The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

Identifying and
Identifying and prioritizing safety prioritizing
practices affecting construction safety practices

labour productivity
An empirical study
Argaw Tarekegn Gurmu Received 8 October 2018
Revised 28 December 2018
School of Architecture and Built Environment, 13 March 2019
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia 9 April 2019
Accepted 15 April 2019

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify and prioritise the safety and health practices, which are
suitable to improve labour productivity in building construction projects, and to investigate the association
between company profiles, project characteristics and the safety practices.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted a mixed-method research design which involves two
phases. In Phase I, qualitative data were collected and analysed to identify safety and health practices. In
total, 19 experts who have experience in building construction projects were involved in the interviews.
During Phase II, quantitative data were collected from contractors that are involved in the delivery of building
projects using questionnaires which were administered via face-to-face interviews. After analysing the
quantitative data, the safety and health practices were prioritised and the relationships between the practices
and company profiles were investigated.
Findings – Safety and health policy, safety and health plan and hazard analysis are found to be the three
most important practices that can improve productivity in building construction projects. The results of
Spearman correlation analysis revealed that the level of implementation of the safety and health practices
increases with project costs. Company experience and company size are positively associated with safety and
health practices. Project delay is negatively correlated with safety and health practices.
Originality/value – The study provides useful information for international developers and contractors
who want to do the construction business in Australia. Furthermore, contractors involved in the construction
of building projects in Australia can implement the identified safety and health practices to improve
labour productivity.
Keywords Construction industry, Labour productivity, Building projects, Safety and health practices
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Construction industry plays a significant role in the economic growth of a country.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in 2017/2018, the construction
industry was the third major contributor (8.1 per cent) to the national GDP (ABS, 2018a).
Thus, improvement in construction industry productivity is essential for enhancing the
living standard of citizens at an economic level and for increasing the profit margin of
contractors at a firm level. The study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2013) showed
that increasing Australia’s construction industry productivity by about 1 per cent can result
in the national benefit of AUD 1.252bn.
Currently, the construction activities in Australia are booming. For instance, in 2017/2018,
the data obtained from the ABS showed that the total value of new construction works rose by
3 per cent every quarter (ABS, 2018b). However, construction is a hazardous activity which is
associated with numerous incidents such as death and injuries. Safe Work Australia compared
the fatality rates among 20 industries in Australia and the finding showed that the
construction industry with a fatality rate of 2.7 per 100,000 workers was ranked fourth International Journal of
(Safe Work Australia, 2018). The occurrence of the accidents, on the other hand, can negatively Productivity and Performance
Management
influence the productivity of construction workers. If the workers do not feel safe on a certain © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
construction project, they will not produce the desired output per day or per hour since they DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-10-2018-0349
IJPPM will not exert their full effort to a particular work. Hence, it important to identify and
prioritise the safety practices which could assist construction workers to feel safe and increase
their productivity.
Over the last three decades, numerous studies which can help contractors to increase the
productivity of their construction projects were conducted (Nasir et al., 2015; Gurmu and
Aibinu, 2017; Kenley, 2014; Gurmu, 2018). Despite the presence of many studies, construction
labour productivity growth in Australian is low. According to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (2018), in the year 2016–2017, there was a sharp decline in labour productivity
(−7.3 per cent) in the construction industry. Thus, investigation of the techniques and
practices which could enhance the construction labour productivity is essential. Most
productivity problems identified by previous researchers in Australia and international
contexts are related to the lack of good management practices which includes poor safety and
health practices. Enshassi et al. (2007) found that accidents, violation of safety precautions,
insufficient lighting, noise, unemployment of safety officer on the construction site and poor
ventilation are some of the factors which have adverse effects on labour productivity.
However, the adverse effect of these problems can be minimised by adopting safety and
health practices that are suitable to enhance labour productivity of specific project types
such as building, industrial and infrastructure construction projects in a particular location
or country. Erstwhile researchers in North America identified the safety and health
practices that improve productivity in engineering projects (CII, 2013a, b). However, it is
possible that none of these safety practices could be suitable for building projects in
Australia due to the variations in regulations and project locations. Thus, the objective of
this research is to identify and prioritise the safety and health practices which are suitable to
improve productivity in building projects.

2. Literature review
2.1 Labour productivity in construction projects
Previous researchers have identified factors which are related to safety and health and
hamper construction projects’ productivity. These factors include the occurrence
of accidents in construction projects, unsafe work conditions, lack of cleanliness of
construction sites, alcohol and substance abuse and health condition of employees.
Accidents in construction projects are some of the main incidents that can reduce the
productivity of construction projects. Lim and Alum (1995) found that the occurrence of
accidents that resulted in the death of an employee led to the issuance of stop-work orders
by the government authorities; consequently, productivity was negatively affected.
Enshassi et al. (2007) identified three types of accidents which influence productivity in the
construction projects. The first one is an accident that results in the death of an injured
worker and the stoppage of work for several days. The second one is an accident that causes
an injured labourer to be hospitalised for at least 24 h and decreases the productivity of a
crew in which the affected employ belongs. The third one is a minor accident that results
from objects such as nails and steel wires and has a minor effect on the productivity of a
crew. Kazaz and Ulubeyli (2007) described that occupational injuries at construction sites
have an adverse effect on the reputation of a company, decrease productivity and result in a
huge cost. Other researchers also mentioned that accidents in construction sites are the
major deterrents to productivity (Makulsawatudom et al., 2004; Abdul Kadir et al., 2005;
Alinaitwe et al., 2007; Jarkas and Bitar, 2012; Hughes and Thorpe, 2014). Therefore, to
minimise the occurrence of accidents and reduce the negative impacts of the accidents on
the productivity of multi-storey building projects in Victoria state, Australia, investigation
of appropriate safety and health practices is essential.
Unsafe working conditions such as noise, dust, radiation, poor ventilation, low lighting,
limited access, unavailability of personal protective equipment and other work-related
conditions have adverse effects on construction projects’ productivity. Liberda et al. (2003) Identifying and
identified that noise, dust and radiation are some of the causes of the decrement of prioritizing
construction projects’ productivity in Canada. Enshassi et al. (2007) found that insufficient safety practices
lighting, inadequate ventilation and working at height are the three critical factors
influencing construction projects productivity. Ghoddousi and Hosseini (2012) described
that high level of dust and noise, low lighting and lack of ventilation affect the productivity
of operatives in construction projects in Iran. El-Gohary and Aziz (2014) mentioned that
working at heights is one of the problems affecting productivity in Egypt’s construction
projects. Hence, since the working conditions of most construction projects in different
countries could be similar, the multi-storey building construction projects in Victoria State,
Australia, might also face the loss of productivity due to unsafe work environment.
Lack of cleanliness of construction sites, alcohol and substance abuse as well as the
health conditions of employees can significantly affect productivity in construction projects.
Lim and Alum (1995) concluded that alcoholism and health issues such as mosquito
breeding due to poor housekeeping are some of the factors that influence productivity.
Alinaitwe et al. (2007) also identified alcoholism, drug abuse and poor health of workers such
as sickness and general weakness as the problems impinging productivity in building
construction projects in Uganda. Ghoddousi and Hosseini (2012) mentioned that poor
housekeeping is one of the productivity constraints in construction projects in Iran. Other
researchers such as Chan and Kaka (2007) and Durdyev and Mbachu (2011) also discussed
the issue of the health of the workforces on productivity. The construction workers involved
in the construction of multi-storey building projects in Victoria, Australia, might use alcohol
and drugs which could affect their productivity. Thus, the practices of how these issues are
controlled or minimised worth investigation.

