Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction

Application level of lean construction techniques in reducing accidents in

construction projects
Adnan Enshassi, Nour Saleh, Sherif Mohamed,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Adnan Enshassi, Nour Saleh, Sherif Mohamed, (2019) "Application level of lean construction
techniques in reducing accidents in construction projects", Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction , https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-08-2018-0047
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-08-2018-0047
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 27 June 2019, At: 08:40 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 70 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:485088 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-4387.htm

Accidents in
Application level of lean construction
construction techniques in reducing projects

accidents in construction projects

Adnan Enshassi and Nour Saleh
Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Gaza (IUG),
Gaza, Palestinian Authority, and Received 29 August 2018
Revised 18 December 2018
17 February 2019
Sherif Mohamed 13 March 2019
School of Engineering and Built Environment, Accepted 10 April 2019

Griffith University, Southport, Australia

Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the application of lean construction (LC) techniques in reducing
accidents in construction projects.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative approach was used to collect the required data using
a questionnaire survey and descriptive analysis was used to analyse the collected data. The LC techniques
that were investigated in this paper are related to the tools of the last planner system (LPS), increased
visualisation (IV), 5S, error-proofing, daily huddle meetings (DHMs), first-run studies (FRS), continuous
improvement (Kaizen) and accident investigation (5Whys).
Findings – The overall results indicated that LC techniques are poorly implemented in construction projects
in the Gaza Strip. The top three LC tools used to reduce the causes of accidents in the Gaza construction
projects were 5Whys, 5S and LPS, while the highest three LC techniques applied to reduce the causes of
accidents that were applicable were cleaning the workplace and removing materials and machines that are
not required; conducting accident investigation and root cause analysis programmes; and using safety signs
and labels on site.
Research limitations/implications – There is a lack of information and published studies regarding the
links between LC and safety, especially in the Middle East. This paper is limited to the perceptions and
geographical boundaries; therefore, it cannot be generalised. However, it could form the basis for useful comparison
in the future. Triangulation research method could also be used in future research to minimise the bias and validate
the conclusions.
Practical implications – The findings of this paper will stress professionals and construction companies
in Gaza to reconsider their behaviour towards using LC techniques. The findings of this paper will aid them to
shift their attention and resources towards including LC techniques in their plans to reduce the causes of
accidents on construction sites.
Social implications – The findings of this paper will encourage professionals and construction companies in
Gaza to reconsider their behaviour towards using LC techniques. The findings will also aid them to shift their
attention and resources towards including LC techniques in their plans to reduce and/or avoid the causes of
accidents on construction.
Originality/value – Because of the lack of published works that are specific to the Middle East, the
authors believe that the originality lies in the paper’s serious attempt to explore the application level of the LC
concept to safety in this part of the world. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the applicability

Journal of Financial Management

The authors are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the construction editor for their of Property and Construction
valuable constructive comments and suggestions which have led to the improvement of the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1366-4387
manuscript. DOI 10.1108/JFMPC-08-2018-0047
 JFMPC of LC techniques in terms of accidents reduction. Findings from this paper provide a clear picture of the
current status of using LC techniques to reduce accidents in the Gazan construction projects which drive them
to investigate the main barriers and try to overcome them.
Keywords Construction, Safety, Lean tools, LC techniques
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The concept of lean construction (LC) is becoming a reality in the construction industry.
Despite the significant research efforts and a large number of publications on LC, lack of
awareness of LC is still one of the major challenges in implementing LC. Its effectiveness in
controlling and eliminating waste are increasingly acknowledged (Vieira and Cachadinha,
2011). However, Ogunbiyi (2014) believes that LC is still in an early stage of development.
Similarly, Sarhan et al. (2017) stated that the adoption of LC is still in a transition phase.
Therefore, the introduction of LC and the implementation of LC methods, tools and thinking
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

has been a challenge (Wandahl, 2014). One of the major challenges to implementing LC is a
lack of awareness of LC techniques (Sarhan et al., 2017; Cano et al., 2015; Sarhan and Fox,
2013; Ballard and Tommelein, 2012). Over the past few years, considerable effort has been
made to raise awareness of LC by providing guidance and sharing knowledge related to LC
techniques by academics, researchers and practitioners (Bashir et al., 2015; Sarhan and Fox,
2013).
LC techniques are the features or practices adopted in LC tools. In other words, an LC tool
comprises one, two or more lean techniques, except for the daily huddle meeting (DHM). The
DHM has only one feature; therefore, it is considered as both an LC tool and an LC technique
(Bashir, 2013). The last planner system (LPS) comprises many techniques, such as worker
empowerment, worker involvement, pre-task hazard analysis and weekly work plans.
Sarhan et al. (2017) presented several tools that are used to implement LC. These include 5S,
5Whys, first-run studies (FRS), just-in-time (JIT), a pull approach (Kanban), LPS, error-
proofing or fail-saving for quality and safety (Poka-yoke), standard work, value stream
mapping (VSM), increased visualisation (IV), DHM, target value design, partnering,
computer-aided design, six sigma, total productive maintenance, total quality management
and concurrent engineering.
Gambatese et al. (2016) introduced a number of tools that are applied in LC. These
include the 5S, 5Whys, Andon, FRS, integrated project delivery, JIT, continuous
improvement (Kaizen), Kanban, kitting, LPS, Lean Project Delivery System, Poka-yoke,
standard work, VSM and work structuring designing. Meanwhile, Ogunbiyi et al. (2013)
summarised several lean tools that can be used to implement LC, which include 5S,
VSM, JIT, visualisation tools, LPS, value analysis, Kanban and Kaizen. Similarly,
Salem et al. (2005), Aziz and Hafez (2013) and Bashir (2013) illustrated six LC tools,
namely, LPS, IV, 5S, FRS, DHM and Poka-yoke. Moreover, Marhani et al. (2013)
introduced nine primary tools of LC that can be implemented in LC practice. These are
LPS, productive meetings, IV, off-site prefabrication, 5S, Poka-yoke, root cause
analysis/5Whys, FRS and JIT. Most of researchers revealed that the previous tools of
LC (LPS, increased visualisation, 5S, Poka-yoke, DHM, 5 whys, FRS and Kaizen) are the
best tools to promote safety in construction industry. Table I provides a summary of LC
tools for safety improvement and their source of citation. The objective of this paper is
to investigate the application of these LC techniques in reducing the causes of accidents
in construction projects in the Gaza Strip.
 LC tools
Last Planner System (LPS)
Increased visualisation (IV)
5S
Poka-yoke
Daily huddle meetings (DHM)
First run studies (FRS)
Continuous improvement (Kaizen)
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)
Source
Accidents in
construction
Sarhan et al. (2017), Gambatese et al. (2016), Marhani et al. (2013), projects
Ogunbiyi et al. (2013), Aziz and Hafez (2013), Bashir (2013), Salem et al.
(2005)
Sarhan et al. (2017), Aziz and Hafez (2013), Bashir (2013), Marhani et al.
(2013), Ogunbiyi et al. (2013), Salem et al. (2005)
Sarhan et al. (2017), Gambatese et al. (2016), Aziz and Hafez (2013),
Bashir (2013), Marhani et al. (2013), Ogunbiyi et al. (2013), Salem et al.
(2005)
Sarhan et al. (2017), Gambatese et al. (2016), Aziz and Hafez (2013),
Bashir (2013), Marhani et al. (2013), Salem et al. (2005)
Sarhan et al. (2017), Aziz and Hafez (2013), Bashir (2013), Salem et al.
(2005)
Sarhan et al. (2017), Gambatese et al. (2016), Aziz and Hafez (2013), Table I.
Bashir (2013), Marhani et al. (2013), Salem et al. (2005) Lean construction
Gambatese et al. (2016), Ogunbiyi et al. (2013), Ogunbiyi (2014) tools for safety

