JQME

6,1
28
Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 1, 2000,
pp. 28-44. # MCB University Press,
1355-2511
The maintenance of
construction safety: riding on
ISO 9000 quality management
systems
Low Sui Pheng and Sua Chen Shiua
National University of Singapore
Keywords Quality, Safety, Construction industry, Integration, Maintenance, ISO 9000
Abstract Quality and safety are two important issues in the construction industry. The industry
not only looks for good quality buildings but is also keen to promote a safe working environment
on construction sites. Quality management systems (QMS) as well as safety management systems
(SMS) are already in place in many countries where quality and safety issues are dealt with
respectively. Unfortunately, both systems are frequently considered separately. It is the contention
of this paper that there are similarities between both systems and that it is technically possible and
desirable to integrate a SMS within a QMS to achieve an integrated quality and safety
management system (QSMS). The paper highlights the relevant safety elements and quality
requirements and, by means of surveys and interviews with quality managers and safety
managers, confirms that there are similarities between a SMS and a QMS, making it possible to
integrate these two systems, to achieve better co-ordination and utilisation of scarce resources.
Introduction
The ISO 9000 standards have actively been promoted in the construction
industry in many countries as a means to assuring quality by building
contractors. Some countries (for example, Australia, Hong Kong and
Singapore) have gone as far as to require all contractors to be certified to ISO
9000 requirements before they qualify to bid for public sector building projects.
This means that quality management systems (QMS) certified to ISO 9000
standards are now an ubiquitous feature in the construction industry in many
countries.
Apart from quality issues, building contractors are also faced with a moral
obligation to care for the well-being/welfare of workers on site. Consequently,
the need for building contractors to provide for a safe working environment on
site cannot be overlooked. This is particularly so in the larger and more
complex engineering projects, where safety becomes an even more important
issue. Safety concerns life as well as property and should not therefore be taken
lightly. The governments in some of the more developed countries like the UK
and Australia have therefore legislated safe working practices which building
contractors must conform with on site. The evolution of safety management
systems (SMS) therefore become the mandated means through which site
safety measures can be managed more effectively.
The division between quality management and safety management,
however, suggests that immense benefits and synergy can be reaped by
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
Maintenance of
construction
safety
29
integrating QMS with SMS in an organisation, since both management systems
are common features in many construction firms. Instead of operating two
separate management systems, synergy can be achieved by integrating QMS
and SMS to work from a common platform. The thrust of this paper is shown in
Figure 1 where a SMS is superimposed on a QMS to achieve an integrated
quality and safety management system, or QSMS.
For this integration to take place, it is necessary to first consider the
fundamental framework from which QMS and SMS are developed. This should
also decide whether the QMS or SMS should be the host system. At this
juncture, it should be noted that most, if not all, QMS are founded on a common
template in the ISO 9000 standards, regardless of the country in which a
building contractor works. On the other hand, safety regulations for building
operations may vary from country to country, depending, in many cases, on the
stage of development of the construction industry in a particular country. For
this reason, it is more difficult to format a QMS based on a SMS model because
there is no standard template to work from in different countries. It is therefore
easier to integrate a SMS as a subset of a QMS since the ISO 9000 standards
provide the global template which makes this possible. For this purpose,
construction safety regulations in Singapore will be used as an example to
achieve integration. The aim is therefore to achieve quality services through
safety!
The objectives of this paper are two-fold:
(1) to extrapolate the common criteria/requirements between a QMS and a
SMS to streamline operations for the building contractor; and
(2) to examine the attitude of quality managers and safety managers
towards a proposed integrated QSMS.
Streamlining SMS and QMS
The Factories (Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction)
Regulations, 1994 provide for safe practices in the construction industry in
Singapore. (Note: these regulations will be referred to as the BOWEC
Regulations hereafter in the paper.) The provisions include the implementation
of SMS and safety audit/review for the construction industry. The SMS is a
system of work procedures which ensures safe working practices are adhered
Figure 1.
An integrated quality
and safety management
system (QSMS)
JQME
6,1
30
to in order to minimize the chance of an accident occurring. It is similar in
philosophy to the ISO 9000 standards. While a ISO 9000 QMS aims to achieve
quality objectives through proper documentation and work procedures, the
SMS, in the same fashion, aims to achieve the objective of a safe working
environment through the establishment of a proper management system within
which safety issues may be addressed.