2.2 Safety and health practices in construction projects

Good safety and health practices which could reduce the negative impacts of safety-related
problems on productivity are reviewed as follows.
Sawacha et al. (1999) found that organisational policy on safety is the most dominant factor
that influences the safety performance of construction projects in the UK. The authors
recommended that contractors employing five or more personnel must have a safety policy.
Jergeas (2009) concluded that ensuring safety programme at the project site is crucial in
providing a safe work environment. Furthermore, preparation of formal health and safety
policy at a project level is identified as a good safety practice that could increase productivity
in construction projects (CII, 2013b). Therefore, preparing safety and health policies for
multi-storey building construction projects could help to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of
accidents which negatively affect the productivity of the projects.
The use of appropriate safety and health plan is one of the practices which can reduce
accidents in construction projects and enhance the productivity of workers. According to
Safe Work Australia (2011), workplace health and safety (WHS) plan is a document that
sets out the arrangements for managing the site health and safety matters. The plan
includes project-specific safety and health rules and procedures to be followed in receiving,
assessing, monitoring and reviewing the safe work method statements (SWMS)
(Safe Work Australia, 2011). CII (2013a) found that health and safety planning techniques
such as pre-task planning for safety, safety orientation and training, safety incentive
programs, alcohol and substance abuse programs and accident investigations are the best
practices that have the potential to improve productivity in industrial projects. Nasir (2013)
indicated that the use of a safety plan which incorporates zero accident techniques has the
potential to increase productivity in infrastructure projects.
Preparation of the SWMS for high-risk construction activities and conducting hazard
analyses for activities with no SWMS could also be some of the practices that can improve the
IJPPM productivity of building construction projects (Gurmu and Aibinu, 2018). Hazard is a “situation
or thing that has a potential to harm a person”, and hazard analysis involves identification
of the hazards, assessing the risks and devising the controlling mechanisms (Safe Work
Australia, 2011). Caldas et al. (2014) found that conducting task safety analysis and writing
SWMS is the practice that has the potential to enhance productivity in industrial projects.
Nasir et al. (2015) confirmed that hazard analysis is one of the safety and health practices that
can improve productivity in infrastructure projects. For multi-storey building projects in
Australia, analysis of the hazards associated with both high-risk and low-risk construction
activities might lead to enhanced productivity since the analysis could minimise the likelihood
of occurrence of accidents on the construction projects.
Providing safety and health training and conducting toolbox safety meetings could be
some of the essential practices that have the potential to increase the productivity of the
multi-storey building construction projects. Jergeas (2009) concluded that safety training
can play a significant role to improve productivity in oil and gas projects in Canada. Dai
et al. (2009) also mentioned the impact of health and safety training on productivity. Toolbox
safety meeting is found to be one of the best practices that can positively influence
productivity in industrial and infrastructure construction projects (CII, 2013a, b).
Regular housekeeping, and alcohol and substance abuse testing programs can also be
some of the practices that could enhance productivity in building projects. According to CII
(2013a), housekeeping involves scheduling a suitable time either weekly or bi-weekly to
ensure that the workface is organised and all materials, tools and equipment are properly
stored, cleaned up and disposed of the site. Jergeas (2009) found that neat and clean work
environment is essential to ensure safety and to increase the productivity of construction
projects. Hinze and Wilson (2000) confirmed that conducting alcohol and substance abuse
programs is one of the mechanisms to achieve zero accidents in construction projects.
During construction of multi-storey building projects, implementation of the practice
“housekeeping” could help to keep the construction sites clear and reduce the rate of
accidents which negatively influence the productivity of projects. Furthermore, alcohol and
drugs testing programs can help to minimise the construction workers’ injuries. If
employees execute construction activities after consuming alcohols and drugs, the rate of
accidents on project sites could increase.

3. Research methodology
Three approaches, namely qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods can be adopted in
any research (Creswell, 2014). Qualitative research is an approach for exploring and
understanding the meaning which individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human
problem; on the other hand, quantitative research is an approach that is adopted for
testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables (Creswell, 2014).
Mixed-methods is research approach in which the investigator collects and analyzes data,
integrates the findings and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative
approaches in a single study (Given, 2008). This research a used mixed-method research
design since it embraces the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
The findings of the qualitative research stage (Phase I) were used as inputs to the
quantitative research stage (Phase II).
The research methodology adopted in this research is presented in Figure 1. As shown in
the figure, the study was conducted in two phases. In Phase I, qualitative data were collected
and analysed to identify the safety and health practices that have the potential to improve
labour productivity. Nineteen experts who had 5 to 40 years of experience in building
construction were involved in the interviews. General manager, construction managers,
project managers, site managers, project coordinators and contract administrators were
the interviewees.
 Research Questions Objectives Input Activities Output Identifying and
P
RQ1: What are the safety and (1) To identify the safety and health Experts who have Interviews with List of safety and health
prioritizing
H
A
health practices that have the
potential to improve productivity in
multi-storey building construction
practices that have the potential to
enhance productivity in multi-storey
building construction projects
experience in
delivery of multi-
storey building
the aid of semi-
structured
interview
practices that are suitable
for enhancing productivity
in multi-storey building
safety practices
S
E
projects? projects questions projects
-
I