5 Why’s Sarhan et al. (2017), Gambatese et al. (2016), Marhani et al. (2013) improvement

Lean construction tools and safety

In the following sections, the eight common LC tools (LPS, IV, 5S, Poka-yoke, DHM, FRS,
Kaizen and 5Whys) will be presented.

Last planner system

LPS is mainly about replacing the optimistic planning with realistic planning by evaluating
the workers’ performance based on workers’ abilities to achieve their commitments (Salem
et al., 2014; Enshassi and Abu Zaiter, 2014; Bashir et al., 2011). LPS is based on four planning
stages: the master plan, six-week look-ahead plan, weekly work plan (Ogunbiyi et al., 2012;
Sacks et al., 2009) and per cent plan complete (Shang and Pheng, 2014; Issa, 2013). Lean
practitioners believed that the implementation of LPS is the most beneficial tool to improve
safety in construction projects (Gambetese and Pestana, 2016, 2014). It resulted in a 45 per
cent lower accident rate than in similar work where LPS was not applied (Thomassen et al.,
2003). Bashir et al. (2011) demonstrated that LPS could reduce excessive stress, time
pressure and organisational pressure, which are considered as causes of accidents. These
causes can be reduced by the LPS techniques of empowering workers and correlating work
methods with workers’ skills (Camuffo et al., 2017; Awada et al., 2016; Bashir, 2013).
Moreover, accidents caused by poor planning and control and unsafe acts of workers can
also be eliminated by LPS techniques which involve all employees in safety planning and
conducting weekly work planning (Awada et al., 2016; Bashir, 2013; Forman, 2010; Nahmens
and Ikuma, 2009). Workers involvement in selecting work methods and correlating them
with workers’ abilities can reduce the accidents resulted from poor work methods, poor site
supervision and physical and mental disability (Camuffo et al., 2017; Bashir, 2013; Bashir
et al., 2011; Forman, 2010). In addition, pre-task hazard analysis is also considered as LPS
technique and can be used to identify and reduce the risks in works before accidents
occurring (Bashir, 2013; Sacks et al., 2009).

Increased visualisation
IV is an LC tool for communicating key information to workers using visual devices, such as
various signs and labels around the construction site (Sarhan et al., 2017; Ogunbiyi, 2014;
 JFMPC Bashir, 2013; Salem et al., 2005). Visual devices include signs related to safety, schedule and
quality (Bashir, 2013; Abdelhamid and Salem, 2005). IV can be identified as one of the key
principles of promoting safety on construction sites (Fewings, 2013). A major strength of
visual devices is that the information is promptly available to a wide range of employees
(Saurin et al., 2006). It could communicate vital information to workers with low levels of
knowledge and poor site awareness which could reduce the likelihood of accidents occurring
(Bashir, 2013). Safety signs and boards can be used to display current accident rates,
allowing all workers to identify issues, the boundaries for safe performance and compare the
expected safety performance (Enshassi and Abu Zaiter, 2014). Therefore, accidents caused
by exposure to hazards as chemicals and tripping/falling hazards can be reduced (Bashir,
2013; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2009). Furthermore, safety signs and labels can potentially
reduce accidents caused by poor communication (Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Bashir, 2013;
Arleroth and Kristensson, 2011).

