THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE TO SAFETY AUDIT IN CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
AHMAD FAUZI BIN AWANG
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of the degree of
Master of Science (Construction Management)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
APRIL 2007
iii
To my beloved Wife, my lovely kids, my late mother and father,
my lecturers and all my friends……
Thanks for all the love and encouragement......
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, grateful thanks to Allah S.W.T for guiding and helping
me in the completion of this dissertation.
I would like to extend my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my
supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Aziruddin Ressang for his continuous guidance, ideas,
suggestion, support and valuable advices throughout the period of this Master Project
and also to lecturers involved in Construction Management Course; Prof. Dr. Muhd.
Zaimi Abd. Majid, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohamad Ibrahim Mohamad, , Assoc. Prof.
Zainudin Mohamed Shamsudin Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abd. Hakim, Assoc. Prof. Dr.
A.Aziz Saim, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aminaton Marto, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Baharudin,
Dr. Ir. Rosli Mohamad Zin, Dr. Shaiful Amri Mansur, Dr. Aminah Mohd Yusof, Dr.
Melati Ahmad Anuar, Dr. Arham Abdullah and Mr. Bachan Singh.
I am also thankful to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health for
giving me the opportunity to further my study in Construction Management and also
for providing the data for this research. Due appreciation also to the Public Service
Department for sponsoring my study.
Last but not least is my appreciation and gratitude to my beloved wife, Che
Zuriah Jusoh and my kids for their love, encouragement, support and also for believe
in me. I would like to thank to my entire friend especially those providing me with
all the materials required to complete all the assignments.
v
ABSTRACT
Construction activities have been identified as among the highest
activity contributed to the accident at workplace in Malaysia. Safety on the
construction site was assessed by the Department of Occupational Safety and
Health by conducting safety audits during construction. A standard checklist
was used to conduct the audit. This checklist included those items which are
compliance to Occupational Safety and Health Act and Factories and
Machinery Act and perceived to be important from the safety point of view.
These are Occupational Safety and Health management, safety committee,
machinery, scaffolding, working at height, public safety, workers quarters,
storage facilities, formwork, excavation and shoring, personnel protective
equipment, platform, floor opening, edge of open floor, access and egress,
electrical safety, cleanliness, health and welfare, piling and demolition. A
total of 2038 number of audited have been carried out on construction sites
throughout Malaysia by the officers from the Department of Occupational
Safety and Health for the years of 2004 and 2005. The data from those audits
will be analyzed. The sites will be differentiated into high cost and low cost
projects based on the cost of the project that reflected to the requirement of
contractor to engaged a safety officer if the project exceeding RM 20.0
millions and highrise and lowrise projects based on the highness of the
building. The objectives of this research are to assess the level of safety
practiced at various construction projects in Malaysia, to determine the level
of compliance to safety audit elements between high cost and low cost
projects and between highrise and lowrise constructions. The results of
analysis revealed construction sites performed better due to the impact of
safety audit carried out at their workplace. In term of category of projects,
highrise constructions performed better than lowrise construction. In term
of cost of projects, high cost projects performed better than low cost projects
simply due to the roles of safety officers engaged by high cost constructions.
vi
ABSTRAK
Aktiviti pembinaan telah dikenalpasti sebagai antara sector pekerjaan yang
menyumbang kepada kadar kemalangan ditempat kerja yang tertinggi di Malaysia.
Keselamatan di tapak pembinaan telah dinilai oleh Jabatan Keselamatan dan
kesihatan Pekerjaan melalui perlaksanaan audit keselamatan semasa aktiviti
pembinaan semasa kerjakerja pembinaan dijalankan. Audit keselamatan
dilaksanakan dengan berpandukan kepada satu senarai semak yang seragam. Senarai
semak mengandungi perkaraperkara yang perlu mematuhi kehendakkehenadak
Akta Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan danAkta Kilang dan Jentera yang mana
merupakan perkara penting kepada aspek keselamatan. Perkaraperkara itu termasuk
pengurusan keselamtan dan kesihatan, jawatankuasa keselamatan, jentera, perancah,
bekerja di tempat tinggi, keselamatan awam, kuarter penginapan pekerja, kemudahan
penyimpanan, acuan, penggalian, alat perlindungan diri, platform, bukaan pada
lantai, bukaan pada tepian, laluan keluar dan masuk, keselamatan elektrik,
kebersihan, kesihatan dan kebajikan, kerja cerucuk, dan perobohan. Jabatan
Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan telah melaksanakan audit keselamatan di
2038 tapak pembinaan di sepanjang 2004 dan 2005. Data daripada audit keselamatan
ini akan dianalisa. Tapak pembinaan akan diklasifikasikan berdasarkan kepada kos
pembinaan yang terdiri daripada projek berkos tinggi yang memerlukan penggajian
pegawai keselamatan di tapak pembinaan yang bernilai sekurangkurangnya RM 20
juta dan projek berkos rendah dan juga akan diklasifikasikan berdasarkan kepada
ketegori ketinggian pembinaan iaitu pembinaan bangunan tinggi dan juga pembinaan
bangunan rendah. Keputusan analisa mendedahkan prestasi tapak keselamatan
bertambah baik kesan daripada audit keselamatan yang dijalankan. Dari segi
kategori pembinaan didapati pembinaan bangunan tinggi lebih mematuhi keperluan
keselamatan dan kesihatan berbanding pembinaan bangunan rendah. Dari segi kos
pembinaan, projek berkos tinggi didapati lebih mematuhi keperluan keselamatan dan
kesihatan berbanding projek berkos rendah disebabkan oleh peranan yang dimainkan
oleh pegawai keselamatan dan kesihatan.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
THESIS TITLE i
DECLARATION SHEET ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xx
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xxii
LIST OF APPENDIX xxiii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 10
1.3 Aim and Objective 11
1.4 Brief Methodology 12
1.5 Scope of Research 14
1.6 Hypothesis 14
2 ACCIDENT REPORTING 15
2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Theories of Accident Causation 15
2.3 Accident Reporting System 21
2.4 Investigation Practices 23
viii
3 SAFETY AUDIT 24
3.1 Safety Audit Definition 24
3.1.1 Management Style, Practices and Expectations 24
3.1.2 Preparatory Work by Safety Auditors 25
3.1.3 Work Portioning 27
3.1.4 Reporting of the Finding 28
3.2 Safety Audit Performance 28
3.2.1 Kickoff Meeting 28
3.2.2 Interviews 28
3.2.3 Documentation Spot Check 29
3.2.4 Field Spot Check 30
3.2.5 Close out Meeting 30
3.3 Safety Audit for the Construction Industry 30
3.4 Safety Audit Checklist 32
3.5 Safety Audit Elements 33
3.5.1 Safety and Health Management 33
3.5.2 Safety and Health Committee (SHC) 37
3.5.3 Machinery 38
3.5.4 Platform 39
3.5.5 Scaffolding 40
3.5.6 Floor Opening 42
3.5.7 Edges of Open Floor 42
3.5.8 Working at Heights 43
3.5.9 Access and Egress 44
3.5.10 Public Safety 45
3.5.11 Electrical Safety 46
3.5.12 Workers Quarters 47
3.5.13 Cleanliness 48
3.5.14 Storage Facilities 49
3.5.15 Health and Welfare 50
3.5.16 Formwork 52
3.5.17 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 53
3.5.18 Excavation and Shoring 55
3.5.19 Piling 56
ix
3.5.20 Demolition 57
3.6 Standard Activity for Construction Safety Audit 59
4 LITERATURE REVIEW 60
4.1 Legal Requirements on Safety Audit 60
4.2 Factors Affecting Safety Performance 62
4.3 Safety Performance Measurements 63
4.4 Previous Research on Safety Performance 67
5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 69
5.1 Introduction 69
5.2 Research Process 69
5.3 Determining Research Process 69
5.4 Steps in Methodology 70
5.4.1 Conceptualization 71
5.4.2 Literature Review 71
5.4.3 Data Collection 71
5.4.4 Data Analysis 78
6 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 80
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Analysis of Each Element 80
6.2.1 Element A – Safety and Health Management 81
6.2.1.1 Category of Project 81
6.2.1.2 Cost of Project 82
6.2.2 Element B – Safety and Health Committee (SHC) 83
6.2.2.1 Category of Project 84
6.2.2.2 Cost of Project 85
6.2.3 Element C – Machinery 86
6.2.3.1 Category of Project 87
6.2.3.2 Cost of Project 87
6.2.4 Element D – Platform 88
6.2.4.1 Category of Project 89
6.2.4.2 Cost of Project 90
x
6.2.5 Element E – Scaffolding 90
6.2.5.1 Category of Project 91
6.2.5.2 Cost of Project 92
6.2.6 Element F – Floor Opening 92
6.2.6.1 Category of Project 93
6.2.6.2 Cost of Project 94
6.2.7 Element G – Edge of Open Floor 94
6.2.7.1 Category of Project 95
6.2.7.2 Cost of Project 96
6.2.8 Element H – Working at Height 96
6.2.8.1 Category of Project 97
6.2.8.2 Cost of Project 98
6.2.9 Element I – Access and Egress 99
6.2.9.1 Category of Project 99
6.2.9.2 Cost of Project 100
6.2.10 Element J – Public Safety 101
6.2.10.1 Category of Project 101
6.2.10.2 Cost of Project 102
6.2.11 Element K – Electrical Safety 103
6.2.11.1 Category of Project 104
6.2.11.2 Cost of Project 104
6.2.12 Element L – Workers Quarters 105
6.2.12.1 Category of Project 106
6.2.12.2 Cost of Project 107
6.2.13 Element M – Cleanliness 107
6.2.13.1 Category of Project 108
6.2.13.2 Cost of Project 109
6.2.14 Element N – Storage Facilities 109
6.2.14.1 Category of Project 110
6.2.14.2 Cost of Project 111
6.2.15 Element O – Health and Welfare 111
6.2.15.1 Category of Project 112
6.2.15.2 Cost of Project 113
6.2.16 Element P – Formwork 113
xi
6.2.16.1 Category of Project 114
6.2.16.2 Cost of Project 115
6.2.17 Element Q – Personal Protective Equipment 115
6.2.17.1 Category of Project 116
6.2.17.2 Cost of Project 117
6.2.18 Element R – Excavation and Shoring 117
6.2.18.1 Category of Project 118
6.2.18.2 Cost of Project 119
6.2.19 Element S – Piling 120
6.2.19.1 Category of Project 120
6.2.19.2 Cost of Project 121
6.2.20 Element T – Demolition 122
6.2.20.1 Category of Project 122
6.2.20.2 Cost of Project 123
6.3 Correlation Between Element’s Variables 124
6.3.1 Year of the Project 126
6.3.2 Category of Project 128
6.3.3 Cost of Project 131
6.4 Safety Level 133
6.4.1 Safety Level for Audited Construction Sites in 134
2004 and 2005
6.4.2 Safety Level for LowRise Constructions 137
and HighRise Constructions
6.4.3 Safety Level for Low Cost Projects 140
and High Cost Projects
6.5 Hypothesis Testing 143
6.5.1 Sites Audited in 2004 with Sites Audited in 2005 145
6.5.2 Lowrise Constructions with HighRise 147
Constructions
6.5.3 Low Cost Projects with High Cost Projects 149
7 CONCLUSION 151
7.1 Assessing Safety Level at Construction Sites 151
in Malaysia
xii
7.2 Determining Level of Compliance to Safety 153
Audit Elements between LowRise Constructions
and HighRise Constructions
7.3 Determining Level of Compliance to Safety 155
Audit Elements between Lowrise Projects and
HighRise Projects
REFERENCES 157
APPENDIX 162
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
1.1 Industries Under Occupational Safety and Health
Act Jurisdiction
7
1.2 Fatality at Construction Sites in Malaysia 9
3.1 SubElements of Safety and Health Management
and relevant Section/Regulation of the Acts
35
3.2 SubElements of Safety and Health Committee and
relevant Section/Regulation of the Acts
37
3.3 SubElements of Machinery and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
38
3.4 SubElements of Platform and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
39
3.5 SubElements of Scaffolding and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
41
3.6 SubElements of Floor Opening and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
42
3.7 SubElements of Edge of open floor and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
43
3.8 SubElements of Working at Height and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
44
3.9 SubElements of Access and Egress and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
45
3.10 SubElements of Public Safety and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
46
3.11 SubElements of Electrical Safety and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
47
3.12 SubElements of Workers Quarters and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
48
xiv
3.13 SubElements of Cleanliness and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
49
3.14 SubElements of Storage Facilities and relevant
`Section/Regulation of the Acts
50
3.15 SubElements of Health and Welfare Facilities
and relevant Section/Regulation of the Acts
51
3.16 SubElements of Formwork and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
53
3.17 SubElements of Personal Protective Equipment
and relevant Section/Regulation of the Acts
54
3.18 SubElements of Excavation and Shoring and
relevant Section/Regulation of the Acts
56
3.19 SubElements of Piling and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
57
3.20 SubElements of Demolition and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
59
4.1 Existing Safety Performance Assessment 66
5.1 Numbers of Safety Audit Based on States 73
5.2 Number of Safety Audit Based on Category of the
Project
75
5.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Number of Safety Audit Based on the Cost of the
Project
Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health
Management Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health
Management Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health
Management Based on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health
Committee Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health
Committee Based on the Category of Project
77
81
82
83
84
85
xv
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
6.21
Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health
Committee Based on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Machinery Based on the
Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Machinery Based on the
Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Machinery Based on the
Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Platform Based on the
Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Platform Based on the
Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Platform Based on the
Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Scaffolding Based on the
Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Scaffolding Based on the
Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Scaffolding Based on the
Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Floor Opening Based
on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Floor Opening Based
on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Floor Opening Based
on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Edge of Open Floor
Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Edge of Open Floor
Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Edge of Open Floor
Based on the Cost of Project
85
86
87
88
89
89
90
91
91
92
93
93
94
95
95
96
xvi
6.22
6.23
6.24
6.25
6.26
6.27
6.28
6.29
6.30
6.31
6.32
6.33
6.34
6.35
6.36
6.37
Analysis on the Element of Working at Height
Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Working at Height
Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Working at Height
Based on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Access and Egress
Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Access and Egress
Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Access and Egress
Based on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Public Safety Based on
the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Public Safety Based on
the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Public Safety Based on
the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Electrical Safety Based
on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Electrical Safety Based
on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Electrical Safety Based
on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Workers Quarters
Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Workers Quarters
Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Workers Quarters
Based on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Cleanliness Based on
the Year of Project
97
98
98
99
100
100
101
102
103
103
104
105
106
106
107
108
xvii
6.38
6.39
6.40
6.41
6.42
6.43
6.44
6.45
6.46
6.47
6.48
6.49
6.50
6.51
6.52
6.53
6.54
Analysis on the Element of Cleanliness Based on
the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Cleanliness Based on
the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Storage Facilities
Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Storage Facilities
Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Storage Facilities
Based on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Health and Welfare
Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Health and Welfare
Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Health and Welfare
Based on the Cost of Projects
Analysis on the Element of Formwork Based on
the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Formwork Based on
the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Formwork Based on
the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Personal Protective
Equipment Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Personal Protective
Equipment Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Personal Protective
Equipment Based on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Excavation and
Shoring Based on the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Excavation and
Shoring Based on the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Excavation and
108
109
110
110
111
112
112
113
114
114
115
116
116
117
118
119
119
xviii
6.55
6.56
6.57
6.58
6.59
6.60
6.61
6.62
6.63
6.64
6.65
6.66
6.67
6.68
6.69
6.70
6.71
Shoring Based on the Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Piling Based on the
Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Piling Based on the
Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Piling Based on the
Cost of Project
Analysis on the Element of Demolition Based on
the Year of Project
Analysis on the Element of Demolition Based on
the Category of Project
Analysis on the Element of Demolition Based on
the Cost of Project
OneSample KolmogorovSmirnov Test for Mean
of Element A, B, C, D & E
Elements Satisfy Scores and Ranks for 2004 and
2005
Spearman’s Rho Correlations for 2004 & 2005
Elements Satisfy Scores and Ranks for LowRise
Constructions and HighRise Constructions
Spearman’s Rho Correlations between LowRise
Constructions with HighRise Constructions
Elements Satisfy Scores and Ranks for the Low
Cost Projects and the High Cost Projects
Spearman’s Rho Correlations between Low Cost
Projects and High Cost Projects
Safety Level for the year of 2004 and
2005
The mean, Variance and Standard Deviation for
the year of 2004 and 2005
Safety Level for LowRise Constructions and High
Rise Constructions
The Mean, Variance and Standard Deviation for
120
121
121
122
123
123
125
126
127
129
130
133
133
135
136
138
139
xix
6.72
6.73
6.74
6.75
6.76
6.77
6.78
6.79
6.80
LowRise Constructions and HighRise
Constructions
Safety Level for Low Cost Projects and High Cost
Projects
The Mean, Variance and Standard Deviation for
LowRise Constructions and HighRise
Constructions
OneSample KolmogorovSmirnov Test for Mean
of Safety Level
Ranks of Safety Level for Audited Data in 2004
and 2005 According to MannWhitney Test
Test Statistics of Safety Level for Audited Data in
2004 and 2005 According to MannWhitney Test
Ranks of Safety Level for LowRise Constructions
and HighRise Constructions According to Mann
Whitney Test
Test Statistics of Safety Level for LowRise
Constructions and HighRise Constructions
According to MannWhitney Test
Ranks of Safety Level for Low Cost Projects and
High Cost Projects According to MannWhitney
Test
Test Statistics of Safety Level for Low Cost
Projects and High Cost Projects According to
MannWhitney Test
141
142
145
146
146
148
148
150
150
xx
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
1.1 Fatal Accidents per 100,000 Construction
Workers Per Year
3
1.2 Number of Industrial Accident 1993 – 2003 5
1.3 Number of Construction Fatalities 1993 – 2003 5
1.4 Fatalities in Three Highest sectors 8
1.5 Methodology Flowchart 13
2.1 The five factors of accident sequence in the
Model of Heinrich’s Domino Theory
17
2.2 An accident is caused by the action of
preceding factors
18
2.3 The unsafe act and mechanical hazard
constitute the central factor in the accident
sequence
18
2.4 The removal of the central factor makes the
action of preceding factor ineffective
19
2.5 The Model of Dan Peterson’s Accident/Incident
Theory
20
2.6 The Model of Epidemiological Theory of
Accident Causation
21
3.1 Diagram for Elements and Subelements of
Safety Audit
36
4.1 The Health and Safety Management System 64
5.1 Summary of Research Methodology 70
5.2 Numbers of Safety Audit for the year of 2004
and 2005
72
5.3 Number of Safety Audit Based on Category of
Projects
74
xxi
5.4
5.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Number of Safety Audit Based on the Value of
the Projects (in RM Million)
The Flowchart for the Data Analysis
Pie Chart of Safety Level for Audited
Construction Sites in 2004 and 2005
Box Plot Diagram of Safety Level for Audited
Construction Sites in 2004 and 2005
Box Plot Diagram of Safety Level For Low
Rise Constructions and HighRise
Constructions
Box Plot Diagram of Safety Level for Low
Cost Projects and High Cost Projects
Histogram Diagram Shows the Distribution of
Safety Level
76
79
134
137
140
143
144
xxii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION TITLE
BOWEC Factories and Machinery (Building Operations & Work of
Engineering Construction) Regulations, 1986
DOSH Department of Occupational Safety and Health
FMS Factories and Machinery (Fencing of Machinery and Safety)
Regulations, 1970
FMA Factories and Machinery Act 1967
ISRS International Safety Rating System
MPOSHCI
NODOOPOD
Master Plan for Occupational Safety and Health in
Construction Industy 2005 2010
Occupational Safety and Health (Notification of Accident,
Dangerous Occurrence, Occupational Poisoning and
Occupational Disease) Regulations 2004
NOI Notice of Improvement
NOP Notice of Prohobition
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
PRIMA Process Safety Management
SHC Safety and Health Committee
OSH Occupational Safety and Health
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1994
SHC Occupational Safety and Health (Safety and Health
Committee) Regulations 1996
SHW Factories and Machinery (Safety, Health and Welfare)
Regulations, 1970
SOCSO The Social Security Organisation
SMG Strategic Management Group
xxiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
1 Form ‘JKKP 6’ 162
2 Form ‘JKKP 8’ 163
3
4
Checklist for Construction Safety Audit
Standard Activity for the element of Machinery
164
169
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In profitdriven business, it is common for construction stakeholder; owner,
contractor, subcontractor or even supplier to concentrate exclusively on completing
projects to meet the requirement of quality standard with focus more on completing the
projects on time and allocated cost. Safety is usually treated as a secondary matter. The
lack of motivation in fostering a safety culture has resulted in a poor safety record
particularly in construction industries.
Throughout the world, construction industry is known as one of the most
hazardous activities. Thousands of people are killed and disabling injury annually in
industrial accident. Jannadi, O.A. and BuKhamsin, M.S. (2002) cited that the major
causes of accidents are related to the unique nature of the industry, human behavior,
difficult worksite conditions, and poor safety management, which result in unsafe work
methods, equipment and procedures. Yränheikki, E. and Savolainen, H. (2000) claimed
the leading causes of accident in Finland included solid objects or articles, working
environment and structures, tools, machinery, and conveying or lifting gear. Tam, C.M.
et al. (2004) revealed that the behaviors of contractors on safety management are of
grave concern including the lack of provision of personal protection equipment, regular
safety meetings and safety training. Haslam, R.A. et al. concluded the key factors in the
accidents were problem arising from workers or the work team, workplace issues,
shortcoming with personnel protective equipment, problems with suitability and
condition of materials and deficiencies with risk management.
2
Laitenen, H. and Ruohomaki, I. (1996) revealed the rate of fatal accidents in
Finland has been about 0.1 in construction, and 0.05 per 1000 manyears in
manufacturing. The construction industry has been identified as one of the most
hazardous industries in the United States whereas occupational falls have been
identified as the common cause of fatal injury in the industry (Cattledge H.G, et
al.,1996; Janicak, C.A. ,1998 and Behm, M. 2005) . Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, S.
(1997) reported in 1993, 87% of worker losing lives in the course of their employment
contributed by construction industries and in 1994; construction industries recorded an
accident rate of 280 accidents per thousand workers in Hong Kong. Haslam, R.A. et
al. (2005) acknowledged that construction industry in Great Britain accounts for one
third of all work fatalities, with a similar poor performance for injuries and ill health.
Kartam, N.A. and Bouz, R.G. (1998) confirm that construction is the most hazardous
industry in Kuwait with accidents accounting for 48%, 38% and 34% of all disabling
injuries and 62%, 38% and 42% of all fatalities in 1994, 1995 and 1996 respectively
whereas in China, Tam, C.M. et al. (2004) reported in 1999 alone, 1097 construction
workers lost their lives.
Rowlinson, S. (2004) gathered the statistics of fatal accidents in construction
industries in selected countries worldwide from 1991 to 2000 as shown in Figure 1.1 in
which revealed the extent of the problems in construction industries worldwide;
3
Figure 1.1: Fatal Accidents per 100,000 Construction Workers per Year
Source: Rowlinson S. (2004)
There are many ways where the safety in construction industries being control in
order to reduce the number of accidents subsequently reducing the numbers of fatality
and injuries to the workers and damage to the equipments. Governments worldwide
have maintained an ongoing commitment towards establishing a working environment
free of injury and disease. This commitment is reflected by establishing performance
based workplace health and safety legislation which sets generalized performance
objectives and provides a system of clearly stated responsibilities to encourage greater
selfregulation for the construction industry (Mohamed, S., 1999).
Some countries depend totally on government in controlling safety at worksite.
The practice of safety in construction in the USA is regulated by governmental agencies
such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which provides
strict rules and regulations to enforce safety and health standards on job site (Jannadi,
M.O. and Assaf, S., 1998). The practice of safety in Kuwait is regulated by two
government agencies, Kuwait Municipality (KM) and Ministry of Public Work (MPW)
in addition to the High Committee for Safety and Security at the state level (Kartam,
N.A. and Bouz, R.G., 1998). The ministry of Construction takes the overall
4
responsibility in overseeing the construction industry in China in which the roles
include implementing the new strategies and policies such as preparing development
programs, regulating construction markets and construction institutions and monitoring
construction safety (Tam, C.M. et al., 2004)
Countries such as the United Kingdom, Singapore and Hong Kong have adopted
a self regulatory approach to safety, whereby proprietors (including contractors) are
required to develop, implement and maintain safety management system (Ng, S.T. et
al., 2005). In Singapore, the construction site safety legislation is governed by the
requirements stipulated under the Factories Act (Chapter 104) and the Factories
(Building Operations and Work of Engineering Construction) Regulation requires all
occupiers of construction worksites, which have contract values of S$10 million or
more to implement a Safety Management System specified under the 1999 Code of
Practice for Safety Management System for Construction Worksites (CP 79) (Teo,
E.A.L et al., 2005). In Finland, occupational safety is the responsibility of the
employer, while the occupational safety and health laws are enforced by the Labour
Inspection Service, an organization of the state (Yränheikki, E. and Savolainen, H.,
2000).
The practice of safety in Saudi Arabia is not regulated by any government
agency but becomes an area of responsibility of the top management of the organization
(Jannadi, M.O. and Assaf, S., 1998).