P
Contractors’ Interviews
H RQ2: Which safety and health (2) To prioritize the safety and professionals who with the aid of
A practices are the most important to health practices that have the are responsible for questionnaires Weights of the
S enhance productivity in multi-
storey building construction
potential to enhance productivity in
multi-storey building construction
[ the delivery of the consisting of practices Figure 1.
nominated multi- response scale
E
projects? projects storey building of 1 to 5 Flowchart of the
-
II
projects research methodology

Semi-structured interview questions were used during the interviews. The questions comprise
the lists of safety and health practices which were identified from the literature, and for each
practice, the following questions were asked. Does this safety and health practice exist? How
was it practised by local contractors? Can this safety and health practice improve labour
productivity in multi-storey building construction projects? What other safety and health
practices enhance labour productivity in multi-storey building construction projects?
During the analysis of the qualitative data, the audiotaped interviews were transcribed
and a matrix which comprised the responses of experts and the safety and health practices
was prepared. A summary of each interview result was written in a matrix box, and a
conclusion was drawn for each safety and health practice. Similar iterative procedures were
used for all the interview results. The similarity between the successive summaries was
observed to find the saturation point. After analysing the outcome of the 15 interviewees,
similar explanations (saturation point) for the practices were observed. Finally, a list of
safety and health practices which were suitable to improve productivity in building projects
in the context of Australia were identified, and the outputs were used as inputs for Phase II
of the study. The qualitative data were also analysed and displayed using Nvivo 12. The
most frequently used words were identified and word cloud was plotted.
During Phase II, quantitative data were collected and analysed to prioritise safety and
health practices. The data were gathered using questionnaires which consists of two parts.
In the first part, project-specific information such as project start and completion dates,
project cost and company profiles were collected. In Part II of the questionnaire, the
respondents were requested to rate the relative importance of the safety and health practices
which were identified during Phase I of the study. To achieve the optimum reliability and
validity, a scale of 1 to 5 was used to rate the relative importance of the practices ( Jamieson,
2004; Lozano et al., 2008).
List of pre-qualified contractors was obtained from the Victorian Department of
Treasury and Finance, and 39 contractors that had experience in the construction of
multi-storey building projects were chosen (Department of Treasury and Finance, 2015).
Professionals who were responsible for the delivery of the projects filled the questionnaires.
The experts include construction directors, operation managers, construction managers,
project managers, project coordinators and site managers. Relative Importance Index (RII)
and mean value can be used to determine the weights of the safety and health practices. Lam
et al. (2007) explained that the RII technique is suitable to compare various variables since
the outputs range from 0 to 1. This research adopted an RII technique and Equation (1) was
used to compute the weights (Enshassi et al., 2007; El-Gohary and Aziz, 2014):

5ðn5 Þþ4ðn4 Þþ 3ðn3 Þþ2ðn2 Þ þn1

RII ¼ : (1)
5ðn5 þn4 þn3 þn2 þn1 Þ
IJPPM The number of respondents who selected 1 for “not important,” 2 for “slightly important,” 3
for “somewhat important,” 4 for “very important,” and 5 for “extremely important” safety
and health practice to improve productivity of building construction projects were indicated
as n1, n2, n3, n4, and n5, respectively.
Friedman’s test was conducted to check whether the computed weights differ significantly
from each other. Spearman correlation analyses were carried out to investigate the
associations between company profiles, project characteristics and safety practices. Spearman
correlation coefficient (rs) is a statistical tool to test the strength of the relationship between
variables (El-Sayegh, 2008). The coefficient, rs, ranges between –1 and +1, and a value of +1
indicates a perfect positive correlation, while a value of –1 indicates a perfect negative
correlation (Chan et al., 2011). If rs is approaching zero, it means that there is no linear
relationship between the variables under the study (Chan et al., 2011).
Spearman correlation analysis was also conducted to investigate the relationship
between safety and health practices, project cost, project delay and company profiles
(company size, company experience and annual turnover). In the analysis, the construction
companies were categorised based on the number of employees (less than 19, 20–199, and
greater than 200) to determine their sizes. The classification system was adopted from the
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016).

4. Qualitative data analysis and findings

4.1 Safety and health practices influencing labour productivity in multi-storey building projects
“Safety and health policy,” “safety and health plan,” “hazard analysis,” “safe work method
statement,” “toolbox safety meetings,” “housekeeping” and “safety and health training” are
found to be the seven important safety and health practices that have the potential to
enhance productivity in multi-storey building projects. However, the practice “drugs and
alcohol testing program” is considered to be not vital to improve productivity in
multi-storey building projects in the context of Australia. Summary of the interview results
of safety and health practices is presented in Table I. The interviews results are also
displayed using a word cloud as shown in Figure 2. Accordingly, “safety” is the most
frequent word which was mentioned by the participants.
Preparation of safety and health policy is found to be an essential practice to improve the
productivity of building construction projects. According to the interviewees, most
contractors have safety and health policy at the company and project levels. The
respondents explained that some construction companies established the minimum
requirements that helped them to manage the risks on their projects. Other participants
explained that some contractors had an accredited safety and health management systems.
The interviewees explained that the project-specific safety policies are usually displayed at
places where most employees can see. Moreover, the construction workers are informed
during the site induction phase, and the copies of the safety and health policies are provided
to subcontractors.
Safety and health plan is found to be one of the practices that have the potential to
improve productivity in building projects. Some interviewees explained that contractors
attempt to reduce the number of accidents on building construction sites as it is difficult to
completely avoid accidents. The respondents explained that certain contractors developed
their own methodology to reduce the accidents rates by focusing on engineering
controlling techniques than focusing on administrative controlling techniques. They
explained that the administrative controlling technique comprises lists of items that
should be checked prior to executing a certain task. In the engineering controlling
technique, loads are calculated and appropriate materials are recommended to ensure the
safety of workers. According to the interviewees, in some building projects, there are
rewards for employees who achieve zero accident. Other respondents described that, in
Safety and
Identifying and
health prioritizing
practices Summary of the interview responses Conclusion safety practices
Safety and “Most contractors have safety and health policy at company and project levels. Suitable
health policy Some contractors have accredited safety policy. The project-specific policies are
clearly displayed on sites, and workers are informed during the induction
process. Some principal contractors also provide copies of their safety policies to
their subcontractors”
Safety and “The maximum number of lost-time injuries are planned for new building Suitable
health plan project based on the number of accidents occurred in the past projects. The
lost-time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) is computed for the past projects and
used as a benchmark to prepare target LTIFR for new projects”
Hazards “Workers give answers to the safety-related questions which are distributed every Suitable
analysis month or two months to identify the potential hazards. There are also workshops
to identify hazards which are not identified during task safety analysis”
Safe work “In some projects, subcontractors prepare a Safe Work Method Statement Suitable
method (SWMS) for each task, and the principal contractors review and approve the
statement SWMS. Safety manager monitors the progress of subcontractors on daily basis
and checks if the works are executed as per the approved SWMS. Safety audits
are also conducted regularly, for instance, every six months”
Toolbox safety “The practice of conducting safety meetings varies from project to project. On Suitable
meetings some sites, there is a regular weekly or fortnightly toolbox safety meeting. On
other projects, the meeting is conducted when high-risk works are executed”
Housekeeping “The construction sites need to be clean; otherwise, accidents could occur and Suitable
productivity will be lost. In most projects, two big bins are provided by a principal
contractor and subcontractors place the waste materials in the bins. The
subcontractors are required to have the green bins or medium size bins. The
principal contractor needs to make sure that the statement ‘a subcontractor should
clean its working area’ is included in the scope of works of each subcontractor”
Safety and “Every worker has to take a minimum of general construction induction Suitable
health training training and has to have a white card or red card or other certificates. Graduates
and cadets should take about six months of training regarding safety issues
while working on different sites. Training on the use of new equipment and
removal of asbestos is also conducted”
Drugs and “Drugs and alcohol testing programs are not common in the building industry. Not Table I.
alcohol testing The issue of alcohol and drugs are discussed during the induction phase, but suitable Summary of the
programme there is no formal testing programme. Generally, in most building construction interviews results of
jobs, drugs and alcohol testing is not conducted as it is not included in the safety and health
employment agreement” practices