The BOWEC Regulations list 13 main elements which constitute good safety
management on construction sites. These 13 elements form the basis for a
construction firm to implement a SMS for its operations (Goh, 1997). These 13
elements are:
(1) Safety policy
(2) Safe working practice
(3) Safety training
(4) Group meetings
(5) Incident investigation and analysis
(6) In-house rules and regulations
(7) Safety promotion
(8) Control of contractors
(9) Safety inspection
(10) Maintenance regime
(11) Hazard analysis
(12) Hazardous materials
(13) Emergency preparedness
These 13 main elements will form the basic SMS guidelines for the purpose of
integration with a QMS since these are regulated in the BOWEC Regulations.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) based in Geneva,
Switzerland, developed the ISO 9000 standards from BS 5750 in 1987 as a way
``to encourage the international co-ordination and unification of industrial
standards''. The ISO 9000 series of standards were subsequently adopted by
many countries around the world. ISO 9000 is essentially a series of five
standards which describe the elements for establishing and maintaining a
QMS. The ISO 9000 language used is generic as it is intended to be applicable
to a wide range of industries, including construction (Low, 1998). What ISO
9000 aims to do is to spell out a comprehensive set of planned and systematic
actions or procedures necessary to ensure that a product or service will satisfy
given requirements for quality. This series of standards consists of the
following:
.
ISO 9000 this part provides guidance to the selection and use of quality
management and quality assurance standards.
Maintenance of
construction
safety
31
.
ISO 9001 this part sets out in detail the specification for quality
assurance in the design and development, production, installation and
servicing stages.
.
ISO 9002 this part sets out in detail the specification for quality
assurance in the production, installation and servicing stages.
.
ISO 9003 this part sets out in detail the specification for quality
assurance in the final inspection and testing stages.
.
ISO 9004 this is the final part of the series that explains quality
management and quality system elements.
The ISO 9000 specifies a set of clauses that a firm seeking implementation must
necessarily adhere to. However, these clauses are generic in nature. Hence,
firms can fit the specified needs of their organisations into the framework of the
ISO9000 standards. The 20 clauses specified in the ISO9000 standards are:
(1) Management responsibility
(2) Quality system
(3) Contract review
(4) Design control
(5) Document and data control
(6) Purchasing
(7) Control of customer-supplied product
(8) Product identification and traceability
(9) Process control
(10) Inspection and testing
(11) Control of inspection, measuring and test equipment
(12) Inspection and test status
(13) Control of non-conforming product
(14) Corrective and preventive action
(15) Handling, storage, packaging, preservation and delivery
(16) Control of quality records
(17) Internal quality audit
(18) Training
(19) Servicing
(20) Statistical techniques
Upon closer examination of their detailed requirements, it appears plausible to
match the 13 elements provided for in the BOWEC Regulations with the 20
clauses set out in ISO 9001. The matching of SMS elements with QMS clauses
JQME
6,1
32
suggests that it is indeed possible and beneficial to have an integrated QSMS
within a construction firm. This matching is summarised conceptually in
Figure 2, which indicates the similiarities between SMS and QMS
requirements. It should, however, be emphasized that Figure 2 matches only
ISO 9000 clauses with the 13 elements as specified in the BOWEC Regulations.
This match may only be peculiar to the construction industry in Singapore
where the regulations apply. However, similar exercises can also be undertaken
to take into account different provisions for safety legislation in other countries.
For example, a similar exercise could be conducted in the UK to merge ISO
9000 requirements with provisions of the Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations, 1995.
As shown from the matching exercise in Figure 2, it seems that all 13 safety
elements may be accounted for in the ISO 9000 template. The generic nature of
the ISO 9000 standards is obviously beneficial here. This is because the
incorporation of safety requirements into the QMS framework appears to be
limited only by one's imagination. Many common safety requirements may be
integrated into different areas and, in some cases, their functions may even
overlap. The extent to which safety requirements can be addressed effectively
Figure 2.
Template for integrating
ISO 9000 requirements
with BOWEC safety
requirements
Maintenance of
construction
safety
33
within existing QMS will therefore depend on how construction firms
investigate and experiment until the best match and arrangement can be
customized. As an extended service to industry, the QMS should therefore find
its role not only within the ambit of quality management but also in the
construction industry to provide safe working practices!
While it is conceptually possible to let SMS ride on QMS, it is however
unclear if this integratrion is desirable and will indeed be received favourably
by practitioners. Hence, the second objective of this paper is to examine the
attitude of quality managers and safety managers towards a proposed
integrated QSMS. This will be achieved through a field study consisting of a
postal survey and in-depth interviews with quality managers as well as safety
managers.