Construction industries in Malaysia also have been identified as one of the most
hazardous activities. SOCSO reported out of the total of 73858 industrial accidents
recorded in 2003, 4654 were came from the construction industry in construction
industries with 2.0 percent or 95 cases resulted in death. Figure 1.2 shows the number
of accident reported to SOCSO from 1993 to 2003 whereas figure 1.3 shows the
number of fatalities in construction industries for the same period.
5
Figure 1.2: Number of Industrial Accident 1993 2003
Source: SOCSO Annual Report
Figure 1.3: Number of Construction Fatalities 1993 2003
Source: SOCSO Annual Report
6
Fatality reported to DOSH as per table 1.2 proved that the safety at construction
sites still remain one of the leading causes of death in the workplace. In addition, figure
1.4 confirmed the construction activity as second contributor to fatality at workplace.
In Malaysia, the practice of safety including at construction sites is regulated by
two main Acts. The Factories and Machinery (FMA) Act, 1967 is widely used by the
Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) to make sure the safety, health
and welfare at workplace. One of the regulations under the act, Building Operation of
Work Engineering and Construction (BOWEC) is created specially to focus on the
activities at construction industries. The act clearly emphasized on the safety and health
at different elements of construction such as machineries, working and load platform,
scaffolding, floor opening, electrical safety and etc. Indeed the FMA only enforceable
to factories and machinery in which it is considered as prescriptive, rigid and too
dependant to government enforcement that make it ineffective in controlling the issues
of occupational safety and health at workplace.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA) has been enacted in
1994 as a reinforcement to the FMA. The objectives of the act are to secure the safety
health and welfare of person at work, to protect person (other than person at work) at a
place of work against hazard, to promote the occupational environment adaptable to the
person’s physiological and psychological needs and to provide the means towards a
legislative system based on regulations and industry codes of practice in combination
with the provisions of the act. The philosophy of the act is the responsibilities to ensure
safety and health at the workplace lies with those who create the risk and with those
who work with the risk. In respect to the above philosophy, construction industries are
expected to comply with the provision of the act such as general duty of employer and
employee, the requirement of safety officer regulations, the requirements of safety and
health committee and responsibilities of reporting of accident and dangerous
occurrences.
7
Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1994 (OSHA) covers almost all economic
activities as specified in the table 1.1 and is created in such a way that the provisions of
the act will prevail any conflicting or inconsistent provisions of other written law
relating to occupational safety and health. OSHA practicing self regulation approach
focused on consultation and cooperation in which the employer and employee are the
party responsible to ensure safety at workplace while the government will act as
consultant.
No. Industries
1 Manufacturing
2 Mining and Quarrying
3 Construction
4 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
5 Utilities
(a) electricity;
(b) gas
(c) water; and
(d) Sanitary Service
6 Transport, Storage and Communication
7 Wholesale and Retail Trades
8 Hotels and Restaurants
9 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services
10 Public Services and Statutory Authorities
Table 1.1: Industries under Occupational Safety and Health Act Jurisdiction
Source: Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514)
One of the economic activities comes under the Department of Occupational
safety and Health (DOSH) jurisdiction is construction industry. Construction industry
8
has been identified by DOSH as among the highest activity contributed to the accident
at workplace. The Master plan for Occupational Safety and Health in construction
industry for 2005 – 2010 highlighted the construction industries as the second highest
industries contributed to the fatality rate. Figure 1.4 shows the number of fatality in
three highest sectors recorded from 1999 to 2003.
1999
20
00
2001
20
02
2003
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries Manufacturing 0
50 100 150 200 250 300
No. of Fatalities
Year
Fatalities by Sector
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries Construction Manufacturing
Figure 1.4: Fatalities in Three Highest Sectors
Source: The Master Plan for Occupational Safety and Health in Construction
Industry for 2005 – 2010
Table 1.2 shows the statistic of fatality at construction site reported to DOSH
from 1999 to 2004. The data shows there is increasing of fatality at construction site
from 1999 to 2001 and uncertainty trend after 2001 in which it’s demonstrate up and
down rate up to 2004.
9
INDUSTRY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 51 52 62 45 40 46 298
Number of Fatality TYPE of ACCIDENT 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 TOTAL
Fall 29 23 26 21 25 20 144 Struck by 5 12 11 7 6 10 51 Struck against 1 2 2 2 7 Caught in/between 2 1 2 1 1 7 Struck by Moving Vehicle
2 1 1 2 3 9
Gas Inhalation 1 10 3 2 2 2 20 Electrical Shock 2 4 1 2 2 11 Buried 8 2 8 5 2 4 29 Burnt 1 4 2 7 Drown 2 2 1 5 Others 2 1 2 1 6
Total 51 52 62 45 40 46 298
Table 1.2: Fatality at Construction Sites in Malaysia
Source: Department of Occupational Safety and Health
Since the accident rate contributed by the construction sector amongst the
highest compared to in other sectors, DOSH has implemented few strategies in order to
reduce the number of accident especially those involved fatality. One of the strategies
is to carry out safety and health inspection or well known as construction safety audit at
construction site at the interval of three monthly. The objective of the audit is to
determine whether the OSH elements are in place, adequate and effective in protecting
the safety and health of the workers and subsequently to prevent incidents.
10
1.2 Problem Statement
The awareness of safety at workplace in Malaysia has emerged since 1967 with
the introduction of the FMA. The Regulation of BOWEC under FMA came into force
on 1986 with the aims to control the safety at construction sites. OSHA enacted in 1994
with the same purpose to strengthen the control of safety health and welfare at
workplace. In 2001, DOSH began to implement occupational safety and health
inspection at construction site (Building Construction Safety Audit) at the interval of
every four month in order to ensure the OSH elements are in place, adequate and
effective in protecting the safety and health of workers subsequently preventing
incidents.
Unfortunately accidents and fatalities rate at construction industries still high.
Malaysia recorded fatality rate of 26 per 100,000 workers in 2003 which is very far
behind compared to developed countries like Japan, France and the USA with the rate
of below 20 per 100,000 workers (MPOSHCI, 2005).
DOSH has taken a lot of effort to reduce the number of people who are killed,
injured or suffering ill health as a result of construction work. All construction sites are
required to register with the department before they can start any construction works in
order to enable DOSH officer monitoring construction activities in regards to safety
health and welfare issues throughout the project cycle.
Safety inspection and operations of safety audit at construction sites are carried
out by DOSH regularly for the purpose of evaluating construction sectors performance
towards occupational safety and health compliances. This operation is carried out
without prior notice to the contractor and the coverage of the operations not only limited
to registered sites but also unregistered sites.
11
Notice of Improvement (NOI) will be served for any work, plant, substance or
process that is likely to be a danger whereas Notice of Prohibition (NOP) will be issued
for any work, plant, substance or process that is likely to cause immediate danger to life
or property for the offences committed under OSHA. These actions are taken to
improve the occupational safety and health in construction site in order to reduce the
risk of accident in workplace.
Although regulations in occupational safety and health in Malaysia are quite
comprehensive and reinforced with strict safety inspection and audit by DOSH at
regular of time, the accidents at construction site is still alarming. There is a need to
determine why the number of accident and fatality still at unacceptable figure. It is very
important to find any loop holes in enforcing the requirements of safety Acts or any
weaknesses in inspecting and auditing construction sites. The level of compliance of
safety audit by contractors will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of safety
audit in controlling the occupational safety and health issues at construction sectors.
1.3 Aim And Objective
The aim of this study is to determine the differences in the level of compliances
of safety audit at construction sites. In achieving this aim, three objectives have been
outlined;
a) To assess the level of safety practiced at various construction projects in
Malaysia.
b) To determine the level of compliance to safety audit between highrise
construction with lowrise constructions.
c) To determine the level of compliance to safety audit between high cost (cost of
projects exceeding RM 20.0 millions) and low cost projects.
12
1.4 Brief Methodology
The first step of the study was identifying research problem which covered the
significance, objective and scope of study. Research problem identified through detail
study of construction’s accident statistics produced by DOSH and SOCSO and Master
Plan of Construction Industries by CIDB. The research area then focused on the safety
audit at construction sites that implemented by DOSH.
This is followed by exploratory research of the literature. Information was
gathered mainly through journals, books, working papers, reports and author’s
experiences working with the Department of Occupational Safety and Health.
Secondary data used for this study was originated from the safety audit reports
carried out by DOSH officers during building construction safety audit in 2004 and
2005. The data were compiled and analyzed by using the Statistical for Social Science
(SPSS) program version 12.0. Figure 1.5 shows methodology flowchart used for this
research.
13
Figure 1.5: Methodology Flowchart
14
1.5 Scope Of Research
This research will analyzed the secondary data from safety inspection report
(safety audit) at construction sites throughout Malaysia reported by trained, experienced
and knowledgeable DOSH officers during Building Construction Safety Operations
which are carried out four times a year. The building construction safety operations
were initiated in 2001. However this research will be used data collected from 2004
and 2005 simply due to incomplete data recorded at early stage of the operations. Data
for 2006 will not be used since there will be another operation planned sometimes in
August or September 2006 and there are uncertainties in data compilation date.
The safety audit is prepared for three categories of project namely highrise
building construction, lowrise building construction and engineering works. This study
only focused on assessing of safety audit on building construction hence the auditing
data for engineering works are excluded.
1.6 Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant different on safety compliance between sites in
2004 and sites in 2005.
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant different on safety compliance between highrise
constructions with lowrise constructions.
Hypothesis 3: There is a significant different on safety compliance between high cost
projects with low cost projects.
15
CHAPTER TWO
ACCIDENT REPORTING
2.1 Introduction
Occupational Safety and Health (Notification of Accident, Dangerous
Occurrence, Occupational Poisoning and Occupational Disease) Regulation 2004 or
well known as NODOOPOD required the employers to notify the nearest DOSH office
by the quickest means available of any accident in connection with work which caused
death or seriously bodily .
Rowlinson S, 2004 stated the accident reporting systems stem from two sources.
The first source is a legal requirement based on the employee’s compensation system
which forces employers to report on all accident. The second source is based on
company need to monitor accident as part of the safety management system to reduce
the occurrence of accidents by analyzing and reporting on accident causation and
highlighting areas where action is needed.
2.2 Theories Of Accident Causation
Through literature review, there are several theories that discuss in detail on
accident causation. Hinze J.W, 1997 explained in detail theories such as the accident
proneness theory, the goalsfreedomalertness theory, the adjustmentstress theory, the
distraction theory and the chainofevents theory. However according to Rowlinson S,
16
2004 of the many types of causal models presented a couple have a significant impact
on the design of accident reporting system. The theories are;
2.2.1 Earliest theories on accident causation was developed by Heinrich in the 1920s
(Heinrich, 1950) who had studied and classified numbers of industrial accident. He
concluded that 88 per cent of industrial accidents were caused by unsafe acts, 10 per
cent were caused by unsafe conditions and only 2 per cent of industrial accidents were
categorized as unavoidable.
Heinrich developed the theory of accident causation or well known as domino
theory which was based on ten axioms. These axioms dealt with areas such as accident
causation, the interface between worker and machine, the relationship between accident
frequency and accident severity, the underlying reasons for unsafe acts, the relationship
between management functions and accident control, organizational responsibility and
authority, the costs of accident and the relationship between efficiency and safety
(Rowlinson S, 2004).
Heinrich listed five factors in the sequence of events that results in an accident
as shown in figure 2.1. The factors in the accident occurrence are summarized in
chronological order;
§ Ancestry and social environment which is the mental and emotional character of the
individual. This factor can contribute to a negative trait and may lead people to
behave in an unsafe manner or can be an inherited trait driven by surrounding or
social environment.
§ Fault of Person. This factor can be traced to a person’s predisposition to unsafe
behaviours or intolerance to follow the norm with respect to adherence to standards
for hazardous conditions.
§ Unsafe act and/or mechanical or physical hazard. Unsafe acts that are committed by
people and mechanical or physical hazards are the direct causes of accidents.
17
§ Accident. Normally accidents that result in injury are caused by falling or being hit
by moving objects.
§ Injury. Typical injuries resulting from accidents include damage to soft tissue,
lacerations and fractures.
Figure 2.1: The Five Factors of Accident Sequence in The Model of Heinrich’s
Domino Theory
Source: Heinrich (1950)
According to the Heinrich’s domino theory, the occurrence of a preventable
accident is the natural culmination of a series of events or circumstances or in a row of
dominoes, that is dependent on another and one follows because of another as shown in
figure 2.2;
Figure 2.2: An Accident is Caused by The Action of Preceding Factors
Source: Heinrich (1950)
18
The fall of the first domino triggers the fall of the entire row. If this series is
interrupted by the elimination of even a single event, the injury cannot possibly occur.
See figure 2.3 and 2.4;
Figure 2.3: The Unsafe Act and Mechanical Hazard Constitute the Central
Factor in the Accident
Source: Heinrich (1950)
Figure 2.4: The Removal of The Central Factor Makes the Action of Preceding
Factor Ineffective
Source: Heinrich (1950)
2.2.2 Peterson’s accident/incident theory was discussed by Heinrich et.al, (1980).
Peterson queried the basis of the domino theories. His view is that many causes may
come together as contributing factors to cause an accident. The theory highlighted new
elements such as ergonomic traps, systems failures and willful decision to err to the
19
overload conditions in human factor theory as a more comprehensive look at human
error cause. Figure 2.5 showing the model of the theory.
Under the theory, management’s responsibility for accident prevention is
delegated to staff. It also stresses the key roles of management in accident prevention
as well as broader concepts of safety and health in the place of work.
Figure 2.5: The Model of Dan Peterson’s Accident/Incident Theory.
Source: Heinrich (1980)
20
2.2.3 Epidemiological Theory. Accidents are viewed as the result of a combination of
forces from three different sources, host, environment and agent. Mausner and Bahn,
1974 have recognized the requirement that more than one factor be present for disease
to develop, by which they have referred as multiple causation or multifactorial
etiology. They further divided these factors into two groups which are host factors
(intrinsic) and factors in the environment (extrinsic). Therefore the epidemiology is the
study of causal relationship between environmental factors and disease.
The same model has been applied to study causal relationships between
environmental factors and accidents or diseases. In the epidemiology theory of accident
causation, the key components are the predisposition characteristics of the workers and
the situational characteristics of the job as shown in figure 2.6;
Figure 2.6: The Model of Epidemiological Theory of Accident Causation
Source: Mausner and Bahn (1974)
21
2.3 Accident Reporting Systems
Rowlinson S, 2004 listed the objective of an accident reporting system as to
monitor accident rates, to identify accident causes, to monitor the effect of site safety
initiatives and to estimate the costs of the accidents. The statistical data and analysis on
occupational accidents are commonly accepted as a very important tool for the further
development of both economic and prevention policies.
Notification and registration of accident are different between countries. Jacinto
C. and Aspinwall E, 2004 reported countries such as Belgium, Denmark, France,
Portugal, Spain and Sweden register all accidents leading to one or more days of
absence from work in addition to the day of the accident itself whereas countries such
as Austria, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy and UK use a criterion of more than 3 days.
In Malaysia, NODOOPOD Regulation under OSHA registers all accidents which
prevent the person from following his normal occupation for more than four calendar
days.
A common feature for the reporting procedure is that all countries have official
notification forms for the reporting of accidents at work. However according to Jacinto
C. and Aspinwall E, 2004, differences do exist. Finland, for instance, uses a different
form to report fatal accidents, while Spain has two types of form, depending on the
gravity of the consequences (i.e., with or without injury). In addition, Spain has, since
1989, developed a third extremely detailed form, for specific accidents involving
machines. DOSH of Malaysia for comparison uses two different forms in reporting
accident. The first one is to report occupational accident and the second one is to report
any poisonous occurrences.
There are significant differences in the type of accident being notified to
authorities. This is mainly due to differences in the legal definition of “accident at
work” between the countries. In Belgium, Austria, Portugal and Spain the accidents
that occur on the way to, or from, work are, from the legal point of view, considered to
22
be accidents at work and are registered on the same database, although classified as a
special category. In other countries, e.g., Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, they
are classified as “commuting accidents” rather than accidents at work. For occupational
accident occurred in Malaysia, there are two parties to be notified, DOSH and SOCSO.
The definition of accident according to DOSH is similar to definition used in UK, Italy
and Germany where accidents that occur on the way to, or back from work are not
accounted for whereas SOCSO’s definition on occupational accident is similar to the
one that practiced by countries such as Belgium, Austria, Portugal and Spain.
2.4 Investigation Practices
Jacinto C. and Aspinwall E, 2004 mentioned official investigations of
occupational accidents can either be carried out by trained labour inspectors or by a
larger team, which can include invited external experts. The current procedures can
vary a lot between countries and even within the same country, depending generally on
the seriousness of the consequence. Austria, Netherlands and UK provide guidelines
for the investigation of occupational accidents. In contrast, Ireland, Portugal and Spain
are examples of countries where a written guidance does not exist at all. Inspectors do
their work based on their own experience and at the discretion of the senior inspectors.
All countries have a permanent body of trained labour inspectors who are
expected to be able to carry out accident investigations, and in several, the inclusion of
external experts on the investigation team is also common practice whenever it is
considered necessary. In Austria, Ireland and the UK, however, the use of external
experts is restricted to a minimum. Investigations carried out by authorities are
intended, in the main, for serious and fatal accidents, with the aim of sorting out legal
liabilities as well as gathering important information for policymaking.
23
Investigation of occupational accident in Malaysia is carried out by trained and
experienced inspectors from DOSH. The inspector are educated and trained with the
guideline produced by the department.
It is a duty of employers to notify any accident which caused death or seriously
bodily injury or any dangerous occurrence as specified in NODOOPOD Regulation that
occurred at construction site to the nearest DOSH office by the quickest means
available followed by submitting form ‘JKKP 6’(Appendix 1).
Regulation 10 of Occupational Safety and Health (Notification of Accident,
Dangerous Occurrence, Occupational Poisoning and Occupational Disease) Regulation
2004 required employers to record and maintain a register of all accidents and
dangerous occurrence using form ‘JKKP 8’ (Appendix 2)
24
CHAPTER THREE
SAFETY AUDIT
3.1 Safety Audit Definition
Safety auditing is a structured and detailed approach to reducing and controlling
the seriousness of accidents before it’s occur. The main purposes of safety audit
includes to evaluate management, the workforce and the physical plant itself for the
novel purpose of accident prevention and containment efforts (Ghani W.I, 1998).
Successful safety auditing can be divided into four major elements;
3.1.1 Management Style, Practices and Expectations;
Ghani W.I, 1998 stressed that management wants help from safety auditors not
harassment or trouble. Therefore the entire process of planning, preparation, execution
and reporting and the analysis of audit findings should be developed, learned and
understood from the perspective of providing help to operating management, enhancing
the success of enterprise and avoiding the possibility of being perceived as ‘trouble’.
Safety auditors must capable to identify weaknesses and deficiencies that need
improvements. Safety auditors should report neutral information and identifying
strengths of the operation, upon which management can capitalize. Safety is indeed an
essential component of success. Safety professionals and operating management can
formulate their approach to safety as a whole and to safety auditing and analysis. It will
25
help to define both planning and examination and help safety auditors who are planning
to conduct audits to understand the management expectations. If safety audit is viewed
as a tool then it will begin to become integrated into the operations. Therefore safety
can be assumed as a proactive management tools that will lead to increased efficiency,
reduced costs and improved quality.
3.1.2 Preparatory Work By Safety Auditors
Planning and preparation is the first phase in the audit cycle. It will build an
auditor’s credibility. Failure to adequately plan an audit reduces the efficiency of the
audit and will necessitate either a longer audit period or a less comprehensive review. It
is essential for auditors to know operational hazards, the tools, equipment, materials and
steps of the process and some of the technology involved which can lead to a
meaningful beginning and later establish a common ground for discussion. Good
organization and preparation are critical in performing a successful audit. Audit
planning responsibilities include the following (Birkmire J.C et al, 2006);
3.1.2.1 Designating a Facility Point of Contact
The point of contact is responsible for coordination of the audit schedule, daily
communication with the auditors and logistical concerns such as auditor workspace.
Audits performed without a point of contact will invariably be beset by communication
issues and schedule breakdowns, sharply reducing the audit’s effectiveness. The point
of contact should have a general understanding of the facility, processes and program
elements. He also should be able to direct the auditors to the proper personnel to
discuss items in detail.
26
3.1.2.2 Providing PreRead Material
The facility should provide preread materials to the audit team ahead of the
schedule audit. This material should include safety program facilities and procedures,
operating procedure, policies, sample process hazard analysis, previous compliance
audit etc. A review of these preread materials will provide the audit team with a basis
background on the facility operations. Reviewing this information ahead of time
facilitates a more focused audit and allows the auditors to ask directed questions. It also
allows them to gain that conversance without much intrusion upon the time and space of
the auditees.
3.1.2.3 Organizing the Audit Team
The number of audit team members is dependent on the size and complexity of
the facility. A two person team is usually sufficient for most small to medium sized
facilities. Safety audit practices by DOSH normally required two to five inspectors
depend to the area coverage. The audit team should assign a Lead Auditor. This person
will have experience, knowledge and training in the performance of audits and the
process safety standards. The Lead Auditor will coordinate responsibilities with the
other team members and coordinate schedule and other details with the facility point of
contact.
3.1.2.4 Providing the Audit Protocol
DOSH has established audit protocols and guidelines. All inspector involved in
safety auditing are bind to follow the instruction of manual of ‘Arahan Kerja (AK) –
Akpk13’ or Work Instruction for Inspection at construction sites. A checklist for
27
auditing has been established and used during auditing process. The checklist provided
can serve as the basis for the audit. Audit checklists are excellent tools for ensuring that
all required components of the process safety program are covered.
3.1.2.5 Audit Schedule
An audit schedule should be prepared ahead of time and distributed to facility
personnel, preferably at least two weeks before the audit. The schedule should not be
inflexible, but used as a guide. A list of positions or functional areas to be interviewed
should be prepared by the audit team and presented to the facility. The primary safety
program coordinator and anyone with responsibility for a particular program element
should be interviewed such as project manager, health safety and environmental
manager, contractor, subcontractor and representative of workers from different
department / contractor / subcontractor. The duration of the audit is dependent on
several factors such as size of the site, size of the audit team and current status of the
process safety program.
3.1.3 Work Portioning
Work need to be evaluated on three aspects;
3.1.3.1 The traditional safety inspection that is assessing the physical appearance and
condition of operation area.
3.1.3.2 The evaluation of management system, policies, requirements and their
implementation in the construction site.
3.1.3.3 Assessment of work practices in the construction site.
28
3.1.4 Reporting of the Finding
This report is very meaningful document so that management can comprehend
and deal with. Preliminary findings are prepared for presentation in the closeout
meeting and these findings are confirmed or modified as necessary in the fact checking
phase. The findings, including areas of compliance and noncompliance as well as
possible recommendations to improve program effectiveness, should be compiled into a
formal document to present to facility management for review and approval.
3.2 Safety Audit Performance
Proper preparation is important in successful audits. The goal of the audit is not
to review every detail of a program, but to evaluate representative samples of the
program’s implementation to establish the effectiveness in complying with the
regulations. Areas found to be potentially deficient can be followed up on to more
clearly resolve the extent and source of compliance problems. Te following steps is
part of a successful audit;
3.2.1 Kickoff meeting
At the beginning of the audit, a kickoff meeting should be held with key
stakeholders. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss audit goals, schedule and
resources. The meeting should include the facility manager, point of contact,
department heads and the audit team. The kickoff meeting should be followed by a
facility tour to orient team to the facility and processes.
29
3.2.2 Interviews
Interviews should be schedule ahead of time to ensure interview availability.
The interview length will vary depending on the elements covered. Interviewed should
be conducted with employees with direct responsibility for one or more of the process
safety program elements. Additional interview should be conducted with personnel key
in executing program requirements.
Operators and maintenance personnel are valuable sources of information during
audits and should not be overlooked. They are involved in the dayto –day operations
and their understanding and execution of process safety requirements are crucial in the
success of any program.
The auditors should hold an open discussion to allow the employee to talk freely
and then ease into specific questions. Conversation should be limited in duration,
especially if the employee is being made available during the break.
3.2.3 Documentation Spot Check
Documentation may be maintained in one central location or may be located in
multiple areas around the facilities. The documents requested should be quickly and
directly retrieved by facility personnel. Auditors will expert this and failure to quickly
locate requested documents is a ‘red flag’ for the audit team. Documents to spot check
include;
3.2.3.1 Hazard Assessment
3.2.3.2 Equipment Files
3.2.3.3 Inspection and Test Results
3.2.3.4 Hot Work Permits
30
3.2.3.5 Training Records
3.2.3.6 Operating Procedures
3.2.3.7 Incident Investigation
3.2.3.8 Safety Meeting Records
3.2.4 Field Spot Check
Equipment files should be spot checked in the field to verify their accuracy.
When performing the field walkthrough, the auditors should also observe the state of
the facility such as housekeeping, unsafe acts of the workers and unsafe conditions of
workplace.