some projects, contractors plan not to exceed a specified value of the lost-time injury
frequency rate (LTIFR). LTIFR of the previous projects is computed and used as a
benchmark to prepare the target LTIFR for new projects. According to Standards
Australia (1990), lost time injury is any occurrence which results in permanent disability
and/or time lost from work by one day or a shift or more as well as a fatality.
Hazard analysis is another practice that positively influences productivity in building
construction projects. The interview participants suggested that the potential
hazards that are not identified during the preparation of the SWMS should be analysed
separately. The interviewees described that conducting hazard analysis is also essential
for “works of minor nature” or works which the safety regulations do not oblige
contractors to prepare SWMS. The respondents explained that to identify the potential
hazards, safety and health-related questions are distributed every month or every two
months and construction workers are requested to provide their opinions. Workshops are
also organised to identify the hazards.
IJPPM

Figure 2.
Word frequency of the
interview results

The practice “Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS)” is found to be one of the safety and
health practices that could enhance productivity. The interviewees explained that SWMS is
prepared by conducting safety analysis for each task classified under high-risk construction
works. To prepare the SWMS, the type of activities are identified; the procedures for the
execution of the tasks are prepared; potential hazards are listed; and the mechanisms for
minimising or eliminating the risks are proposed. Finally, a person who monitors the
compliance with the SWMS is assigned. Some interviewees described that SWMS can be
prepared by subcontractors and approved by the principal contractor. Other respondents
explained that there are safety representatives at project sites and at head office who
oversee the safety and health at a workplace. The safety audit is usually conducted every
six months or year in the presence of a safety representative who is assigned from the
contractor’s head office.
Toolbox safety meeting is a practice that positively influences productivity in building
projects. Some interview participants recommended that there should be regular on-site
meetings to discuss various issues related to safety. The meetings help the project team to
share safety information and to solve problems jointly. Some interviewees explained that
toolbox safety meetings are usually conducted every week or two weeks. Other respondents
described that, on some building projects, toolbox meeting is not regularly scheduled. It is
conducted when executing risky tasks that require workers to discuss the installation
methods of the tasks. For example, lifting of heavy precast panels requires safety meeting.
The participants suggested that besides regular toolbox meetings, the daily brief or
pre-start induction is also essential. The daily orientation helps workers to know what is
happening on that particular date.
The practice “housekeeping” is found to be an important safety and health practice
that could improve productivity in building projects. The interviewees explained that
the lack of cleanliness of project sites can result in accidents and loss of productivity. The
respondents described that, in most building projects, two large bins are provided by
principal contractors, and subcontractors put the waste materials in the bins. In other
projects, subcontractors are entirely responsible for managing their wastes. However, the Identifying and
responsibilities of the subcontractors need to be specified in the subcontract agreement. prioritizing
Some interviewees described that the principal contractor’s supervisor can stop the safety practices
subcontractor’s personnel from working on a particular site if the housekeeping is not good.
Other respondents explained that to keep the site clean and safe, most construction
materials are not stored on a building site.
“Safety and health training” is considered to be the practice that positively influences
productivity. The interviewees described that safety training and inductions need to be
conducted. Since regulations might change, the latest information must be provided to
the construction workers. Some interview participants explained that every worker should
have a minimum of white card or red card or other evidence which shows the completion of
the general construction induction training. Moreover, the construction workers should be
given project-specific information or induction prior to commencing the construction
activities. The interviewees described that some principal contractors require their
employees to have Certificate 3 in Work Health and Safety. First aid, asbestos removal and
new equipment operation are some of the training provided to the building construction
workers. Some respondents suggested that graduates and cadets should be trained for
about six months regarding safety and health issues.
The practice “drugs and alcohol testing program” is found to be not suitable to improve
productivity in building projects in the context of Australia. Some interview participants
explained that drug and alcohol testing is not conducted in most building construction
projects in Victoria State, Australia, but the issue is getting attention since some
workers come to a building site after drinking alcohol, particularly on Saturdays. Other
respondents described that the use of alcohol and drugs is addressed during the induction
phase, but there is no formal testing program. According to some interviewees, the safety
representatives can figure out the drunken workers and prohibit them from commencing
the construction works. Other participants described that drugs and alcohol testing is
not conducted in most building construction projects since it is not included in the
employment agreement.