Field study
A postal survey of 90 G6 to G8 local/foreign contractors was conducted in
Singapore as part of this study. (Note: construction firms in Singapore are
registered with the Central Registry of Public Sector Contractors in one of eight
financial categories. These range from G1, the smallest, to G8, the largest
financial category.) After the survey results were collated and analysed, a
questionnaire based on the survey findings was formulated. This questionnaire
was used for interviews with quality managers and safety managers, the
purpose of which was to verify and clarify doubts which surfaced from the
postal survey. These interviews help to provide insights into the current
practices of both professions. The overall objective of the field study is to
garner a better understanding of practitioners' responses as to whether an
integration of SMS and QMS is both desirable and possible. At the same time, it
will attempt to highlight the potential benefits and drawbacks arising from
such an integration. Details of the field study are highlighted below.
After pilot-testing, one survey form each was sent to the quality manager
and safety manager of these firms in July 1998. While the forms may vary
slightly for these two groups of managers in terms of format, most of the
questions were largely similar, in order to elicit responses for a common issue.
Out of the 90 survey forms sent to quality managers, 27 returns were received.
However, one of the returned forms was incomplete and therefore could not be
used in the analysis. This reduced the number of valid survey forms to 26. In
the case of safety managers, 23 forms were returned from the 90 survey forms
sent. However, six of them were incomplete and could not be included in the
analysis. The number of forms analysed was therefore reduced to 17. While the
sample size may appear to be small for these two groups of managers, the
survey results seem to be appropriate in this study because it was discovered
later that the responses to the questions asked were largely similar.
After the results of the surveys were analysed and consolidated, two
questionnaires, one each for the quality managers and safety managers, were
JQME
6,1
34
formulated for in-depth interviews with selected managers. The purpose of
these interviews was to verify and clarify issues that arose from the two
surveys.
Assessments by quality managers
The survey of quality managers was divided into three parts. In the first part of
the survey, quality managers were asked to evaluate the possibility of
incorporating the 13 elements set out in the BOWEC Regulations into their
company's ISO 9000 QMS. The responses to this part of the survey are
presented in Table I, which shows that eight out of the 13 elements received
positive responses of 68.0 per cent and more. This suggests that these eight
elements appear to be suitable for incorporation into the ISO 9000 QMS. These
eight elements are: safety policy; safe working practice; safety training;
incident investigation and analysis; in-house rules and regulations; control of
contractors; safety inspection; and maintenance regime.
While group meetings and safety promotion yielded a positive response of
56.0 per cent, hazard analysis received 52.0 per cent. Hazardous materials and
emergency preparedness attained only a 48.0 per cent response. As these five
elements hover around the mid-point of 50.0 per cent, it seems that the
possibility of incorporating these five elements into a QMS is not immediately
apparent to the respondents.
In the second part of the survey, a set of questions concerning the potential
benefits of integration were asked. Quality managers were requested to
evaluate the potential benefits arising out of this integration based on a scale of
1-5, where ``1'' denotes ``not beneficial at all'' and ``5'' represents ``very beneficial''.
By the same token, a scale of ``3'' indicates ``neutrality''; a scale of ``2'' shows
``potentially not beneficial''; and a scale of ``4'' denotes ``potentially beneficial''.
The responses to this part of the survey are presented in Table II, where the
highest level of satisfaction for each question is indicated in italics. It can be
noted from Table II that the highest level of satisfaction for each question
Table I.
Assessment by quality
managers on
incorporating safety
elements in ISO 9000
standards
BOWEC guidelines setting up of SMS % positive response
1 Safety policy 88.0
2 Safe working practice 80.0
3 Safety training 92.0
4 Group meetings 56.0
5 Incident investigation and analysis 68.0
6 In-house rules and regulations 72.0
7 Safety promotion 56.0
8 Control of contractors 76.0
9 Safety inspection 88.0
10 Maintenance regime 68.0
11 Hazard analysis 52.0
12 Hazardous materials 48.0
13 Emergency preparedness 48.0
Maintenance of
construction
safety
35
ranges mainly between ``3'' and ``4''. This finding seems to suggest that the
respondents do not generally think that there would be any drastic difference
from integrating SMS and QMS. Consequently, neutral responses were received
for: better communication, better utility of resources, reduction of workload,
dilution of the quality objective, ease of controlling, ease of planning, ease of
promotion and education/training and possibility of integration. This appears
to suggest that the respondents do not think that such an integration would
present any form of benefits with respect to their present practices.