3.2.5 Close Out Meeting
At the end of auditing process, a closeout meeting should be held with key
stakeholders. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the performance of the audit and
preliminary findings. The meeting should include the facility manger, department
heads, point of contact and the audit team. Findings should be communicated
throughout the audit process so that there are no surprises at the closeout.
3.3 Safety Audit For The Construction Industry
Hess K. (1998) stressed that an audit is a methodical approach to evaluating
records, procedures, and practices for accuracy and completeness. Although some
prefer to perform an audit without a checklist, itemizing discrepancies as they go, a
31
simplified checklist approach allows for easy identification of topics which require
corrective actions.
In Malaysia, safety audit implemented to building construction was initiated in
2001 as the outcome from the discussion of Strategic Management Group (SMG), a
thinktank group setup by the DOSH in upgrading and solving the problems arose
within the organization. One of the problems faced by the department was the
increasing in number of industrial accident that caused fatality particularly in
construction industries. Unrealistic figure of fatality in construction industries
compared to other countries triggered concern from few parties such as politician, non
government organization and other interested parties. The figure also increased the
pressure to DOSH as the authority in which is given responsibilities to matters relating
to safety and health at workplace to take immediate remedial measures to control such
scenario not only in construction industries but also in other economic activities.
The operation of safety audit at construction sites was recommended by
the group to be carried out at least four times a year. The operation basically is an
exercise involving trained and knowledgeable inspectors from DOSH’s state offices
carrying safety audit at construction sites. Normal practice is that the inspectors will be
divided to group of minimum 2 and maximum 5 inspectors where they will visit any
construction site within their assigned area. A standard safety audit checklist will be
used by the inspectors as the guidelines during auditing. The Checklist consists of
twenty elements of combination of the requirements from both OSHA and FMA. The
department hopes continuous effort of the operations would increase the awareness
among the contractors in complying with the requirements of occupational safety and
health subsequently reducing the numbers of accidents and facilities in construction
industries. It is the department objective to achieve the fatality rate per thousands
workers to be equal with the achievement enjoyed by countries such as Japan, USA and
UK.
32
3.4 Safety Audit Checklist
The checklist as per appendix 3 consists of ten different parts. Each part needs
to be checked and confirmed by inspector via physical inspection during auditing
process whereas the evidence needs to be proved by the contractor via documentation.
The parts are;
3.4.1 General Information of Appointed Main Contractor. This part contains the
information of the name and address of main contractor, name and location of
the project.
3.4.2 Cost of the Project. There are two type of info required; total cost of the project
and the allocation for safety and health. Construction projects with cost more
than RM 20, 000, 000 are required under the OSHA to engage at least a safety
officer to supervise the safety matters of the project. The category of the project
is divided to high, low or engineering works is based on the highness of the
building and type of work either construction or engineering also put under this
part. Building construction with more than five storeys is categorized as high
category building.
3.4.3 Date of the Project. Two type of date need to be filled by inspector during the
operation; Date of auditing and date of completion the project.
3.4.4 Project Completion Status. Divided to five stage; Substructure, Superstructure,
Finishing, active or abandon.
3.4.5 Number of Hoisting Machines Used in the Project such as tower crane, material
hoist, mobile crane etc.
3.4.6 Number of Workers involved divided to two category; local and foreign
workers. Numbers of workers attending construction safety induction and
number of subcontractor utilized for this project also mentioned in this part.
3.4.7 Name of Competent Persons involved in the project and registered with the
department such as the chairman of safety and health committee, safety and
health officer and crane operators.
33
3.4.8 Elements. This is the most important part for the checklist. The inspector will
be guided by these elements during auditing. It is standard elements that will be
used by any inspector regardless the location, size and category of the project.
3.4.9 Actions by the department after auditing process. Under FMA and OSHA,
inspectors are empowered to issue NOI or NOP to the contractors who are not
complying with any provisions of the act. The worst scenario, inspectors can
file the court action to any contractors who are found repeat the offence or
purposely ignoring the inspector’s direction towards complying with the
requirements of the acts.
3.4.10 Comment from inspector, head of sections and state director on the auditing
outcomes.
3.5 Safety Audit Elements
This checklist includes elements which are perceived to be important from a
safety point of view on the construction sites. The checklist consists of 20 elements and
93 subelements distributed among the different elements in which referred to specific
section either in OSHA or FMA. Cause and effect diagram of safety audit’s elements
and its subelements are shown in figure 3.1. The elements are;
3.5.1 Safety and Health Management
The safety and health management system should contain the main element of
policy, organizing, planning and implementation, evaluation and action for
improvement (ILO,2001) . It becomes the responsibility of employer to make
appropriate arrangements for the establishment of an OSH management system. OSHA
set out general duties for employers and employees in all work activities and aims to
34
improve health and safety management. The main contractor will carry the bulk of the
responsibility on a construction site and, as the site will be ‘multioccupied’, the main
contractor must ensure cooperation and coordination between employees (Perry P,
2003). The subelement of Safety and Health Management is summarized in table 3.1
and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.1.1 Section 15(2) (a), OSHA – the provision and maintenance of plant and system
of work is practicable, safe and without risks to health.
3.5.1.2 Section 15(2) (b), OSHA – to ensure safety and absence of risks to health in
connection with the use or operation, handling, storage and transport of plant
and substances.
3.5.1.3 Section 15(2) (c), OSHA – the provision of information, instruction, training
and supervision to ensure the safety and health at work of his employees.
3.5.1.4 Section 15(2) (d), OSHA – the maintenance of any place of work under the
control of the employer that is safe and without risks to health and
maintenance of the means of access to and egress from it that are safe and
without such risks.
3.5.1.5 Section 15(2) (e), OSHA – the provision and maintenance of a working
environment for his employee that is safe, without risks to health, and
adequate as regards facilities for their welfare at work.
3.5.1.6 Section 16, OSHA – the duty of every employer to formulate and revise a
written statement of safety and health policy.
3.5.1.7 Section 29, OSHA – the duty of employer to engage a safety and health
officer.
3.5.1.8 Section 30, OSHA – the duty of employer to establish a safety and health
committee at place of work.
3.5.1.9 Regulations USECHH Under these regulations it’s become a duty of
employer to identify and register chemicals hazardous to health, to carry out
assessment of risk to health for exposed employee, action to control exposure,
to carry out health and medical surveillance, to appoint occupational health
doctor to do the surveillances and medical removal protection.
35
3.5.1.10 Regulation 25, BOWEC – the duty of the main contractor to appoint a part
time safety supervisor.
3.5.1.11 Regulation 26, BOWEC– the duty of every contractor other than the main
contractor to appoint a part time safety supervisor
SubElements Regulation / Section
Safety Policy OSHA Section 16
Safety and Health Officer OSHA Section 29/30
Safety and Health Committee OSHA Section 29/30
Designated Person OSHA Section 29/30
Crane Operator OSHA Section 29/30
Scaffolding Erector OSHA Section 29/30
Level of Compliance to USECHH Regulation OSHA : USECHH
Regulation
Site Safety Supervisor / Contractor safety
supervisor BOWEC Regulation 25/26
Manual & Safe Operating Procedure, Work
Permit
OSHA Section 15(2)(b)
Subcontractor’s Safety & Health Management OSHA Section 15(2)(d)
Safety and Health Training Program OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
Safety and Health Record Keeping OSHA Section 15(2)(a)
Table 3.1: Sub Elements of Safety and Health Management and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
36
37
3.5.2 Safety and Health Committee (SHC)
There is a Regulation for Safety and Health committee created under OSHA.
The Occupational Safety and Health (Safety and Health Committee) Regulations 1996
was enforced on 1 January 1997. The Regulation focused on the composition of safety
and health committee, functions of the committee, meeting of the committee and
provisions of training and information As per Regulation, the subelements of safety
and health committee are summarized in table 3.2 and emphasized on the requirements
of;
3.5.2.1 Regulation 5, OSHA / SHC – Membership of committee.
3.5.2.2 Regulation 6, OSHA / SHC – Appointment letter of committee members.
3.5.2.3 Regulation, OSHA / SHC – Inspection of place of works by committee
members.
3.5.2.4 Regulation 21(1), OSHA / SHC – Frequency of the meeting by committee
members.
3.5.2.5 Regulation 13(1), OSHA / SHC – Investigation of any accident
3.5.2.6 OSHA / SHC – Cooperation from the company management and action taken
based on report, recommendation and any dangerous occurrences.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Appointment letter SHC Regulation 6
Regular meeting SHC Regulation 21(1)
Inspection of place of work SHC Regulation 12
Membership of committee SHC Regulation 5
Accident Investigation SHC Regulation 13(1)
Cooperation and action by the management General requirements of OSHA
/ SHC
Table 3.2: Sub Elements of Safety and Health Committee and relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
38
3.5.3 Machinery
Hoisting machinery, driven machine, prime mover and transmission machinery
are widely used in construction industries. The use of such machineries required safety
precaution and written safe operating procedure to avoid any unsafe act that can lead to
the accident at workplace. The subelements of machinery are summarized in table 3.3
and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.3.1 Section 19, FMA – the requirement of certificated machinery such as hoisting
machinery and unfired pressure vessel to have certificate of fitness as long as
such machinery remains in use.
3.5.3.2 Regulation 4, FOM – Every dangerous part of every driven machine, prime
mover and transmission machinery shall be securely fenced.
3.5.3.3 Section 15(2)(a) – refer to 2.3.1.1
SubElements Regulation / Section
Certificate of Fitness FMA Section 19
Machine Guarding FOM Regulation 4
Machinery Inspection Program OSHA 15(2)(a)
Safe Operating Procedure OSHA 15(2)(a)
Maintenance OSHA 15(2)(a)
Table 3.3: Sub Elements of Machinery and Relevant Section/Regulation of
the Acts
39
3.5.4 Platform
There are two type of platform being used in construction industries; catch
platform and working platform. The uses of platform during construction phases are
needed to comply with the requirements listed in BOWEC. The subelements of
platform are summarized in table 3.4 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.4.1 Section 15(2)(b), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.2
3.5.4.2 Section 15(2)(c), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.3
3.5.4.3 Regulation 9, BOWEC – Platforms shall be kept free from accumulations of
dirt and debris and from other obstruction that could cause tripping.
3.5.4.4 Regulation 10, BOWEC – Access to the platform in the form of stairways,
ramps and runways shall be provided.
3.5.4.5 Regulation 86, BOWEC – Every working platform from which a person is
liable to fall shall be designed to the specification as per regulation
requirements.
3.5.4.6 Regulation 88, BOWEC – Every side of a working platform shall be provided
with suitable guard rail of adequate strong to prevent the fall of persons,
material and tools.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Calculation and Design Drawing
Endorsed by P. Engineer (P.E)
OSHA 15(2)(b)
Safe Working Load OSHA 15(2)(c)
Guard Rail BOWEC Regulation 88
Maintenance and Cleanliness OSHA 15(2)(a) & BOWEC Regulation 9
Design and Access to Platform OSHA 15(2)(d) & BOWEC Regulation
10, 86
Table 3.4: Sub Elements of Platform and Relevant Section/Regulation of the
Acts
40
3.5.5 Scaffolding
Scaffolds are applicable to the installation and use of scaffolds within
construction. Scaffolds means any temporarily provided structure on or from which
persons perform work or any temporarily provided structure which enables materials to
be taken to any place at which such work is performed (BOWEC, 1986). There are few
types of scaffolds such as single line scaffold, suspended scaffold, swinging scaffold,
trestles scaffold, widow jack scaffold and working platform being used during
construction of projects. There are so many occasions whereby accident occurred due
to scaffolds failure. The BOWEC regulation allocated a dedicated part (Part X) to
regulate the design, construction, installation, operation and maintenance of scaffolds.
Among the safety precautions expected from this element are general condition
of scaffolds (means of access, no deterioration or damage and posted safety rules),
railing and toe boards (guarded where greater than 10 feet), planks and platform
(general conditions and posted design and specification limitations), supported scaffolds
( rigid poles, legs, posts, frames and uprights), suspended scaffolds (support devices,
outrigger beams, winding drum hoists, wire suspension ropes, automatic braking device
and proper use of equipment). The subelements of Scaffolds are summarized in table
3.5 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.5.1 Regulation 72, BOWEC – The construction of scaffold shall be of good
construction, of suitable and sound material and of adequate strength.
3.5.5.2 Regulation 73, BOWEC – Scaffold shall be properly maintained and shall be
kept so fixed, secured or placed in position as to prevent accidental
displacement.
3.5.5.3 Regulation 74, BOWEC – The erection, alteration and dismantling of scaffold
shall be under direct supervision of a designated person.
3.5.5.4 Regulation 75, BOWEC The design of metal tube scaffold exceeding 40
meters in height and other scaffold exceeding 15 meter shall be constructed in
accordance with the design and drawings of a P.E
41
3.5.5.5 Regulation 76, BOWEC – Physical conditions of scaffolds such as standard,
uprights, ledgers and putlogs.
3.5.5.6 Regulation 77, BOWEC – Scaffold shall be securely supported or suspended
to ensure stability.
3.5.5.7 Regulation 80, BOWEC – Building used to support the scaffold shall be sound
material and sufficiently stable and of sufficient strength to afford safe
support.
3.5.5.8 Regulation 86, BOWEC – Working platform shall be closely boarded, planked
and plated.
3.5.5.9 Regulation 87, BOWEC – Board and plank forming part of a working
platform shall be of a thickness capable of affording adequate security.
3.5.5.10 Regulation 78, BOWEC – Working platform shall be provided with a suitable
guard rail of adequate strength.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Calculation and Design Drawing
Endorsed by P. E
BOWEC Regulation 75
Installation of Scaffold BOWEC Regulation 75(1)
Maintenance of Scaffold BOWEC Regulations 73, 74 & 85
Physical Conditions of Scaffold BOWEC Regulations 72, 76, 77, 80, 86,
87 & 88
Table 3.5: Sub Elements of Scaffolding and Relevant Section/Regulation of
the Acts
42
3.5.6 Floor Opening
Every opening used for the removal of debris on every floor which is not closed
to access either be provided with an enclosure from floor to ceiling, barricaded, securely
fenced or securely guarded. The subelements of floor opening are summarized in table
3.6 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.6.1 Section 15(2)(a), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.3
3.5.6.2 Section 15(2)(c), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.5
3.5.6.3 Regulation 8, SHW – Openings shall be securely fenced or securely guarded.
3.5.6.4 Regulation 106, BOWEC – Openings shall be provided with suitable
enclosure.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Installation of suitable enclosure SHW Regulation 8
BOWEC Regulation 106
Warning Sign OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
Maintenance and Inspection OSHA Section 15(2)(a)
Table 3.6: Sub Elements of Floor Opening and Relevant Section/Regulation
of the Acts
3.5.7 Edge of Open Floor
This element of edge of open floor is almost similar to the floor opening
requirements. An area in construction sites is considered to have edge of open floor
when the walls that supposed to enclose that area not yet erected. Safety nets of
sufficient size and strength is the most suitable temporary enclosure to be fitted to cover
43
the area of possible fall. The subelements of edge of open floor are summarized in
table 3.7 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.7.1 Section 15(2)(a) – refer to 2.3.1.1
3.5.7.2 Section 15(2)(c) refer to 2.3.1.3
SubElements Regulation / Section
Installation of suitable enclosure OSHA Section 15(2)(a)
Warning Sign OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
Maintenance and Inspection OSHA Section 15(2)(a)
Table 3.7: Sub Elements of Edge of Open Floor and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
3.5.8 Working at Height
More accidents involving fatalities and permanent injuries are caused by
working at heights than any other construction activity. Table 1.2 shows that majority
of fatality occurred at construction sites in Malaysia from 1999 – 2003 by the reason of
fall from working at height. Roof works, working from platform, ceiling work and
cleaning work is the example working at height. The subelements of working at height
are summarized in table 3.8 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.8.1 Section 15(2)(b), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.2
3.5.8.2 Section 15(2)(c), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.3
3.5.8.3 Regulation 12, SHW – the requirements for those work at a place which he
will liable to fall a distance of more than ten feet, means shall be provided and
practicable to ensure his safety.
3.5.8.4 Regulation 51, BOWEC – the requirements to use safety belt and life line
when working at height.
44
SubElements Regulation / Section
Safe Operating Procedure OSHA Section 15(2)(d)
Training and Supervision OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
Means of Protection SHW Regulation 12
BOWEC Regulation 51
Table 3.8: Sub Elements of Working at Height and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
3.5.9 Access and Egress
Under Section 15(2) (d) of OSHA, an employer is responsible for ensuring that
employees and others have safe means of access and egress to their place of work. Safe
means of access mean access without risk of injury or harm. There should be no risk of
being run over by vehicles, no risk of tripping or falling over materials or falling from
any height. A place of work can be anywhere where an individual is expected to
perform their duties and can include buildings, rooms, open spaces, working platforms,
roofs, scaffolding, etc. Employer must ensure that all persons on the construction site
are provided with safe access to, and egress from, all places where they may be required
to work or pass. This includes the provision of emergency access and egress routes that
must be kept free of obstructions The subelements of Access and Egress are
summarized in table 3.9 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.9.1 Section 15(2)(d), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.4
3.5.9.2 Regulation 10(1), BOWEC – Means of access to working levels above or
below ground in the form of stairways, ramp or runway shall be provided.
3.5.9.3 Regulation 10(2), BOWEC All buildings under construction of more than
two storeys high shall be provided with well defined access at the ground floor
45
with adequate overhead protective cover for persons entering or leaving the
building.
3.5.9.4 Regulation 20, BOWEC – Illumination sufficient for maintaining safe working
conditions shall be provided whenever persons are required to work or pass.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Access and Egress to Site OSHA Section 15(2)(d)
Access to Workplace OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
BOWEC Regulation 10(2), 20
Access to Working Levels BOWEC Regulation 10(1), 20
Inspection and Supervision
Table 3.9: Sub Elements of Access and Egress and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
3.5.10 Public Safety
One of the duties of employers that become the objective of the OSHA is to
protect other person that not being his employees at a place of work against hazards.
Protection of the public includes construction perimeter securely fence and guard,
excavation and opening securely covered or fenced off, all plant immobilized to prevent
unauthorized used when work has stop, bricks and material properly stacked, flammable
and dangerous substances locked in secure storage places, etc. The subelements of
Public Safety are summarized in table 3.10 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.10.1 Section 15(2)(b) – Refer to 2.3.1.2
3.5.10.2 Section 17(1), OSHA – It shall be the duty of employers to ensure that he and
other persons, not being his employees are not exposed to risk to their safety
and health.
46
3.5.10.3 Regulation 18, BOWEC – The working area shall be barricade and suitable
warning signs and warning lights shall be set up to direct traffic away from it
and when necessary the traffic shall be specially controlled by designated
persons.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Warning Sign BOWEC Regulation 18
Site Perimeter Securely guard and fence. OSHA Section 17(1)
Traffic Control BOWEC Regulation 10(1), 20
Material Handling Procedure OSHA Section 15(2)(b)
Table 3.10: Sub Elements Public Safety and Relevant Section/Regulation of
the Acts
3.5.11 Electrical Safety
Electrical safety is applicable to electrical equipment, supplies and installations
which are to provide electric power to a job site both temporary and permanent. Among
the safety precautions for electrical safety need to be practiced by the employers are to
make sure no bare wires are visible, the cable covering is not damaged, the cable cover
is free from cuts and abrasions, the plug is in good condition, the plug pins are not bent
or missing, the equipment itself is in good condition, there are no overheating marks,
burn or scorch marks around the plug, socket and equipment, all temporary electrical
installations shall be provided with earth leakage circuit breakers and comply with the
requirements of appropriate authority and the most important is all electrical
installations shall be tested and approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector or his
representative. The employers must ensure that electrical installations, material,
equipment and apparatus are designed, constructed, installed, protected, used
47
maintained and tested to eliminate the risk of electrical shock, burns, fire or explosion.
The subelements of Electrical Safety are summarized in table 3.11 and emphasized on
the requirements of;
3.5.11.1 Regulation 16, BOWEC – Safety precaution for electrical hazards.
3.5.11.2 Regulation 11, FMS – All electrical equipments shall be installed and
maintained as to prevent fire hazard and danger from contact with moving parts and live
parts. It shall conform to the requirements prescribed in any written law relating to
electrical equipments and installation and shall have been approved by the relevant
authority.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Warning Sign BOWEC Regulation 16
FMS Regulation 11
Electrical Wiring Procedure BOWEC Regulation 16(2)
Tested and Approved by Authority BOWEC Regulation 16(12)
Table 3.11: Sub Elements of Electrical Safety and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
3.5.12 Workers Quarters
It is normal for construction sites whereby the workers especially foreigners
provided with dwelling as the facilities for them and entire family during the
construction of the project. As safety precaution, there are few requirements need to be
adhered by the employers for such facilities. The subelements of workers dwelling are
summarized in table 3.12 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.12.1 Regulation 3, SHW – Construction sites are not allowed to be used as a family
dwelling.
48
3.5.12.2 Regulation 22, SHW – Provision to provide and maintain fire extinguisher in
every factory.
3.5.12.3 Section 15(2)(e), OSHA – Refer to 2.3.1.5
SubElements Regulation / Section
Separation From Working Area SHW Regulation 3
Housekeeping OSHA Section 15(2)(e)
Fire Extinguisher SHW Regulation 22
Table 3.12: Sub Elements of Workers Quarters and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
3.5.13 Cleanliness
Another aspect focused in the checklist for safety audit is cleanliness of
construction sites from construction wastes. It becomes employer’s responsibility to
ensure all working areas and walkways level free from obstructions such as stored
material and waste. Proper arrangements for collecting and disposing of waste material
are another subject that should be raised at construction sites. The subelements of
cleanliness are summarized in table 3.13 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.13.1 Regulation 22, BOWEC – The disposal of debris should not be allowed to
accumulate so as to constitute a hazard and need to disposed by a method
which will not endanger persons
3.5.13.2 Regulation 23, SHW – The provisions relating to cleanliness at sites.
3.5.13.3 Regulation 48, BOWEC – A warning notices shall be placed in a conspicuous
position at the discharge end of every chute to warn the employees and public.
49
3.5.13.4 Regulation 123, BOWEC – The requirements to install an enclosed chute if
waste materials are dropped more than 6 meters to any point lying outside the
exterior walls of the building.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Cleanliness BOWEC Regulation 121
SHW Regulation 23
Waste Disposal BOWEC Regulation 22 & 123
Warning Sign (for Chute) BOWEC Regulation 48
Table 3.13: Sub Elements of Cleanliness and Relevant Section/Regulation
of the Acts
3.5.14 Storage Facilities
Storage facilities applicable to construction activities where chemicals and
hazardous substances are stored in small quantities, drum and aboveground storage
tanks. Materials and equipments used at construction sites need to be stored in a safe
place with a safe manner. OSHA clearly spells out the responsibility of employer to
provide a working environment that is safe, without risk to health. BOWEC stipulated
the safe way to store and stack the building material and equipment. Among safety
procedures expected from construction sites are container properly labeled, availability
of Material Safety Data Sheet for each chemical and adequacy of safety equipment such
as showers, PPE and fire extinguishers. The subelements of storage facilities are
summarized in table 3.14 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.14.1 Section 15(2)(b), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.2
3.5.14.2 Regulation 21, BOWEC – The provisions to store construction materials and
equipments
50
3.5.14.3 Regulation 122, BOWEC – Guidelines of material storage.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Storage of material and equipment OSHA Section 15(2)(b)
BOWEC Regulation 21
Procedure to store materials BOWEC Regulation 21 & 122
Procedure to store hazardous
materials
BOWEC Regulation 21
Table 3.14: Sub Elements of Storage Facilities and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
3.5.15 Health and Welfare
FMA allocated a dedicated Regulation towards safety, health and welfare of the
workers. The Regulation cited as Factories and Machinery (Safety, Health and
Welfare) Regulation (SHW) and was enacted in February 1970. Among the provisions
of the Regulation is first aid, sanitary convenience, washing facilities, drinking water,
lighting, confined space, ventilation, fire fighting appliances, , access to place of work,
etc. The subelements of site health and welfare facilities are summarized in table 3.15
and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.15.1 Section 15(2)(c), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.3
3.5.15.2 Section 15(2)(e), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.5
3.5.15.3 Section 28(2), OSHA – The provisions to carry out medical surveillance in
case of cases of illness have occurred due to the conditions of work,
introduction of new substances for use in any process and occupied persons
below the age of sixteen years.
51
3.5.15.4 Regulation 23, SHW – The provision of cleanliness such as collecting the
rubbish, cleaning of workplace, drains for removing waste water and
controlling of infests.
3.5.15.5 Regulation 33, SHW – The provision of dressing room for workers to change
and store clothes.
3.5.15.6 Regulation 34, SHW – The provision to provide and maintain drinking water
which is shall be clean and safe.
3.5.15.7 Regulation 37, SHW – The provision to have sufficient, suitable and
convenience sanitary to be used by workers of different gender.
3.5.15.8 Regulation 38, SHW – The provision to provide first aid box in which person
at all times receive prompt first aid treatment and such further medical
attention as may be necessary.