5S (housekeeping)
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

5S is a lean tool derived from five Japanese words: Seiso (shine), Seiton (straighten), Seiri
(sort), Seiketsu (standardise) and Shitsuke (sustain), as a foundation for continuous
improvement (Sarhan et al., 2017; Pestana and Gambatese, 2016; Cudney et al., 2015). 5S is a
systematic method that focuses on organising and standardising the workplace (Bashir,
2013; Bashir et al., 2011; Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007; Kilpatrick, 2003). 5S focuses on
establishing visual order, organisation, cleanliness and standardisation, which leads to
improved safety, creation of space, improved teamwork and continuous improvement
(Kaizen activities) (Cudney et al., 2015; Modi and Thakkar, 2014; Ogunbiyi, 2014; Ogunbiyi
et al., 2014; Anvari et al., 2011). Good housekeeping is a well-known practice that leads to
safer job sites (Pestana and Gambatese, 2016). Bashir et al. (2011) believed that adopting 5S
improves ergonomics and reduces workers’ exposure to hazards that cause injuries. It
reduces confusion, extra steps and on-the-spot decisions and, therefore, reduces motion and
decreases trip and fall hazards (Pestana and Gambatese, 2016; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2009).
The first 3S are mainly about cleaning and organising the worksite, which reduce accidents
caused by site congestion and reduce the chances of falling and slipping (Anerao and
Deshmukh, 2016; Cudney et al., 2015; Ogunbiyi, 2014; Vieira and Cachadinha, 2011; Bashir,
2013; Bashir et al., 2011; Abdelhamid and Salem, 2005; Salem et al., 2005), while the last two
5S are about promoting safety culture around the employees and to make 5S a way of life,
which reduce accidents caused by poor safety culture (Anerao and Deshmukh, 2016; Tezel
and Aziz, 2016; Cudney et al., 2015; Ogunbiyi, 2014; Bashir, 2013; Bashir et al., 2011; Vieira
and Cachadinha, 2011; Abdelhamid and Salem, 2005).

Error-proofing
Poka-yoke is a Japanese word for error-proofing or fail-safe (Sarhan et al., 2017; Bashir,
2013). It is a lean tool that involves all measures taken to prevent an error from occurring
(Sarhan et al., 2017; Ogunbiyi, 2014). Poka-yoke concentrates on all techniques that could
contribute to the reduction of accidents on construction sites. It is widely known to be very
useful to deal with human error, which is one of the major causes of accidents (Bashir, 2013).
These techniques include visual inspection and error-proofing devices such as gadget alerts
(Bashir et al., 2011; Saurin et al., 2006). Visual inspection can potentially reduce accidents
caused by poor supervision (Bashir, 2013), while gadgets alerts raise alarms of the
occurrence of an unwanted event to prevent errors and their impacts as approaching or
crossing into unsafe boundaries on site (Saurin et al., 2006). Moreover, PPE and safeguards
 are devices of error-proofing which are used to protect workers from site hazards (Bashir Accidents in
et al., 2011; Saurin et al., 2006). construction
projects
Daily huddle meeting
DHM is an LC tool where a brief daily start-up meeting is conducted (Bashir, 2013). It allows
the team members to briefly present what they have been working on since the last meeting
and discuss any problems that prevent the completion of an assignment (Sarhan et al., 2017;
Ogunbiyi, 2014; Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Salem et al., 2005). This is done to create a forum to
develop a team and to have the team members feel like they are part of something through
the sharing of information (Mastroianni and Abdelhamid, 2003). The huddle meeting
increases employees’ job satisfaction, as it encourages two-way communication between the
team and its leader (Ogunbiyi, 2014; Bashir, 2013; Ogunbiyi et al., 2013). DHM is a key to
achieve employee involvement to discuss the good and bad aspects of their tasks and
suggest ways to solve these problems together. Therefore, the causes of accidents which are
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

related to poor communication and coordination can be overcome (Sarhan et al., 2017;
Ogunbiyi, 2014; Bashir, 2013; Ogunbiyi et al., 2013). Additionally, DHM gives a room for
workers to be enlightened and educated to identify and reduce site hazards, which reduced
accidents caused by lack of safety awareness (Bashir, 2013).

First-run studies
FRS involves the practice of critical task planning, which aims to study the task and review
different work methods to identify the most appropriate method that matches the workers’
ability and convenience. This minimises accidents caused by poor planning and human
error (Bashir, 2013; Mitropoulos et al., 2007). FRS involves using video files, photos or
illustrations to show methods or illustrate work instructions (Salem et al., 2005) that can be
used to reduce accidents caused by low levels of knowledge and poor site awareness (Bashir,
2013).

Kaizen
The Japanese word for continuous improvement is Kaizen (Sarhan et al., 2017; Vieira and
Cachadinha, 2011). Kaizen is a lean tool used for rapid process improvement (Ikuma et al.,
2011). The main technique of CI process is that everybody can be involved in the
improvement process, which reduce the accidents because of poor communication and
coordination (Bayfield and Roberts, 2005). Decisions regarding the elimination and control
of safety hazards can be incorporated into Kaizen events by conducting pre-task hazard
analysis (Ikuma et al., 2011; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2009).

The 5Whys
The 5Whys tool is an accident investigation tool (Bashir, 2013; Razuri et al., 2007). The five
repetitions of ‘why’ (5Whys) when facing a problem helps to find the root cause of
construction-related problems (Sarhan et al., 2017; Bashir, 2013). Razuri et al. (2007)
identified 5Whys, or accident investigation, as a key technique in safety management. By
conducting accident investigations, the root causes of accidents can be identified, as well as
ways to prevent them from reoccurring (Bashir, 2013). The number of accidents on
construction sites can be reduced if their causes are identified and eliminated (Wong et al.,
2016; Chi and Han, 2013; Enshassi, 2010).
 JFMPC Research methodology
A deductive approach using a questionnaire was adopted in this paper. The questionnaire
survey was used to collect quantitative data. Questionnaires are predominantly used when
conducting surveys to find out facts and the opinions and views of participants (Bashir,
2013). The main advantage of questionnaires is that they are a rapid way of conducting a
survey at minimum costs in terms of finance, human and other resources (Mathers et al.,
2007). On the other hand, the main limitation of questionnaires is their inflexibility, as most
questionnaires involve closed-ended questions and there is no control over the respondents
(Naoum, 2007). As the number of the target sample was not known in this study, a purposive
sample for non-probability sampling was adopted. The target sample respondents included
engineers who have construction site supervision responsibilities (e.g. project managers, site
engineers, site supervisors and safety engineers).
In purposive sampling, Battaglia (2011) stated that this approach may involve selecting
large (1,000þ respondents), medium (100-999 respondents) and small (<100 respondents)
samples. In our study, 120 questionnaires were distributed and 107 were returned
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

