See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260351382

The Relationship between Safety and Quality Management in Construction

Article  in  Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings · September 2004
DOI: 10.1177/154193120404801658

CITATIONS READS
6 1,005

4 authors, including:

Todd Loushine P.L.T. Hoonakker

University of Wisconsin - Whitewater University of Wisconsin–Madison
10 PUBLICATIONS   195 CITATIONS    149 PUBLICATIONS   2,069 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pascale Carayon
University of Wisconsin–Madison
306 PUBLICATIONS   7,339 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computer Security View project

SEIPS: Systems Engineering Inititiative for Patient Safety View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P.L.T. Hoonakker on 02 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAFETY AND QUALITY
MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION
Todd William Loushine1,2, Peter Hoonakker1, Pascale Carayon1,2, and Michael J. Smith1,2
1
Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Construction companies are continuously dealing with project safety and quality issues. Research indicates
that characteristics of successful safety management are similar to those of successful quality management.
A survey of construction contractors in Wisconsin was conducted to investigate what they think and do in
regards to safety and quality management. Results indicate that management commitment, employee
involvement, training, and communication were perceived as the most effective characteristics of safety
and quality management. Perceived benefits of safety management were reduced claims and workers
compensation premiums. Perceived benefits of quality management were more repeat customers and
reduced rework. Barriers to safety were costs associated with training and enforcement, and barriers to
quality were lack of skilled workers and the low-bid contract award process. Contractors who reported the
use of “hard measures” for safety performance, such as inspections/audits, process for collecting safety
measures, and a “near-miss” reporting, had significantly better self-reported safety outcome measures.