SubElements Regulation / Section
First aid box and treatment SHW Regulation 38
Facilities such as rest room, sanitary
and canteen.
SHW Regulation 33, 34 & 37
Infests control SHW Regulation 23
Medical checkup OSHA Section 28(2)
Health surveillance OSHA Section 15(2)(e)
Warning Sign OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
Inspection and maintenance OSHA Section 15(2)(e)
Table 3.15: Sub Elements of Health and Welfare and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
52
3.5.16 Formwork
Design of formwork structures are among critical element in construction.
There are few cases recorded where accident occurred due to failure of formwork.
BOWEC outlined few requirements imposed to the contractors in order to make sure
the safety of formwork structures. The subelements of formwork are summarized in
table 3.16 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.16.1 Regulation 29, BOWEC – The function of designated person in supervising
the erection of formwork to ensure that the formwork is safe.
3.5.16.2 Regulation 30(4), BOWEC – The formwork structure shall be designated by a
P.E where the floor to ceiling height exceeds 9.14 meters or where the formwork deck
is supported by shores constructed in two or more tiers or where the dead, live and
impact loads on the formwork exceed 732.2 kgf per square meter. Drawings and
specifications shall be kept on the site for use by an inspector and a copy of the said
documents shall be submitted to the Chief Inspector before work commences.
3.5.16.3 Regulation 30(5), BOWEC – The P. E who’s endorsed the documents shall be
responsible for the supervision of the construction and the stability of such structure.
3.5.16.4 Regulation 31(1), BOWEC – Stripping of formwork shall not commence until
the concrete is fully set in accordance with the P. E’s specification and approved by him
prior to such stripping.
53
SubElements Regulation / Section
Design documents endorsed by a P. E BOWEC Regulation 30(4)
The erection of formwork accordance
to design and specification.
Inspection and Supervision by a P. E BOWEC Regulation 30(5)
Inspection and Supervision by a
designated person
BOWEC Regulation 29
Stripping of formwork approved by a
P. E
BOWEC Regulation 31(1)
Table 3.16: Sub Elements of Formwork and Relevant Section/Regulation of
the Acts
3.5.17 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
PPE is applicable to occupational exposures where protective equipment is
required and supplied by an employer. OSHA clearly stated that the duty to issue PPE
rests with the employer or self employed person. It becomes the duty of employers to
determine the site rules for a construction site and in the rules it can stipulate the
minimum requirements for PPE. It is the responsibilities of employers to ensure the
appropriateness and adequacy of equipment. The usual PPE used at construction sites
comprises of hard hats, safety boots, hivisibility vests and jackets, gloves and eye
protectors that must be suited with the nature of the job being carried out by the
workers. The employers must ensure that his site rules are being followed and he has to
monitor and review safety on site. The subelements of personal protective equipment
are summarized in table 3.17 and emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.17.1 Section 15(2)(a), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.1
3.5.17.2 Section 15(2)(c), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.3
54
3.5.17.3 Regulation 13, BOWEC – Suitable eye protection equipment shall be provided
by the employer for the workers engaged in welding, cutting, chipping or
grinding operations.
3.5.17.4 Regulation 14, BOWEC – Respirators shall be provided and the employee
shall use a respirator suitable for the type of operation for which it is to be
used.
3.5.17.5 Regulation 15, BOWEC – The provisions of employers to provide protective
apparel such as safety helmet where there is danger of being struck by falling
object, waterproof boots for workers work in water, wet concrete or other wet
footing, waterproof coat and hat for workers work in rain or similar wet
conditions and appropriate equipments for workers involved in use of
corrosive or toxic substances.
3.5.17.6 Regulation 24, BOWEC – All persons who are performing any work or
services in a worksite shall wear safety helmets.
SubElements Regulation / Section
PPE is provided and recorded BOWEC Regulation 13, 14, 15 & 24
Training on PPE OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
Wearing of PPE OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
Inspection and maintenance of PPE OSHA Section 15(2)(a)
Warning sign OSHA Section 15(2)(c)
Table 3.17: Sub Elements of Personal Protective Equipment and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
55
3.5.18 Excavation and Shoring
Excavation work is an essential part of the construction process. Building
foundations and the installation of drainage, sewage and other services required
trenches to be excavated. Excavation activities include earthwork, trench, well, shaft,
tunnel and underground working shall take all practical steps to prevent danger to any
person, to ensure that new or existing excavation does not collapse accidentally. The
specified hazards associated with excavations include collapse of the sides, contact with
underground services, workers being struck by plant and materials falling on workers in
the excavation. Suitable and sufficient steps shall be taken to prevent, as far as
reasonably practicable, any person from being buried or trapped by a fall or
dislodgement of material. Sufficient equipment for the supporting of an excavation
shall be provided to ensure that the safety requirements are complied. The subelements
of excavation and shoring are summarized in table 3.18 and emphasized on the
requirements of;
3.5.18.1 Section 15(2)(b), OSHA – refer to 2.3.1.2
3.5.18.2 Regulation 112, BOWEC – Stability of structures adjoining areas to be
excavated shall be supported where necessary by sheet piling, shoring or other
means according to the design of a P. E
3.5.18.3 Regulation 113, BOWEC – The provisions of general requirements for
excavation activities.
3.5.18.4 Regulation 116, BOWEC – The provisions for trench excavation such as
shoring application to protect employees against falling or sliding material.
3.5.18.5 Regulation 118, BOWEC – Positioning of machinery in the vicinity of the
excavation site.
56
SubElements Regulation / Section
Warning Sign, Guard and Barricade
of excavation area
BOWEC Regulation 113(7)
Checking and supervising by a
designated person
BOWEC Regulation 113(2)
Job hazard analysis and safe
operating procedure
OSHA Section 15(2)(b)
Shoring design by a P.E BOWEC Regulation 112 & 116
Positioning of machinery BOWEC Regulation 118
Table 3.18: Sub Elements of Excavation and Shoring and Relevant
Section/Regulation of the Acts
3.5.19 Piling
Piling is the activity normally carried out after the excavation work. The
BOWEC regulation elaborates the piling activity in terms of stability of adjacent
structures, inspection, protection and qualification of operator, handling of piles, ladders
and working platform. The subelements of piling are summarized in table 3.19 and
emphasized on the requirements of;
3.5.19.1 Section 15(2)(a) – refer to 2.3.1.1
3.5.19.2 Regulation 124, BOWEC –The stability of structures adjoining areas to be
piled shall be in accordance with the design of a P.E to prevent injury to any
person.
3.5.19.3 Regulations 125, BOWEC – All piledriving equipment shall be inspected
daily by a designated person and every defect shall be immediately corrected
before piledriving commence.
57
3.5.19.4 Regulation 130, BOWEC – A ladder extending from the bottom of the leads to
the overhead sheaves shall be permanently attached to the structure supporting
the leads.
3.5.19.5 Regulation 131, BOWEC – The provision of working platforms of adequate
strength shall be provided on levels of the leads at which it is necessary for
men to work.
3.5.19.6 Regulation 134, BOWEC – The ground shall be inspected by a designated
person before placing or advancing a pile driver to ensure the stability of the
footing.
SubElements Regulation / Section
Shoring for stability of adjacent
structures
BOWEC Regulation 124
Physical Conditions of piling
machine
BOWEC Regulation 130, 131, 134
Inspection and maintenance by a
designated person
BOWEC Regulation 125
Inspection and maintenance method
for other type of piling
OSHA Section 15(2)(a)
Table 3.19: Sub Elements of Piling and Relevant Section/Regulation of the
Acts
3.5.20 Demolition
Demolition work is defined as any work incidental to or connected with the total
or partial dismantling of a building or a structure and includes the removing or
dismantling of machineries or other equipments. All demolition work must be carried
58
out so as to minimize, so far as is reasonably practicable, the risk to employees and
others who may be affected by the work. Employers are expected to implement risk
assessments and prepared method statements for the demolition works. Principal
hazards of demolition work includes falling debris, premature collapse of the structure
being demolished, the existence of services such as electricity, gas and water amd
presence of asbestos and other hazardous substances. As other activities such as
formwork and shoring, scaffolds, excavation work, piling and installation of safety nets,
this activity required employers of a work place to appoint competent persons as a
designated person to assist in supervision of work as stipulated under the Regulation.
The subelements of Demolition are summarized in table 3.20 and emphasized on the
requirements of;
3.5.20.1 Section 15(2)(a) – refer to 2.3.1.1
3.5.20.2 Section 17, OSHA – refer to 2.3.10.2
3.5.20.3 Section 18, OSHA – Duties of an occupier of a place of work to persons other
than his employees.
3.5.20.4 Regulation 99, BOWEC – Danger sign shall be posted around the property on
every demolition job.
3.5.20.5 Regulation 100, BOWEC – The provisions of preparation of demolition
works.
3.5.20.6 Regulation 103, BOWEC – Inspection by a designated person as the
demolition work progress to detect any hazard to employees resulting from
weakened floors or walls or loosened material.
3.5.20.7 Regulation 105, BOWEC – There shall be provided at all times safe access to
and egress from every building in the course of demolition.
59
SubElements Regulation / Section
Danger sign BOWEC Regulation 99
Approval from relevant authority BOWEC Regulation 100
Inspection and supervision by a
designated person
BOWEC Regulation 103
Safe operating procedure OSHA Section 15(2)(a)
Written procedure on controlling and
protection system of adjacent
building
OSHA Section 17 & 18
Public Safety BOWEC Regulation 105
OSHA Section 17 & 18
Table 3.20: Sub Elements of Demolition and Relevant Section/Regulation of
the Acts
3.6 Standard Activities for Construction Safety Audit
DOSH officers those involved in construction safety audit at sites will be used
standard documents called standard activities in evaluating the performance of sites.
The standard documents consist of five columns – A(Excellent), B(Very Good),
C(Good), D(Fair) and E(Poor) which is representing the criteria of scores for each
element. This standard document will be the main reference for DOSH officers in
assigning the scores for each element based on the actual safety condition of the sites.
Appendix 4 shows the standard activities for the element of machinery.
60
CHAPTER FOUR
LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1 Legal Requirements On Safety Audit
From the literature, countries which are depend totally on government,
countries practicing self regulatory or country whereby the safety issues become the
responsibility of the top management of the organization in controlling safety at work
emphasized on the requirements to carry out safety audit as one of the proactive
measure in controlling the numbers of accident and fatality rate at construction sites.
4.1.1 Laitinen H. and Ruohomki I. (1996) reported, among safety requirements
imposed to construction sites in Finland are an internal safety inspection has to be
carried out weekly at every construction site. An inspection report has to be written,
describing the shortcomings and responsible persons for corrective actions. Both the
representative of the company and the workers has to sign the inspection report.
4.1.2 Zhong M. et al (2003) revealed, Ministry of Machine and Electronics instructed
that safety evaluation should be carried out within the mechanical industry enterprises,
which led to the Machinery Plant Safety Evaluation Standard (MPSES), the first safety
evaluation standard issued in 1987. There are few different versions of safety
evaluation introduced namely safety preevaluation (SPE) used to analyze and predict
risk of hazards existing in a construction project based on the feasibility study report of
the construction project, safety evaluation on project completion (SEPC) used to detect,
survey and find potential risk factors of the construction project in production after
completion, overall safety evaluation of current status (OSECS) used to evaluate safety
61
assessment on production facilities, equipment, buildings, storage and shipment and
special safety evaluation (SSE) is carried out to specially analyze and assess certain
equipment or working places with professional technical experience, tests, analyses,
experiments and other measures.
4.1.3 Teo E.A.L et al (2004) quoted, in Singapore the construction site safety
legislation is governed by the requirements stipulated under the Factories Act (Chapter
104) and the Factories (Building Operations and Work of Engineering Construction)
Regulation requires all occupiers of construction worksites, which have contract values
of S$10 million or more to implement a Safety Management System(SMS) specified
under the 1999 Code of Practice for Safety Management System for Construction
Worksites (CP 79). CP 79 consists of 14 main safety managements such as safety
policy, safety training, incident investigation, safety inspection etc.
4.1.4 Jannadi M.O and Assaf A. (1998) commented that the Saudi Arabian Oil
Company used standard checklist to evaluate of safety practices at their construction
sites. This checklist consists of 18 divisions and 96 items which are perceived to be
important from a safety point of view such as housekeeping, excavation, scaffold,
formwork, health and welfare and etc.
4.1.5 In Malaysia, the construction industries safety legislation is governed by the
requirements stipulated under two different Acts; Occupational Safety and Health Acts
and the Factories and Machinery (Building Operations and Works of Engineering
Construction)(Safety) Regulations. OSHA is self regulation Act whereby the
responsibilities of securing safety and health at workplace lies with those who create the
risk and with those who work with the risk therefore duty of care under common law
now becomes a legal duty of the employer to provide the necessary care to his
employees. Factories and Machinery (Building Operations and Works of Engineering
Construction)(Safety) Regulations is a safety Regulation enacted in 1986 is totally
government dependant. Since 2001, DOSH enforcing the safety audit to be carry out at
construction sites at least four times a year. The safety audit used a standard checklist
62
prepared from the combination of the requirements of OSHA and FMA consists of 20
elements and 96 subelements.
4.2 Factors Affecting Safety Performance
Safety audit is used to reduced and control the seriousness of accident. It
normally focused on the factors that proven influencing the safety. There are so many
factors influencing safety on construction sites. Sawacha, E. et al. (1999) listed out the
impacts of the historical, economical such as safety bonus payment, psychological,
technical, procedural, organizational and environmental issues as the factors link to the
level of site safety. Teo, E.A.L. et. al. (2004) summarized the factors affecting site
safety as policy such as safety legislation and policies, process factors of carrying out
works by construction personnel, personnel factors refer to the human aspect of the
construction activities and factor of introducing incentives to improve site safety.
Jannadi O.S and BuKhamsin M.S (2002) in their researched managed to
identify 20 main factors and 85 subfactors that significant influencing the safety
performance of industrial contractors. The factors include site planning and
housekeeping, welfare facilities, barricades, storage of material, disaster planning,
chemical handling, disposal of waste materials, PPE, fire prevention, transportation,
power tools, mechanical equipment, radiation, welding and cutting, lifting equipment,
electrical equipment, concrete formwork, excavation, scaffolding and management
involvement. Haslam, R.A et al. (2005) concluded the key factors in the accident at
construction sites as problems arising from workers, workplace issues, shortcomings
with equipment, problems with suitability and condition of materials, and deficiencies
with risk management.
63
Elements used in safety audit for construction sites is different between
countries or companies but basically are derived and the combination of the above
factors (Teo, E.A.L et al., 2004; Jannadi, M.O. and Assaf, A., 1998; Grote, G. and
Künzler, C., 2004; Ng, S.T. et al., 2005; Fang, D.P. et al., 2004; Sawacha, E. et al.,
1998). The selection of the elements to be included in the safety audit in the form of
checklist are dependent to two main issues; Project level linked with historical,
economical, psychological, technical, procedural, organizational and work
environmental issues whereas Organizational level linked with the issues such as
improvements in organizational structure, organizational importance of safety, safety
responsibility and accountability, communication, management behaviour, employee
behaviour and involvement and employee responses.
The organization’s commitment to safety has a significant influence on
cultivating a positive OHS culture with the most influential factor driving safety
performance in the construction industry being the organizational safety policy (Ng, S.T
et al., 2005).
4.3 Safety Performance Measurements
Measurement is a key step in any management process and forms the basis of
continuous improvement. If measurement is not carried out correctly, the effectiveness
of the health and safety management system is undermined and there is no reliable
information to show how well the health and safety risk control are in place, comply
with the law as a minimum, and operate effectively.
There is no single reliable measure of health and safety performance.
Traditionally the safety performance is measured through injury statistic. The
significant problems with the use of statistic injury as a safety performance
measurement are there may be underreporting, it is often a matter of chance whether a
64
particular incident causes an injury, an injury is the particular consequence of an
incident and often does not reflect the potential severity and injury statistic demonstrate
outcomes not cause.
Measurement is an accepted part of the ‘plandocheckact’ management
process. The main purpose of measuring health and safety performance is to provide
information on the progress and current status of the strategies, processes and activities
employed to control health and safety risks. Effective measurement not only provides
information on what the levels are but also why they are at this level, so that corrective
action can be taken. Figure 3.0 shows where measuring performance fits within the
overall health and safety management system.
Figure 4.1: The Health and Safety Management System
According to Smith, G.R. and Arnold T.M. (1996), safety performance
measurement methods fall into either passive or active categories. Passive measures
rely on manipulation of historical data and no opportunity exists to change the potential
65
adverse result of an accident. Hughes P. and Ferrett E. (2005) called passive measures
as reactive monitoring, after things go wrong, involves looking at historical events to
learn from mistakes and see what can be put right to prevent a recurrence. Passive
measures rely on postaccident or illness and injury data or geographically distributed
data such as incidents rate, estimated cost incurred and public liability costs. The most
popular measure for passive methods called the Experience Modification Rating (EMR)
is used for calculating premiums for workers compensation. The technique considers
incident rates and uses frequency and the severity of the incidents. The rating is
expressed relative to 200,000 hours of work and is considered by many to be the most
objective form of safety measurement available.
Active measures deal with the data from the current safety situation and will
permit project adjustment. Hughes P. and Ferrett E. (2005) called active measures as
proactive monitoring, by taking the initiative before things go wrong, involves routine
inspections and checks to make sure those standards and policies are being implemented
and that controls are working. Inspection is one of the primary tools of a safety
specialist. Its primary intent is to detect hazards and the results become a direct
measure of safety performance. Checklists are used in primary inspections but they do
not promote investigation to find the causes of the incident. A safety audit places
emphasis on equipment and control. The primary application of most audit techniques
is to identify and correct physical conditions that have a potential for problems.
Ahmad, K. and Gibb, A. (2004) through their research identified at least thirty
different measurement techniques to measure the safety performance all of which are
inhouse system. This techniques then group into six types of assessment;
§ Reactive Performance Measurements
§ Periodic Safety Audits
§ Behavioral Approach
§ Culture/climate evaluation
§ Benchmarking
66
§ Proactive Performance Measurement
This research will study the effectiveness of periodic safety audits. Periodic
safety audit is a proactive monitoring, taking the initiative before things go wrong,
involves routine inspections and checks to make sure that standards and policies are
being implemented. Ahmad, K. and Gibb, A. (2004) managed to identify at least nine
existing safety measurement strategies under the periodic safety audits as listed in table
4.1;
PERIODIC SAFETY AUDITS
Year Authors Name of assessment
1983 Magyar Performance Rating
1985 Bond International Safety Rating System (ISRS)
1991 Waldram Elements Loss Prevention Management
1991 Cote and Rochet TOTAL
1996 Byrne Three Levels of Audits
1996 Hurst and Donald Process Safety Management (PRIMA)
1996 EPSC REALM
1996 EPSC Operating System
1999 Hastam Complete Health and Safety Evaluation (CHASE)
Table 4.1: Existing Safety Performance Assessment
Performance rating provides an objective means for evaluation of the elements
such as safe work practice, housekeeping standards, storage practice, machinery
equipments and injury experiences which are essential to injury. ISRS was an audit
system that measure 20 elements including management involvement with site visits,
comprehensive job analysis procedures, safety training at all levels, structured
inspections and followsups.
67
TOTAL used a specific methodology to assess the operating and safety
conditions of hydrocarbon process installations which are required the assessment of
plant conditions, site organization and personnel behaviour. Three level of audit system
comprising; Level 1; the corporate audit; Level 2; the filed unit safety case audit and
Level 3; the location audit. PRIMA measures eight key audit areas and for each area
comparisons are made with the strength of the control and monitoring loop found
during the audit.
REALM delivers a means of auditing, a tool to help managers set health, safety
and environment (HSE) plans, targets and a mechanism to facilitate sharing and
comparing between business units. CHASE is a unique management tool designed for
both monitoring by line managers and auditing by safety professionals.
4.4 Previous Research On Safety Performance
There are few research has been carried out to study the safety performance
through safety audit techniques;
4.4.1 Laitenen, H. and Ruohomaki, I. (1996) used the observation method in their
research to study the performance of internal weekly safety inspection that is
compulsory to building construction sites in Finland. The aim of this study is to
determine whether the weekly inspection routine could be replaced with a more
effective weekly audit system. Under this method, the observers have to walk through
the entire site and takes sample of at least 100 observations which is group to six main
elements. Each item is scored as ‘correct’ if it meets the safety requirements, otherwise
the items is scored as ‘not correct’. The safety index is calculated as a percentage of the
‘correct’ items related to all the observed items. Thus the result will vary from 0% to
100%. Two different sites were used for this study. The result shows the elements of
68
protection against falling, machine safety, scaffolding and use of PPE improved to
nearly 100% which should prevent accident.
4.4.2 Jannadi, M.O and Assaf, S. (1998) used a standard checklist consists of 18
elements and 96 subelements to assess safety practices at 14 selected projects in Saudi
Arabia and divided to two categories; large construction for the projects above SR 50
millions and small construction for projects less than SR 5 million. The aim of this
study is to determine whether safety levels differ according to the size of the project.
Each subelement was evaluated as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ depending on its existing in the job
site. The elements score was calculated using a predetermine equation. Each project
was scored by obtaining the average (using Likert scale) of the applicable element
scores within that project. The result shows that the safety level in large projects is high
whereas for the small projects, the elements of fire prevention, health and welfare and
safety administration had low safety levels below 60% of safety scores.
4.4.3 Teo, E.A.L and Ling, F.Y.Y (2006) proposed a method to develop and test the
tools that auditors may use to assess the effectiveness of a construction’s firm safety
management system. Safety management system based on Code of Practice 79 consists
of 14 main safety management elements being implemented by construction industry in
Singapore since 10 years ago but the improvement in safety standard is not significant.
The study consists of 15 steps; surveys were conducted and safety expert were
consulted. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Factor Analysis were used to
assist in identifying the most crucial factors and attributes affecting safety. The factor
analysis produced four principal components, labeled as Policy Factor, Process Factor,
Personnel Factor and Incentive Factor (3P + 1) with each factor comprised several
attributes.
69
CHAPTER FIVE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 Introduction
There are various steps that can be adopted to fulfill the objectives of this study.
The research methodology for this research includes discussion on method of data
collection, the approach used, research consideration such as data collection and data
analysis.
5.2 Research Process
The research process involves data gathering and analysis of data. Data
for this study is secondary data gathered from the site safety audit carried out by
inspectors from the DOSH throughout Malaysia for the years of 2004 and 2005. After
that data have been analyze using Statistical Package for Science Social 11.0 (SPSS).
5.3 Determining Research Objectives
The objectives of this research are primarily to determine the safety level
practiced at different construction such as construction sites that cost more than RM20
millions compared to the construction sites that worth less than RM20 millions and
70
construction sites that fall under the high construction compared to construction sites
that come under the category of low construction. In determining the research
objectives, a review process is undertaken to determine the methodology in terms of its
feasibility, achievable data collection and its analysis to achieve results.
5.4 Steps In Methodology
Figure 5.1: Summary of Research Methodology
71
5.4.1 Conceptualization
Conceptualization is aimed to understanding the importance and basics of the
work to be carried out. In this stage, the objectives of the project will be set and the
problem will be stated. After that, the literature review will be undertaken.
5.4.2 Literature Review
The main aim in carrying out the literature reviews is to gather information on
the research topic. The source are from seminar conference, articles, journals paper,
paperwork, thesis, websites and also reference books as stated in the bibliography at the
end of the project report.
5.4.3 Data Collection
Data for this research will be collected from the Department of Occupational
Safety and Health in Putrajaya. All the data from the construction safety audit
operations carried out at state level throughout Malaysia will be sent to DOSH
Putrajaya as the focal point for the operation. The safety audits covered all types of
building construction using standard checklist consists of 20 elements and 94 sub
elements. For the research purposes, data of construction safety audit for the year 2004
& 2005 will be analyzed.
There are 2038 data of construction’s safety audit for the year of 2004 and 2005
as shown in figure 4.2. The breakdown of the data and its percentage according to the
states is shown in table 4.1. Year of 2004 contributes 999 data which is representing
72
49% whereas 1039 data comes from the year of 2005 which is 51% of the total data
available.
999 1039
Figure 5.2: Number of Safety Audit for the year of 2004 and 2005
Source: Department of Occupational Safety and Health
73
Year State Code 2004 2005
Total
Johor 130 177 307 13.0% 17.0% 15.1%
Kedah & Perlis 44 42 86
4.4% 4.0% 4.2% Kelantan 80 66 146
8.0% 6.4% 7.2% Melaka 25 44 69
2.5% 4.2% 3.4% Negeri Sembilan 44 31 75
4.4% 3.0% 3.7% Pahang 85 88 173
8.5% 8.5% 8.5% Pulau Pinang 153 136 289
15.3% 13.1% 14.2% Perak 54 65 119
5.4% 6.3% 5.8% Selangor 92 62 154
9.2% 6.0% 7.6% Terengganu 50 53 103
5.0% 5.1% 5.1% Sabah 47 53 100
4.7% 5.1% 4.9% Sarawak 24 31 55
2.4% 3.0% 2.7% Wilayah Persekutuan 171 191 362
17.1% 18.4% 17.8% Total 999 1039 2038
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 5.1: Number of Safety Audit According to States.