5. Quantitative data analysis and findings

5.1 Preliminary quantitative data analysis
Figure 3 presents the distributions of the contractors based on the company sizes.
Accordingly, 59 per cent of them have employees greater than 200 and 41 per cent of them
have between 20 and 199 employees. This research will analyse if large companies have
better safety and health practices than medium and small companies.
The annual turnover of the contractors in the year 2014/2015 is indicated in Figure 4.
Accordingly, 38 per cent of the contractors have the annual turnover between 100 and 500
million Australian Dollars (AUD), 29 per cent of them have the annual turnover between
AUD501m and 1,000m, 13 per cent of the contractors have between 1,001 and AUD2,000m
and 21 per cent of them have the annual turnover exceeding AUD2,000m. This study will

41% 20 to 199
59% > 200 Figure 3.
Distributions of
contractors by
company sizes
IJPPM 40% 38%
35%
29%
30%

Percentage
25% 21%
20%
15% 13%
10%
Figure 4. 5%
Distributions
of contractors by 0%
100 to 500 501 to 1,000 1,001 to 2,000 > 2,000
annual turnover
2014/2015 Annual Turnover in Millions of Dollars

investigate whether companies with high annual turnover also implement higher levels of
safety and health practices.
The experience of contractors in the construction industry is presented in Figure 5.
Accordingly, 29 per cent of the contractors have experience between 10 and 20 years;
21 per cent of them have between 21 and 40 years; 32 per cent of the construction companies
have between 41 and 60 years; 13 per cent of them have experience between 61 and 80 years;
and 5 per cent of them have greater than 80 years of experience. This research explores if
the implementation level of the safety and health practices is associated with the experience
of the contractors.
The percentage distributions of costs of the multi-storey building projects, which were
used for analysis during Phase II of the research, were computed and the results are
presented in Figure 6. Accordingly, 36 per cent of the projects have project costs between
8 and 19m AUD, 21 per cent of them have project costs between AUD20m and 39m,
18 per cent of them have project costs between AUD40m and 100m, 13 per cent of them have
project costs ranging from AUD101m to 150m, 8 per cent of them have project costs between
AUD151m and 200m and 5 per cent of them have project costs greater than AUD200m.
In Figure 7, the proportions of the building projects which incurred project delays are
presented. Accordingly, about 54 per cent of the projects are completed on and before the
planned completion date; 21 per cent of them incurred project delays ranging from 1 day to
50 days; 10 per cent of them have project delays between 51 and 100 days; about 5 per cent
of them incurred project delays ranging from 101 to 149 days; and 10 per cent of them have
project delays exceeding 150 days.
The descriptive statistics of the safety and health practices indicate that all the seven
safety and health practices have the minimum values of 3 (somewhat important practice to
improve labour productivity), the maximum values of 5 (extremely important practice to

> 80 5%
Number of Years

61 to 80 13%

41 to 60 32%

21 to 40 21%
Figure 5.
Distributions of the 10 to 20 29%
contractors by years
of experience 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Percentage
 Identifying and
> 200, 5% prioritizing
safety practices
151 to 200, 8%

Project Costs
(millions of AUD)
8 to 19, 36%
8 to 19
101 to 150, 13%
20 to 39

40 to 100

101 to 150

40 to 100, 18% 151 to 200

> 200
Figure 6.
Percentage
distributions of the
20 to 39, 21%
costs of the building
projects

No project delays 54%

Project Delays (days)

1 to 50 21%

51 to 100 10%

Figure 7.
101 to 149 5% Percentage
distributions of the
project delays
>150 10%

improve productivity) and range of 2 (Table II). The practice “safety and health policy” has
the highest mean value of 4.74 with a minimum standard error of 0.08. “Safety and health
training” and “housekeeping” have both mean value of 4.44 which is the minimum value.
Safety and health training has the highest standard deviation of 0.79 which implies that the

Mean
Safety and health practices n Range Minimum Maximum Statistic SE SD Variance

Safety and health policy 39 2 3 5 4.74 0.080 0.498 0.248

Safety and health plan 39 2 3 5 4.62 0.101 0.633 0.401
Hazards analysis 39 2 3 5 4.62 0.108 0.673 0.453
Safe work method statement 39 2 3 5 4.56 0.109 0.680 0.463
Toolbox safety meetings 39 2 3 5 4.54 0.109 0.682 0.466
Safety and health training 39 2 3 5 4.44 0.126 0.788 0.621 Table II.
Housekeeping 39 2 3 5 4.44 0.096 0.598 0.358 Descriptive analysis
IJPPM data are more dispersed and experts have different opinion regarding the importance of
safety and health training in enhancing labour productivity. The practice “safety and health
policy” has the lowest standard deviation of 0.60 which indicates that the level of dispersion
of the data is low.
The medians of the seven safety and health practices are computed. Accordingly, the
practice housekeeping has the lowest median value of 4. Safety and Health Policy, Safety
and Health Plan, SWMS, Hazards Analysis, Safety and Health Training, and Toolbox Safety
Meetings have an equal median value of 5.
The percentage distributions of the relative importance of the seven safety and health
practices on a scale of 1 to 5 were calculated and none of the respondents rated the safety
and health practices as “not important” (response scale of 0) and “slightly important”
(response scale of 1). The proportions of respondents who rated the practices safety and
health policy, hazard analysis, safety and health plan, SWMS, toolbox safety meetings,
safety and health training and housekeeping as “extremely important” are 77, 72, 69, 67, 64,
62 and 49 per cent, respectively (Table III). Overall, the majority of the respondents
(66 per cent) rated that safety and health practices are “extremely important” (response scale
of 5) to improve productivity in multi-storey building construction projects. This finding
verifies the finding of Phase I of the research in which the seven safety and health practices
have been identified as essential practices that have the potential to improve productivity in
multi-storey building construction projects.

5.2 Relative importance of safety and health practices

The practice “safety and health policy” has the maximum weight of 0.95 and ranked first;
“safety and health plan” and “hazard analysis” have equal weights of 0.92, and both ranked
second. “Safe work method statement” and “toolbox safety meetings” with weights of 0.913
and 0.908 are ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. “Housekeeping” and “safety and health
training” have both equal weights of 0.887 and ranked sixth.
The results of the Friedman test are presented in Table IV, and a p-value (0.08) which is
greater than 0.05 is obtained. This implies that the null hypothesis of the test or “there are no
significant differences among the weights of the safety and health practices” is accepted.
Thus, all the safety and health practices are equally important to improve productivity in
multi-storey building construction projects.