INTRODUCTION
Safety and Quality Issues
Construction work is dangerous and has a propensity to
be inefficient. In 2002, over 20% of all U.S. work fatalities
occur in construction even though it employs only 5% of the
U.S workforce (BLS 2004). In comparison, the U.S.
manufacturing industry accounts for 10% of the fatalities yet
employs 12% of the U.S. workforce (BLS 2004). Workforce
productivity and quality-related financial losses are the result
of project mismanagement, insufficient planning, poor
craftsmanship, and the competitive “low bid” contract award
process (Lahndt 1999, McKim and Kiani 1995). In an effort to
address the safety and quality issues of construction projects,
we decided to investigate the similarities of safety and quality
management systems.
Construction Research
Improving occupational safety through quality
management techniques, such as total quality management,
has been shown to significantly reduce injuries (Chase 1998,
Courtice and Herrero 1991, Herrero et al. 2002). This is
because the basic premise of quality management is
identification and correction of variance (or unwanted
outcomes) in a process. For safety, variance is in the form of
workplace hazards, unsafe behavior, and accidents caused by
human error. The similarities between safety and quality
management are evident by the shared characteristics of each
system’s design (Curado and Dias 1996, Sommerkamp 1994).
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA 1996) indicates that the elements of a successful
safety management program consist of: management
commitment, employee involvement, hazard identification and
control, training, and accident investigation. On the other
hand, Dean and Bowen (1994) and Hackman and Wageman
(1995) identified customer satisfaction, team work, continuous
improvement, training and education, employee
empowerment, and organizational culture as key to a
successful quality management system. Construction research
supports the similarities between safety and quality
management, and insight into the potential benefits and
barriers to their success (Herrero et al. 2002).
In construction safety research, program characteristics
shown to reduce injuries included: management commitment,
employee involvement, communication, audits/observations,
goal-setting and strong safety culture (Jaselskis et al. 1996,
Hinze and Wilson 2000, Dedobbeleer and Béland 1991). In
addition to reduced injures and workers’ compensation
premiums, benefits of a successful safety management
included increased productivity (Niskanen 1994) and
improved quality of work (Glazner et al. 2002). Barriers that
affect the success of safety initiatives were a lack of
management commitment and employee involvement versus
external causes.
In construction quality management studies, program
characteristics found to reduce rework, project cost and
schedule growth were: customer focus, team work, continuous
improvement, management commitment, employee
empowerment, and communication (Courtice & Herrero 1991,
Oakland & Aldridge 1995). Symsomos (1997) implied that
project success was attributed not only to “hard measures”
such as cost, schedule, and safety but also to “soft factors”
such as management commitment employee involvement, and
culture. Benefits of a successful quality management system
were improved customer satisfaction, repeat/more business,
and more profit (Courtice & Herrero 1991, Maloney 2002).
Kianji and Wong (1998) implicated the “nature of
construction”, such as the greatest barrier to quality success
because of the number of contributing parties, the low-bid
contract award, and unpredictable weather/site conditions.
Study Objectives
1. What are the most important characteristics, greatest
benefits, and most difficult barriers to improving
safety and quality in construction?
2. What similarities exist between safety and quality
management systems in construction?
3. Which safety and quality management characteristics
improve safety outcome measures?
METHODS
Sample and Procedure
The study was conducted as a cooperative project with
three large professional contractor organizations in Wisconsin.
This was done because these construction associations
supported our research efforts and we felt that a survey
sponsored by the university and three large construction