Source: Department of Occupational Safety and Health
Out of 2038 safety audit data available, 921 visited sites categorized as
highrise constructions which is representing 45.2% of total data whereas 1117 sites are
categorized as lowrise constructions which is representing 54.8% of total data. Table
74
4.2 shows the breakdown of the data based on category of the projects and its
percentage according to the states.
High Low
Project Category
Pies show counts
Figure 5.3: Number of Safety Audit Based on Category of Projects
Source: Department of Occupational Safety and Health
75
Year State Code Project Category
2004 2005
Total
High 64 73 137 Low 66 104 170 High 16 16 32 Low 28 26 54 High 22 17 39 Low 58 49 107 High 12 14 26 Low 13 30 43 High 8 6 14 Low 36 25 61 High 35 21 56 Low 50 67 117 High 77 63 140 Low 76 73 149 High 20 21 41 Low 34 44 78 High 42 33 75 Low 50 29 79 High 15 6 21 Low 35 47 82 High 13 27 40 Low 34 26 60 High 17 18 35 Low 7 13 20 High 123 142 265
Johor
Kedah & Perlis
Kelantan
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Pulau Pinang
Perak
Selangor
Terengganu
Sabah
Sarawak
Wilayah Persekutuan Low
48 49 97
Total High 464 457 921 Low 535 582 1117
Table 5.2: Number of Safety Audit Based on Category of the Projects
Source: Department of Occupational Safety and Health
In term of cost of projects, 1153 of the projects worth less than RM 20
millions which is 56.6% of total data whereas the rest of the data that is 885 or 43.4% of
total data is the projects that worth more than RM 20 millions as shown in figure 4.3.
Table 4.3 shows number of safety audit carried out on both high cost construction in
76
which by definition, the projects that worth more than RM 20 millions and low cost
construction for the projects that worth less than RM 20 millions.
Figure 5.4: Number of Safety Audit Based on the Value of the Projects (in RM
Million)
Source: Department of Occupational Safety and Health
77
Year State Code Cost of Project in Million
2004 2005
Total
Johor <20 69 120 189 >20 61 57 118
Kedah & Perlis <20 26 22 48 >20 18 20 38
Kelantan <20 72 55 127 >20 8 11 19
Melaka <20 17 31 48 >20 8 13 21
Negeri Sembilan <20 35 29 64 >20 9 2 11
Pahang <20 54 72 126 >20 31 16 47
Pulau Pinang <20 99 84 183 >20 54 52 106
Perak <20 28 44 72 >20 26 21 47
Selangor <20 50 26 76 >20 42 36 78
Terengganu <20 36 42 78 >20 14 11 25
Sabah <20 19 21 40 >20 28 32 60
Sarawak <20 12 15 27 >20 12 16 28
Wilayah Persekutuan
<20 40 35 75
>20 131 156 287 Total <20 557 596 1153
>20 442 443 885
Table 5.3: Number of Safety Audit Based on the Cost of the Project
Source: Department of Occupational Safety and Health
78
5.4.4 Data Analysis
There are two types of evaluation for subelements used in this analysis.
Type 1 of subelement is evaluated as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ depending on its existence in the job
site. Each ‘yes’ is given a score of 100 and each ‘no’ is given a score of 0. Type 2 of
sub element is assessed based on the following scale;
90% 100% as Excellent – A
75% 89% as Very Good B
50% 74% as Good C
35% 49% as Fair D
0 34& as Poor E
Each element’s score will be the average of that element’s applicable sub
elements in the job site and is calculated by the following equation;
∑ [Score of applicable SubElement] i Element, i =
[Number of applicable subelement] i
Where i = A,B,C…..T (20 elements)
Whereas for total score for construction site n is calculated by the following
equation;
∑ [Score of applicable Element] i Site i =
[Number of applicable element] i
Where i = 1,2,3…..2038
79
Sites that fall under the Score of Excellent, Very Good and Good is considered
satisfy the Department of Occupational Safety and Health.
Total score for each construction site will be analyzing further using the
Statistical for Social Science (SPSS) program version 12.0. The flow of the analysis as
per figure 5.5;
Table 5.5: The Flowchart of Data Analysis
80
CHAPTER SIX
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
1.3 INTRODUCTION
Data were processed using SPSS 12.0 for windows. The analysis of the data
were summarized and reported based on the cost of project and category of project.
Firstly audited data will be analyzed to determine the satisfaction level of each element.
Secondly after determination of satisfaction level of each element, a correlation between
variables in each category will be computed using spearmen rho technique. Finally
safety level will be measured to ensure the effectiveness of safety audit that
implemented by the DOSH to construction industries.
1.3 Analysis of Each Element
The scale of the analysis is divided to five different categories; Excellent, Very
Good, Good, Fair and Poor. The Scale of Excellent, Very Good and Good were
considered as ‘SATISFY’ to the requirements of the department whereas the rest were
considered as ‘NOT SATISFY’ to the requirements of the department. The elements
satisfy level score then calculated as the sum of the percentage of these three categories.
81
1.3.1 Element A – Safety and Health Management
2026 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 99.4% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Table 6.1 summarized the outcome of
the analysis for this element.
The total of 570 sites or 28.1% of total data were excellent with 25.7%
contributed in 2004 and increased to 30.5 % in 2005 in which showing the positive
increment of about 4.8 %. There was positive increment of 3.5 % in very good scale.
There were decreased of 3.5%, 3.6% and 1.0% in good scale, fair scale and poor scale
respectively. The result proved that the effectiveness of safety audit carried out by the
DOSH as the scale of excellent and very good was increase in 2005 compared to in
2004 and at the same time the scale of others scale decreased in 2005 compared to
2004. The safety and health management’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were
87.7% and 92.5% respectively.
Safety and Health Management Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
256 421 196 97 25 995 25.7% 42.3% 19.7% 9.7% 2.5% 100.0% 314 472 167 63 15 1031 30.5% 45.8% 16.2% 6.1% 1.5% 100.0% 570 893 363 160 40 2026
2004
2005
Total 28.1% 44.1% 17.9% 7.9% 2.0% 100.0%
Table 6.1: Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health Management
Based on the Year of Project
1.3.1.1 Category of Project
Table 6.2 show the analysis of the element of safety and health management
based on the category of project. The total of 1106 or 54.6% of sites were lowrise
constructions whereas 920 sites or 45.4% were highrise constructions.
82
326 sites or 35.4% of highrise construction were excellent compared to 244
sites or 22.1% of lowrise constructions. The same scenario also showed under the very
good scale in which the highrise construction scored more compared to lowrise
constructions. The rest of the scale showed that the highrise construction scored less
than the lowrise constructions in which the highrise construction manage to prove of
their better performance in safety and health management’s element compared to low
rise constructions.
Safety and Health Management Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
244 475 236 115 36 1106 22.1% 42.9% 21.3% 10.4% 3.3% 100.0% 326 418 127 45 4 920 35.4% 45.4% 13.8% 4.9% .4% 100.0% 570 893 363 160 40 2026
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 28.1% 44.1% 17.9% 7.9% 2.0% 100.0%
Table 6.2 : Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health Management
Based on the Category of Project
The safety and health management’s satisfy level scored for lowrise
constructions and highrise constructions were 86.3% and 94.6% respectively.
1.3.1.2 Cost of Project
Table 6.3 show the analysis of the element of safety and health management
based on the cost of project. The total of 1141 or 56.3% of sites were low cost projects
and 885 or 43.7% of sites were high cost projects.
83
Safety and Health Management Cost of Project in Millions
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
233 482 266 123 37 1141 <20
20.4% 42.2% 23.3% 10.8% 3.2% 100.0%
337 411 97 37 3 885 >20
38.1% 46.4% 11.0% 4.2% .3% 100.0%
Total 570 893 363 160 40 2026
28.1% 44.1% 17.9% 7.9% 2.0% 100.0%
Table 6.3 : Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health Management Based
on the Cost of Project
38.1% of high cost projects were excellent compared to only 20.4% for the low
cost projects. Under the scale of very good, high cost projects scored 46.4%, higher
score compared to low cost projects in which score was 42.2%. The rest of scale
showed low cost projects scored much higher than high cost projects. Since the high
cost projects required under the Act to engage a qualified safety officer, the results
proved the importance of safety officers at site to control matters pertaining to safety
and health. It was very clear, sites engaging qualified safety officer having more
excellent performance under the element of safety and health management.
The safety and health management’s satisfy level scored for sites cost 20
millions and more and sites low cost projects were 85.9% and 95.5% respectively.
1.3.2 Element B – Safety and Health Committee (SHC)
1694 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 83.1% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Table 6.4 summarized the outcome of
the analysis for this element. The results revealed that the awareness among
84
construction sites on the requirement to set up and activated the SHC at workplace still
very low in 2004. In 2004 only 71.9% or 619 out of 861 sites managed to score to
satisfy the DOSH. Another 28.1% or 242 sites performed below par for this element of
audit. However in 2005 the percentage of the sites that satisfy the DOSH increased to
82.4% or 687 out of 833 sites being audited. The percentage of the sites that performed
below par also decreased to 17.6% or 146 sites.
Safety and Health Committee Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
132 251 236 122 120 861 15.3% 29.2% 27.4% 14.2% 13.9% 100.0% 161 291 235 82 64 833 19.3% 34.9% 28.2% 9.8% 7.7% 100.0% 293 542 471 204 184 1694
2004
2005
Total 17.3% 32.0% 27.8% 12.0% 10.9% 100.0%
Table 6.4 : Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health Committee Based
on the Year of Project
The safety and health committee’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were
71.9% and 82.4% respectively.
1.3.2.1 Category of Project
19.4% of highrise constructions were excellent on the SHC element compared
to only 15.2% from lowrise constructions. Another 37% from highrise construction
were very good and still better than lowrise constructions which scored 27.1% for the
same scale. The rest of the scale proved that the lowrise constructions scored higher in
which can be interpreted as they were weaker in term of compliances to DOSH
requirements on SHC element.
85
Safety and Health Committee Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
129 230 251 118 122 850 15.2% 27.1% 29.5% 13.9% 14.4% 100.0% 164 312 220 86 62 844 19.4% 37.0% 26.1% 10.2% 7.3% 100.0% 293 542 471 204 184 1694
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 17.3% 32.0% 27.8% 12.0% 10.9% 100.0%
Table 6.5 : Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health Committee Based
on the Category of Project
The safety and health committee’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions
and highrise constructions were 71.8% and 82.5% respectively.
1.3.2.2 Cost of Project
The performance of high cost projects on the element of SHC proved much
better compared to low cost projects as shown in table 6.6. For high cost projects,
22.3% were excellent, 37.5% were very good, 27.9% were good and the rest, 12.3%
need further improvement compared to 12.3%, 26.5%, 27.7% and 33.5% respectively
for low cost projects.
Safety and Health Committee Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
104 224 234 139 145 846
12.3% 26.5% 27.7% 16.4% 17.1% 100.0%
189 318 237 65 39 848
22.3% 37.5% 27.9% 7.7% 4.6% 100.0%
293 542 471 204 184 1694
<20
>20
Total 17.3% 32.0% 27.8% 12.0% 10.9% 100.0%
Table 6.6 : Analysis on the Element of Safety and Health Committee Based
on the Cost of Project
86
The safety and health committee’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and
high cost projects were 66.5% and 87.7% respectively.
1.3.3 Element C – Machinery
1575 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 77.3% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Table 6.7 summarized the outcome of
the analysis for this element. Overall 161 sites that represented 10.2 % of applicable
sites to this element came under excellent score with 8.8% from the year of 2004 and
increased to 11.6% in 2005. Another 659 sites or 41.8% classified as very good with the
score in 2004 and 2005 almost the same in which contributed to 41.9% and 41.8%
respectively. 99 sites or 12.8% considered as not satisfy the DOSH in compliance to this
element in 2004 and decreased to 72 sites or 9% in 2005. This result proved the
effectiveness of DOSH audit system particularly on this element.
Machinery Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
68 324 282 74 25 773 8.8% 41.9% 36.5% 9.6% 3.2% 100.0% 93 335 302 60 12 802
11.6% 41.8% 37.7% 7.5% 1.5% 100.0% 161 659 584 134 37 1575
2004
2005
Total 10.2% 41.8% 37.1% 8.5% 2.3% 100.0%
Table 6.7 : Analysis on the Element of Machinery Based on the Year of
Project
The machinery’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 87.2% and 91%
respectively.
87
1.3.3.1 Category of Project
As expected the highrise constructions was more compliance to the element of
machinery requirements. This was proved by higher score in the category of excellent
and very good and at the same time lower score in category of good, fair and poor
compared to lowrise constructions.
Machinery Project Category
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
60 282 308 95 26 771 7.8% 36.6% 39.9% 12.3% 3.4% 100.0% 101 377 276 39 11 804 12.6% 46.9% 34.3% 4.9% 1.4% 100.0% 161 659 584 134 37 1575
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 10.2% 41.8% 37.1% 8.5% 2.3% 100.0%
Table 6.8 : Analysis on the Element of Machinery Based on the Category of
Project
The machinery’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions were 84.3% and 93.8% respectively.
1.3.3.2 Cost of Project
As in the category of project, the cost of project also showed the high cost
projects was more excellent compared to the low cost projects. As comparison, in poor
scale only 4 sites came under the high cost projects compared to 33 sites from the low
cost projects.
88
Machinery Cost of Project
in Million Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
56 270 328 88 33 775
7.2% 34.8% 42.3% 11.4% 4.3% 100.0%
105 389 256 46 4 800
13.1% 48.6% 32.0% 5.8% .5% 100.0%
<20
>20
Total 161 659 584 134 37 1575
10.2% 41.8% 37.1% 8.5% 2.3% 100.0%
Table 6.9 : Analysis on the Element of Machinery Based on the Cost of
Project
The machinery’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost projects
were 84.3% and 93.7% respectively.
1.3.4 Element D – Platform
757 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 37.1% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. 366 sites were from the year of 2004
which was 48.3% of the data and 391 sites or 51.7% come from 2005. 4.1% of the sites
in 2004 were excellent which is better than performance score in 2005 that only
contributed to 3.6%. However under the following scales, very good and good, the sites
in 2005 performed better than in 2004. Overall, the sites performance in 2005 to satisfy
the DOSH requirements found slightly better than in 2004.
89
Platform Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
15 91 163 60 37 366 4.1% 24.9% 44.5% 16.4% 10.1% 100.0% 14 120 181 50 26 391 3.6% 30.7% 46.3% 12.8% 6.6% 100.0%
2004
2005
Total 29 211 344 110 63 757
3.8% 27.9% 45.4% 14.5% 8.3% 100.0%
Table 6.10 : Analysis on the Element of Platform Based on the Year of Project
The platform’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 73.5% and 80.6%
respectively.
1.3.4.1 Category of Project
Highrise constructions performed better than lowrise constructions in term of
compliance to the platform requirements. 4.5% of the sites in highrise constructions
were excellent compared to 2.6% in lowrise constructions. The bigger margin was
shown in very good scale in which highrise constructions scored 33.5% compared to
only 17.7% in lowrise constructions.
Platform Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
7 48 134 48 34 271 2.6% 17.7% 49.4% 17.7% 12.5% 100.0% 22 163 210 62 29 486 4.5% 33.5% 43.2% 12.8% 6.0% 100.0%
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 29 211 344 110 63 757
3.8% 27.9% 45.4% 14.5% 8.3% 100.0%
Table 6.11 : Analysis on the Element of Platform Based on the Category of
Project
The platform’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions were 69.7% and 81.2% respectively.
90
1.3.4.2 Cost of Project
Low cost projects managed to score 2.1% for excellent scale less than what was
score by the high cost projects. Under the scale of very good, high cost projects also
proven score higher percentage compared to the low cost projects. 29.2% of low cost
projects fall under the scale of fair and poor compared to 18.0% from high cost projects.
The sites from both categories that fall under these scale required further improvements.
This was to confirm the important roles of safety officers in increasing the awareness
and compliances of Occupational Safety and Health Acts and Regulations.
Platform Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
7 63 163 54 42 329
2.1% 19.1% 49.5% 16.4% 12.8% 100.0%
22 148 181 56 21 428
5.1% 34.6% 42.3% 13.1% 4.9% 100.0%
29 211 344 110 63 757
<20
>20
Total 3.8% 27.9% 45.4% 14.5% 8.3% 100.0%
Table 6.12 : Analysis on the Element of Platform Based on the Cost of Project
The platform’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost projects
were 70.7% and 82.0% respectively.
1.3.5 Element E – Scaffolding
961 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 47.2% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Table 6.13 shown that 5.7% of the sites
audited in 2004 were excellent and this figure was maintained in 2005 with slightly
increased to 5.9%. However 30.1% of the sites in 2005 were very good and 37.7% were
91
good compared to 22.8% and 37.2% respectively in 2004. That means the element of
scaffolding still have the opportunities to be upgraded to a better level of compliance.
Scaffolding Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
27 108 176 106 56 473 5.7% 22.8% 37.2% 22.4% 11.8% 100.0% 29 147 184 84 44 488 5.9% 30.1% 37.7% 17.2% 9.0% 100.0%
2004
2005
Total 56 255 360 190 100 961
5.8% 26.5% 37.5% 19.8% 10.4% 100.0%
Table 6.13 : Analysis on the Element of Scaffolding Based on the Year of
Project
The Scaffolding’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 65.7% and 73.7%
respectively.
1.3.5.1 Category of Project
Highrise constructions proven superior in excellent and very good scale
showing they were far better in compliance to the requirements of scaffolding. In fair
and poor scale, lowrise constructions still having higher percentage showing they were
too far behind compared to highrise constructions.
Scaffolding Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
12 79 165 105 59 420 2.9% 18.8% 39.3% 25.0% 14.0% 100.0% 44 176 195 85 41 541 8.1% 32.5% 36.0% 15.7% 7.6% 100.0% 56 255 360 190 100 961
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 5.8% 26.5% 37.5% 19.8% 10.4% 100.0%
Table 6.14 : Analysis on the Element of Scaffolding Based on the Category of
Project
The Scaffolding’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions were 61% and 68.6% respectively.
92
1.3.5.2 Cost of Project
High cost projects were better than low cost projects in excellent and very good
scale. Low cost projects having higher percentage in good, fair and poor scales showing
that a lot of efforts need to be taken to improve them in order to comply with the Acts
and Regulations requirements on this particular element.
Scaffolding Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
17 86 174 98 68 443
3.8% 19.4% 39.3% 22.1% 15.3% 100.0%
39 169 186 92 32 518
7.5% 32.6% 35.9% 17.8% 6.2% 100.0%
56 255 360 190 100 961
<20
>20
Total
5.8% 26.5% 37.5% 19.8% 10.4% 100.0%
Table 6.15 : Analysis on the Element of Scaffolding Based on the Cost of
Project
The Scaffolding’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 62.5% and 76.0% respectively.
1.3.6 Element F – Floor Opening
1285 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 63.1% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Out of 1285 sites as shown in table
6.16, only 1.8% was excellent and another 20.1% were very good showing that this
element was among the difficult task for sites to comply. Performance in 2004 and 2005
only showed minor differences which means audited carried out by DOSH not really
gave significant impact to the improvement.
93
Floor Opening Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
9 137 287 132 39 604 1.5% 22.7% 47.5% 21.9% 6.5% 100.0% 14 121 373 130 43 681 2.1% 17.8% 54.8% 19.1% 6.3% 100.0% 23 258 660 262 82 1285
2004
2005
Total 1.8% 20.1% 51.4% 20.4% 6.4% 100.0%
Table 6.16 : Analysis on the Element of Floor Opening Based on the Year of
Project
The Floor Opening’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 71.7% and
74.7% respectively.
1.3.6.1 Category of Project
Comparison between lowrise constructions and highrise constructions also
showed there was no significant different in performance as shown in table 6.17. The
awareness of the contractor between this two groups almost the same showing they
were facing the same problem in complying with the DOSH requirements.
Floor Opening Project Category
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
11 108 317 128 48 612 1.8% 17.6% 51.8% 20.9% 7.8% 100.0% 12 150 343 134 34 673 1.8% 22.3% 51.0% 19.9% 5.1% 100.0% 23 258 660 262 82 1285
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 1.8% 20.1% 51.4% 20.4% 6.4% 100.0%
Table 6.17 : Analysis on the Element of Floor Opening Based on the Category
of Project
The Floor Opening’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions were 71.2% and 75.1% respectively.
94
1.3.6.2 Cost of Project
Table 6.18 showed the same trend between the high cost projects with low cost
projects. The margin between these two groups was less than 5% in each scale. The
existence of safety officers in high cost projects proven failed to help this group to
increase their performance to a level that looked significant different with the other
group.
Floor Opening Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
8 115 341 142 52 658
1.2% 17.5% 51.8% 21.6% 7.9% 100.0%
15 143 319 120 30 627
2.4% 22.8% 50.9% 19.1% 4.8% 100.0%
23 258 660 262 82 1285
<20
>20
Total
1.8% 20.1% 51.4% 20.4% 6.4% 100.0%
Table 6.18 : Analysis on the Element of Floor Opening Based on the Cost of
Project
The Floor Opening’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 70.5% and 76.1% respectively.
1.3.7 Element G – Edge of Open Floor
1270 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 62.3% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Table 6.19 showed that this element
facing the same problem with the element of floor opening. There was no significant
different of performance between sites in 2004 and 2005. Worst scenario was that only
1.0% of sites managed to score excellent scale. The contractors might have very low
awareness on the importance to have proper safety precautions for this element or it
95
could be involved big investment for the contractor to protect the safety on this element
in which they were not willing to.
Edge of Open Floor Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
5 99 270 171 61 606 .8% 16.3% 44.6% 28.2% 10.1% 100.0% 8 119 302 162 73 664
1.2% 17.9% 45.5% 24.4% 11.0% 100.0% 13 218 572 333 134 1270
2004
2005
Total 1.0% 17.2% 45.0% 26.2% 10.6% 100.0%
Table 6.19 : Analysis on the Element of Edge of Open Floor Based on the Year
of Project
The Edge of Open Floor’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 61.7%
and 64.6% respectively.
1.3.7.1 Category of Project
Table 6.20 mentioned that the different between lowrise constructions and
highrise constructions towards this element was very minimum. Average performance
for both categories was in good scale. It seems both categories having problem to
upgrade them to be in excellent or very good scale.
Edge of Open Floor Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
5 81 281 165 69 601 .8% 13.5% 46.8% 27.5% 11.5% 100.0% 8 137 291 168 65 669
1.2% 20.5% 43.5% 25.1% 9.7% 100.0% 13 218 572 333 134 1270
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 1.0% 17.2% 45.0% 26.2% 10.6% 100.0%
Table 6.20 : Analysis on the Element of Edge of Open Floor Based on the
Category of Project
The Edge of Open Floor’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and
highrise constructions were 61.1% and 65.2% respectively.
96
1.3.7.2 Cost of Project
The performance of high cost projects was better than low cost projects. This
was due to the existence of safety officers in controlling the safety at sites. Table 6.21
showed that the score in excellent and very good scale having bigger margin between
this two group. The satisfy score for low cost projects only 50.3% indicated they were
really failed in complying with this element.
Edge of Open Floor Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
2 85 301 176 79 643
.3% 13.2% 46.8% 27.4% 12.3% 100.0%
11 133 271 157 55 627
1.8% 21.2% 43.2% 25.0% 8.8% 100.0%
13 218 572 333 134 1270
<20
>20
Total
1.0% 17.2% 45.0% 26.2% 10.6% 100.0%
Table 6.21 : Analysis on the Element of Edge of Open Floor Based on the Cost
of Project
The Edge of Open Floor’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high
cost projects were 50.3% and 66.2% respectively.
1.3.8 Element H – Working at Height
1356 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 66.5% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Table 6.22 showed the performance in
2005 was better than in 2004 in the scale of excellent, very good and good with the
percentage of 1.4%, 18.2% and 49.2% respectively. In contrast the performance in 2004
was higher in the last two scale, fair and poor with the percentage of 24.6% and 13.2%
97
exceeding the figure for 2005 indicating the level of compliance to DOSH requirements
in working at height’s element been improved continuously.
Working at Height Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
6 96 303 160 86 651 .9% 14.7% 46.5% 24.6% 13.2% 100.0% 10 128 347 163 57 705 1.4% 18.2% 49.2% 23.1% 8.1% 100.0% 16 224 650 323 143 1356
2004
2005
Total 1.2% 16.5% 47.9% 23.8% 10.5% 100.0%
Table 6.22 : Analysis on the Element of Working at Height Based on the Year
of Project
The Working at Height’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 62.1% and
68.8% respectively.
1.3.8.1 Category of Project
Highrise constructions were better than lowrise constructions as shown in table
6.23. Only 7.1% of the sites in highrise constructions were poor compared to 14.2%
from lowrise constructions. This scenario perhaps due to the nature of the work
whereas in the highrise constructions they were more experienced and well versed with
the safety procedure for working at height.
The Working at Height’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and
highrise constructions were 58.3% and 72.6% respectively.