5.3 Relationships among safety and health practices, company profiles, and project
characteristics
The Spearman correlation coefficients of project delay, project cost and safety and health
practices are presented in Table V. The association between project cost and safety and

Not Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely

important important important important important
(NI) (SI) (SWI) (VI) (EI)
Safety and health practices 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) Total

Safety and health policy 0 0 3 21 77 100

Hazards analysis 0 0 10 18 72 100
Safety and health plan 0 0 8 23 69 100
Safe work method statement 0 0 10 23 67 100
Table III. Toolbox safety meetings 0 0 10 26 64 100
Percentage Safety and health training 0 0 18 21 62 100
distribution of the Housekeeping 0 0 5 46 49 100
responses Average 0 0 9 25 66 100
health practices is positive and the relationship is significant (rs ¼ 0.46, p ¼ 0.003) which Identifying and
implies that the levels of importance of the safety and health practices increase when project prioritizing
costs increase. safety practices
Project delay is negatively correlated with safety and health practices (rs ¼ −0.24,
p ¼ 0.14). However, the degree of association is weak as well as insignificant. The result
indicates that implementation of best safety and health practices might not reduce the
possibility of occurrence of project delay.
Annual turnover and safety and health practices are positively correlated, but the
relationship is not significant (rs ¼ 0.19, p ¼ 0.38). Company experience and the safety and
health practices are positively associated, and the relationship is statistically
significant (rs ¼ 0.33, p ¼ 0.04). The finding shows that experienced companies have
better safety and health practices. Among the seven safety and health practices, “safety
and health policy” has the strongest association with company experience (rs ¼ 0.36,
p ¼ 0.03). This implies that the more experienced the contractors are, the better their safety
policies are.
Company size is positively associated with safety and health practices (rs ¼ 0.37,
p ¼ 0.02) which indicates that larger construction companies have higher levels of
implementation of safety and health practices. Among the seven practices, safety and
health policy has the highest correlation coefficient (rs ¼ 0.43, p ¼ 0.006) with company
size. The relationship is also statistically significant at 1 per cent level of significance.
Safety and health training has a medium strength as well as a statistically significant
association with company size (rs ¼ 0.41, p ¼ 0.01). The findings indicate that larger
construction firms also have higher levels of implementation of “safety and health policy”
and “safety and health training”.

Safety and health practices Mean rank n χ2 approximation df p-value

Safety and health policy 4.51 39 11.468 10 0.075

Hazards analysis 4.19
Safety and health plan 4.15
Safe work method statement 3.95 Table IV.
Toolbox safety meetings 3.87 Outputs of Friedman
Housekeeping 3.67 test – safety and
Safety and health training 3.65 health practices

SHP HK SHPo SHP SWMS HA SHT TSM

Project cost Coeff. 0.458** 0.304 0.482** 0.284 0.149 0.304 0.279 0.347*
Sig. 0.003 0.060 0.002 0.080 0.365 0.060 0.086 0.030
Project delay Coeff. −0.243 −0.212 −0.219 −0.286 −0.273 −0.342* −0.175 0.134
Sig. 0.135 0.196 0.181 0.077 0.092 0.033 0.286 0.416
Annual turnover Coeff. 0.185 0.275 0.242 0.341 −0.005 −0.090 −0.136 0.078
Sig. 0.376 0.184 0.244 0.095 0.982 0.667 0.518 0.712
Company experience Coeff. 0.329* 0.206 0.361* 0.157 0.274 0.067 0.154 0.104
Sig. 0.043 0.215 0.026 0.346 0.096 0.691 0.357 0.535 Table V.
Spearman correlation
Company size Coeff. 0.368* 0.235 0.433** 0.147 0.068 0.198 0.407* 0.248
coefficients of
Sig. 0.021 0.149 0.006 0.372 0.681 0.227 0.010 0.127 company profiles,
Notes: SHP, safety and health practices; HK, Housekeeping; SHPo, safety and health policy; SHP, safety and project characteristics
health plan; SWMS, safe work method statement; HA, hazard analysis; SHT, safety and health training; TSM, and safety and
toolbox safety meeting . *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. health practices
IJPPM 6. Discussion of the findings
The practices “Safety and Health Policy,” “Safety and Health Plan” and “Hazards Analysis”
are the top three practices which enhance construction labour productivity. However, the
Friedman test indicated that the weights of the seven safety and health practices are not
significantly different from each other. This implies that all safety and health practices
should be implemented jointly to enhance productivity in multi-storey building projects.
This could be due to the presence of several occupational safety and health regulations in
Australia which oblige contractors to implement the safety and health practices. Failure to
comply with the regulations results in financial penalty and suspension of the construction
works which could be one of the causes of the loss of construction productivity. For
instance, Work and Health Safety Regulations 2011 Part 6.5 Article 316 and 317 stipulates
that contractors should ensure whether construction workers have completed the general
construction induction training or not. The regulation specifies the associated penalty of
18,000 AUD for the noncompliance. A study conducted by Mohamed (2002) also showed
that better perception of safety rules and procedures are associated with positive safety
climate. Further, Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2010) mentioned that better safety management
practices improve working conditions, positively influence employees’ attitudes and reduce
accidents in the workplace.
Additionally, the presence of a strong Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(CFMEU) could enforce contractors to implement safety and health practices. The workers
might suspend the execution of the construction activities if a site is not safe. The employees
can elect the health and safety representatives (HSR’s) who have the power to issue PIN and
to cease work when there are urgent matters that are immediate threats to the health and
safety of any person (CFMEU, 2016). According to article 60 of the Occupational Health
and Safety Act 2004, the HSR’s can issue the PIN to a contractor to remedy any
contravention of the provisions of the Act. Failure to comply with the PIN can result in 2,500
penalty units. Furthermore, Article 74 of the Act authorises the HSRs to direct the
suspension of the construction work if the work involves an immediate threat to the health
or safety of any employee. Amick et al. (2015) investigated the influence of union on the
safety of workers and found that unionized construction firms encourage occupational
injury reporting and reduce risks through training, and hazard identification and control
strategies. Nonetheless, the research carried out by Sawacha et al. (1999) showed that there
is no correlation between safety performance and trade union involvement.
Work Health and Safety Regulations (2011) stipulates that a person conducting a
business that involves high-risk construction work must, before high-risk construction work
commences, prepare a “safe work method statements (SWMS)” for the proposed work.
Failure to comply would result in a financial penalty of AUD30,000 and suspension of the
construction works. Thus, contractors in Victoria State, Australia, implement the safety and
health practices to comply with the regulations and to minimise the penalty associated with
the noncompliance of the regulations such as financial penalty and suspension of works
which in turn influence the productivity of the multi-storey building construction projects.
Borys (2012) also found that SWMS are important for ensuring safety in construction
projects. The study highlighted the importance of SWMS for tasks that can be categorised
under high risk.
The finding of this study revealed that the relative importance of the safety and health
practices for improving productivity in the multi-storey buildings, infrastructure and
industrial construction projects is different. Table VI indicates the comparison of the safety
and health practices in the three project types.
While “substance abuse program” is the most significant practice to improve
productivity in industrial projects, the practice is found to be not relevant to enhance
productivity in building projects (Table VI). The finding of the qualitative data analysis
Infrastructure projects (CII, 2013b) Industrial projects (CII, 2013a)
Environment, safety and
health practices
Formal safety and health
policy
Safety and health plan/zero
accident techniques
OSHA compliance training
Hazards planning
Hazard analysis
Task safety analysis
Toolbox safety meetings
Environment, safety and
Rank health practices
1 Substance abuse programs
1 Toolbox safety meetings
3 OSHA compliance training
3 Zero accident techniques
5 Task safety analysis
6 Identification of potential
hazards
7 Housekeeping
System test hazards
planning
Building projects (this study)
Identifying and
prioritizing
Rank Safety and health practices Rank safety practices
1 Safety and health policy 1
2 Safety and health plan 2
3 Hazards analysis 2
4 Safe work method statement 4
5 Toolbox safety meetings 5 Table VI.
6 Housekeeping 6 Comparison of safety
and health practices in
7 Safety and health training 6 industrial,
8 infrastructure and
building projects