associations would increase the number of responses.
However, this also meant that the sample population was
limited to members of those professional construction
associations. We feel this choice was justified because
companies most likely to have these sophisticated
management systems also belong to professional associations.
To protect the privacy of contractors in the participating
associations, surveys were mailed by each of the respective
construction association offices. Anticipated recipients of the
survey were either top management or safety managers, based
on company records kept by each of the construction
associations. One reminder postcard was sent as a follow-up
contact, to increase participation beyond the initial survey
mailing. The overall response rate was low: only 151 out of
2289 questionnaires were completed (7%). However, the bulk
of the returned surveys were from two of the three
participating construction associations. If only those two
associations are considered, the response rate would be over
26%. Issues surrounding the low response rate will be
discussed in the “limitations” section.
Table 1 shows the sample characteristics. The number of
employees, years in business, union status, and amount of
subcontracting were characteristics used in past research to
define sample populations.
Table 1 Characteristics of the Sample
Number of Employees Percent of Total
Less than 9 28.3%
10 – 19 20.0%
20 – 99 44.1%
100 – 499 5.5%
> 500 2.1%
Years in Business Percent of Total
Less than 10 10.3%
10 – 20 26.0%
20 – 30 66.7%
> 30 37.0%
Workforce Percent of Total
Union 9.0%
Non-union 84.1%
Mixed 4.1%
N/A 2.8%
Amt. Subcontracted Out Percent of Total
Less than 10% 43.4%
10 – 25% 19.3%
25 – 50% 15.2%
50 – 75% 13.1%
> 75% 5.5%
N/A 3.4%
Measures and Study Design
The six-page questionnaire used in this study was based
primarily on questions from a quality survey developed by
McIntyre and Kirschenman (2000) and the 25-item audit tool
(Program Evaluation Profile or PEP) developed by OSHA
(1996) to assess the comprehensiveness of safety and health
programs. Additional questions were added based on
interviews with contractors (Loushine et al. 2004) and results
from a construction research literature review.
The questionnaire contained three primary sections:
safety information (3 pages), quality information (2 pages),
and general (company) information (1 page). Within the
safety and quality sections, similar questions were asked, such
as: “What factors are important in (creating a safe workplace /
improving quality)? Please rate from 1 (not important) to 5
(very important)”; “What are potential benefits of safety
management / quality management? Please rate from 1 (none)
to 4 (great)”; “What are possible barriers or obstacles to
improve safety / quality? Please rate from 1 (low) to 3 (high)”.
Other questions were specific to the safety or quality
practices utilized by the company. The safety management
sections were: company’s primary safety goal, safety policy
and procedures, clear safety and health goals, accountability,
employee involvement, structured safety and health activities,
safety and health analysis, safety costs, compared to other
contractors, and safety measures. Some sample questions
were: “Do personnel in your company conduct inspections or
audits to ensure that safety practices are being followed?”;
“Do methods exist for measuring performance of safety
responsibilities?”, “Does your reporting system include all
actual and near-miss accidents?” The quality management
sections were: company’s definition of quality, quality policy
or procedures, quality management practices, parties involved
in quality improvement, measures used to improve quality,
and comparison to other contractors. These questions had
simple “Yes or No” responses.
The experienced modification rate (EMR) was used as the
safety outcome measure. The EMR is primarily based on past
injury claims, and represents the amount employers pay for
workers’ compensation insurance annual premium
(Hoonakker et al. 2004). The EMR can vary between 0.4
(low) and 2.00 (high) with an average of 1.0; in our sample
the mean EMR was 0.87 (range= 0.44 – 1.70, s.d. = 0.2).
 Table 2 Ranking characteristics used in creating a safe workplace or improving quality