98
Table 6.23 : Analysis on the Element of Working at Height Based on the
Category of Project
1.3.8.2 Cost of Project
There were significant different between the high cost projects with the low cost
projects. The former obviously more successful in the first three scales compared to the
later in complying with the requirements for working at height. Table 6.24 clearly
showed the different achievement between two categories. Only 6% of the high cost
projects were in poor scale and the figure for the low cost projects for the same scale
almost double indicating the project without competent safety officer still can’t fully
adopted safe working procedure for this element.
Working at Height Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
3 89 304 188 103 687
.4% 13.0% 44.3% 27.4% 15.0% 100.0%
13 135 346 135 40 669
1.9% 20.2% 51.7% 20.2% 6.0% 100.0%
16 224 650 323 143 1356
<20
>20
Total 1.2% 16.5% 47.9% 23.8% 10.5% 100.0%
Table 6.24 : Analysis on the Element of Working at Height Based on the Cost
of Project
Working at Height Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
5 76 301 181 93 656 .8% 11.6% 45.9% 27.6% 14.2% 100.0% 11 148 349 142 50 700 1.6% 21.1% 49.9% 20.3% 7.1% 100.0% 16 224 650 323 143 1356
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 1.2% 16.5% 47.9% 23.8% 10.5% 100.0%
99
The Working at Height’s satisfy level scored for the low cost projects and the
high cost projects were 57.7% and 73.8% respectively.
1.3.9 Element I – Access and Egress
1914 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 93.9% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Overall conclusion can be made from
the table 6.25; there was no significant increment in performance between 2004 and
2005. All scales for the access and egress showed the different 2004 and 2005 were less
than 5%. However both year managed to score more than 80% of satisfy level set by the
DOSH .
Access and Egress Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
32 345 442 97 22 938 3.4% 36.8% 47.1% 10.3% 2.3% 100.0% 42 356 474 79 25 976 4.3% 36.5% 48.6% 8.1% 2.6% 100.0% 74 701 916 176 47 1914
2004
2005
Total
3.9% 36.6% 47.9% 9.2% 2.5% 100.0%
Table 6.25 : Analysis on the Element of Access and Egress Based on the Year
of Project
The Access and Egress’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 87.3% and
89.4% respectively.
1.3.9.1 Category of Project
Table 6.26 indicated there was no significant different in performance between
lowrise constructions with highrise constructions for this element. The good indicator
here was that the score for both category exceeding 85% in which was in line with the
DOSH expectation.
100
Table 6.26 : Analysis on the Element of Access and Egress Based on the
Category of Project
The Access and Egress’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and
highrise constructions were 88.3% and 88.6% respectively.
1.3.9.2 Cost of Project
The high cost projects scored slightly better than the low cost projects in
excellent and very good scale as shown in table 6.27. Lower percentage in the fair and
poor scale also obtained by the high cost projects in which confirmed that they were in
better performance in complying with the element’s requirements.
Access and Egress Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
34 339 554 118 28 1073
3.2% 31.6% 51.6% 11.0% 2.6% 100.0%
40 362 362 58 19 841
4.8% 43.0% 43.0% 6.9% 2.3% 100.0%
74 701 916 176 47 1914
<20
>20
Total 3.9% 36.6% 47.9% 9.2% 2.5% 100.0%
Table 6.27 : Analysis on the Element of Access and Egress Based on the Cost
of Project
Access and Egress Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
42 338 530 95 27 1032 4.1% 32.8% 51.4% 9.2% 2.6% 100.0% 32 363 386 81 20 882 3.6% 41.2% 43.8% 9.2% 2.3% 100.0% 74 701 916 176 47 1914
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 3.9% 36.6% 47.9% 9.2% 2.5% 100.0%
101
The Access and Egress’s satisfy level scored for the low cost projects and the
high cost projects were 86.4% and 90.8% respectively.
1.3.10 Element J – Public Safety
1973 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 96.8% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Even though overall scored in which
satisfy the DOSH was slightly better in 2005 but sites in 2004 managed to be higher in
excellent score. 7.6% of the sites in 2004 were excellent compared to only 5.6% in
2005. Table 6.28 also showed the poor scale was higher in 2005 indicating the sites
failed to significantly improve the compliances of this element to reflect to the audited
carried out by the DOSH.
Public Safety Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
74 322 450 101 21 968 7.6% 33.3% 46.5% 10.4% 2.2% 100.0% 56 399 441 86 23 1005 5.6% 39.7% 43.9% 8.6% 2.3% 100.0% 130 721 891 187 44 1973
2004
2005
Total 6.6% 36.5% 45.2% 9.5% 2.2% 100.0%
Table 6.28 : Analysis on the Element of Public Safety Based on the Year of
Project
The Public Safety’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 87.4% and
89.2% respectively.
1.3.10.1 Category of Project
Table 6.29 showed 1742 or 88.3% sites were a position of satisfy the DOSH.
Out of 1742 sites, 130 were excellent with 59 sites was lowrise constructions and 71
sites were highrise constructions. 1072 sites were from lowrise constructions in which
79.3% were in the position of very good and good scale. On the other hand, 901 sites
102
were from highrise constructions with 84.5% of it were having very good and good
scale. This means highrise constructions more concerned on public safety.
Public Safety Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
59 354 496 129 34 1072 5.5% 33.0% 46.3% 12.0% 3.2% 100.0% 71 367 395 58 10 901 7.9% 40.7% 43.8% 6.4% 1.1% 100.0%
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 130 721 891 187 44 1973
6.6% 36.5% 45.2% 9.5% 2.2% 100.0%
Table 6.29 : Analysis on the Element of Public Safety Based on the Category
of Project
The Public Safety’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions were 84.8% and 92.4% respectively.
1.3.10.2 Cost of Project
The good indicator in table 6.30 was only 44 sites having very poor awareness
towards public safety with only 7 sites came from the high cost projects and another 37
from the low cost projects. Overall performance was that high cost projects were having
awareness towards public safety better with the score of 93.7% moving toward
perfection in applying the safety to the public.
The Public Safety’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 84.0% and 93.7% respectively.
103
Public Safety Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
56 338 534 140 37 1105
5.1% 30.6% 48.3% 12.7% 3.3% 100.0%
74 383 357 47 7 868
8.5% 44.1% 41.1% 5.4% .8% 100.0%
130 721 891 187 44 1973
<20
>20
Total 6.6% 36.5% 45.2% 9.5% 2.2% 100.0%
Table 6.30 : Analysis on the Element of Public Safety Based on the Cost of
Project
1.3.11 Element K – Electrical Safety
1582 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 77.6% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. The Electrical Safety’s satisfy level
scored for 2004 and 2005 were 82.2% and 80.6% respectively. The scored in 2004
definitely better than in 2005. This means the audited imposed to the construction sites
failed to improve this element towards complying with the Acts and Regulations
pertaining to electrical safety. The scored in 2005 was lower by 1.6% compared to in
2004.
Electrical Safety Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
111 317 232 107 36 803 13.8% 39.5% 28.9% 13.3% 4.5% 100.0% 126 329 173 115 36 779 16.2% 42.2% 22.2% 14.8% 4.6% 100.0% 237 646 405 222 72 1582
2004
2005
Total 15.0% 40.8% 25.6% 14.0% 4.6% 100.0%
Table 6.31 : Analysis on the Element of Electrical Safety Based on the Year of
Project
104
1.3.11.1 Category of Project
Table 6.32 revealed the highrise constructions were better than lowrise
constructions. In term of percentage, highrise constructions were higher score in the
excellent and very good scale with the score was 17.5% & 43.8%. Indeed they were
also lower score in the last three scales indicating their level of compliance to this
element was ahead compared to the lowrise constructions.
The Electrical Safety’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and high
rise constructions were 79.1% and 84.0% respectively.
Table 6.32 : Analysis on the Element of Electrical Safety Based on the
Category of Project
1.3.11.2 Cost of Project
Out of 833 low cost projects, 13.4% were excellent and another 38.8% were
very good. This figure relatively lower than scored by high cost projects which were
scored 16.7% and 43.1% respectively. This means the sites employed safety officers
were more complying to the DOSH requirements on electrical safety aspects.
Electrical Safety Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
104 313 232 126 46 821 12.7% 38.1% 28.3% 15.3% 5.6% 100.0% 133 333 173 96 26 761 17.5% 43.8% 22.7% 12.6% 3.4% 100.0% 237 646 405 222 72 1582
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 15.0% 40.8% 25.6% 14.0% 4.6% 100.0%
105
Electrical Safety Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
112 323 222 125 51 833
13.4% 38.8% 26.7% 15.0% 6.1% 100.0%
125 323 183 97 21 749
16.7% 43.1% 24.4% 13.0% 2.8% 100.0%
237 646 405 222 72 1582
<20
>20
Total
15.0% 40.8% 25.6% 14.0% 4.6% 100.0%
Table 6.33 : Analysis on the Element of Electrical Safety Based on the Cost of
Project
The Electrical Safety’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 78.9% and 84.2% respectively.
1.3.12 Element L – Workers Quarters
1458 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 71.5% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. There were no significant different in
score between 2004 & 2005. Table 6.34 indicated there was uncertainty in score for
both years. Year 2004 showed higher score for very good, fair and poor scale whereas
year 2005 higher in excellent and good score. The different of 1.9% of satisfy level set
up by the DOSH between 2004 and 2005 proved there was no so much improvement on
workers quarters conditions due to audited carried out by the department.
The Workers Quarter’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 81.1% and
83.0% respectively.
106
Workers Quarters Year of Project
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
122 297 169 114 23 725 16.8% 41.0% 23.3% 15.7% 3.2% 100.0%
2004
2005 169 263 176 110 15 733 23.1% 35.9% 24.0% 15.0% 2.0% 100.0% 291 560 345 224 38 1458 Total 20.0% 38.4% 23.7% 15.4% 2.6% 100.0%
Table 6.34 : Analysis on the Element of Workers Quarters Based on the Year
of Project
1.3.12.1 Category of Project
Table 6.35 revealed the highrise constructions more concerned on the welfare
of their workers particularly on providing workers quarters that meet the standard set up
by the DOSH. 64.2% of the sites out of 719 sites categorized as highrise constructions
were found in excellent and very good condition compared to only 52.7% from lowrise
constructions.
Workers Quarters Project Category
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
132 257 186 135 29 739 17.9% 34.8% 25.2% 18.3% 3.9% 100.0% 159 303 159 89 9 719 22.1% 42.1% 22.1% 12.4% 1.3% 100.0% 291 560 345 224 38 1458
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 20.0% 38.4% 23.7% 15.4% 2.6% 100.0%
Table 6.35 : Analysis on the Element of Workers Quarters Based on the
Category of Project
The Workers Quarter’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and high
rise constructions were 77.9% and 86.3% respectively.
107
1.3.12.2 Cost of Project
Awareness on the requirements to provide sound workers quarters were higher
at high cost projects. Table 6.36 showed only 97 sites or 13.9% were in unsatisfied
condition under this category. The low cost projects having lower score in excellent and
very good scale perhaps due to budget limitation and lack of awareness on the
requirements to provide proper workers quarters.
Workers Quarters Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
126 280 193 137 28 764
16.5% 36.6% 25.3% 17.9% 3.7% 100.0%
165 280 152 87 10 694
23.8% 40.3% 21.9% 12.5% 1.4% 100.0%
291 560 345 224 38 1458
<20
>20
Total 20.0% 38.4% 23.7% 15.4% 2.6% 100.0%
Table 6.36 : Analysis on the Element of Workers Quarters Based on the Cost
of Project
The Workers Quarter’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 78.4% and 86.0% respectively.
1.3.13 Element M – Cleanliness
1948 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 95.6% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. The good indicator from table 6.37 was
both the data in 2004 and 2005 exceeding satisfy level set up by the DOSH whereas the
bad indicator was that the score in 2005 lower than gained in 2004 with decrease in
satisfy level by 0.4%. In 2004, 24 sites that represent 2.5% of the data were excellent
108
then reduced to 20 sites or 2.0% in 2005. This was the second element after electrical
safety in which score in 2005 lower than in 2004.
Cleanliness Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
24 262 526 127 18 957 2.5% 27.4% 55.0% 13.3% 1.9% 100.0% 20 307 510 132 22 991 2.0% 31.0% 51.5% 13.3% 2.2% 100.0% 44 569 1036 259 40 1948
2004
2005
Total 2.3% 29.2% 53.2% 13.3% 2.1% 100.0%
Table 6.37 : Analysis on the Element of Cleanliness Based on the Year of
Project
The Cleanliness’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 84.9% and 84.5% respectively.
1.3.13.1 Category of Project
The highrise constructions were higher in score for excellent and very good
scale but in term of satisfy level, the highrise constructions only exceeding lowrise
constructions by 1.2% as shown in table 6.38.
Cleanliness Project Category
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
21 293 569 154 21 1058 2.0% 27.7% 53.8% 14.6% 2.0% 100.0% 23 276 467 105 19 890 2.6% 31.0% 52.5% 11.8% 2.1% 100.0% 44 569 1036 259 40 1948
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 2.3% 29.2% 53.2% 13.3% 2.1% 100.0%
Table 6.38 : Analysis on the Element of Cleanliness Based on the Category of
Project
The Cleanliness’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions were 83.5% and 84.7% respectively.
109
1.3.13.2 Cost of Project
The high cost projects were higher in score for excellent and very good scale but
in term of satisfy level, the high cost projects only exceeding low cost projects by 4.1%
as shown in table 6.39 indicating the present of safety officers to control safety matter at
sites fail to give significant impact particularly in controlling the site’s cleanliness.
Cleanliness Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
18 292 596 163 24 1093
1.6% 26.7% 54.5% 14.9% 2.2% 100.0%
26 277 440 96 16 855
3.0% 32.4% 51.5% 11.2% 1.9% 100.0%
44 569 1036 259 40 1948
<20
>20
Total 2.3% 29.2% 53.2% 13.3% 2.1% 100.0%
Table 6.39 : Analysis on the Element of Cleanliness Based on the Cost of
Project
The Cleanliness’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 82.8% and 86.9% respectively.
1.3.14 Element N – Storage Facilities
1826 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 89.6% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Out of 1829 sites audited, only 32 sites
found excellent in compliance to this element. Other 530 sites were in very good scale
which was representing 29% of total sites as shown in table 6.40. Overall, sites in 2005
more successful in achieving satisfy the DOSH expectation.
110
Storage Facilities Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
16 223 549 101 8 897 1.8% 24.9% 61.2% 11.3% .9% 100.0% 16 307 527 73 6 929 1.7% 33.0% 56.7% 7.9% .6% 100.0% 32 530 1076 174 14 1826
2004
2005
Total 1.8% 29.0% 58.9% 9.5% .8% 100.0%
Table 6.40 : Analysis on the Element of Storage Facilities Based on the Year of
Project
The Storage Facility’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 87.9% and
91.4% respectively.
1.3.14.1 Category of Project
Highrise constructions were better in the three first scales with the percentage
of 1.8%, 31.1% and 92.5% as shown in table 6.41. Both categories however were
exceeding the DOSH standard which indicating that awareness of sites on having proper
storage facilities were on track.
Storage Facilities Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
17 268 574 115 10 984 1.7% 27.2% 58.3% 11.7% 1.0% 100.0% 15 262 502 59 4 842 1.8% 31.1% 59.6% 7.0% .5% 100.0% 32 530 1076 174 14 1826
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 1.8% 29.0% 58.9% 9.5% .8% 100.0%
Table 6.41 : Analysis on the Element of Storage Facilities Based on the
Category of Project
The Storage Facility’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and high
rise constructions were 87.2% and 92.5% respectively.
111
1.3.14.2 Cost of Project
High cost projects found having higher scored for this element compared to low
cost projects as shown in table 6.42. However the satisfy level scored by both
categories exceeding 80% indicating a good sign for the industries towards complying
with the Acts and Regulations.
Storage Facilities Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
15 258 620 115 9 1017
1.5% 25.4% 61.0% 11.3% .9% 100.0%
17 272 456 59 5 809
2.1% 33.6% 56.4% 7.3% .6% 100.0%
32 530 1076 174 14 1826
<20
>20
Total
1.8% 29.0% 58.9% 9.5% .8% 100.0%
Table 6.42 : Analysis on the Element of Storage Facilities Based on the Cost of
Project
The Storage Facility’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 87.9% and 92.1% respectively.
1.3.15 Element O – Health and Welfare
1962 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 96.3% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. The awareness of sites on health and
welfare of employees were improved in 2005 compared to 2004. The excellent score
increased by 1.0% and very good scale increased by 5.9%. On the other hand, scales
like good decreased by 2.3%, fair by 4.5% and poor by 0.3%. Both year also scored
satisfy level exceeding 80% a very good performance.
112
Health and Welfare Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
20 259 520 154 18 971 2.1% 26.7% 53.6% 15.9% 1.9% 100.0% 31 323 508 113 16 991 3.1% 32.6% 51.3% 11.4% 1.6% 100.0% 51 582 1028 267 34 1962
2004
2005
Total 2.6% 29.7% 52.4% 13.6% 1.7% 100.0%
Table 6.43 : Analysis on the Element of Health and Welfare Based on the Year
of Project
The Health and Welfare’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 82.4%
and 87.0% respectively.
1.3.15.1 Category of Project
Table 6.44 showed a significant different in complying with the requirements on
health and welfare between highrise constructions and lowrise constructions. High
rise constructions were proven better in the excellent, very good and good scales and at
the same time lower in percentage for fair and poor scales. Only 3 or 0.3% sites under
the highrise category totally failed to comply with the requirements.
Health and Welfare Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
26 279 541 187 31 1064 2.4% 26.2% 50.8% 17.6% 2.9% 100.0% 25 303 487 80 3 898 2.8% 33.7% 54.2% 8.9% .3% 100.0% 51 582 1028 267 34 1962
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 2.6% 29.7% 52.4% 13.6% 1.7% 100.0%
Table 6.44 : Analysis on the Element of Health and Welfare Based on the
Category of Project
The Health and Welfare’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and
highrise constructions were 79.4% and 90.7% respectively.
113
1.3.15.2 Cost of Project
Table 6.45 showed majorities of the sites were in good scale with 52.8% from
the low cost projects and another 51.9% from the high cost projects. The later also
higher in excellent and very good scale whereas the former was higher in fair and poor
scales.
Health and Welfare Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
23 257 576 206 29 1091
2.1% 23.6% 52.8% 18.9% 2.7% 100.0%
28 325 452 61 5 871
3.2% 37.3% 51.9% 7.0% .6% 100.0%
51 582 1028 267 34 1962
<20
>20
Total 2.6% 29.7% 52.4% 13.6% 1.7% 100.0%
Table 6.45 : Analysis on the Element of Health and Welfare Based on the Cost
of Project
The Health and Welfare’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 78.5% and 92.4% respectively.
1.3.16 Element P – Formwork
1077 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 52.8% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Perhaps this was the element where the
contractor tries to comply to the requirements perfectly. This can be seen in table 6.46
where majorities of the data for both years come under the excellent scale. Total 877
sites or 81.4% were excellent with 407 sites in 2004 and increased to 470 sites in 2005
indicating that most of the sites perfectly complying with the requirements.
114
Formwork Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
407 21 29 8 61 526 77.4% 4.0% 5.5% 1.5% 11.6% 100.0% 470 18 12 5 46 551 85.3% 3.3% 2.2% .9% 8.3% 100.0% 877 39 41 13 107 1077
2004
2005
Total 81.4% 3.6% 3.8% 1.2% 9.9% 100.0%
Table 6.46 : Analysis on the Element of Formwork Based on the Year of
Project
The Formwork’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 86.9% and 90.8%
respectively.
1.3.16.1 Category of the Project
The same trend also noticed in the project category. Table 6.44 listed out that
877 sites of both category were excellent in which representing 81.4% of total sites
audited. Only 13.4% sites from lowrise constructions and 9.0 sites from highrise
constructions need further monitoring since they were fall under the fair and poor
scales.
Formwork Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
412 22 19 5 65 523 78.8% 4.2% 3.6% 1.0% 12.4% 100.0% 465 17 22 8 42 554 83.9% 3.1% 4.0% 1.4% 7.6% 100.0% 877 39 41 13 107 1077
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 81.4% 3.6% 3.8% 1.2% 9.9% 100.0%
Table 6.47 : Analysis on the Element of Formwork Based on the Category of
Project
The Formwork’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions were 86.6% and 91.0% respectively
115
1.3.16.2 Cost of the Project
Table 6.48 showed both groups under cost of the project scored above 80% with
majority of the sites were classified as excellent. The high cost projects were slightly
better than low cost projects simply due to the existence of safety officers at site.
Formwork Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
440 20 25 4 61 550
80.0% 3.6% 4.5% .7% 11.1% 100.0%
437 19 16 9 46 527
82.9% 3.6% 3.0% 1.7% 8.7% 100.0%
877 39 41 13 107 1077
<20
>20
Total
81.4% 3.6% 3.8% 1.2% 9.9% 100.0%
Table 6.48 : Analysis on the Element of Formwork Based on the Cost of
Project
The Formwork’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost projects
were 88.1% and 89.5% respectively.
1.3.17 Element Q – Personal Protective Equipment
1934 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 94.9% of total
audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Audited carried out by the DOSH
proven gave the impact for the improvement on this element. The awareness of
contractors on the requirements to fulfill their obligations to protect the employees was
increased in 2005 compared to in 2004. Table 6.49 showed in the excellent, very good
and goon scales, the percentage scored in 2005 was 6.1&, 32.1% and 42.3%
respectively – an obvious increment compared to data for 2004.
116
Personal Protective Equipment Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
43 294 382 177 65 961 4.5% 30.6% 39.8% 18.4% 6.8% 100.0% 59 312 412 149 41 973 6.1% 32.1% 42.3% 15.3% 4.2% 100.0% 102 606 794 326 106 1934
2004
2005
Total 5.3% 31.3% 41.1% 16.9% 5.5% 100.0%
Table 6.49 : Analysis on the Element of Personal Protective Equipment Based
on the Year of Project
The Personal Protective Equipment’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005
were 74.9% and 80.5% respectively.
1.3.17.1 Category of Project
Majority of the sites were under the good scale in which representing 41.1% of
the data. Table 6.50 revealed highrise constructions still dominated the figure in which
they were higher in the scales of excellent, very good and good. This data is to confirm
the highrise constructions more responsible towards ensuring the safety of the
employees.
Table 6.50 : Analysis on the Element of Personal Protective Equipment Based
on the Category of Project
The Personal Protective Equipment’s satisfy level scored for lowrise
constructions and highrise constructions were 71.4% and 78.9% respectively
Personal Protective Equipment Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
45 281 420 214 84 1044 4.3% 26.9% 40.2% 20.5% 8.0% 100.0% 57 325 374 112 22 890 6.4% 36.5% 42.0% 12.6% 2.5% 100.0% 102 606 794 326 106 1934
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 5.3% 31.3% 41.1% 16.9% 5.5% 100.0%
117
1.3.17.2 Cost of Project
Table 6.51 showed high cost projects were more cautious towards safety of their
workers. This was firstly due to the enforcements by safety officers at sites to ensure the
usage of personal protective equipments compulsory. Secondly perhaps due to budget
allocation to purchase the safety gears. Low cost projects could not have enough money
to put aside for safety expenditures including the purchase of appropriate safety
equipments.
Personal Protective Equipment Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
36 269 449 232 87 1073
3.4% 25.1% 41.8% 21.6% 8.1% 100.0%
66 337 345 94 19 861
7.7% 39.1% 40.1% 10.9% 2.2% 100.0%
102 606 794 326 106 1934
<20
>20
Total 5.3% 31.3% 41.1% 16.9% 5.5% 100.0%
Table 6.51 : Analysis on the Element of Personal Protective Equipment Based
on the Cost of Project
The Personal Protective Equipment’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects
and high cost projects were 70.3% and 86.9% respectively.
1.3.18 Element R – Excavation and Shoring
Only 528 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 25.9% of
total audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Table 2004 showed in 2004,
majorities of the sites were in the good position. They were improvement in 2005 where
the sites under excellent scale were increased from 13.3% to 15.0% and in the very
good scale it was improved from 39.2% to 47.6%. At the same time under the good
118
scale, the figure decreased from 33.7% to 23.8%. This means the sites in the good scale
in 2004 had succeed to upgrade their performance to either in very good or excellent
scales.
Excavation and Shoring Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
34 100 86 26 9 255 13.3% 39.2% 33.7% 10.2% 3.5% 100.0% 41 130 65 25 12 273
15.0% 47.6% 23.8% 9.2% 4.4% 100.0% 75 230 151 51 21 528
2004
2005
Total 14.2% 43.6% 28.6% 9.7% 4.0% 100.0%
Table 6.52 : Analysis on the Element of Excavation and Shoring Based on the
Year of Project
The Excavation and Shoring’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were
86.2% and 86.4% respectively.
1.3.18.1 Category of Project
Table 6.53 showed the excellent percentage under the highrise constructions
were higher almost double whereas on the fair percentage it was lower almost double
compared to the lowrise constructions. This means highrise constructions more
capable to perform the excavation and shoring activities in safe manners.