revealed that testing construction workers for substance abuse is not common in building
construction projects in Victoria, Australia. However, recently, the Australian Government
made amendments to the Building Code 2013 which requires contractors to have a
comprehensive policy for managing drug and alcohol issues including mandatory drug and
alcohol testing on Commonwealth funded projects that meet the financial threshold
(Building Code, 2015). A study done by Awwad et al. (2016) also showed that most
construction companies in Lebanon did not test their employees for drug or alcohol abuse.
However, the authors mentioned that there were written documents banning the use of
substance abuse in workers’ contracts.
The quantitative data analysis revealed that all the safety and health practices are
positively correlated. However, “safety and health policy” and “safety and health training”
are strongly associated. The finding implies that to improve productivity in multi-storey
building projects, safety and health training should be included in the safety and health
policy prepared at company and project levels. For instance, the policy should explicitly
state as: “workers who do not complete general induction training and get a certificate of
completion or construction induction card should not start working on a particular building
project”. This practice could help to reduce the rate of accidents in the building projects. In
Victoria, the regulatory bodies oblige contractors to accept alternative evidence of
completing induction training, and contractors need to consider these options in their safety
policies. The “red card” which shows the completion of the previous Victorian Construction
Industry Basic Induction Course; the white card or a construction induction card issued by
WorkSafe Victoria after the successful completion of induction training by registered
training organisation (RTO); and a statement of attainment issued by an RTO until the
issuance of formal construction induction card can be considered as evidence for completion
of the safety training (WorkSafe Victoria, 2008). Thus, safety training and safety policy can
be inter-related. Hinze et al. (2013) also found that site-specific safety training is associated
with better safety performances. Likewise, Demirkesen and Arditi (2015) mentioned that the
majority of large contractors in the USA consider the adoption of effective safety training to
achieve better safety outcomes.

7. Conclusion
The main objective of this study is to identify and prioritise the safety practices
influencing labour productivity in building construction projects. Accordingly, safety and
health policy, safety and health plan and hazard analysis are the three most important
IJPPM safety and health practices. It has been found that the seven safety and health practices
are equally important. Thus, it is suggested that all the safety and health practices should
be jointly implemented to enhance productivity in building construction projects. The
results of correlation analysis revealed that the level of implementation of the safety and
health practices increases with project costs. Project delay is negatively correlated with
safety and health practices, but the degree of association is weak and insignificant. This
indicates that increasing the level of implementation of safety and health practices might
not reduce the possibility of occurrence of project delay. Company experience and
company size are positively correlated with safety and health practices, and the
relationships are statistically significant. The finding implies that experienced and large
construction companies implement higher levels of safety and health practices. Annual
turnover and safety and health practices are positively correlated, but the relationship is
not significant.
Contractors involved in the delivery of building projects in Australia can implement the
identified safety and health practices to improve productivity in their projects. Similarly,
contractors in other countries can implement the safety and health practices after validating
their suitability. The study can provide useful information for international developers and
contractors who are interested to do construction business in Australia. Researchers in other
countries can use the independent variables identified in this study to investigate the
relationship between the productivity of building projects and the safety and health
practices in other contexts. They can also use this study as a bench to compare their
findings. Finally, further research can be conducted by analysing the quantitative data
using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods such as DEMATEL so as to consider
the interaction between the variables.