The survey findings in Table II reveal positive responses in relation to: ease
of safety audits, better documentation of SMS, reduction of cost, ease of
organising activities, better management review, ease of site inspection and
better top management commitment. The scale of ``4'' indicates potential
benefits for integration.
Only one element in Table II indicates that the respondents felt that such an
integration may be more cumbersome for them to carry out the SMS functions.
This seems to be attributed to the fact that flexibility, which used to come as a
separate entity, has now to be co-ordinated if it were to be incorporated as a
subset of the QMS.
The third part of the survey was a simple set of ``yes/no'' questions, asking
why firms do not integrate SMS with QMS, the results of which are shown in
Table III. Again, the category for which the highest response was received for
each question is shown in italics. The first question in Table III is an important
indicator which points to the validity of this study. As shown in Table III, the
Table II.
Level of satisfaction
from quality managers
Level of satisfaction
Not
bene-
ficial
at all
Very
bene-
ficial
1 2 3 4 5
Votes in %
1 Facilitate communication 4.0 44.0 40.0 12.0
2 Ease of auditing of SMS 8.0 16.0 32.0 36.0 8.0
3 Better documentation of SMS 4.0 28.0 28.0 32.0 8.0
4 Less cumbersome in carrying out SMS functions 4.0 32.0 28.0 32.0 4.0
5 Better utility of resources, e.g. less manpower 4.0 16.0 40.0 28.0 12.0
6 Reduce cost 4.0 20.0 28.0 40.0 8.0
7 Reduce workload 4.0 24.0 44.0 24.0 4.0
8 Dilute the objective of quality 8.0 20.0 48.0 20.0 4.0
9 Ease of controlling 4.0 8.0 44.0 40.0 4.0
10 Ease of planning of SMS activities 4.0 4.0 48.0 40.0 4.0
11 Ease of organising, e.g. training, implementation 4.0 16.0 24.0 48.0 8.0
12 Better management review 4.0 4.0 20.0 64.0 8.0
13 Ease of site inspection 4.0 20.0 36.0 40.0
14 Ease of promotion and education/training 8.0 48.0 32.0 12.0
15 Possibility of such an integration 4.0 16.0 44.0 36.0
16 Better top management commitment? 4.0 36.0 44.0 16.0
JQME
6,1
36
fact that such an integration is not obvious to many respondents appears to
explain why many firms may have overlooked the possible benefits which can
be derived from such an integration. The second question indicates the
importance of management commitment. Again, this seems to explain why
many respondents felt that the integration of SMS with QMS may help to bring
about better top management awareness as shown earlier in the second part of
the survey (see Table II). This may also explain why safety was not a priority
on a company's investment list in question 6 of Table III. However, questions 3
and 6 (Table III) seem to contradict, because most firms felt that safety is an
important issue and yet not much priority was given to it. This seems to
suggest that there is a disparity between top management and other employees
who are working closely with safety issues. In this context, manpower and
organisational constraints appear to be two factors which can help to explain
why many respondents do not seem to be keen in seeking an integration.
Most firms, however, have not achieved complete satisfaction with their
present system of work. This may be attributed to the practice of employing
external safety auditors to take the workload off management and, in the
process, causing the latter to lose control. In addition, employees who carry out
the safety functions in the firm may not have the power to make any drastic
changes to the existing framework and are consequently frustrated by the lack
of progress within the organisation.
Assessments by safety managers
The survey of safety managers was likewise divided into three parts. In the
first part, safety managers were asked if it is possible to incorporate the 13
elements stipulated in the BOWEC Regulations within a QMS which sets out
the ISO 9000 requirements. The results of this first part are summarised in
Table IV. As shown in Table IV, the positive responses (ranging from 71.0 to
100 per cent) for management responsibility, quality system, process control,
corrective and preventive action, internal quality audits and training suggest
strongly that it is possible to promote the integration of SMS elements within
ISO 9000 requirements. On the other hand, the responses for contract review,
document and data control, control of inspection, measuring and test
equipment, inspection and test status, control of non-conforming product,
Table III.
Quality managers'
views regarding why
firms do not integrate
SMS and QMS
Yes No Nil
Response in %
1 Such an integration not obvious? 64.0 16.0 20.0
2 Not enough emphasis by the top management? 64.0 24.0 12.0
3 Safety regarded as a lesser concern? 24.0 60.0 16.0
4 Organisational structure difficulty? 60.0 24.0 16.0
5 Not enough manpower? 64.0 20.0 16.0
6 Not a priority on company's investment list? 72.0 12.0 16.0
7 Complete satisfaction with present system of work? 24.0 68.0 8.0
Maintenance of
construction
safety
37
control of quality records and statistical techniques lie between 50.0 and 70.0
per cent. This seems to suggest that these ISO 9000 requirements may not be so
amenable in so far as their integration with SMS elements is concerned.