completed. Therefore, the response rate was 88.3 per cent, which can be considered good
(Saldivar, 2012). Our response rate of 88.33 per cent is also good in comparison with the
previous studies of Adegbembo et al. (2016), who recorded a response rate of 79.57 per cent,
and Enshassi and Abu Zaiter (2014), who recorded a response rate of 77.7 per cent, while
Sarhan and Fox (2013) reported a response rate of 74.5 per cent.
In all, 39 LC techniques that had been suggested to reduce the causes of accidents on
construction sites were identified in an intensive review of the literature (Sarhan et al., 2017;
Ogunbiyi, 2014; Ogunbiyi et al., 2013; Gambatese et al., 2016; Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Bashir,
2013; Marhani et al., 2013; Salem et al., 2005; Alinaitwe, 2009). A pilot study was conducted
to test the relevance and comprehensiveness of the questionnaire before it was sent to
potential respondents. The questionnaire was sent to ten engineers with more than 15 years’
experience in the construction industry who worked on projects funded by external parties
where LC techniques were applied. The process involved revising and verifying all LC
applications and techniques collected from the literature review. The comments received
from each expert were reviewed, and accordingly, several revisions were undertaken to
develop the final version of the questionnaire. According to the pilot study, 25 LC techniques
that reduce the causes of accidents on construction sites were selected from the 39
techniques identified.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part captured the respondents’
demographic data (education level, specialisation, job title and experience). The second part
contained 25 items measuring the applicability of LC techniques to reduce the causes of
accidents on construction projects using a five-point Likert items ranging from 1 (never) to 5
(always). The 25 items were distributed on eight LC tools based on previous literature (LPS,
IV, 5S, Poka-yoke, DHM, FRS, Kaizen and 5Whys). Table I summarises the LC techniques
distributed in the tool with the coding. The respondents were asked to express their opinion
based on their perception of the frequency of the occurrence of these LC techniques, rated on
a five-point scale. The Likert item is the most widely used rating scale for measuring
attitudes (Holt, 2014; Enshassi et al., 2007, 2009). Users of Likert items are provided with
statements that reflect particular attitudes or opinions and asked to rank the response on a
Likert items (Naoum, 2007, Enshassi et al., 2013). Lee (2006) proposed that the best number
of Likert items point is fewer than seven points.
The internal validity of the questionnaire was tested using the Pearson correlation. The
Pearson correlation was between 1 and 1 and the p-value was less than 0.05, so the
correlation coefficient is considered significant at a = 0.05. Thus, these LC techniques are
 consistent and valid measures. Cronbach’s alpha (Ca) was used to assess the reliability of Accidents in
the survey scale by investigating the internal consistency of the responses regarding the 25 construction
LC techniques. The normal range of the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Ca) value is between
0.0 and þ1, and higher values reflect a higher degree of internal consistency (Field, 2009),
projects
with 0.70 is generally accepted as the minimum accepted value (Pallant, 2005). The
calculated value of (Ca) was 0.89, which suggests that the LC techniques are internally
consistent.
The data gathered through the questionnaire were then subjected to descriptive analysis
using the mean score (MS) and relative importance index (RII). The MS, or average index,
could be interpreted based on each respondent’s rating of each item in the questionnaire.
Referring to Holt (2014), the average MS for the item should be greater than the
hypothesised mean (equal to 2 for five-point scale where Amin = 0 and Amax = 4), where Amin
and Amax are the minimum and maximum response category integers, respectively. Again
referring to Holt (2014), RII was calculated by a simple percentage model to rank the LC
techniques as shown in the following equation. The simple percentage model was used, in
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

which the scale with Amin = 0 and Amin and Amax are the minimum and maximum response
category integers, respectively.
P
n
i * Frequancyi
i¼1
RII ¼ * 100
AN

where 1 and n represent Amin and Amax, respectively; A is largest integer in the response
scale (Amax) (i.e. 4 in this case) and N is the total number of respondents. The RII value had a
range from 0 to 100; a higher RII indicates that a particular item is more significant than
those with relatively lower RIIs. However, RII does not reflect the relationship between the
various items.

Results and discussion

Respondent profile
The target respondents of the questionnaire were engineers working on construction
projects funded by international donors, where LC techniques are expected to be applied for
safety improvement. The targeted supervising engineers included project managers, site
engineers, site supervisors and safety engineers. It was found that 23.4 per cent of the
respondents have postgraduate qualification that reflected their construction experience.
The majority of respondents were civil engineers (76.6 per cent), with the remainder being
architects and mechanical or electrical engineers (18.7, 1.9 and 2.8 per cent). Most were
working with contractors (34.6 per cent); 24.3 per cent were working with consultants; 18.7
per cent of the sample was working with non-governmental organisations and 22.4 per cent
were working with the government sector. Regarding their current job titles, 16.8 per cent of
the respondents were project managers, 38.3 per cent were site engineers, 40.2 per cent site
supervisors and 4.7 per cent safety engineers. The majority of respondents had more than
ten years of work experience.

Ranks of the lean construction techniques applied to reduce the causes of accidents in
construction projects
The 25 LC techniques were labelled as App1 to App25 as shown in Table II. The results
show that the overall MS of the applicability of these LC techniques was 1.96, which is less
 JFMPC Code LC technique

Last planner system (LPS)

App1 Providing employees with safety equipment
App2 Developing a plan for supervision
App3 Developing a schedule based on worker’s abilities
App4 Worker’s empowerment and involvement in task planning and scheduling
App5 Correlating work methods with worker’s skills and abilities
App6 Involvement of all employees in safety planning
App7 Conducting pre task hazard analysis to identify risks predicted at activity and reducing it
App8 Conducting weekly work planning

Increased visualisation (IV)

App9 Using camera connected with computer algorithm to warn safety officer when workers
violate safety conditions
App10 Using visual demarcations and boards on site
App11 Using safety signs and labels on site
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

5S
App12 Cleaning the workplace and removing materials and machines that are not required
App13 Organising material and plant
App14 Separating needed tools from unneeded materials and clearing the unwanted materials
App15 Defining standard procedures to maintain the working environment clean and organised and
improve safety culture
App16 Creating continuous improvement in safety culture to increase safety culture among the
workforce

Error proofing (Poka Yoke)

App17 Conducting visual inspection
App18 Using Alarms and warning gadgets to warn workers from crossing the unsafe boundaries
App19 Using safe guards and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE )

Daily huddle meetings (DHM)

App20 Conducting daily meeting to increase communication between teamwork, increase workers
awareness of safety to make them identify risks and reduce it

First run studies (FRS)

App21 Make a plan for the critical tasks
App22 Illustration of work methods using videos, photos, etc.