Company Characteristic Safe Workplace Rank Quality Work Rank Spearman

mean (s.d.) mean (s.d.) rho
Organizational culture 4.31 (.86) 5 4.03 (1.03) 7 .62
Management commitment 4.65 (.62) 2 4.64 (.62) 2 .40
Employee Involvement 4.70 (.55) 1 4.67 (.58) 1 .42
Written program or policy 3.78 (1.04) 10 3.16 (1.12) 15 .55
Well-defined roles and responsibilities 4.14 (.81) 6 3.82 (.97) 8 .50
Communication between managers and employees 4.44 (.73) 4 4.43 (.79) 4 .54
Subcontractors involvement 4.03 (.93) 7 4.07 (.96) 6 .41
Training and education 4.50 (.75) 3 4.16 (.98) 5 .49
Regular meetings 3.98 (1.00) 8 3.36 (1.20) 13 .54
Clearly defined goals and objectives 3.96 (.99) 9 3.67 (1.16) 9 .59
Regular inspections and audits 3.66 (.98) 12 3.52 (1.11) 11 .51
Certified program (VPP) or award (MBNQA) 3.09 (1.14) 14t 2.67 (1.18) 16 .47
Skilled workforce - - 4.58 (.60) 3 -
Criteria used in pre-qualification in bidding process 3.09 (1.16) 14t 3.35 (1.17) 14 .40
Incentives for good performance 3.48 (1.12) 13 3.40 (1.11) 12 .50
Review/analysis used to improve performance 3.69 (.96) 11 3.53 (1.07) 10 .60

RESULTS Table 3 Benefits of safety and quality management:

(mean, standard deviation and rank)
Based on a scale from 1 (least important) to 5 (most
important), the two highest-ranking characteristics for Potential Benefits Safety Rank Quality Rank
improving both safety and quality were “employee Reduced rework 2.20 12 3.57 2
(.98) (.71)
involvement” and “management commitment” (see Table 2). Higher productivity 2.63 8 3.10 5
Rounding out the top five for safety were training and (1.00) (.82)
education, communication between managers and employees, More repeat customers 2.70 6 3.62 1
and organizational culture. Rounding out the top five for (1.05) (.67)
Lower (health) insurance premiums 2.78 3 - -
quality were skilled workforce, communication between (1.16)
managers and employees, and training and education. Lower employee turnover 2.66 7 2.99 7
Spearman rho correlations were calculated to investigate the (1.02) (.95)
relationship between safety and quality characteristics. All Improved quality/safety 2.75 4 2.94 8t
(.96) (.86)
Spearman rho correlation coefficients were significant
Improved relationship with 2.33 11 3.11 4
(p<.001). architects/engineers (1.03) (.87)
Based on a scale from 1 (less than 5% improvement) to 4 Improved relationship with subs 2.43 10 2.91 10
(over 20% improvement), the highest-ranking benefits of (.98) (.89)
Reduced claims 3.40 1 3.09 6
safety management were reduced claims, improved employee
(.79) (.92)
satisfaction, and lower health insurance premiums (See Table Less inspections/reduced change- 2.74 5 2.76 12
3). For quality management, top ranked benefits were more orders (1.06) (.98)
repeat customers, reduced rework, and improved employee Improved schedule performance 2.48 9 2.94 8t
job satisfaction. (1.01) (.94)
Better chances in bidding process 1.92 13 2.82 11
Based on a scale from 1 (low) to 3 (high), the highest- with pre-qualification (.83) (1.06)
ranking barriers to safety improvement were: cost to train Improved employee job satisfaction 2.84 2 3.15 3
employees, cost of controls, PPE, or man-hours to enforce (.93) (.79)
use, and the low-bid mindset (See Table 4). Top-ranked
barriers to quality improvement were lack of skilled workers,
low-bid mindset, and lack of effective teams.
 Table 4 Barriers to safety and quality improvement The benefits and barriers to improving safety and quality
had unique ratings. The top three benefits of safety (reduced
Potential Barriers Safety Quality claims, improved employee satisfaction, and lower premiums)
mean (s.d.) mean (s.d.) concurred with the construction safety literature. Amazingly,
“Low bid” mindset in awarding 1.92 (.83) 2.35 (.76)
contracts
construction companies estimate that they can save nearly
Cost to train employees 1.97 (.71) 15% on reduced claims; nearly 10% on health insurance
Cost of controls, PPE, or man-hours to 1.94 (.70)
premiums and improved employee satisfaction by nearly 10%
enforce use through safety management. The estimated benefits of quality
Ever-changing work environment 1.80 (.68) management are even greater. Construction companies
Use of adversarial contracts 1.83 (.71) estimate that the benefits of quality management would be
Lack of skilled workers 2.39 (.66) more than 15% in more repeat customers and reduced rework
and an improvement in employee satisfaction of nearly 12%.
Lack of effective teams and/or team 1.84 (.71)
building However, it is important to recognize that most companies
have difficulty in quantifying their financial investment and
Best Practices in Leading Companies benefits associated with those investments (Beevis 2003).
According to our survey, the underlying barrier to safety
To identify which safety and quality characteristics improvement was cost, whereas for quality it was lack of
contribute to improved safety performance, linear regression worker skill (craftsmanship) and a low-bid mindset. These
analysis determined the best “predictors” of safety outcomes findings are similar to (but not exactly) what was reported in
(EMR). Independent variables (see description of survey the literature.
instrument) were entered section by section to optimize the
number of responses within the blocks (due to the low Similarities between Safety and Quality Management
response rate).
For both safety and quality management, contractors
Table 5 Safety practices that improved the EMR ranked management commitment and employee involvement
as most important. The safety and quality management
Beta t-value p-value characteristics (see Table 2) were highly correlated (Spearman
Coeff. rho, p<.001) between safety and quality. This agrees with our
Conduct inspections/audits to .250 2.574 .012 contention that safety and quality management systems have
ensure safety practices are being similar characteristics, and that elements of safety and quality
followed
Methods exist for measuring .242 2.506 .014 are perceived as similarly important within an organization.
safety performance
Reporting system includes all .208 2.105 .038 Safety and Quality Characteristics and the EMR
actual and near-misses
Results showed that contractors who conducted
The responses to safety practices used by contractors inspections, measured safety performance, and had an
were either a Yes or No. Three significant (p-value) safety effective reporting system, also reported a better EMR. This
practices were found during our analysis (shown in Table 5). result is similar to findings reported by Sypsomos (1997),
Combining these three “hard measures”, and performing a t- however Sypsomos also reported that the addition of “soft
test between groups that scored low versus high on this measures” such as management leadership, employee
combined measure, the results show that the group who scores satisfaction, and teamwork, further improve safety
higher had significantly better safety outcome measures performance. Overall, our findings concur with construction
(EMR=0.79) than the group who scores lower (EMR = 0.91). research, and provide support to our contention that safety can
This difference is statistically significant (t = -3.140, p=.002). be improved through quality management techniques.