Nevertheless, in spite of these weak responses, allowances should be made for
possible oversight or lack of understanding of the issues involved on the part of
safety managers who responded to the survey. Not all safety managers are well
versed with quality matters and this may, therefore, adversely influence their
perceptions as to whether the 13 elements provided for in the BOWEC
Regulations can be integrated meaningfully with ISO 9000 requirements.
In the second part of the survey with safety managers, the Likert scale of 1-5
used earlier in the survey of quality managers was similarly adopted. Safety
managers were requested to evaluate the potential benefits for integrating SMS
elements with QMS requirements. The responses to this part of the survey are
presented in Table V, where the highest level of satisfaction for each question is
indicated in italics. It can be seen from Table V that a majority of the responses
ranges between the scales of 3 and 4. It appears that the responses from safety
managers differ from those of the quality managers. Safety managers seem to
indicate that there are more potential benefits for integrating SMS and QMS. In
fact, they strongly felt that it would be very beneficial where better
documentation and better top management commitment are concerned.
Communication, auditing, controlling, planning, organising, site inspection and
ease of promotion are areas where potential benefits may be extended to their
present systems of work. However, in areas pertaining to the ease of carrying
out SMS activities, better utilisation of resources, cost and workload reduction,
Table IV.
Safety managers'
assessments on
incorporating safety
elements in ISO 9000
standards
ISO 9000 guidelines for setting up QMS % positive response
1 Management responsibilities 100.00
2 Quality system 71.0
3 Contract review 50.00
4 Design control n/a
5 Document and data control 64.3
6 Purchasing 35.7
7 Control of customer-supplied product 42.9
8 Product identification and traceability 42.9
9 Process control 78.6
10 Inspection and testing 64.3
11 Control of inspection, measuring and test equipment 57.1
12 Inspection and test status 64.3
13 Control of non-conforming product 57.1
14 Corrective and preventive action 85.7
15 Handling, storage, packaging, preservation and delivery 28.6
16 Control of quality records 57.1
17 Internal quality records 71.4
18 Training 92.9
19 Servicing 42.9
20 Statistical techniques 50.00
JQME
6,1
38
safety managers were unable to anticipate any potentially rewarding benefits.
On the other hand, they seem to agree that the quality objective would not be
diluted in the integration process.
The third part of the survey relates to a simple set of ``yes/no'' questions, the
results of which are shown in Table VI. The responses in this part appear to be
largely similar to those of the quality managers except for question 6 in Table
VI. Hence, while quality managers claimed that safety is not a priority on the
company's list of investments, safety managers tend to think otherwise (see
Tables III and VI). On the other hand, safety managers are generally
dissatisfied with their present system of work (question 7 of Table VI). In
Table V.
Level of satisfaction
from safety managers
Level of satisfaction
Not
bene-
ficial
at all
Very
bene-
ficial
1 2 3 4 5
Votes in %
1 Facilitate communication 14.3 28.6 28.6 28.6
2 Ease of auditing of SMS 7.1 14.3 14.3 42.9 21.4
3 Better documentation of SMS 7.1 14.3 14.3 28.6 35.7
4 Less cumbersome in carrying out SMS functions 21.4 42.9 28.6 7.1
5 Better utility of resources, e.g. less manpower 14.3 21.4 35.7 21.4 7.1
6 Reduce cost 21.4 21.4 35.7 7.1 14.3
7 Reduce workload 21.4 28.6 14.3 28.6 7.1
8 Dilute the objective of quality 14.3 14.3 42.9 28.6 14.3
9 Ease of controlling 21.4 28.6 28.6 21.4
10 Ease of planning of SMS activities 21.4 28.6 35.7 14.3
11 Ease of organising, e.g. training, implementation 14.3 21.4 42.9 21.4
12 Better management review 35.7 28.6 35.7
13 Ease of site inspection 21.4 21.4 42.9 14.3
14 Ease of promotion and education/training 7.1 7.1 7.1 50.0 28.6
15 Possibility of such an integration 7.1 7.1 14.3 42.9 28.6
16 Better top management commitment? 7.1 21.4 28.6 42.9
Table VI.