Continuous improvement (Kaizen)

App23 Involvement of all employees in improvement process
Table II. App24 Conducting pre task hazard analysis to identify risks predicted at activity and reducing it
Coding of lean
construction Accident investigation (5Whys)
techniques App25 Conducting accident investigation and root-cause analysis programme

than the average mean (equal to 2 for a five-point scale where Amin = 0 and Amax = 4) (Holt,
2014). This result indicates that LC techniques are not adequately applied to reduce the
causes of accidents on construction sites in the Gaza Strip. This is mainly because the LC
concept is an innovative strategy and is not widely understood among construction
practitioners in the Gaza Strip. This is because of the weakness of the learning environment
and lack of budget to provide training in the Gaza Strip regarding the LC to recognise the
benefits of LC in terms of accident reduction (Enshassi and AbuHamra, 2017; Enshassi and
Abu Zaiter, 2014). Moreover, the local government in the Gaza Strip does not prioritise lean
 in their national agenda because of unstable political conditions, lack of funds and lack of Accidents in
awareness regarding the benefits of LC techniques (Enshassi et al., 2016a). To overcome construction
these barriers, skilful site operatives and skilful professionals should be engaged to guide
the application of LC techniques in safety improvement. Besides, donors should provide
projects
sufficient funds to organise training sessions with lean consultant to raise the awareness of
LC techniques (Enshassi et al., 2016b). In parallel, the local government should introduce
policies to encourage construction firms to engage in the application of LC techniques to
improve construction safety.
However, some of LC techniques have been adequately applied to reduce the causes of
accidents. For instance, “Cleaning the workplace and removing materials and machines that
are not required; 5S” has a MS (2.57 > 2), which reflects a high level of application, while
“Using camera connected with computer algorithm to warn safety officer when workers
violate safety conditions; IV”, with a MS (0.53 < 2) is not adequately applied in the Gaza
Strip. As shown in Figure 1, the top three LC tools applied to reduce the causes of accidents
in the Gazan Construction Projects were 5Whys, 5S and LPS, while poke-yoke was the
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

lowest. Furthermore, the fact that the standard deviations for all techniques are small
indicates that there is little variability in the data and consistency in agreement between the
respondents (Neuman, 2013).
The RII results for the LC techniques are presented in Figure 2. It is worth mentioning
that the ranking of the LC techniques was based on the highest MS, RII and the lowest
standard deviation, as in the case of the techniques “Make a plan for the critical tasks”;
“Conducting pre-task hazard analysis to identify risks predicted at activity and reducing it”;

3
2.42
2.5
2.22
2.06
2 1.87
1.77
Mean Score

1.74 1.69 1.65

1.5

1 Figure 1.
0.5 Average mean of
0
applicability levels of
5 Why’s 5S LPS Kaizen FRS DHM IV Poka lean construction
process yoke tools
LC tools

App12
App9 70 64.25 App25
App1813.25 60.5 App11
60
App621.25 59.75 App13
50
59.25
App22 37.5 40 App1
30 58.25
38.5
App4 20 58 App8
39.75
10
App23 43.5 57.5 App14
0
App20 43.5 57 App2 Figure 2.
RII of applicability
48.25 54.25
App15 App3 levels of lean
48.5 construction
App16 54 App10
49.75 53.75 techniques (App1 to
App24 49.75 App7
50.25 52.25 52.75 App25)
App21 App5
App17 App19
 JFMPC “Conducting daily meeting to increase communication between teamwork, increase workers’
awareness of safety to make them identify risks and reduce it”; and “Involvement of all
employees in improvement process”. They had similar means and RIIs, so the ranking was
dependent on the lowest standard deviation (SD). One-sample t-tests were performed to
assess whether the respondents considered the LC techniques to be important for measuring
the application level of LC in reducing the causes of accidents. The respondents considered
all the listed LC techniques significant in measuring the applicability level of LC in
safety improvement, because all had p-values less than the significance level 0.05 and all had
t-values greater than the critical t-values (1.98).
The top three LC techniques used to reduce the causes of accidents were “cleaning the
workplace and removing materials and machines that are not required”, “conducting
accident investigation and a root cause analysis programme” and “using safety signs and
labels on site”. From Figure 2, it can be seen that ‘cleaning the workplace and removing
materials and machines that are not required’ was the first technique used by the
respondents among all LC techniques. This technique is the first technique within the 5S
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

category, with (MS = 2.57, SD = 0.902 and RII = 64.25 per cent). Respondents agreed that
‘conducting accident investigation and a root cause analysis programme’ was the second
ranked among all the techniques and the first within 5Whys tool (with MS = 2.42, SD =
1.037 and RII = 60.5 per cent). This was followed by ‘using safety signs and labels on site’
with (MS = 2.39, SD = 1.035 and RII = 59.75 per cent). It was ranked in the third position
among all techniques and the first in IV tool.
This result is in line with the study of Bashir (2013) in the UK, which concluded that
construction projects require safety improvement issues, but that LC techniques are not
widely implemented to improve safety. Further, Oladiran (2017) stated that there is
inadequate implementation of LC techniques in the Nigerian construction industry, which
poses a serious problem in this context. Similarly, Awada et al. (2016) found that LC is not
applied in the Lebanese construction industry as yet, because its concepts remain poorly
recognised among project participants. Enshassi and Abu Zaiter (2014) confirmed that LC is
not implemented in the Gaza Strip construction industry yet. In Abu Dhabi, Al-Aomar
(2012) concluded that only 32 per cent of the companies they surveyed are familiar with and/
or already using LC techniques.
In the following sections, the results for the LC techniques and their tools will be
discussed.