DISCUSSION
Study Limitations
Safety and Quality Characteristics, Benefits, and Barriers
The EMR may not be the best representation of a
company’s safety program because it is calculated using
The rated “most important” safety and quality
historical injury claim data. Hinze et al. (1995) expressed that
management characteristics reported by our sample concurred
the EMR should not be used to compare safety performance
with the research literature. Indeed, management commitment,
between companies because injury frequency (increase) and
employee involvement, training and education, and
size of company (decrease) can affect the rate calculation.
communication between managers and employees were
Furthermore, the EMR is a lagging indicator of safety
identified as four of the top five most important characteristics
performance because it uses injury data of the last (full) three
to improving safety and quality.
years, potentially affecting validity of the measure
(Hoonakker et al. 2004). However, the EMR is the most used
safety outcome measure in U.S. construction research.
We do not believe the use of project profitability or
timeliness are reliable quality performance measures,
especially when considering all the different types of
construction companies, trades, and projects out there.
Therefore, we did not collect data on quality performance
from companies. If we would have collected quality data, it
would have helped establish which respondents truly had a
successful quality management system implemented.
Our response rate was low, and these are several possible
contributing factors: low response rates (in general) in
construction industry research (average response rate of 15%,
Lahndt 1999); and cooperation with contractor organizations
to distribute the questionnaires (using their mailing lists).
Although we thought that involvement of construction
organizations would benefit the study, it probably did not. As
noted in the methods section, the response rate for one of the
contractor organizations was nil. This association chose to
mail the survey to their members as an insert to their
newsletter to save time and resources. Unfortunately, the
assumed advantages of coordinating the study with
associations were not realized, and it may have been
confounded by relinquishing our control of how the surveys
were sent.
In addition, the questionnaires were sent out during the
busy construction season. The survey length (time required to
complete) may have also contributed to whether a respondent
chose to participate. Regardless of the limitations, as far as we
know this is the first and only study that asked construction
companies (on a wide scale) about the relation between
quality and safety systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported in part by a pilot project grant
from the University of Minnesota Department of Health,
Division of Occupational and Environmental Health and by
the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (CPWR) Grant No.
1020-48 to the Center for Quality and Productivity
Improvement (CQPI) at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. We would like to thank the Wisconsin Associated
Builders and Contractors (ABC), Associated General
Contractors (AGC), and the Wisconsin Builders Associations
(WBA) for their assistance and participation in this study. The
contents of this paper reflect the views of the writers, who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented
herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the University of Minnesota, the Center to
Protect Workers’ Rights (CPWR), or the Wisconsin ABC,
AGC, and WBA.
REFERENCES
Beevis, D. (2003). Ergonomics: cost and benefits revisited. Applied
Ergonomics, 34: 491-96.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004). Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities Data.
Found online at http://www.bls.gov/iif/home.htm.
View publication stats
Chase, G. (1998). Improving construction methods: a story about quality.
Journal of Management in Engineering, May/June: 30-33.
Courtice, C. J. and J. C. Herrero (1991). Development and results of a quality
management program for an EPC project. Proceedings of the 1991
PMI annual seminar/symposium in Dallas, TX: 412-418.
Curado, M.T. and L.M. Dias (1996). Integration of quality and safety on
construction companies. Proceedings of the CIB W99 International
Conference on Implementation of Safety and Health on
Construction Sites, Balkema: Lisbon.
Dean, J.W. and D.E. Bowen Jr. (1994). Management theory and total quality:
improving research and practice through theory development.
Academy of Management, Mississippi State 19(3): 392-412.
Dedobbeleer, N. and F. Béland (1991). A safety climate measure for
construction sites. Journal of Safety Research 22(2): 97-103.
Glazner, J. E., Borgerding, J., Bondy, J., Lowery, J.T., Lezotte, D.C., and K.
Kreiss (1999). Contractor safety practices and injury rates in
construction of the Denver International Airport. American Journal
of Industrial Medicine 35: 175-185.
Hackman, J.R. and R. Wageman (1995). Total quality management: empirical,
conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly
40(2): 309-340.
Herrero, S.G., Saldana, M.A.M., del Campo, M.A.M. and D.O. Ritzel (2002).
From the traditional concept of safety management to safety
integrated with quality. Journal of Safety Research, 33: 1-20.
Hinze, J., Bren, D.C. and N. Piepho (1995). Experience modification rating as
a measure of safety performance. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 121(4): 455-458.
Hinze, J. and G. Wilson (2000). Moving toward a zero injury objective.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 126(5):
399-403.
Hoonakker, P., Loushine, T.W., Carayon, P., Kallman, J., Kapp, A., and M.J.
Smith (2004). The effects of safety initiatives on safety
performance. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Jaselskis, E.J., Anderson, S.D., and J.S. Russell (1996). Strategies for
achieving excellence in construction safety performance. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 122(1): 61-70.
Kanji, G. and A. Wong (1998). Quality culture in the construction industry.
Quality Management 9(4/5): 133-140.
Lahndt, L. (1999). TQM tools for the construction industry. Engineering
Management Journal 11(2): 23-27.
Loushine, T.W., Hoonakker P., Carayon, P., and M.J. Smith (2004). Safety
and quality management: perceptions from contractors. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Maloney, W.F. (2002). Construction product/service and customer
satisfaction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 128(6): 522-529.
McIntyre, C. and M. Kirschenman (2000). Survey of TQM in construction
industry in upper-midwest. Journal of Management in Engineering
16(5): 67-70.
McKim, R. A. and H. Kiani (1995). Applying total quality management to the
North American construction industry. Cost Engineering 37(3):
24-29.
Niskanen, T. (1994). Safety climate in the road administration. Safety Science
17: 237-255.
Oakland, J. and A. Aldridge (1995). Quality management in civil and
structural engineering consulting. International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management 12(3): 32-48.
OSHA (1996). Program evaluation profile (PEP). Found on-line at
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/safetyhealth/pep.html.
Sommerkamp, J. (1994). The Deming approach to construction safety
management. Professional Safety, 39(12):35-38.
Sypsomos, M. G. (1997). Beyond project controls - the quality improvement
approach. 1997 AACE International Transactions PC.01: 01-07.