Safety managers' views
regarding why firms
do not integrate SMS
and QMS
Yes No Nil
Response in %
1 Such an integration not obvious? 50.0 21.4 28.6
2 Not enough emphasis by the top management? 57.1 21.4 21.4
3 Safety regarded as a lesser concern? 21.4 57.1 21.4
4 Organisational structure difficulty? 64.3 14.3 21.4
5 Not enough manpower? 42.9 35.7 21.4
6 Not a priority on company's investment list? 21.4 50.0 28.6
7 Complete satisfaction with present system of work? 50.0 28.6 21.4
Maintenance of
construction
safety
39
relation to other issues, this seems to suggest that organisation structure
(question 4 of Table VI) and its related working procedures may present
potential hurdles to existing work systems.
Interviews with quality managers
Upon completion of the above surveys, two construction firms who have
participated in the surveys were chosen for further in-depth interviews with
their quality managers and safety managers, in order to obtain a better
understanding of their responses towards integrating SMS and QMS. These
interviews were also meant to seek clarification for some of the responses
noted from the earlier surveys. Both were G8 construction firms and have been
in the building business for more than ten years. Both the quality manager and
safety manager from the two firms were interviewed on separate occasions.
Findings from the in-depth interviews with quality managers will first be
presented.
As to why group meetings, safety promotion, hazard analysis, hazardous
materials and emergency preparedness may not be so readily integrated into
the ISO 9000 QMS, the quality managers interviewed suggested that at first
glance, the provisions as to which ISO 9000 guidelines may be used to
incorporate the relevant safety elements were not obvious. Consequently, this
gives the impression that safety elements are not readily adaptable into the ISO
9000 QMS.
When prompted further as to where these safety elements could be fitted, the
interviewees felt that safety promotion and emergency preparedness may be
incorporated within the ``training'' provision of ISO 9000. Hazardous materials
may be integrated within the provisions for ``handling, storage, packaging,
preservation and delivery'', while group meeting may be documented under
``document and data control'' in the ISO 9000 standards.
One quality manager, however, felt that such an integration may not
necessarily bring about better communications because some areas of
responsibilities may overlap and become blurred in the process of integration.
Nevertheless, with regards to the better utilisation of resources, both quality
managers felt that common resources may be pooled for better utilisation,
provided these are allocated efficiently and there is no duplication of efforts.
While the surveys conducted earlier showed no reduction in workload, the
quality managers felt that enlarging the scope of a QMS to incorporate
elements of a SMS may give rise to further documentation work which will, in
turn, give the appearance that more work needed to be done.
The quality managers also agreed with the survey results that the quality
objective may be diluted when a QMS is not used for ``what it is intended for''.
When asked if a safer working environment would give rise to better quality of
work, the quality managers argued that it is better to keep quality and safety
matters separate, for ease of administration and for greater clarity, in so far as
areas of responsibilities are concerned. They added that this separation would
provide for more flexibility when work is being carried out. Furthermore,
JQME
6,1
40
separating the two functions would allow any discrepancies to be identified
more readily. While a QMS is initiated by a company, safety issues are however
mandated by legislative provisions. Hence, the attitudes governing these two
issues may differ in the process.
Both quality managers, however, agreed that a well-organised integration is
not likely to result in duplication of effort, and that resources may be pooled for
better utilisation when these are used together instead of individually.
However, the amount of manpower required may not necessarily be any less as
the amount of workload will remain the same, if not more. The quality
managers indicated that such an integration would give rise to more organised
and stringent supervision as well as documentation of safety matters. Their
main concern is that the quality issue should not be compromised when
integration takes place.
In so far as its impact on the organisation structure is concerned, the quality
managers indicated that staff will need to acquire knowledge in both safety and
quality matters for such an integration to be understood and to be effective.
Apart from having to undergo additional training, the roles of quality auditors
and safety auditors may become increasingly cross-functional. Furthermore, in
its purest sense, i.e. having the safety function completely absorbed into the
QMS, safety as an independent function may become less distinct. It may also
become less flexible in adapting to change.
In so far as ease of controlling, ease of planning, ease of site inspection, as
well as ease of promotion and education/training are concerned, the quality
managers felt that when a QMS intertwines with a SMS, their interdependence
would affect the above. This means that changes cannot be made as readily as
before. Mutual consensus now needs to be sought. Misunderstanding may
happen when different position powers between the quality manager and
safety manager lead to conflicts of interests.
When asked if they would advocate such an integration within their
organisations, if it was within their power to do so, the quality managers
argued that it is not necessary to fix something when it is not broken. The same
attitude surfaced when asked if their companies have done any cost benefits
analysis to investigate if it is worthwhile doing so. The quality managers felt
that it is not critical to do so at this point in time.
