PROPUESTAS PARA MEJORAR Y ACERCARSE A LA CALIDAD

In addition to the closed question discussed previously, 299 respondents answered the question: “When construction involves a major risk such as a risk to lots of people, should extra

precautions be taken?” and 106 offered more details and comments on their answer. The key comments have been grouped by content and presented in Table 7.61 The groups are not precise nor mutually exclusive and in some cases a complex comment has been split between different groups to reduce unnecessary repetition. As the question was asking for ‘problems’ or ‘solutions to problems it is not surprising that almost all of the comments were negative. A number of reassuring statements that much was being done were also offered. It should also be noted that a number of these comments are very pointed and dogmatic – they are, of course, the views of individuals and should be interpreted in that light. Notwithstanding, they do reflect some of the views held by people in the industry.

1

The main thrust of these comments are summarised as follows1:

Accidents have multiple causes and cannot be treated simplistically. We need to be better at recognising the hazards in the first place and we need to deal with unusual hazards.

Whenever possible, we should eliminate the hazard, especially during the design and pre- construction phases. It was acknowledged that, at times this was difficult but that this must still be the primary aim – there was considerable feeling that this was not being done well at the moment. Several respondents argued that using engineering judgement and compliance with existing codes and advice is important, but it was noted that more advice needed and so some subjective decisions may still be necessary.

Removing one hazard may create others and things will change so we still need to manage the residual risk and we still need good supervision. Many respondents stressed the need to check that things are actually done by review and monitoring both during design and construction. The importance of independence in such reviews was emphasised. We also need better teamwork, coordination and communication

In assessing and managing the risk we must beware of just ‘ticking the boxes’ and we should beware missing the ‘big picture’ by concentrating only on ‘everyday’ risk management. We should beware complacency and not accept that we can do something just because it is ‘the way we have always done it’.

Competence and experience of all involved is essential and currently lacking in many quarters. Respondents argued that clients need to fulfil their role effectively. There was considerable strong feeling that some designers don’t do as much as is needed.

We need to face the challenges from other project priorities such as time, cost, quality and aesthetics. It was agreed that small projects and small organisations have some special challenges. We need to address complications with the supply chain and procurement methods, particularly dealing with sub & sub-subcontracting and interfaces.

Some respondents claim that we are generally doing ok – but it is patchy. Finally, all people involved in the process need to take responsibility.

Table 7.6 Respondents’ examples of what more could be done to prevent catastrophic events - categorised free text

Examples of what more could be done to prevent catastrophic events Accidents have multiple causes

Very rarely was a failure down to a single factor

They try, sometimes they underestimate the magnitude of them or changes to the planned circumstances affect the controls and it passes un noticed.

A risk identified and planned for normally is no longer a risk of any magnitude--accidents occur because of a particular combination and/or a risk not recognised as a risk.

We need to be better at recognising the hazards in the first place

They would do something if they recognised the hazards! Many don’t recognise the hazard

People will take action only if they are made aware of the hazards and they can be convinced that even if the

likelihood is low the severity could be catastrophic.

1

The style here is intentionally in the first person to reflect the fact that many people have taken the time to make personal contributions.

They will only identify the ones they know, or that have been pointed out to them.

Not many project teams start by seriously analysing and understanding the hazards associated with the job In my experience people are not aware of what hazards are!

You cannot consciously eliminate a hazard unless you have identified it. Too many people have blinkers on. Once designers recognise a risk, they then usually try to eliminate or reduce the risk.

We are not good at seeing the hazards especially at change points We need to deal with unusual hazards

Current focus seems to be on eliminating those hazards unusual and infrequent nature they can difficult to account that are less obvious, as per CDM 2007, however, due to their nature they are difficult to design out. we still find that the majority of hazards are posed by users i.e. the unfamiliar, and that such hazards can be dealt with through good design and residual risk management.

For major works, hazards are considered - the lower the perceived risk the less they look at hazard reduction People look at hazards, but do not recognise the hazardous situations that can result - especially when there are unusual initiating factors.

We should eliminate the hazard wherever possible

Hazard notification and reduction seem to occur far more often than hazard elimination

People try and put mitigation measures in place rather than eliminate hazards, often wasting time and money when it would have been easier to eliminate something

Generally people, particularly designers, are too reliant on a last resort such as 'access must be by trained personnel with appropriate PPE with suitably erected scaffold', rather than trying to eliminate a hazard at source

The attitude is that hazard elimination is not possible, because we have always done it this way and it would be too expensive / time consuming.