Last planner system

Table III shows the ranks of the LPS techniques. The LPS tool comprises eight LC
techniques. The overall average for the LPS technique was 2.06, which exceeded the
threshold value of 2. Based on this value, it can be concluded that the LPS tool is
partially implemented in the Gaza Strip. Awada et al. (2016) have confirmed the
importance of the application of LPS and its influence on safety in the Lebanese
construction industry. Similarly, the results of Gambetese and Pestana (2014)
demonstrated that LPS techniques have a strong impact on worker safety when they
are implemented to improve safety performance. Despite the importance of LPS
techniques, Bashir (2013) found that only four organisations from a total of ten were
applying LPS in their projects to reduce the causes of accidents. Wandahl (2014) stated
that respondents did not recognise LPS as a sub-element of LC, even though they
applied the subparts of LPS without knowing that they were related to LC.
The findings indicated that most of the construction companies investigated in this
study provided their employees with safety equipment. This technique was ranked as the
 Rank within Overall
Accidents in
# Item MS SD RII (%) t-value p-value group rank construction
projects
App1 Providing employees with safety 2.33 0.898 58.25 26.795 0.000 1 5
equipment
App8 Conducting weekly work 2.32 1.087 58 22.061 0.000 2 6
planning
App2 Developing a plan for 2.28 1.044 57 22.589 0.000 3 8
supervision
App3 Developing a schedule based on 2.17 0.986 54.25 22.756 0.000 4 9
worker’s abilities
App7 Conducting pre task hazard 2.15 0.979 53.75 22.710 0.000 5 11
analysis to identify risks
predicted at activity and
reducing it
App5 Correlating work methods with 2.11 0.828 52.75 26.390 0.000 6 12
worker’s skills and abilities
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

App4 Worker’s empowerment and 1.59 0.990 39.75 16.599 0.000 7 21

involvement in task planning Table III.
and scheduling Ranks of application
App6 Involvement of all employees in 1.5 1.031 37.5 15.092 0.000 8 23 of last planner
safety planning system techniques

first LPS tool and the fifth most commonly implemented of all the techniques investigated,
which are both top rankings. International donors who fund projects in the Gaza Strip
consider safety equipment to be crucial for minimising accidents on construction sites.
Funding agencies encourage construction practitioners to ensure that all equipment used on
a construction site is safe and fit for use. This result is in agreement with the studies of
Bashir et al. (2010) and Sacks et al. (2009), who concluded that making provision for safety
equipment is very important for reducing accidents caused by inadequate safety equipment.
Conducting weekly work planning is also considered very important because project
managers are obliged to organise weekly planning according to contract requirements.
They also should define the tools to be used in the weekly work schedule to ensure safety.
Along with this result, Wandahl (2014) concluded that a weekly work plan is the most
commonly implemented technique among the LPS techniques used in the Danish
construction industry. Awada et al. (2016) concluded that using a weekly work plan during
the construction phase is of great importance in Lebanon.

Increased visualisation
Table IV shows the ranks of application of the IV techniques. The IV tool comprises three
techniques, with an overall average mean of 1.69, which is considered low compared with
the average mean value of 2. This result indicates that the IV tool is not applied adequately
in construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Similarly, Sarhan and Fox (2013) found that IV is
infrequently applied in British construction projects, while Zhou (2012) stated that the IV
tool is highly implemented in construction projects in the USA.
Most construction projects in the Gaza Strip use safety signs and labels on site, with a
mean value greater than 2. This was ranked as the first technique of the IV tool and as the
third technique among the 25 LC techniques investigated, which are both high rankings.
This is because of the requirements of external donors, who emphasise safety concerns in
construction projects and oblige construction practitioners to secure the required safety
 JFMPC signs and labels and place them at different positions in all projects to increase the safety
awareness of all employees and reduce human error. Awada et al. (2016) stated that
construction companies in Lebanon use different types of safety signs on site to ensure a
lower accident rate. In the UK, Bashir (2013) confirmed that using safety signs appears to be
among the most commonly applied techniques. On the other hand, Salem et al. (2005) found
that the signs required for IV did not receive adequate attention from project practitioners.

5S
Table V shows the ranks of application of the 5S techniques. The overall average for the 5S
techniques is 2.22, exceeding the threshold value of 2. This result indicates that the 5S tool is
applied to reduce the causes of accidents in the Gazan Construction Projects. Oladiran (2017)
reported that the 5S tool is considered among the most commonly used tools in Nigeria.
However, Sarhan et al. (2017) found that 5S has a low rank in terms of its implementation in
Saudi Arabia. The 5S tool comprises five LC techniques, two of which are critical and are
discussed below.
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

Cleaning the workplace and removing materials and machines that are not required was
found to be the most commonly applied of the 5S techniques as well as the 25 listed

Rank within Overall

# Item MS SD RII (%) t-value p-value group rank

App11 Using safety signs and labels on 2.39 1.035 59.75 23.915 0.000 1 3
site
App10 Using visual demarcations and 2.16 1.109 54 20.142 0.000 2 10
Table IV.
boards on site
Ranks of application App9 Using camera connected with 0.53 0.705 13.25 7.820 0.000 3 25
of increased computer algorithm to warn
visualisation safety officer when workers
techniques violate safety conditions