References
Abdul Kadir, M., Lee, W., Jaafar, M., Sapuan, S. and Ali, A. (2005), “Factors affecting construction labour
productivity for Malaysian residential projects”, Structural Survey, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 42-54.
ABS (2018a), Australian System of National Accounts, 2017-18, Cat. No. 5204, Canberra.
ABS (2018b), Construction Work Done, Australia, Preliminary, September 2018, Cat. No. 8755.0,
Canberra.
Alinaitwe, H.M., Mwakali, J.A. and Hansson, B. (2007), “Factors affecting the productivity of building
craftsmen-studies of Uganda”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 169-176.
Amick, B.C. III, Hogg-Johnson, S., Latour-Villamil, D. and Saunders, R. (2015), “Protecting construction
worker health and safety in Ontario, Canada: identifying a union safety effect”, Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 57 No. 12, pp. 1337-1342.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016), “Counts of Australian Businesses, including entries and exits”,
Jun 2011 to Jun 2015, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018), “Estimates of Industry Multifactor Productivity”, 2016-17, Canberra.
Awwad, R., El Souki, O. and Jabbour, M. (2016), “Construction safety practices and challenges in a
Middle Eastern developing country”, Safety Science, Vol. 83, pp. 1-11.
Borys, D. (2012), “The role of safe work method statements in the Australian construction industry”,
Safety Science, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 210-220.
Building Code (2015), “Fitness for work/alcohol and other drugs in the workplace amendment
instrument”, Canberra.
Caldas, C.H., Kim, J.-Y., Haas, C.T., Goodrum, P.M. and Zhang, D. (2014), “Method to assess the level of
implementation of productivity practices on industrial projects”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 04014061-1-9.
CFMEU (2016), “OHS reps information”, available at: https://vic.cfmeu.org.au/ohs/reps-info (accessed Identifying and
5 October 2016). prioritizing
Chan, D.W., Chan, A.P., Lam, P.T., Yeung, J.F. and Chan, J.H. (2011), “Risk ranking and analysis in safety practices
target cost contracts: empirical evidence from the construction industry”, International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 751-763.
Chan, P.W. and Kaka, A. (2007), “Productivity improvements: understand the workforce perceptions of
productivity first”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 564-584.
CII (2013a), “Best productivity practices implementation index for industrial projects”, Construction
Industry Institute Implementation Resource 252-3d, Austin, TX.
CII (2013b), “Best productivity practices implementation index for industrial projects”, Construction
Industry Institute Implementation Resource 252-4d, Austin, TX.
Creswell, J. (2014), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage
Publications, California.
Dai, J., Goodrum, P.M., Maloney, W.F. and Srinivasan, C. (2009), “Latent structures of the factors
affecting construction labor productivity”, Journal of Construction Engineering & Management,
Vol. 135 No. 5, pp. 397-406.
Demirkesen, S. and Arditi, D. (2015), “Construction safety personnel’s perceptions of safety
training practices”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 1160-1169.
Department of Treasury and Finance (2015), “Construction supplier register, Victoria, Australia”,
available at: www.dtf.vic.gov.au (accessed 30 September 2015).
Durdyev, S. and Mbachu, J. (2011), “On-site labour productivity of New Zealand construction industry:
key constraints and improvement measures”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 18-33.
El-Gohary, K.M. and Aziz, R.F. (2014), “Factors influencing construction labor productivity in Egypt”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
El-Sayegh, S.M. (2008), “Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 431-438.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., Mustafa, Z.A. and Mayer, P.E. (2007), “Factors affecting labour productivity
in building projects in the Gaza Strip”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 245-254.
Ghoddousi, P. and Hosseini, M.R. (2012), “A survey of the factors affecting the productivity of
construction projects in Iran”, Technological & Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 99-116.
Given, L.M. (2008), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Sage Publications, CA.
Gurmu, A.T. (2018), “Tools for measuring construction materials management practices and predicting
labor productivity in multistory building projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 145 No. 2, pp. 04018139-1-13.
Gurmu, A.T. and Aibinu, A.A. (2017), “Construction equipment management practices for improving
labor productivity in multistory building construction projects”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 10, pp. 04017081-1-13.
Gurmu, A.T. and Aibinu, A.A. (2018), “Survey of management practices enhancing labor productivity
in multi-storey building construction projects”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 717-735.
Hinze, J. and Wilson, G. (2000), “Moving toward a zero injury objective”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 399-403.
Hinze, J., Hallowell, M. and Baud, K. (2013), “Construction-safety best practices and relationships
to safety performance”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139 No. 10,
pp. 04013006-1-8.
IJPPM Hughes, R. and Thorpe, D. (2014), “A review of enabling factors in construction industry productivity
in an Australian environment”, Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 210-228.
Jamieson, S. (2004), “Likert scales: how to (ab) use them”, Medical Education, Vol. 38 No. 12,
pp. 1217-1218.
Jarkas, A. and Bitar, C. (2012), “Factors affecting construction labor productivity in Kuwait”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138 No. 7, pp. 811-820.
Jergeas, G. (2009), “Improving construction productivity on Alberta oil and gas capital projects”,
A report submitted to Alberta Finance and Enterprise, University of Calgary, Alberta.
Kazaz, A. and Ulubeyli, S. (2007), “Drivers of productivity among construction workers: a study in a
developing country”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 2132-2140.
Kenley, R. (2014), “Productivity improvement in the construction process”, Construction Management
and Economics, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 489-494.
Lam, P.T., Wong, F.K. and Wong, F.W. (2007), “Building features and site-specific factors affecting
buildability in Hong Kong”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 129-147.
Liberda, M., Ruwanpura, J. and Jergeas, G. (2003), “Construction productivity improvement:
a study of human, management and external issues”, Construction Research Congress,
Alberta, pp. 1-8.
Lim, E.C. and Alum, J. (1995), “Construction productivity: issues encountered by contractors in
Singapore”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 51-58.
Lozano, L.M., García-Cueto, E. and Muñiz, J. (2008), “Effect of the number of response categories on the
reliability and validity of rating scales”, Methodology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 73-79.
Makulsawatudom, A., Emsley, M. and Sinthawanarong, K. (2004), “Critical factors influencing
construction productivity in Thailand”, The Journal of KMITNB, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 1-6.
Mohamed, S. (2002), “Safety climate in construction site environments”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 5, pp. 375-384.
Nasir, H. (2013), “Best productivity practices implementation index (BPPII) for infrastructure projects”,
doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Waterloo.
Nasir, H., Haas, C.T., Caldas, C.H. and Goodrum, P.M. (2015), “An integrated productivity-practices
implementation index for planning the execution of infrastructure projects”, Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 04015022-1-11.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2013), Reconstructing Productivity: Productivity in the Construction Industry,
PwC, Sydney.
Safe Work Australia (2011), “How to manage work health and safety risks: code of practice”, available
at: www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/633/How_to_
Manage_WHS_Risks.pdf (accessed 14 November 2016).
Safe Work Australia (2018), “Work-related injury fatalities – key WHS statistics Australia 2018”,
available at: www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/book/work-related-injury-fatalities-key-whs-
statistics-australia-2018 (Accessed 20 December 2018).
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S. and Fong, D. (1999), “Factors affecting safety performance on construction
sites”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 309-315.
Standards Australia (1990), Workplace Injury and Disease Recording Standard, National Occupational
Health and Safety Commission, Sydney.
Vinodkumar, M. and Bhasi, M. (2010), “Safety management practices and safety behaviour: Assessing
the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 42
No. 6, pp. 2082-2093.
Work Health and Safety Regulations (2011), “Canberra, Australia”.
WorkSafe Victoria (2008), A Handbook for the Construction Regulations: Working Safely in the General
Construction Industry, WorkSafe, Victoria.
Further reading Identifying and
Cohen, J. (2013), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Science, Saint Louis. prioritizing
Santos, J.R.A. (1999), “Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales”, Journal of safety practices
Extension, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 1-5.

About the author

Argaw Tarekegn Gurmu is Lecturer in Construction Management at Deakin University, Australia.
He completed his PhD in construction management at the University of Melbourne, Australia. His
research focuses on labour productivity improvement in construction projects. Argaw Tarekegn Gurmu
can be contacted at: argaw.gurmu@deakin.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com