Yes a lot of people do try to eliminate, but I do think do a lot more could be done at design stage - this is best time to eliminate and we don't do enough

Identify hazards and eliminate it is prime response of all Engineers in construction

You will never eliminate human error, but having alert, experienced staff reviewing what is happening minimises the risks.

Elimination at design stage by designer

Hazards are usually identified and mitigation measures considered

Certainly in contracting we spend a lot of time considering and trying to eliminate hazards

We need to reduce the risk of their occurrence, eliminating hazards is not practicable.

Hazards generally need to be eliminated early in the design stage and it is often this element that is missing Elimination is usually done for reasons other than CDM.

People generally apply precautions to lower the risk but do not remove the source

Traditional approaches still prevail in the industry and consideration of elimination of hazards is rare.

The correct choice of design solution can eliminate hazards

You cannot start a design with hazard elimination being the main driver otherwise all buildings would be a single storey box. I think hazard elimination only starts properly after stage C by which time some of the key irreversible hazards are in place.

Particularly at the design stage, hazard removal is infrequently utilised

Eliminating hazards is not yet fully embedded into the design culture. It is often an add-on at a too late stage in projects.

I think those involved in the management and supervision actively try to eliminate hazards as far as they can. This is something we are addressing through our Zero Harm programme, which requires elimination of risk of serious injury/fatality.

Elimination of hazards is the first part of design that any design should consider. The hierarchy of control is not always followed fully

Using engineering judgement and compliance with existing codes and advice is important It is down to 'engineering judgment'

There are few projects which contain 'problems' that lie outside accepted 'best practice' on these situations then the input from suitably experienced engineers is essential.

It would be good if we all simply complied with existing guidance / requirements from Standards, Codes etc. I suggest that most of our construction accidents are a failure to comply with the present clear industry best practice.

If existing procedures eg BS5975 are applied rigorously & conscientiously, risk of accidents is vastly reduced More advice is needed

There is very poor advice on what is 'acceptable risk' and 'un-acceptable risk'. Subjective decisions may still be necessary

Quantifiable data is hard to come by

Removing one hazard may create others and things will change …they are replaced by something else

It is often the case that eliminating one hazard will only introduce another. While eliminating hazards is an admirable goal, efforts should be focussed on reducing and managing the residual risks.

Late changes both design and especially construction sequence/programme, time pressures all reduce the actual effectiveness of the hazard elimination.

The hazards may change from those foreseen at the design stage but a new review of hazards is not then carried out because the Team haven't recognised the extent of the differences or because they have 'no time' to do so.

We still need to manage the residual risk

Elimination is usually done for reasons other than CDM. Managing the hazard and risk is the big challenge and should be where concentration of effort is focussed.

We still need good supervision

Too much reliance on briefings and not direct supervision. As workforce will take the easiest quickest option if unsupervised.

Time pressure on workers means close management and supervision is needed at all times to ensure the

detail and big picture are kept in mind by all concerned.

We need to check that things are actually done – Review & Monitoring

Many hazards "dealt with" by use of standard phrases in risk assessments, e.g. use a banksman, but who checks whether these processes are followed?

We are always looking to reduce risks as team. We go over scenarios repeatedly and then monitor in site that things are going as planned.

Far too often designers follow 'codes' for 'their specialism' and are reluctant to allow 'third party questioning' Planning always needs to be re-checked throughout the construction process

Paperwork exercises are carried out to make it appear things have been done but these are rarely communicated and implemented

Formal risk analysis is rarely conducted. Though, even if it were, the majority of failures I've investigated were caused by the lack of proper execution of routine operations, which would probably go below the radar of most risk analyses.

Too often a lack of checking takes place, eg has the best method of construction been used, have all the hazards been covered, is rigorous checking being carried out both at design and construction stages. You will never eliminate human error, but having alert, experienced staff reviewing what is happening minimises the risks.

Very rarely was a failure down to a single factor - this led to my paying great attention to specific aspects of work in which I was involved, particularly the design and site checking of falsework.

The major problem is that engineering has become a "JOB", a 9am to 5pm occupation; the extra work of checking is avoided and covered with contract disclaimers

Usually down to common sense or at least the designer (of the permanent or temporary works) being given the opportunity to see that the contractor has interpreted the design properly

The formal risk process needs independent review by an experienced team who have no direct involvement in the project.

The hazards may change from those foreseen at the design stage but a new review of hazards is not then carried out because the Team haven't recognised the extent of the differences or because they have 'no time' to do so.