119
Table 6.53 : Analysis on the Element of Excavation and Shoring Based on the
Category of Project
The Excavation and Shoring satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and
highrise constructions were 83.4% and 89.6% respectively.
1.3.18.2 Cost of Project
Table 6.54 showed that majority of audited sites for this element in the position
of very good scale. The high cost projects were higher for the excellent and very good
whereas the low cost projects were higher in fair and poor scales. This means sites
engaging safety officers were more compliances to the DOSH procedures on the
element of excavation and shoring.
Excavation and Shoring Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
20 101 79 32 11 243
8.2% 41.6% 32.5% 13.2% 4.5% 100.0%
55 129 72 19 10 285
19.3% 45.3% 25.3% 6.7% 3.5% 100.0%
75 230 151 51 21 528
<20
>20
Total
14.2% 43.6% 28.6% 9.7% 4.0% 100.0%
Table 6.54 : Analysis on the Element of Excavation and Shoring Based on the
Cost of Project
Excavation and Shoring Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
26 107 93 33 12 271 9.6% 39.5% 34.3% 12.2% 4.4% 100.0% 49 123 58 18 9 257
19.1% 47.9% 22.6% 7.0% 3.5% 100.0% 75 230 151 51 21 528
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 14.2% 43.6% 28.6% 9.7% 4.0% 100.0%
120
The Excavation and Shoring satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high
cost projects were 82.3% and 89.9% respectively.
1.3.19 Element S – Piling
Only 218 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 10.7% of
total audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. The good sign as shown in table
6.55 was both years performed well with scored more than 80% for excellent and very
good scales. Only one site in poor scored and another two in fair scored in 2005
indicating great achievement for compliances to the DOSH requirements.
Piling Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
38 62 10 11 3 124 30.6% 50.0% 8.1% 8.9% 2.4% 100.0% 33 43 15 2 1 94
35.1% 45.7% 16.0% 2.1% 1.1% 100.0% 71 105 25 13 4 218
2004
2005
Total 32.6% 48.2% 11.5% 6.0% 1.8% 100.0%
Table 6.55 : Analysis on the Element of Piling Based on the Year of Project
The Piling’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 88.7% and 96.8%
respectively.
1.3.19.1 Category of Project
Table 6.56 showed both categories of construction were excellent in complying
with the safety requirements pertaining to piling activities. The satisfy level scored by
the highrise constructions was 97.6% proved how competent they were in handling
piling activities. Only 3 sites out of 125 sites under the highrise constructions were not
up to the DOSH expectation.
121
Table 6.56 : Analysis on the Element of Piling Based on the Category of
Project
The Piling’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions were 85.0% and 97.6% respectively.
1.3.19.2 Cost of Project
The percentage of excellent scale between two groups almost the same as shown
in table 6.57 but in the very good scale, the high cost projects were superior then low
cost projects. Both group performed well where the satisfy level were exceeding 80%.
Sites having safety officer were in better position indicating that the existence of safety
officers at sites no doubt gave positive impact to the compliance of safety requirements
particularly pertaining to piling activities.
Piling Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
25 32 11 6 2 76
32.9% 42.1% 14.5% 7.9% 2.6% 100.0%
46 73 14 7 2 142
32.4% 51.4% 9.9% 4.9% 1.4% 100.0%
71 105 25 13 4 218
<20
>20
Total 32.6% 48.2% 11.5% 6.0% 1.8% 100.0%
Table 6.57 : Analysis on the Element of Piling Based on the Cost of Project.
Piling Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
29 36 14 11 3 93 31.2% 38.7% 15.1% 11.8% 3.2% 100.0% 42 69 11 2 1 125
33.6% 55.2% 8.8% 1.6% .8% 100.0% 71 105 25 13 4 218
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 32.6% 48.2% 11.5% 6.0% 1.8% 100.0%
122
The Piling’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost projects
were 89.5% and 93.7% respectively.
1.3.20 Element T – Demolition
Only 55 sites were applicable to this element of audit that represents 2.7% of
total audit carried out for the year of 2004 and 2005. Unfortunately data in 2004 was
better than in 2005 indicating that the performance dropped even though audited carried
out regularly at sites by the DOSH. Table 6.58 showed improvement only in the scale of
excellent in which increased by 4.3%. The rest of the scale showing the percentage was
reduced.
Demolition Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
5 10 7 5 1 28 17.9% 35.7% 25.0% 17.9% 3.6% 100.0% 6 9 5 6 1 27
22.2% 33.3% 18.5% 22.2% 3.7% 100.0% 11 19 12 11 2 55
2004
2005
Total 20.0% 34.5% 21.8% 20.0% 3.6% 100.0%
Table 6.58 : Analysis on the Element of Demolition Based on the Year of
Project
The Demolition’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were 78.6% and 74.0%
respectively
1.3.20.1 Category of Project
Table 6.60 showed two different characteristics between lowrise constructions
and highrise constructions. Highrise constructions were too excellent in handling
demolition work compared to the lowrise constructions. In excellent scale for example
highrise constructions scored as high as 31.0% compared to only 7.7% in the lowrise
123
constructions. This means the highrise constructions really adapted to the safety
standards as outline by the Acts and Regulations and enforced by the DOSH.
Table 6.59 : Analysis on the Element of Demolition Based on the Category of
Project
The Demolition’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and highrise
construction were 57.7% and 93.0% respectively.
1.3.20.2 Cost of Project
The high cost projects were in better performance in term of compliance with
the DOSH requirement. 30% of the sites in this group were in excellent score followed
by another 30% in very good scale. This means more than 50% of sites under this
category were satisfying the DOSH.
Demolition Cost of Project in Million
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total
2 10 5 7 1 25
8.0% 40.0% 20.0% 28.0% 4.0% 100.0%
9 9 7 4 1 30
30.0% 30.0% 23.3% 13.3% 3.3% 100.0%
11 19 12 11 2 55
<20
>20
Total
20.0% 34.5% 21.8% 20.0% 3.6% 100.0%
Table 6.60 : Analysis on the Element of Demolition Based on the Cost of
Project.
Demolition Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Total
2 8 5 10 1 26 7.7% 30.8% 19.2% 38.5% 3.8% 100.0% 9 11 7 1 1 29
31.0% 37.9% 24.1% 3.4% 3.4% 100.0% 11 19 12 11 2 55
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 20.0% 34.5% 21.8% 20.0% 3.6% 100.0%
124
The Demolition’s satisfy level scored for low cost projects and high cost
projects were 68.0% and 83.3% respectively.
1.3 Correlation Between Element’s Variables
The data for each element gained in section 6.2 above will be summarized into
three different categorized;
i. Year of audited carried out : 2004 & 2005
ii. Category of the project : Lowrise constructions & Highrise constructions
iii. Cost of Project : Low cost projects and High cost projects
Comparison will be made between variables for each category. Using Bivariate
Correlations Prosedure under SPSS 12.0, a correlation between variables for each
category will be determined. It is very important to determine the correlation between
variables for each category to ensure how strong their relationship either in positive
linear relationship or negative linear positive relationship.
Prior to test the correlation, test of normality of the data needs to be carried out.
This is vital procedure to ensure the data either normally distributed or not normally
distributed. The test of correlation to be used depends on the type of data.
Test of Normality for all elements using KolmogorovSmirnov Technique
confirmed that all elements are not normally distributed. Table 6.61 shows the example
of test of normality for the elements A, B, C, D & E.
125
Mean of Elements
A
Mean of Elements
B
Mean of Elements
C
Mean of Elements
D
Mean of Elements
E N 2026 1694 1575 757 961 Normal Parameters(a,b) Mean 2.5348 3.0604 2.8357 3.1867 3.2283
Std. Deviation .90625 1.06742 .81349 .89971 1.02437
Most Extreme Differences
Absolute .116 .105 .125 .152 .150
Positive .116 .105 .125 .152 .150 Negative .064 .074 .070 .101 .088
KolmogorovSmirnov Z 5.209 4.319 4.976 4.169 4.653 Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 a Test distribution is Normal. b Calculated from data.
Table 6.61 : OneSample KolmogorovSmirnov Test for Mean of Element A,
B, C, D & E
Since pvalue for all mean of elements is smaller than significance level (pvalue
< α) the data are not normal (Norusis M.J, 2004). Method of Spearman Rho will be
used to check the correlations between variable. A Spearman Rho rank correlation
coefficient, rs, of the different elements was computed. The coefficient gives a
numerical index of the relation between the ranks of the divisions (Spiegel M.R, 2000).
6∑D 2
rs = 1
N (N 2 – 1)
Where
D = different between ranks for the same divisions
N = number of elements (in this case 20; Jannadi M.O and Assaf A.,
1980 & Murray R.S, 2000)
.A critical value of rs is needed to test the alternative with;
Null Hypothesis, Ho = There is no correlation between the rank.
Alternative Hypothesis, H1 = There is correlation between the rank.
126
1.4.1 Year of the Project
Table 6.62 shows the element’s ‘Satisfy Level Scores’ and their rank for the
sites audited in 2004 compared to the sites audited in 2005.
Overall the performance of audited sites either in 2004 and 2005 is acceptable
with all of the elements satisfy level exceeding 60.0%. The lowest satisfy score for both
years is the element of edge of open floor which score 61.7% in 2004 and 64.6% in
2005. The satisfy score for all elements is increased in 2005 compared to the score in
2004 except for the three elements: Electrical safety, cleanliness and demolition. The
score for these three elements is exceeding 70% which is still within tolerable limits.
Table 6.62 : Elements Satisfy Scores and Ranks for 2004 and 2005
2004 2005 ELEMENT DESCRIPTION Score Rank Score Rank
A Safety and Health Management 87.7 3 92.5 2 B Safety and Health Committee 71.9 16 82.4 12 C Machinery 87.2 6 91.0 4 D Platform 73.5 15 80.6 13 E Scaffolding 65.7 18 73.7 18 F Floor Opening 71.7 17 74.7 16 G Edge of Open Floor 61.7 20 64.6 20 H Working at Height 62.1 19 68.8 19 I Access and Egress 87.3 5 89.4 6 J Public Safety 87.4 4 89.2 7 K Electrical Safety 82.2 11 80.6 13 L Workers Quarters 81.1 12 83.0 11 M Cleanliness 84.9 9 84.5 10 N Storage Facilities 87.9 2 91.4 3 O Health and Welfare 82.4 10 87.0 8 P Formwork 86.9 7 90.8 5 Q Personal Protective Equipment 74.9 14 80.5 15 R Excavation and Shoring 86.2 8 86.4 9 S Piling 88.7 1 96.8 1 T Demolition 78.6 13 74.0 17
127
From the table above, it can be concluded that the following elements had high satisfy
level in 2004;
i. Piling
ii. Storage Facilities
iii. Safety and Health Management
Consequently the following elements had low safety level in 2004;
i. Edge Of Open Floor
ii. Working At Height
iii. Scaffolding
Whereas in 2005, the following elements had high satisfy level;
i. Piling
ii. Safety and Health Management
iii. Storage Facilities
and the following elements found had low satisfy level;
i. Edge of Open Floor
ii. Working at Height
iii. Scaffolding
The hypothesis testing was run using software SPSS version 12.0 and the result
is shown in table 6.63;
Year 2004 Year 2005 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .948(**)
Sig. (2tailed) . .000
Year 2004
N 20 20 Correlation Coefficient .948(**) 1.000
Sig. (2tailed) .000 .
Spearman's rho
Year 2005
N 20 20
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed).
Table 6.63 : Spearman’s Rho Correlations for 2004 & 2005
128
From the table above, it can be concluded that there is a strong and significant
positive correlation between the two variables. Significant value = 0.000 is smaller than
significant level = 0.01 then the null hypothesis will be rejected at the α = 0.01 level of
significant (Norusis M.J, 2004). It appears that there is some agreement between the
two ranks in both 2004 and 2005 projects.
1.4.2 Category of Project
Table 6.64 shows the element’s ‘Satisfy Level Scores’ and their rank for the
lowrise constructions and highrise constructions. Generally both categories showing
good performances in complying with safety audit elements. However highrise
constructions no doubt are much better than lowrise constructions.
129
Table 6.64 : Elements Satisfy Scores and Ranks for LowRise Constructions
and HighRise Constructions
Highrise constructions are excellent in all elements. The satisfy level for high
rise constructions in all elements are higher than lowrise constructions. There are two
elements scored less than 60% and both came under lowrise constructions. The
elements are demolition (57.7%) and working at height (58.3%). It seems that the
DOSH need to concentrate more on these two elements when inspecting lowrise
constructions.
It can be concluded that the following elements had high satisfy level for lowrise
constructions;
i. Access and Egress
ii. Storage Facilities
LowRise HighRise ELEMENT DESCRIPTION Score Rank Score Rank
A Safety and Health Management 86.3 4 94.6 2 B Safety and Health Committee 71.8 13 82.5 14 C Machinery 84.3 7 93.8 3 D Platform 69.7 16 81.2 15 E Scaffolding 61.0 18 68.6 19 F Floor Opening 71.2 15 75.1 17 G Edge of Open Floor 61.1 17 65.2 20 H Working at Height 58.3 19 72.6 18 I Access and Egress 88.3 1 88.6 10 J Public Safety 84.8 6 92.4 6 K Electrical Safety 79.1 11 84.0 13 L Workers Quarters 77.9 12 86.3 11 M Cleanliness 83.5 8 84.7 12 N Storage Facilities 87.2 2 92.5 5 O Health and Welfare 79.4 10 90.7 8 P Formwork 86.6 3 91.0 7 Q Personal Protective Equipment 71.4 14 78.9 16 R Excavation and Shoring 83.4 9 89.6 9 S Piling 85.0 5 97.6 1 T Demolition 57.7 20 93.0 4
130
iii. Formwork
Consequently the following elements had low safety level for lowrise constructions;
i. Demolition
ii. Working At Height
iii. Scaffolding
Whereas for highrise constructions, the following elements had high satisfy level;
i. Piling
ii. Safety and Health Management
iii. Machinery
and the following elements found had low safety level;
i. Edge of Open Floor
ii. Scaffolding
iii. Working at Height
The hypothesis testing was run using software SPSS version 12.0 and the result is
shown in table 6.65;
Highrise Construction
Lowrise Construction
Spearman's rho Highrise Construction
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .666(**)
Sig. (2tailed) . .001 N 20 20
Lowrise Construction
Correlation Coefficient .666(**) 1.000
Sig. (2tailed) .001 . N 20 20
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed).
Table 6.65 : Spearman’s Rho Correlations between Lowrise Constructions
with Highrise Constructions
From the table above, it can be concluded that there is a moderate significant
positive correlation (pvalue = 0.001) with Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is
131
0.666 between the two variables. Significant value = 0.001 is smaller than chosen
significant level = 0.01 then the null hypothesis will be rejected at the α = 0.01 level of
significant. It appears that there is some agreement between the two ranks in lowrise
constructions and highrise constructions.
1.4.3 Cost of Project
Table 6.66 shows the element’s ‘Satisfy Level Scores’ and their rank for the low
cost projects and the high cost projects.
Generally both low cost projects and high cost projects show a good
performance in complying with safety audit elements. High cost projects obviously
performed better than low cost projects in which it scored higher in all safety audit
elements. The safety officer role in complying with the Acts and Regulations can’t be
denied. Low cost projects without engaging competent personnel as safety officer
clearly a step behind. This can be seen through the satisfy score that less than 60%
come from the low cost projects. Edge of open floor and working at height both scored
50.3% and 57.7% respectively.
It can be concluded that the following elements had high satisfy level for the low cost
projects;
i. Piling
ii. Formwork
iii. Storage Facilities
Consequently the following elements had low safety level for the low cost projects;
i. Edge of Open Floor
ii. Working At Height
iii. Scaffolding
132
Whereas for the high cost projects, the following elements had high satisfy level;
i. Safety and Health Management
ii. Machinery, Public Safety and Piling ( these three elements scored is 93.7)
iii. Health and Welfare
and the following elements found had low safety level;
i. Edge of Open Floor
ii. Working at Height
iii. Scaffolding
Table 6.66 : Elements Satisfy Scores and Ranks for the Low Cost Projects and
the High Cost Projects
<20 millions >20 millions ELEMENT DESCRIPTION Score Rank Score Rank
A Safety and Health Management 85.9 5 95.5 1 B Safety and Health Committee 66.5 17 87.7 10 C Machinery 84.3 6 93.7 2 D Platform 70.7 13 82.0 16 E Scaffolding 62.5 18 76.0 18 F Floor Opening 70.5 14 76.1 17 G Edge of Open Floor 50.3 20 66.2 20 H Working at Height 57.7 19 73.8 19 I Access and Egress 86.4 4 90.8 7 J Public Safety 84.0 7 93.7 2 K Electrical Safety 78.9 10 84.2 14 L Workers Quarters 78.4 12 86.0 13 M Cleanliness 82.8 8 86.9 11 N Storage Facilities 87.9 3 92.1 6 O Health and Welfare 78.5 11 92.4 5 P Formwork 88.1 2 89.5 8 Q Personal Protective Equipment 70.3 15 86.9 11 R Excavation and Shoring 82.3 9 89.9 8 S Piling 89.5 1 93.7 2 T Demolition 68.0 16 83.3 15
133
The hypothesis testing was run using software SPSS version 12.0 and the result
is shown in table 6.67;
<20 millions >20 millions Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .805(**)
Sig. (2tailed) . .000
<20 millions
N 20 20 Correlation Coefficient .805(**) 1.000
Sig. (2tailed) .000 .
Spearman's rho
>20millions
N 20 20 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed).
Table 6.67 : Spearman’s Rho Correlations between Low Cost
Projects and High Cost Projects
From the table above, it can be concluded that there is a strong significant
positive correlation (pvalue = 0.000) with Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is
0.805 between the two variables. Significant value = 0.001 is smaller than chosen
significant level = 0.01 then the null hypothesis will be rejected at the α = 0.01 level of
significant. It appears that there is some agreement between the two ranks in both sites
low cost projects and sites high cost projects.
.
1.3 Safety Level
Safety level will be measured in order to confirm the effectiveness of safety
audit implemented to construction sites in Malaysia. Figure 6.1 shows the breakdown
of safety level gained by sites in 2004 and 2005. There are three different safety level
will be measured in which basically to see the level of compliance to safety audit from
three different views;
134
Excellent Very Good Good Fair
Total Score
1.5.1 Safety Level for Audited Construction Sites in 2004 and 2005
Table 6.68 shows the safety level gained by construction industries in 2004 and
2005. The good news was that there is no single construction site audited as poor either
in 2004 or 2005 out of 2038 sites visited by DOSH officer. This was something the
industries can proud as the statistic showed at least they had a minimum awareness
towards implementing occupational safety and health at workplace.
Figure 6.1 : Pie Chart of Safety Level for Audited Construction Sites in 2004
and 2005
135
7.2% of the sites was excellent in 2004 and increased to 8.3% in 2005, an
increment or achievement of about 1.1 %. Similarly for the scale of very good, it was
increased from 46.0 in 2004 to 52.6% in 2005, an increment of 6.6%. However for the
good scale, the statistic show there was a reduction in percentage from 39.2% in 2004 to
33.2% and the same scenario also can be seen in the fair scale where the reduction was
from 7.5% in 2004 to 5.9% in 2005. This could be to the fact that the audited carry out
in 2004 had managed to influenced and forced the sites that fall under the scale of good
and poor in 2004 to perform better. 1.6% sites under the scale of fair and 6.0% sites
under the scale of good in 2004 successfully upgraded their status to a better position as
the result of audited.
Generally, 92.4% sites audited in 2004 were in the scales of excellent, very good
and good which means these sites were already in the position of satisfying the DOSH
resulting from the continuous auditing exercise since 2003 and audited carry out in
2004 successfully increased the satisfy level to 94.1% in 2005. Majority of the sites for
both years is found in very good scale. This means that is very important for the DOSH
to proceed with the safety audit with the aims to increase the number of sites in
excellent category.
Safety Level Year of Project Excellent Very Good Good Fair
Total
72 460 392 75 999 7.2% 46.0% 39.2% 7.5% 100.0% 86 547 345 61 1039 8.3% 52.6% 33.2% 5.9% 100.0% 158 1007 737 136 2038
2004
2005
Total 7.8% 49.4% 36.2% 6.7% 100.0%
Table 6.68 : Safety Level for the year of 2004 and 2005
136
Year of Project Mean N Std. Deviation Variance
2004 2.9717 999 .67572 .457 2005 2.8672 1039 .64773 .420 Total 2.9184 2038 .66350 .440
The mean, variance and standard deviation of audited data in 2004 and 2005
were calculated and the resulted are presented in table 6.69 and figure 6.2. It is clear
that the safety level in 2005 is higher than in 2004 as indicated by mean value. Mean for
2005 is 2.88 compared to 2.97 for 2004. Mean value closer to 1 indicates more
successful in complying with safety audit elements. Also, the safety level in 2004 varies
more, with some projects showing good scores and other having a dismal performance.
Sites in 2005 however show more excellent score and less fair score. These outcomes
confirm that projects in 2005 show higher safety level.
Table 6.69 : The mean, Variance and Standard Deviation for the year of 2004
and 2005
137
2004 2005
Year of Audited
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Safety Level
1,849
1,683 1,995 1,426
1,082 1,998
1,799
1,188
1,408 1,207
1,436 1,009 1,151 1,435
355
238 753 354
996
195 167
54
197
1.5.2 Safety Level for LowRise Constructions and HighRise Constructions
Table 6.70 shows the safety level gained by lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions. As per safety level for audited construction sites in 2004 and 2005, there
are no sites audited as poor – the sign of failure in compliance to safety audit elements.
1117 sites are categorized as lowrise constructions. Out of that, 6.5% were
audited as excellent sites, 44.6% as very good, 39.9% as good and the remaining 9.0%
Figure 6.2 : Box Plot Diagram of Safety Level for Audited Construction Sites
in 2004 and 2005
138
as fair. 91% of the lowrise constructions sites are categorized as satisfying the DOSH
as they are in excellent, very good and good scales. That means, majority of lowrise
constructions adhered to Acts and Regulations pertaining to occupational safety and
health with only 100 sites that representing 9.0% of total lowrise constructions still
need helps to improve the safety level at their workplace. This high score of satisfy
level among lowrise constructions no doubt due to continuous effort by the DOSH in
enforcing the Acts and Regulations particularly in carrying out strict safety audit.
Safety Level Project Category Excellent Very Good Good Fair
Total
73 498 446 100 1117 6.5% 44.6% 39.9% 9.0% 100.0% 85 509 291 36 921 9.2% 55.3% 31.6% 3.9% 100.0% 158 1007 737 136 2038
LowRise Construction
HighRise Construction
Total 7.8% 49.4% 36.2% 6.7% 100.0%
Another 921 sites were categorized as highrise constructions. Highrise
constructions gained more achievements in complying with the elements of safety audit.
This is proved by the table above, in which 9.2% of the sites are in excellent scale, 2.7%
higher compared to percentage gained in the same scale by lowrise constructions.
Another 55.3% of the sites are audited as very good, an increment of 10.7% compared
to what have been achieved by lowrise constructions. Only 3.9% sites under the high
rise constructions still need further improvement towards complying to safety Acts and
Regulations. In term of satisfy level, 96.1% highrise constructions managed to fulfill at
least minimum requirements imposed by the DOSH – a proud achievements for the
highrise constructions.
Safety level for the category of projects also show that majority of the sites are
in the very good scale. This give another indicator to the DOSH to proceed with the
safety audit program as it is proven as an effective tools in accelerating the awareness
Table 6.70 Safety Level for LowRise Constructions and HighRise
Constructions
139
on occupational safety and health at sites. Safety audit exercise continuously at sites is
capable to raise the number of sites from other scales to most wanted scale – Excellent.
Table 6.71 and figure 6.3 shows other indicators on the complying with safety
audit. Mean for highrise constructions is 2.8 compared to 3.0 for lowrise
constructions. Since the value of 1 representing excellent scale and the value of 5
representing poor scale, the mean value closer to the value of 1 is considered having
higher safety level. Therefore that is very clear that the safety level for highrise
constructions is higher than the safety level for lowrise constructions. The safety level
among lowrise constructions also varies more indicated by the value of variance and
the width of box plot. Variance for lowrise constructions is 0.469 compared to 0.382
for highrise constructions. The highrise constructions therefore show a consistent level
of safety.
Project Category N Mean Std. Deviation Variance LowRise Construction 1117 3.0134 .68456 .469 HighRise Construction 921 2.8032 .61807 .382 Total 2038 2.9184 .66350 .440
Table 6.71 : The Mean, Variance and Standard Deviation for LowRise
Constructions and HighRise Constructions
140
Low Rise Construction High Rise Construction
Project Category
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Safety Level
1,849 1,683
1,995 753
1,998 996
1,872 671
1,714
764 1,779 1,766 713
577
355
1,426
1,082 354
1,453 1,566
167
1,151 87 1,080
1.5.3 Safety Level for Low Cost Projects and High Cost Projects
Table 6.72 shows the safety level gained by the low cost projects and the high
cost projects. There are no single sites under this category that audited as poor in term
of complying with occupational safety and health.
