the level of compliance to safety audit in

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



6.2.3 Element C – Machinery 86



6.2.4 Element D – Platform 88



x

6.2.5 Element E – Scaffolding 90



6.2.6 Element F – Floor Opening 92



6.2.7 Element G – Edge of Open Floor 94



6.2.8 Element H – Working at Height 96



6.2.9 Element I – Access and Egress 99



6.2.10 Element J – Public Safety 101



6.2.11 Element K – Electrical Safety 103



6.2.12 Element L – Workers Quarters 105



6.2.13 Element M – Cleanliness 107



6.2.14 Element N – Storage Facilities 109



6.2.15 Element O – Health and Welfare 111



6.2.16 Element P – Formwork 113

xi



6.2.17 Element Q – Personal Protective Equipment 115



6.2.18 Element R – Excavation and Shoring 117



6.2.19 Element S – Piling 120



6.2.20 Element T – Demolition 122



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


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


39

3.5 SubElements of Scaffolding and relevant


41

3.6 SubElements of Floor Opening and relevant


42

3.7 SubElements of Edge of open floor and relevant


43

3.8 SubElements of Working at Height and relevant


44

3.9 SubElements of Access and Egress and relevant


45

3.10 SubElements of Public Safety and relevant


46

3.11 SubElements of Electrical Safety and relevant


47

3.12 SubElements of Workers Quarters and relevant


48

xiv

3.13 SubElements of Cleanliness and relevant


49

3.14 SubElements of Storage Facilities and relevant

`Section/Regulation of the Acts

50

3.15 SubElements of Health and Welfare Facilities


51

3.16 SubElements of Formwork and relevant


53

3.17 SubElements of Personal Protective Equipment


54

3.18 SubElements of Excavation and Shoring and

relevant Section/Regulation of the Acts

56

3.19 SubElements of Piling and relevant


57

3.20 SubElements of Demolition and relevant


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


Management Based on the Category of Project


Management Based on the Cost of Project


Committee Based on the Year of Project


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


Committee Based on the Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Machinery Based on the

Year of Project


Category of Project


Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Platform Based on the

Year of Project


Category of Project


Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Scaffolding Based on the

Year of Project


Category of Project


Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Floor Opening Based

on the Year of Project


on the Category of Project


on the Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Edge of Open Floor

Based on the Year of Project


Based on the Category of Project


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






Analysis on the Element of Access and Egress






Analysis on the Element of Public Safety Based on

the Year of Project


the Category of Project


the Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Electrical Safety Based






Analysis on the Element of Workers Quarters






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




the Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Storage Facilities






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




the Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Personal Protective

Equipment Based on the Year of Project


Equipment Based on the Category of Project


Equipment Based on the Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Excavation and

Shoring Based on the Year of Project


Shoring Based on the Category of Project


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


Category of Project


Cost of Project

Analysis on the Element of Demolition Based on

the Year of Project




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


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


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


Figure 2.4: The Removal of The Central Factor Makes the Action of Preceding

Factor Ineffective


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


3.5.6.3 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.


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;


3.5.7.2 Section 15(2)(c) refer to 2.3.1.3


Installation of suitable enclosure OSHA Section 15(2)(a)


Maintenance and Inspection OSHA Section 15(2)(a)

Table 3.7: Sub Elements of Edge of Open Floor and Relevant


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;



3.5.8.3 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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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



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.


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


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



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.


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)


Inspection and maintenance OSHA Section 15(2)(e)

Table 3.15: Sub Elements of Health and Welfare and Relevant


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


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


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.


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


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;


3.5.18.2 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


Warning Sign, Guard and Barricade

of excavation area


Checking and supervising by a

designated person


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


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;


3.5.19.2 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.


Shoring for stability of adjacent

structures


Physical Conditions of piling

machine

BOWEC Regulation 130, 131, 134

Inspection and maintenance by a

designated person


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;


3.5.20.2 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


Danger sign BOWEC Regulation 99

Approval from relevant authority BOWEC Regulation 100

Inspection and supervision by a

designated person


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


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.


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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)



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


The safety and health committee’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005 were



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



Total 17.3% 32.0% 27.8% 12.0% 10.9% 100.0%



The safety and health committee’s satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions

and highrise constructions were 71.8% and 82.5% respectively.


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


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%



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



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


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


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



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.


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


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.


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%



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


90


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


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


1.3.5 Element E – Scaffolding


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.


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



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


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


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


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.


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


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



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


94


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


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


1.3.7 Element G – Edge of Open Floor


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.


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



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


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


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


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.


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


98

Table 6.23 : Analysis on the Element of Working at Height Based on the

Category 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


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



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


1.3.9 Element I – Access and Egress


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.


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



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


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



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


1.3.10 Element J – Public Safety


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.


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%



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



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


103

Public Safety Cost of Project in Million


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


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


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


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



Total 15.0% 40.8% 25.6% 14.0% 4.6% 100.0%

105

Electrical Safety Cost of Project in Million


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


1.3.12 Element L – Workers Quarters


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


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


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


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



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


107


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


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


1.3.13 Element M – Cleanliness


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.


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


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



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


109


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


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


1.3.14 Element N – Storage Facilities


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.


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



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


111


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


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


1.3.15 Element O – Health and Welfare


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.


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



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


113


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


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


1.3.16 Element P – Formwork


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



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


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


1.3.17 Element Q – Personal Protective Equipment


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


The Personal Protective Equipment’s satisfy level scored for 2004 and 2005



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.



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



Total 5.3% 31.3% 41.1% 16.9% 5.5% 100.0%

117


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


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%



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



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


Category of Project

The Excavation and Shoring satisfy level scored for lowrise constructions and



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


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%


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



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


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.


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



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


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



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


1.3.20 Element T – Demolition


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


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.


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


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



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


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


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


130

iii. Formwork

Consequently the following elements had low safety level for lowrise constructions;

i. Demolition


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;


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. 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


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;



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;


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


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. 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



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


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


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.


(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


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.


(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

169

Appendix 4