We need better teamwork, coordination and communication

No-one co-ordinates the process effectively (including the CDM-C who is often not involved in such deliberations

Paperwork exercises are carried out to make it appear things have been done but these are rarely communicated and implemented

Hazards identified are evaluated in a team approach, in most instances Early involvement of contractors is paramount.

We must beware of just ‘ticking the boxes’ It appears to be tick box exercise.

Many hazards "dealt with" by use of standard phrases in risk assessments, e.g. use a banksman, Too much emphasis on design risk assessments, often numeric, done too little too late.

People often only apply procedural or administrative controls

Paperwork exercises are carried out to make it appear things have been done but these are rarely communicated and implemented

We try an informal way. Formal ways seem to be tick box situations of paperwork only.

Procedures (beyond a certain minimum level) just dull the senses. People tick boxes but we need to instil conscious awareness

Some people do not know why they are doing it, they just go through the motions because they have to. There is a great deal of emphasis on box-ticking type procedures that distract rather the concentrate attention on relevant factors.

Risk assessment becomes superficial and serves only as a prerequisite paperwork before construction starts. We should beware missing the ‘big picture’ by concentrating only on ‘everyday’ risk management They worry too much about the well known risks and miss the big picture (for major accidents)

Numeric risk assessments do not adequately address low probability, high consequence events (Parallels with e.g. petrochem where e.g. BP Texas City were too busy with relatively minor consequences and took their eye off the process safety ball)

We tend focus on the common hazards and miss the less popular ones

All of the risk assessment processes I've been involved with focus on 'manageable' risks (i.e. on site

processes) rather than issues of structural safety for instance (it is almost a given that the structural engineer will deal with this independently).

It is important that major hazards are identified in the first place - there can be too much dependence on identifying and addressing the 'good housekeeping hazards' and not enough real in depth thought on the project specific hazards.

We should beware complacency – ‘the way we have always done it’ Traditional approaches still prevail in the industry

In my experience it is rare for accidents - especially major accidents - to happen where the personnel involved have not been aware of the hazards and risks ..They invariably believe they are in control and that an incident will not happen. (e.g. the team know an underground service is in the immediate vicinity but will use an excavator to try to clear as much material away from the area - and as close to the service as they think they can 'get away with' - before proceeding with hand digging.

Some people have their own way of doing things and it’s hard to change when you don’t stand over them 24 hours a day

The workers do not think like that (i.e. about risk)

We have done it this way before and we did not have an accident

Competence and experience of all involved is essential and currently lacking

Unfortunately, not everyone has a high degree of competence in this, which creates additional risks in itself. Designers do not have the competence or drive to take this forward.

People only do things as far as their experience permits

It depends on the character/knowledge of the team involved and their experience.

It’s usually down to common sense

If aware, hazards are reduced, its ignorance that creates hazards

PPE is generally considered first because of cost and a lack of understanding.

Hazards are easily perpetuated in designs without appropriate depth of site experience

The major challenge is to make sure individuals are competent to do the job they are employed to do. Computers seem to have overtaken the lateral thinking process that used to be put in during the process, when we used to do hand calculations in respect of structural design. Some of the younger generation are too much reliant on computers and have very little experience of actual site works or the practicalities of how the actual construction works will take place of their proposed design. In other words, designing something without knowing/imagining how it will be actually achieved on site.

CDM 2007 is great in principal, but where is the policing of this. Far too many designers have little or no knowledge of what is required from them.

We need clients to fulfil their role effectively

Basically people do try to eliminate risk but its clients who hold the final say

Action only occurs when driven by Client or his representative

In my most recent experience, the designers & contractor have not adequately considered the risks and have had to be guided/forced to do so by the Client.

As a contractor, clients appear to be very weak (in my view) at actively managing the permanent works design process to eliminate hazards.

Of course, depends on the project-- some clients get it, a lot don't

If there's insufficient time & resources people will take the risk. Project owner should allow realistic timeframe & budget to do the work in a good practice manner.

Some designers don’t do as much as is needed

Some people try; some don't even think about it; few identify why they have eliminated a hazard and fail to pass that information to others (e.g. clients, others in the design team and constructors).

Architects do not consider how a building is to be constructed when producing designs. They are more concerned with the aesthetic than safety. Design risks are passed to the Constructor. CDM has not changed this fundamental problem.

Workers at the "face" will attempt to reduce them. There is however often lack of appreciation of these by office based designers despite CDM

Far too often designers follow 'codes' for 'their specialism' and are reluctant to allow 'third party questioning'