigate
the requirements of these functions with the goal of embedding them
in an ICT tool for evaluation in the intended area of application. In the
rst step, the authors developed and evaluated a paper prototype. In
the second step, the research team developed and evaluated an ICT
application prototype running on an iPad and containing most of the
key functions. In particular, this research carried out user-oriented
testing and feedback solicitation in the anticipated environment of application. The use of such a user-centered design approach positively inuenced the research activities and enabled the authors to identify
safety specialists' needs and practices. The user-centered approach
also enabled the participating safety specialists to understand the ICT
tool's capabilities and to envision innovative ICT-based procedures for
the eld.
iSafe, the iPad application developed, can now be accessed for
free under the evaluation licensing agreement at the University of
Washington's Safety and Health Advancement through Research and
Education (SHARE) in Construction Management Lab's website at
http://cm.be.washington.edu/Research/SHARE.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the nancial support for this
research received from the University of Washington's Royal Research
Fund. The authors would also like to recognize their construction industry partners from the greater Seattle area.
References
[1] W. Zhou, J. Whyte, R. Sacks, Construction safety and digital design: a review, Autom.
Constr. 22 (2012) 102111.
[2] F.Y.Y. Ling, M. Liu, Y.C. Woo, Construction fatalities in Singapore, Int. J. Proj. Manag.
27 (2009) 717726.
[3] E.A.L. Teo, F.Y.Y. Ling, A.F.W. Chong, Framework for project managers to manage
construction safety, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (2005) 329341.
[4] O. Abudayyeh, T.K. Fredericks, S.E. Butt, A. Shaar, An investigation of management's
commitment to construction safety, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (2006) 167174.
[5] Construction Industry Institute, The Owners' Role in Construction SafetyResearch
Summary 1901, Austin, TX, 2003.
[6] T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo, Critical success factors inuencing safety program
performance in Thai construction projects, Saf. Sci. 46 (2008) 709727.
[7] V.K. Kaskutas, A.M. Dale, H.J. Lipscomb, B.A. Evanoff, Development of the St. Louis
Audit of Fall Risks at Residential Construction Sites, Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
14 (2008) 243249.
[8] P.M. Goodrum, C.T. Haas, Partial factor productivity and equipment technology
change at activity level in U.S. construction industry, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 128
(2002) 463472.
[9] Construction Industry Institute, Leveraging Technology to Improve Construction
Productivity, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX, 2008.
[10] J. Teizer, 3D range imaging camera sensing for active safety in construction, J. Inf.
Technol. Constr. 13 (2008) 103117.
[11] D.I. Kim, H. Cho, Safety and productivity analysis on alternative steel column-girder
joint for automated construction, Proceedings of International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS 2010), Seoul, Korea, 2010, pp. 23382341.
[12] J. Cinkelj, R. Kamnik, P. Cepon, M. Mihelj, M. Munih, Closed-loop control of hydraulic
telescopic handler, Autom. Constr. 19 (2010) 954963.
[13] S. Han, F. Pena-Mora, M. Golparvar-Fard, S. Roh, Application of a visualization technique for safety management, 2009 ASCE International Workshop on Computing in
Civil Engineering, ASCE, Austin, TX, 2009, pp. 543551.
[14] K. Sulankivi, T. Makela, M. Kiviniemi, BIM-based site layout and safety planning, First
International Conference on CIB, Technical Research Center of Finland, Espoo,
Finland, 2009, pp. 125140.
[15] S. Chi, C.H. Caldas, J. Gong, A crash avoidance framework for heavy equipment
control systems using 3D imaging sensors, Special Issue Sensors in Construction
and Infrastructure Management, 13, 2008, pp. 118133.
[16] A. Walia, J. Teizer, Analysis of spatial data structures for proximity detection,
Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 13 (2008) 102107.
[17] W. Wu, H. Yang, D.A.S. Chew, S. Yang, A.G.F. Gibb, Q. Li, Towards an autonomous
real-time tracking system of near-miss accidents on construction sites, Autom.
Constr. 19 (2010) 134141.
63
[18] H. Yang, D.A.S. Chew, W. Wu, Z. Zhou, Q. Li, Design and implementation of an identication system in construction site safety for proactive accident prevention, Accid.
Anal. Prev. 48 (2012) 193203.
[19] J. Andresen, A. Baldwin, M. Betts, C. Carter, A. Hamilton, E. Stokes, et al., A framework
for measuring IT innovation benets, J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 5 (2000) 5772.
[20] P. Gonzalez de Santos, J. Estremera, E. Garcia, M. Armada, Power assist devices for
installing plaster panels in construction, Autom. Constr. 17 (2008) 459466.
[21] E.A. Koningsveld, H.F. van der Molen, History and future of ergonomics in building
and construction, Ergonomics 40 (1997) 10251034.
[22] M.R. Endsley, D.G. Jones, Designing for situation awareness: an approach to humancentered design, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2012.
[23] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. Free Press, New York, NY, 2003.
[24] A. Dillon, M. Morris, User acceptance of new information technology - theories and
models, in: M. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 31, Information Today, Medford, NJ, 1996, pp. 332.
[25] P. Mitropoulos, C. Tatum, Forces driving adoption of new information technologies,
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 126 (2000) 340348.
[26] C.-H. Chen, K. Sato, K.-P. Lee, Editorial: human-centered product design and development, Adv. Eng. Inform. 23 (2009) 140-141.
[27] C.-C. Lu, S.-C. Kang, S.-H. Hsieh, R.-S. Shiu, Improvement of a computer-based
surveyor-training tool using a user-centered approach, Adv. Eng. Inform. 23
(2009) 8192.
[28] N. Dawood, D. Scott, E. Sriprasert, Z. Mallasi, The virtual construction site (VIRCON)
tools: an industrial evaluation, ITcon 10 (2005) 4354.
[29] H.N. Ahuja, S.P. Dozzi, S.M. AbouRizk, Project Management: Techniques in Planning
and Controlling Construction Projects, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1994.
[30] International Organization for Standardization, Ergonomics of human-system
interactionPart 210: human-centered design for interactive systems, 2010.
[31] R. Choudhry, D. Fang, S. Ahmed, Safety management in construction: best practices
in Hong Kong, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 134 (2008) 2032.
[32] N. Hamidi, M. Omidvari, M. Meftahi, The effect of integrated management system on
safety and productivity indices: case study; Iranian cement industries, Saf. Sci. 50
(2012) 11801189.
[33] B. Fernndez-Muiz, J.M. Montes-Pen, C.J. Vzquez-Ords, Safety management
system: development and validation of a multidimensional scale, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 20 (2007) 5268.
[34] T. Toole, Construction site safety roles, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 128 (2002) 203210.
[35] E.E. Koehn, N.K. Datta, Quality, environmental, and health and safety management
systems for construction engineering, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129 (2003) 562569.
[36] N.A. Kartam, I. Flood, P. Koushki, Construction safety in Kuwait: issues, procedures,
problems, and recommendations, Saf. Sci. 36 (2000) 163184.
[37] B. Hadikusumo, S. Rowlinson, Capturing safety knowledge using design-for-safetyprocess tool, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 130 (2004) 281289.
[38] K.Y. Lin, Y.W. Kim, C. Dossick, Repositioning the faculty internship experience in
construction management, Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress
2010, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2010.
[39] G. Johnson, An Evaluation of the Application for Tablet Computing in Construction,
University of Washington, Seattle (WA), 2012.