Rank within Overall

# Item MS SD RII (%) t-value p-value group rank

App12 Cleaning the workplace and 2.57 0.902 64.25 29.477 0.000 1 1
removing materials and
machines that are not required
App13 Organising material and plant 2.37 0.807 59.25 30.424 0.000 2 4
App14 Separating needed tools from 2.30 0.934 57.5 25.468 0.000 3 7
unneeded materials and clearing
the unwanted materials
App16 Creating continuous 1.94 0.989 48.5 20.333 0.000 4 17
improvement in safety culture to
increase safety culture among the
workforce
App15 Defining standard procedures to 1.93 0.904 48.25 22.147 0.000 5 18
Table V. maintain the working
Ranks of application environment clean and organised
of 5S techniques and improve safety culture
 techniques, with an MS (2.57 > 2). This indicated that this technique is commonly applied to Accidents in
reduce the causes of accidents. The reason for this ranking is related to the efforts of project construction
practitioners to decrease waste and chaos on their sites and, as a result, reduce accidents and projects
injuries. Salem et al. (2005) confirmed this result, as supervisors of construction projects
required their workers to continuously clean up the sites and employed a specialised
housekeeping crew to pick up trash from the whole job site. Similarly, Awada et al. (2016)
reported the importance of ensuring clean sites. Enshassi and Abu Zaiter (2014) found that
traditional work behaviour became an obstacle for the enforcement of cleaning of sites.
Workers were used to being messy and throwing garbage on the ground, and they
considered that they had been hired to do physical construction work but not to clean the
site.
The research findings also revealed that organising material and plant was the fourth
ranked among the 5S techniques as well as among the overall LC techniques, with (MS =
2.37, SD = 0.807, RII = 59.25 per cent). Thus, in the Gaza Strip, workplace organisation
contributes to creating a safe workplace environment. Respondents ensured that materials
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

and plant were placed in a regular pattern where they were to be used for ease of access
during operations so that the job could be completed efficiently. Sarhan and Fox (2013)
confirmed that workplace organisation was a fundamental LC technique applied in the UK
to reduce accidents in construction projects. Similarly, Oladiran (2017) stated that
organisation of materials and tools was widely implemented in Nigerian construction
projects.

Poka-yoke
Table VI illustrates the ranks of the application of the Poka-yoke tool to reduce the causes
of accidents on construction projects. This includes three LC techniques; visual
inspection and error-proofing devices such as gadgets and alerts (Bashir et al., 2011;
Saurin et al., 2006). In this study, Poka-yoke tools have an overall average mean of
(1.65 < 2), which indicates that Poka-yoke is the least frequently used in construction
projects in the Gaza Strip.
As shown in the results, using alarms and warning gadgets to warn workers from
crossing the unsafe boundaries has a very low rank in both the Poka-yoke group and among
all the techniques examined (3rd and 24th). In the Gaza Strip, the selection of contractors
depends mainly on cost and addressing the need for alarms in to improve safety will raise
bid costs. Oladiran (2017) confirmed that the use of fail-safe quality and safety (Poka-yoke)
is very poor in Nigeria. In the same context, Saurin et al. (2006) stated that alarms and
warning gadgets are not adequately used to reduce the causes of accidents and should be
considered as part of the technology design on construction sites.

Rank within Overall

# Item MS SD RII (%) t-value p-value group rank

App19 Using safe guards and Personal 2.09 1.060 52.25 20.432 0.000 1 13
Protective Equipment (PPE)
App17 Conducting visual inspection 2.01 1.032 50.25 20.132 0.000 2 14 Table VI.
App18 Using Alarms and warning 0.85 0.877 21.25 10.026 0.000 3 24 Ranks of application
gadgets to warn workers from of Poka-yoke
crossing the unsafe boundaries techniques
 JFMPC Daily huddle meeting
DHM is an LC tool that involves only one technique; therefore, it is considered as both an LC
tool and an LC technique. The overall average of DHM is (1.74 < 2), which indicates that
conducting daily meeting is not widely applied in the Gazan Construction Projects.
Conducting daily meetings was ranked in 20th position among the LC techniques assessed
in this study, a very low ranking. This illustrates contractors’ beliefs that safety meetings
are not required and a waste time. Moreover, a safety engineer is normally responsible for
conducting periodic safety meetings to discuss different topics, such safety rules, expected
hazards, corrective actions, accident prevention and reviews of accidents that have occurred
recently. However, most Gaza Strip projects do not have a safety engineer on site. Enshassi
et al. (2007) confirmed that construction projects in the Gaza Strip suffer from the lack of
regular safety meetings. The majority of contractors hold safety meetings with the owner
only when the owners require such meetings. Bashir (2013) stated that only one organisation
of ten applied DHM to reduce the causes of accidents in the UK. Similarly, Salem et al. (2005)
found that no DHMs took place in construction firms. Conversely, DHM is highly
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

implemented in all stages of construction in the Saudi Arabian construction industry

(Sarhan et al., 2017).

First-run studies
Table VII shows the rank of application of FRS tools, comprising two techniques. The
overall mean of the FRS techniques is 1.765, which is less than the threshold value of 2.
Accordingly, FRS techniques are not widely applied in the Gaza Strip. Table V illustrates
that the first-ranking FRS technique is planning for critical tasks, which is in the 16th
position among all the techniques analysed, with a mean of (1.99 < 2). Thus, construction
projects in the Gaza Strip suffer from poor planning. This is related to the rushed timing of
grants, which prevents project engineers from conducting the correct project scheduling and
taking critical activities into consideration. Mitropoulos et al. (2007) found that planning for
critical tasks eliminates the opportunity for error and protects from those that cannot be
eliminated in the USA. Similarly, Aziz and Hafez (2013) found that in Egypt, FRS delivered
more projects that were easier to manage, safer, completed sooner, cost less and were of
better quality. The second ranked FRS tool was the illustration of work methods using
videos, photos, etc., which was in 22nd position among all the techniques assessed. Salem
et al. (2005) demonstrated that the illustration of work methods using videos, photos, etc., is
not applied and need to be implemented to improve safety.