The issue of organisational power between the quality manager and safety
manager in the event of an integration was also raised in the interviews.
The quality managers felt that quality managers were traditionally considered
to be the more prominent of the two professions and that, more frequently
than not, the person occupying the post of a quality manager would usually
be of higher seniority in the organisation. They expected quality issues to
have a final say over safety, so long as legislative provisions are met.
Nevertheless, they added that this can also depend on the organisation
culture, as well as the personality of both managers, for things to work
out well.
Maintenance of
construction
safety
41
Interviews with safety managers
Contract review, document and data control, control of inspection, measuring
and test equipment, inspection and testing, control of non-conforming product,
control of quality records, and statistical techniques are ISO 9000 requirements
which the survey findings presented earlier have shown to integrate poorly
with safety elements. The safety managers interviewed felt that these
requirements are generally not within their scope of work, with the exception of
statistical techniques. In addition, even for statistical techniques, utilising
statistical measures as a means for analysis is not commonly undertaken by
safety managers.
With regards to purchasing, control of customer-supplied product, as well as
product identification and traceability, the safety managers interviewed felt
that these requirements are normally taken care of by other departments and
that their primary consideration is not related so much to safety but to costs. In
addition, most products usually provide some form of guarantee concerning
safety-in-use. However, the safety managers felt that handling, storage,
packaging, preservation and delivery, as well as servicing, are areas which can
be of relevance for safety management, but observed that in many firms these
functions do not traditionally fall within the purview of a safety manager.
Hence, this may explain their lack of enthusiasm in so far as integration is
concerned.
When asked why it is difficult to carry out safety activities if the SMS is
integrated within a QMS, the safety managers felt that an independent and
separate organisational entity can provide for greater flexibility and
accountability. The safety managers appear to share the same sentiment as the
quality managers interviewed earlier.
Both the quality managers and safety managers who were interviewed felt
that integration will not help with better utilisation of resources. Nevertheless,
quality managers are more receptive in saying that with efficient allocation of
tasks and no duplication of efforts, common resources may be pooled for better
utilisation. Safety managers, on the other hand, felt that resources, which
would otherwise be their sole entitlement, will need to be shared, if not
compromised.
Following an integration of SMS and QMS, costs and workload are expected
to increase with the introduction of more stringent documentation. Safety
managers also felt that management review would not be any better, because
safety may still be regarded with lesser importance compared to quality.
Consequently, even in the event of an integration, it is a matter of convenience
for safety issues to be regarded merely as ``piggy-backing'' on the QMS. This
perception will not help to elevate the importance of safety management.
Where the company's priority with respect to safety matters in terms of
workers' well-being, legal requirements and cost considerations are concerned,
the safety managers felt that many firms would regard legislative provisions as
their primary consideration, thus relegating workers' welfare in the process.
Nonetheless, they added that even though workers' welfare may be last in
JQME
6,1
42
priority, it is not compromised because no company would do anything foolish
to deliberately endanger the life of any employee. While there is a moral
obligation to keep their workers safe, these companies are being realistic by
maintaining only a minimumstandard of safety.
The safety managers also noted that while accidents can be unpredictable
and thus sometimes unavoidable, there are times when the workers themselves
choose to ignore personal safety. Although safety training is given and workers
are constantly reminded of the need to maintain safe practices, they may still be
ignorant in some circumstances. Safety measures such as personal guards may
sometimes get in their way and the workers would, on their own accord, choose
to remove them. At other times, it may merely be a lack of discipline which
causes an accident.
When asked if some safety measures were superficial in nature, for example,
the use of coloured tapes as warning barriers instead of constructing physical
barricades, the safety managers remarked that for practical reasons, excessive
budget and effort may not always be afforded for temporary structures unless
these are absolutely necessary.
As to whether their companies perform any cost benefits analysis to obtain a
better understanding of safety measures, the safety managers explained that
construction companies seldom perform such an analysis, e.g. statistical
analysis. Nevertheless, a comparison of the costs between in-house safety
auditing and the engagement of an external safety consultant was conducted.
Apart from meeting legislative provisions, the safety managers highlighted
that convenience and cost effectiveness are the two main reasons why external
safety auditors were engaged in the first place. While their companies cannot
be relieved of their responsibilities for safety matters, it is comforting to know
that these matters can be taken care of by others.