There are 1153 low cost projects being audited in 2004 and 2005. Out of that 72
sites or 6.2% are audited as excellent in which they are manage to score between 90%
Figure 6.3 : Box Plot Diagram of Safety Level for LowRise Constructions and
HighRise Constructions
141
100% for each element and sub element of safety audit. Total percentage for excellent,
very good and good safety level constituted 90.8% of total score for sites that not
compulsory to engaged safety officers according to OSHA Act. Only 106 sites or
representing 9.2% of total sites are still need to be monitored.
The high cost projects show more comprehensive result in which 9.7% sites are
audited excellent; an increasing in percentage of 3.5% compared to projects low cost
projects. The same result also showed in second safety level scale, very good with the
score is 58.3%; a different of 15.7%. There are only 30 sites under this category audited
as fair.
Total percentage for excellent, very good and good safety level constituted
96.6% of total score for sites that mandatory to engaged safety officers according to
OSHA Act. This is a great achievement for the industry. This achievement is mainly
due to the role of safety officers at sites. The OSHA Act required any sites cost more
than 20 millions to engage a competent safety officer definitely give tremendous
impacts to the safety level at sites. Competent safety officer means a person that
certified by the DOSH having proper qualifications, training and knowledgeable in
occupational safety and health proven successfully in implementing their knowledge
and skills to safeguard the elements of safety and health at sites.
Safety Level Cost of Project in Million Excellent Very Good Good Fair
Total
72 491 484 106 1153
6.2% 42.6% 42.0% 9.2% 100.0%
86 516 253 30 885
9.7% 58.3% 28.6% 3.4% 100.0%
158 1007 737 136 2038
<20
>20
Total 7.8% 49.4% 36.2% 6.7% 100.0%
Table 6.72 Safety Level for Sites Low Cost Projects and Sites High Cost
Projects
142
Safety level based on cost of projects show the majority of the sites also in the
very good scale. Construction sites regardless based either on year of projects, category
of project or cost of projects seem satisfy with their current performance in occupational
safety and health. It is very important for the constructions industry to make a new
target to move to the excellent scale.
Table 6.73 and figure 6.4 the value of mean, variance and standard deviation for
the above data. Mean for low cost projects is 3.03 compared to 2.76 for the high cost
projects. Since the value of 1 representing excellent scale and the value of 5
representing poor scale, the mean value closer to the value of 1 is considered having
higher safety level. Therefore that is proven that the high cost projects having higher
safety level compared to the low cost projects. The safety level among the low cost
projects also varies more indicated by the value of variance and the width of box plot.
Variance for the low cost projects is 0.467 compared to 0.363 for the high cost projects.
The high cost projects therefore show a consistent level of safety.
Cost of Project in Million N Mean Variance Std. Deviation
<20 1153 3.0379 .467 .68312 >20 885 2.7628 .363 .60282 Total 2038 2.9184 .440 .66350
Table 6.73 : The Mean, Variance and Standard Deviation for Lowrise
Constructions and Highrise Constructions
143
<20 >20
Cost of Project in Million
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Safety Level
1,849 1,995 753
1,998 996
1,872
764
1,819 401
464 1,766
1,911 1,799
1,683
355
56
1,426 1,082 354
671 546
167
1,151 87 1,080
1.3 Hypothesis Testing
Based on section 6.4 above, three different hypotheses will be test to compare
the means of a variable between two independent groups. In this case the variables are
safety level whereas the groups will be based on three different classifications;
i. Sites audited in 2004 with sites audited in 2005
ii. Lowrise constructions with Highrise constructions
iii. Low cost projects and High cost projects
Figure 6.4 : Box Plot Diagram of Safety Level for Low Cost Projects
and High Cost Projects
144
Test of normality of the data will be carried out using SPSS Version 12.0. This
is important step in testing hypothesis to ensure the right method will be utilized. Figure
6.5 indicated the data distribution for the safety level. The test of normality using
KolmogorovSmirnov Technique will be applied to check either the safety level
distribution is normal or not as shown in table 6.74;
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Safety Level
0
50
100
150
Freq
uenc
y
Mean = 2.9184 Std. Dev. = 0.6635 N = 2,038
Figure 6.5 : Histogram Diagram Shows the Distribution of Safety Level
145
a Test distribution is Normal. b Calculated from data.
Table 6.74 : OneSample KolmogorovSmirnov Test for Safety Level
From the table above pvalue is 0.008 (0.016/2) which is smaller than α = 0.05
hence the distribution of safety level are not normal. Technique MannWhitney Test
will be used to test the hypothesis between;
1.6.1 Sites Audited in 2004 with Sites Audited in 2005
This Hypothesis testing is aimed to test is there any significant different in
safety level scored in 2004 compared to in 2005. Therefore the hypothesis is;
Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between safety
level in 2004 and safety level in 2005.
Alternative Hypothesis = There is a difference between safety
level in 2004 and safety level in 2005.
or
Null Hypothesis, Ho: μSL,2004 = μSL,2005
Alternative Hypothesis, H1: μSL,2004 ≠ μSL,2005
• SL = Safety Level
Mean of All Element
N 2038 Mean 2.9184
Normal Parameters(a,b) Std. Deviation .66350 Absolute .034 Positive .034
Most Extreme Differences
Negative .016 KolmogorovSmirnov Z 1.557 Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) .016
146
Mean value between data audited in 2004 and 2005 as shown in table 6.69
indicates the safety level in 2005 is higher than in 2004. That means there is a different
in safety level between these two groups. In order to confirm either there is a significant
different or not, a hypothesis test using MannWhitney Test will be tested. Table 6.75
and 6.76 show the results of the hypothesis test;
Year of Audited N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 2004 999 1069.14 1068068.00 2005 1039 971.77 1009673.00
Safety Level
Total 2038
Table 6.75 : Ranks of Safety Level for Audited Data in 2004 and 2005
According to MannWhitney Test
Safety Level MannWhitney U 469393.000 Wilcoxon W 1009673.000 Z 3.734 Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) .000 a Grouping Variable: Year of Audited
Table 6.76 : Test Statistics of Safety Level for Audited Data in 2004 and
2005 According to MannWhitney Test
MannWhitney test will produced two separate tables, ranks of independent
variable and test statistic for safety level. Table 6.75 shows the rank between sites
audited in 2004 and 2005. Since the rank of one (1) is assigned to the higher value, that
means the safety level for 2005 is higher than 2004.
Table 6.76 shows pvalue < 0.05 which means alternative hypothesis is accepted
(H1: μSL,2004≠μSL,2005). Therefore there is enough evidence of significant difference in
the safety level in 2004 and 2005. From tables 6.69 and 6.75, we can conclude that the
safety level in 2005 is higher than the safety level in 2004.
147
1.6.2 Lowrise Constructions with Highrise Constructions
This Hypothesis testing is aimed to test is there any significant different in
safety level scored by lowrise constructions and highrise constructions. Therefore the
hypothesis is;
Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between safety level
at lowrise constructions and safety level at
highrise Construction.
Alternative Hypothesis = There is a difference between safety level at
lowrise constructions and safety level at high
Rise Construction.
or
Null Hypothesis, Ho: μSL,LRC = μSL,HRC
Alternative Hypothesis, H1: μSL,LRC ≠ μSL,HRC
• μSL = mean of safety level
• LRC = Lowrise constructions
• HRC= Highrise constructions
Mean value between lowrise constructions and highrise constructions as
shown in table 6.71 indicates the safety level scored by highrise constructions is higher
than scored by lowrise constructions. That means there is a different in safety level
between these two groups. In order to confirm either there is a significant different or
not, a hypothesis test using MannWhitney Test will be tested. Table 6.77 and 6.78
show the results of the hypothesis test;
148
Project Category N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks LowRise Construction 1117 1103.72 1232857.50
HighRise Construction 921 917.35 844883.50
Safety Level
Total 2038
Table 6.77 : Ranks of Safety Level for Lowrise Constructions and High
rise Constructions According to MannWhitney Test
Safety Level MannWhitney U 420302.500 Wilcoxon W 844883.500 Z 7.115 Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) .000 a Grouping Variable: Project Category
Table 6.78 : Test Statistics of Safety Level for LowRise Constructions
and HighRise Constructions According to MannWhitney
Test
Table 6.77 shows the rank between lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions. Since the rank of one (1) is assigned to the higher value, the safety level
for highrise constructions is higher than lowrise constructions.
Table 6.78 shows pvalue < 0.05 which means alternative hypothesis is accepted
(H1:μSL,LRC ≠ μSL,HRC). Therefore there is enough evidence of significant difference in
the safety level at lowrise constructions and highrise constructions. From tables 6.69
and 6.76, we can conclude that the safety level at highrise construction is higher than at
lowrise constructions.
149
1.6.3 Low Cost Projects with High Cost Projects
This Hypothesis testing is aimed to test is there any significant different in
safety level scored by low cost projects with high cost projects. Therefore the
hypothesis is;
Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between safety level for
low cost projects and safety level for high cost
project.
Alternative Hypothesis = There is a difference between safety level for
low cost projects and safety level for high cost
project.
or
Null Hypothesis, Ho: μSL,<20 = μSL,>20
Alternative Hypothesis, H1: μSL,<20 ≠ μSL,>20
• μSL = mean of safety level • <20 = low cost projects
• >20 = high cost projects
Mean value between low cost projects and high cost projects as shown in table
6.73 indicates the safety level scored by high cost projects is higher than scored by low
cost projects. That means there is a different in safety level between these two groups.
In order to confirm either there is a significant different or not, a hypothesis test using
MannWhitney Test will be analyzed. Table 6.79 and 6.80 show the results of the
hypothesis test;
150
Cost of Project in Million N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks <20 1153 1128.30 1300929.50 >20 885 877.75 776811.50
Safety Level
Total 2038
Table 6.79 : Ranks of Safety Level for Low Cost Projects and High Cost
Projects According to MannWhitney Test
Safety Level MannWhitney U 384756.500 Wilcoxon W 776811.500 Z 9.527 Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) .000 a Grouping Variable: Cost of Project in Million
Table 6.80 : Test Statistics of Safety Level for Low Cost Projects and
High Cost Projects According to MannWhitney Test
Table 6.79 shows the rank between low cost constructions and high cost
constructions. Since the rank of (one) 1 is assigned to the higher value, the safety level
for high cost constructions is higher than low cost constructions.
Table 6.80 shows pvalue < 0.05 which means alternative hypothesis is accepted
(H1:μSL,<20 ≠ μSL,>20). Therefore there is enough evidence of significant difference in
the safety level at low cost constructions and high cost constructions. From tables 6.69
and 6.79, we can conclude that the safety level at high cost construction is higher than at
low cost constructions.
151
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION
This paper assesses construction safety at sites. There were 2038 construction
sites have been audited in 2004 and 2005. The audited process was carried out by DOSH
officers throughout Malaysia using standard checklist containing 20 elements. There are
three main objectives for this research paper as outlined in section 1.3 of introduction
chapter;
7.1 Objective 1: to Assess the Level of Safety Practiced at Various Construction
Projects in Malaysia.
Detail analysis on each safety audit element has been carried out as per section
6.2.1 until section 6.2.20. The aims of those analysis is to find the satisfy level for each
element. The satisfy level of each element for the audited sites in 2004 and 2005 is
presented in table 6.62. The result shows, in term of satisfy level, sites in 2005 more
successful in which they are scoring higher in 17 elements out of 20 elements being
audited. Only three elements show that the satisfy level for 2005 is lower than 2004 with
very small margin. The lowest satisfy level score in 2004 is the element of edge of open
floor which is 61.7% and for 2005 also under the same element with the score increased
to 64.6%. Referring to section 5.4.4, these lowest score falls under the scale C or Good
which the value is between 50% 74%. This score basically still within acceptable limit
according to the DOSH.
152
Test of correlation as explained in section 6.3.1 shows that both audited data in
2004 and 2005 are having a strong and significant positive correlation. A positive sign
tell us that the values of the two variables increased together. This means both data
already in the right track of complying with the requirements of occupational safety and
health as enforced by the DOSH.
In term of element’s ranking, both audited sites in 2004 and 2005 show there is an
agreement that three elements having highest satisfy level; piling, storage facilities and
safety and health management. Consequently the most three elements scored lowest
satisfy level; edge of open floor, working at height and scaffolding. Perhaps this is the
elements where the DOSH need to focus in future in term of providing guidelines and
training, revising the safety and health officers syllabus and strengthening the inspection
and auditing exercise at construction sites.
After safety audit carried out by the DOSH, the safety level at construction sites
has improved. As mentioned in section 6.4.1 and table 6.68, the safety level for the scale
of excellent and very good are increased in 2005 compared to the result in 2004. This
increment is obviously due to the impact of safety audit carried out by the DOSH officers
along the year of 2004. In 2004, there are four safety audit exercised have been
implemented to the construction sites that could increased the awareness of occupational
safety and health among those involved in construction activities ranging from the top
management to the employees. In contrast to the scale of excellent and very good, the
score for the scale of good and fair is dropped in 2005 compared to in 2004. This result is
expected due to the impact of auditing exercises in 2004. Sites that fall under these score
in 2004 are managed to improve themselves to a better score positions in 2005.
The result of mean and variance for the data in 2004 and 2005 are calculated and
presented in table 6.69. It is very clear that safety level in 2005 is higher than in 2004.
The safety level in 2005 in addition shows a consistent level of safety.
153
Hypothesis testing as elaborated in detail in section 6.5 strongly proved that there
is a significant different in safety level between 2004 and 2005. Mean rank value proved
by MannWhitney test gives another strong indication that the safety level in 2005 are
much better than in 2005 as shown in table 6.75. Therefore safety level in 2005 is
absolutely higher than safety level in 2004. This finding is in agreement with earlier
research done by Laitenan, H and Ruohomaki, I (1996) in which safety level is higher
after safety auditing compared to before auditing.
7.2 Objective 2: to Determine the Level of Compliance to Safety Audit between
HighRise Construction with LowRise Constructions.
The satisfy level of each element for the lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions is presented in table 6.64. The result shows, in term of satisfy level, high
rise constructions scored higher in all safety audit elements.
Test of correlation as explained in section 6.3.2 shows that both lowrise
constructions and highrise constructions are having a moderate and significant positive
correlation. This means both data already in the right track of complying with the
requirements of occupational safety and health as enforced by the DOSH but table 6.64
revealed that highrise constructions more successful in complying with the OSHA and
the FMA requirements. The lowest satisfy score for lowrise constructions is on the
element of demolition (57.7%) and the lowest satisfy score for the highrise constructions
is 61.1% for edge of open floor’s element which is still acceptable to the DOSH.
Safety level at highrise constructions obviously higher than at lowrise
constructions as mentioned in section 6.4.2 and table 6.70. The safety level for the scale
of excellent and very good is significantly higher for highrise constructions. This higher
level of safety is absolutely due to the perception that working at highrise constructions
more dangerous and more risk. This perception caused the management and workers of a
154
site to take extra precaution steps such as allocating budget for safety, hiring safety and
health officer and providing proper training to the workers towards ensuring the safety
and health at work. On the other hand, the safety level for the lowrise constructions is
higher in good and fair scales. This is also due to the perception that the lowrise
constructions are less dangerous and the risk involved also very low. This perception
caused those involved in such construction do not pay enough attention to their own
safety. In real scenario, the management of lowrise constructions is found too particular
in allocating some budget for safety and health even for the very basic requirements such
as providing their workers with appropriate safety apparatus.
The result of mean and variance for the lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions is calculated and presented in table 6.71. The result confirmed that the
safety level for highrise constructions is higher and much better compared to the safety
level gained by lowrise constructions. The safety level among lowrise constructions
varies more compared to the highrise constructions.
Hypothesis testing as elaborated in detail in section 6.5.2 strongly proved that
there is a significant different in safety level between lowrise constructions and highrise
constructions. Mean rank value proved by MannWhitney test gives another strong
indication that the safety level at highrise constructions are much better than at lowrise
constructions as shown in table 6.77. Safety level for highrise constructions is absolutely
higher than safety level for lowrise constructions. This means level of compliance to
safety audit elements for highrise constructions clearly much higher than in lowrise
constructions.
155
7.3 Objective 3: to Determine the Level of Compliance to Safety Audit Between
High Cost (Cost of Projects Exceeding RM 20.0 Millions) and Low Cost Projects.
The satisfy level of each element for the high cost projects with low cost projects
is presented in table 6.66. The result shows, in term of satisfy level, high cost projects
significantly scored higher in all safety audit elements.
Test of correlation as explained in section 6.3.3 shows that both low cost projects
and high cost projects are having a strong and significant positive correlation. This means
both projects already in the right track of complying with the requirements of
occupational safety and health as enforced by the DOSH but table 6.66 revealed that high
cost projects more successful in complying with the OSHA and the FMA requirements.
The lowest satisfy score for low cost projects and high cost projects are on the element of
edge of open floor with the score is 50.3% and 66.2% respectively. The other two
elements classifying as lower score for both category are working at height and
scaffolding. It seems that both category of projects having problem to overcome the
matter relating to safety and health when working at higher level even though the score
for these three elements still acceptable to the DOSH.
Safety level at high cost projects obviously higher than at low cost projects as
mentioned in section 6.4.3 and table 6.72. The safety level for the scale of excellent and
very good is significantly higher for highrise constructions. This higher level of safety is
absolutely due to the role of safety officer in controlling matters relating to the safety and
health as required by the OSHA and FMA. Safety officer successfully carried out their
duties in safeguarding those involved at sites from any safety and health risks and
hazards. As a competent personnel equipped with the knowledge and proper training on
occupational safety and health they know how to handle the workplace such as setting up
safe operating procedures for all construction activities and make sure all employees
comply to the procedures so that the workplace becomes a safer place to work. Safety
level for low cost projects is found higher in the scale of good and fair indicating their
performance in term of complying with the OSHA requirements are still far behind the
156
high cost projects. This simply due to lack of personnel to take care on safety and health
matters due to the low cost project is not required to engage a safety officer at workplace.
Such projects could have the safe operating procedures but nobody going to enforced it
that lead to serious negligence on their own safety and health.
The result of mean and variance for the low cost projects and high cost projects is
calculated and presented in table 6.73. The result confirmed that the safety level for high
cost projects is higher and much better compared to the safety level gained by low cost
projects. The safety level among low cost projects varies more compared to the high cost
projects.
Hypothesis testing as elaborated in detail in section 6.5.3 strongly proved that
there is a significant different in safety level between the low cost projects and high cost
projects. Mean rank value proved by MannWhitney test gives another strong indication
that the safety level at high cost constructions are much better than at low cost
constructions as shown in table 6.79. Safety level for high cost constructions is absolutely
higher than safety level for the low cost projects. This means level of compliance to
safety audit elements for high cost projects clearly much higher than in the low cost
projects. This finding is in agreement with earlier research done by Jannadi, M.O and
Assaf, S (1996) in which safety assessment scores in high cost projects were consistently
high in all different elements.
157
REFERENCES
Abu M.S dan Tasir Z. (2003). Analisis Data Berkomputer SPSS 11.5 for Windows.
Venton Publishing, Kuala Lumpur.
Ahmad, K. and Gibb, A. (2004). Towards Effective Safety Performance Measurement.
In: Rowlinson, S. Construction Safety Management System. London. Spon Press.
425442.
Australia (2005). National Standard for Construction Work. NOHSC:1016(2005).
Behm M (2005). Linking Construction Fatalities to the Design for Construction Safety
Concept. Journal of Safety Science, Vol.43, pp 589611.
Birkmire J.C, Lay J.R, McMahon M.C (2006). Keys Effective Third Party Process
Safety Audit. Journal of Hazardous Materials, pp 131.Unpublished.
Cattledge, G.H, Hendricks, S and Stanevich, R (1996). Fatal Occupational Falls in the
U.S Construction Industry, 19801989. Journal of Accident Analysis and
Prevention, Vol.28, No.5, pp.647654.
Construction Industry Development Board (2005). Master Plan for Occupational
Safety and Health in Construction Industry 20052010.
Corston R. and Colman A. (2003). A Crash Course in SPSS for Windows. 2 nd ed.
United Kingdom. Blackwell Publishing.
Fang D.P, Xie F., Huang X.Y and Li H. (2004). Factor AnalysisBased Studies on
Construction Workplace Safety Management in China. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol.22, pp 4349.
158
Ghani W.I (1998). Safety Auditing in a Manufacturing Company. Safety, Health &
Environment Seminar’ 98. August 1314,1998. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
1998, pp 17.
Grote G. and C.Künzler (2000). Diagnosis of Safety Culture in Safety Management
Audits. Journal of Safety Science, Vol.34, pp 131150.
Haslam R.A, Hide S.A, Gibb A.G.F, Gyi D.E, Pavitt T, Atkinson S, Duff A.R (2005).
Contributing Factors in Construction Accidents. Journal of Applied Ergonomics,
Vol.36, pp 401415.
Heinrich, H.W. (1950). Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach, Third
Edition, McGrawHill, New York.
Heinrich, H.W., Petersen, D. and Ross, N. (1980). Industrial accident Prevention, 5 th
Edition, McGrawHill, New York.
Hinze J.W (1997). Construction Safety. PrenticeHall, New Jersey.
Hess K. (1998). Construction Safety Auditing Made Easy. A Checklist Approach to
OSHA Compliance. Government Institute Rockville, Maryland.
Hughes P. and Ferrett E. (2005). Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction.
Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann.
International Labour Office, ILO (2001). Guidelines on Occupational Safety and
Health Management Systems.
Jacinto C. and Aspinwall E (2004). A Survey on Occupational Accident’s reporting and
Registration System in the European Union. Journal of Safety Science, Vol.42,
Issue 10, pp 933960.
159
Janicak, C.A (1998). FallRelated Deaths in the Construction Industry. Journal of Safety
Research, Vol.29, No.1, pp 3542.
Jannadi O.A and BuKhamsin M.S (2002). Safety Factors Considered by Industrial
Contractors in saudi Arabia. Journal of Building and Environment, Vol.37, pp
539547.
Jannadi M.O and Assaf S (1998). Safety Assessment in the Built Environment of Saudi
Arabia. Journal of safety Science, Vol.29, pp 1524.
Kartam N.A and Bouz R.G. (1996). Fatalities and Injuries in the Kuwaiti Construction
Industry Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.30, No.6, pp.805814.
Laitenant, H and Ruohomaki, I (1996). The Effects of Feedback and Goal Setting on
Safety Performance at Two Construction Sites. Journal of Safety Science, Vol.24,
No.1, pp 6173.
Lingard, H and Rowlinson, S (1997). BehaviorBased Safety Management in Hong
Kong’s Construction Industry. Journal of Safety Research, Vol.28, No.4, pp 243
256.
Malaysia (1967). Factories and Machinery Act. Act 139.
Malaysia (1994). Occupational Safety and Health Act. Act 514.
Mausner, J.S and Bahn, A.K. (1974). Epidemiology An Introductory Text, W.B.
Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
Mohamed S. (1999). Empirical Investigation of Construction Safety Management
Activities and Performance in Australia. Journal of Safety Science, Vol.33, pp
129142.
160
Ng S.T, Cheng K.P, Skitmore R.M (2005). A Framework for Evaluating the Safety
Performance of Construction Contractors. Journal of Building and Environment,
Vol.40, pp 13471355.
Norusis M.J (2004). SPSS 12.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Perry P. (2003). Construction Safety Questions and Answers. Thomas Telfold, London.
Rowlinson, S. (2004). Overview of Construction Site Safety Issues. In: Rowlinson, S.
Construction Safety Management System. London. Spon Press, pp 114.
Rowlinson S. (2004). The Need for Accident Reporting System: Legal Versus Company
Needs. In: Rowlinson, S. Construction Safety Management System. London.
Spon Press, pp 405423.
Sawach E., Naoum S. and Fong D. (1999). Factors affecting performance on
Construction Sites. International Journal of Project Management. Vol.17, No.5,
pp 309315.
Smith G.R and Arnold T.M (1996). Safety Performance Measurements for Masonry
Construction. Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites.
Proceeding of The First International Conference of CIB Working Commission
W99/Lisbon/Portugal. 47 September 1996, pp 103114.
Spiegel M.R (2000). Schaum’s Easy Outlines: Statistic.. McGrawHill. United States of
America.
Tam C.M, Zeng S.X and Deng Z.M (2004). Identifying Elements of Poor Construction
Safety Management in China. Journal of Safety Science, No.1, pp 569586.
161
Teo E.A.L, Ling F.Y.Y (2006). Developing a Model to Measure the Effectiveness of
Safety Management System of Construction Sites. Journal of Building and
Environment. Vol.41, pp 15841592.
Teo E.A.L, Ling F.Y.Y and Chong A.F.W (2005). Framework for Project Managers to
Manage Construction Safety. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol.23, pp 329341.
Yränheikki, E and Savolainen, H (2000). Occupational Safety and health in Finland.
Journal of Safety Research, Vol.31, No.4, pp 177183.
Zhong M., Zhang X., Liu T., Wei X. (2003). Safety Evaluation of Engineering and
Construction Projects in China. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, Vol.16,pp 201207.
162
Appendix 1
163
Appendix 2
164
Appendix 3
165
166
167
168
169
Appendix 4
170