When asked if an external safety audit, other than to meet legislative
provisions, amounts to duplication of efforts, the safety managers explained
that this is usually done when the workload of the company increased and the
safety manager cannot oversee safety matters alone in all the projects
efficiently. In such cases, an external safety auditor can help to maintain safety
standards on site. The company therefore avoids the need to employ more
safety personnel which it might otherwise find difficult to redeploy
subsequently when the projects end. External auditors can also help to provide
valuable opinions on safety issues and help to spot smaller details which would
otherwise be overlooked.
As to whether safety performance would improve with incentives rather
than penalties, the safety managers felt that the latter, often in the form of
fining the employee, is more effective. The rationale given is that workers may
choose to forgo additional benefits but they cannot ignore tangible fines which
make them poorer. The safety managers also felt that subcontractors can pose
problems to safety because they are usually less safety-conscious compared to
Maintenance of
construction
safety
43
the main contractor. After all, any safety non-conformance is directed first at
the main contractor. In addition, workers employed by subcontractors are
frequently not so readily controllable compared to those of the main contractor.
In the event of an integration, safety managers believed that quality
managers would have a greater say, as they are usually more senior within the
organisation. The safety managers therefore anticipate that, unlike a separate
entity, workflow may no longer be flexible when a SMS integrates with a QMS.
Conclusion
The questionnaire surveys show evidence from the quality managers that a
SMS-QMS integration is possible. Issues with regard to integration that were
uncertain and were not initially considered as being suitable for integration
were put in their proper context. It seems that this is not so much a question of
technicality that presents problems but rather it is a matter of which attitude
the managers choose to adopt in assessing this possibility. The surveys also
seem to suggest that quality managers are more positive towards this
integration than safety managers. The latter foresee some difficulties in terms
of the flexibility which needs to be sacrificed in the process. They also felt that
they have to wrestle with the issue of power and authority which is tied to the
question of organisational importance.
Nonetheless, given the fact that the nature of work undertaken by quality
managers and safety managers is vastly different, the findings from the two
surveys above are far from conclusive. This is because a quality manager may
not fully understand the nature of work in safety management and vice versa.
The purpose of the field study is to heighten awareness among practising
quality managers and safety managers that such an integration may both be
possible and desirable.The two surveys also hope to tap from their experience
whether such an integration is workable in real life. The field study seems to
indicate that quality managers would perceive such an integration to be
possible but will not add significant value to their present system of work.
Quality managers who responded to the survey appear to conclude that their
present system of work is adequate. On the other hand, safety managers who
responded to the survey seem to be more positive towards such an integration
and would perceive possible improvement to their existing systems of work.
This disparity between quality managers and safety managers appears to
suggest that there is a lack of understanding concerning their respective duties
and responsibilities. Consequently, some of the issues raised in the two surveys
were not received with equal emphasis by both professions. In so far as the in-
depth interviews are concerned, the responses can be regarded as largely
objective although a tinge of subjectivity is unavoidable because of differences
in personal experience and organisational culture among the quality managers
and safety managers interviewed.
This paper suggests that the technical framework for ISO 9000 allows for a
SMS to be incorporated within an existing QMS. While the safety managers
have reacted relatively with more enthusiasm compared to the quality
JQME
6,1
44
managers in the field study, this difference in itself may only reflect the
shortcomings and limitations in the present SMS of companies. At the same
time, while not reacting as strongly as the safety managers, the quality
managers have not demonstrated great resistance towards possible
integration. It seems there are also other more intangible considerations beyond
the question of whether such an integration is technically plausible. Issues like
workers' attitude and behaviour, subcontractor's participation, top
management commitment, the standing of the safety manager in relation to the
quality manager, etc. need to be considered. Many issues are related to
organisational behaviour which has been shaped by cultures, traditions and
society at large that may take a long time to overcome before such an
integration can be made functional fully.
In conclusion, this study confirms that there are similarities between a SMS
and a QMS, making it possible to integrate these two systems together to
achieve better co-ordination and utilisation of scarce resources. It is, however,
necessary for companies to examine their SMS and QMS requirements to
determine which operational aspects are more amenable to integrate than
others. It is also necessary to appreciate that technical similarities between
SMS and QMS may not necessarily be sufficient considerations for such an
integration. The non-technical or behavioural attributes of safety managers as
well as quality managers are also critical to ensure that such an integration can
be successful.
References
Goh, C.G. (1997), ``Implementation of safety management system as required under The Factories
Act'', The Contractor, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 8-9.
Low, S.P. (1998), ISO 9000: Practical Lessons for the Construction Industry, Chandos Publishing,
Oxford.