Kaizen
Table VIII summarises the ranking results for the application of Kaizen techniques. The
overall average of these techniques is (1.865 < 2). This means that the Kaizen tools, which
comprise two techniques, are not applied in the Gaza Strip. The findings indicate that
conducting pre-task hazard analysis was ranked as the first Kaizen technique and the 15th

Table VII.
Ranks of application Rank within Overall
of first run studies # Item MS SD RII (%) t-value p-value group rank
techniques to reduce
App21 Make a plan for the critical tasks 1.99 1.137 49.75 18.113 0.000 1 16
the causes of App22 Illustration of work methods 1.54 1.127 38.5 14.157 0.000 2 22
accidents on the using videos, photos, etc.
construction sites
 overall technique. The mean value of this technique is 1.99, which indicates that Accidents in
construction projects in the Gaza Strip do use this technique to reduce the causes of construction
accidents. Nahmens and Ikuma (2009) stated that conducting pre-task hazard analysis
minimise safety risks and reduces work hazards in the USA.
projects
Involvement of all employees in improvement processes was ranked as the 19th
technique in the overall techniques. This is may be related to the long timeframe needed to
implement employees’ suggestions and the rushed timeframe of grants, which leads to
individual decisions being made by the employers in the Gaza Strip. Sometimes projects do
not have a separate safety plan, although safety conditions are mentioned in the master
plan. Nahmens and Ikuma (2009) stressed the importance of involving employees in safety
planning and allowing them to discuss and reduce safety hazards. Adegbembo et al. (2016)
confirmed that direct involvement of employees in decision-making in general is considered
very low in Nigeria. Similarly, Enshassi and Abu Zaiter (2014) revealed that employees in
the Gaza Strip construction projects are rarely involved in safety planning. However, it is
very important to enable them to identify risks and make suggestions to control them.
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

5Whys
This tool consists of one technique, conducting accident investigation and root cause
analysis programmes, and was ranked second in the overall ranking. This technique
appeared to be among the most commonly applied LC techniques in construction projects in
the Gaza Strip. The reason for this is that submitting a project with zero accidents is a top
priority for external donors. If accidents occur during the implementation of a project, then a
detailed accident investigation is required from the project practitioners to identify the root
causes of the accident and eliminate these causes in the future. Bashir (2013) concluded that
root cause analysis was the most frequently used technique to reduce the causes of accidents
in British construction projects. Sarhan and Fox (2013) also stressed the importance of root
cause analysis and stated that it was among the most commonly used technique for this in
the UK.

Conclusion
The objective of this paper was to investigate the application of LC techniques to reduce the
causes of accidents in the Gazan construction projects. The LC techniques that were
investigated in this paper are related to the tools of LPS, IV, 5S, fail-safe for quality and
safety, DHMs, FRS, CI and accident investigation. The overall results indicated that LC
techniques are poorly implemented in construction projects in the Gaza Strip. The top three
LC tools to reduce the causes of accidents in the Gazan construction projects were 5Whys, 5S
and LPS. The highest three ranks of LC techniques applied to reduce the causes of accidents
were positioned by cleaning the workplace and removing materials and machines that are

Rank within Overall Table VIII.

# Item MS SD RII (%) t-value p-value group rank Ranks of application
of continuous
App24 Conducting pre task hazard 1.99 0.995 49.75 20.690 0.000 1 15
improvement
analysis to identify risks
predicted at activity and (Kaizen) techniques
reducing it to reduce the causes
App23 Involvement of all employees in 1.74 0.994 43.5 18.095 0.000 2 19 of accidents on the
improvement process construction sites
 JFMPC not required; conducting accident investigation and root cause analysis programmes; and
using safety signs and labels on site, while the least frequently applied techniques were
using alarms and warning gadgets to warn workers against crossing unsafe boundaries and
using cameras connected to computer algorithms to warn safety officer when workers
violated safety conditions. These techniques need to be considered by practitioners in the
construction industry in the Gaza Strip.
The findings of this study will guide professionals and construction companies in Gaza
to reconsider their attitude towards using LC techniques. The research findings will aid
them to shift their attention and resources towards including LC techniques in their plans to
reduce the causes of accidents and improve safety on construction sites. Hence, safety
improves quality and reduces the financial costs as productivity losses and the social costs
as emotional and psychological impacts to families. This study is one of the first in the
Middle Eastern countries to investigate the impact of LC techniques on the causes of
accidents on construction sites. Findings from this research provides a clear picture of the
current status of using LC techniques to reduce accidents in the Gazan Construction Projects
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

which drive them to investigate the main barriers and try to overcome them. Lack of
information and published studies regarding the link between LC and safety, especially in
the Middle East, is a limitation of this study. Although the objective of this study was
achieved, there were some study limitations. This study is limited to the perceptions and
geographical boundaries; therefore, it cannot be generalised. However, it could form the
basis for useful comparison on the future. A future study may be carried out with a much
larger sample size to validate the conclusions of this study. Triangulation research method
could also be used in future research to minimise the bias and validate the conclusion. It is
recommended to conduct a case study-based research project to provide an integrated and
comprehensive understanding of these LC techniques. A practical framework is greatly
needed to guide construction projects in creating a lean culture and adopting lean techniques
in the Gazan construction industry.

References
Abdelhamid, T. and Salem, S. (2005), “Lean construction: a new paradigm for managing construction
projects”, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Innovations in Materials and Design of
Civil Infrastructure, Cairo, pp. 2-25.
Abdulmalek, F. and Rajgopal, J. (2007), “Analysing the benefits of lean manufacturing and value
stream mapping via simulation: a process sector case study”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 223-236.
Adegbembo, T., Bamisaye, O. and Aghimien, D. (2016), “Assessment of lean construction practice in
the nigerian construction industry”, Proceeding of the Joint International Conference (JIC) on
21st Century Human Habitat: Issues, Sustainability and Development, Akure, pp. 756-764.
Al-Aomar, R. (2012), “Analysis of lean construction practices at Abu Dhabi construction industry”,
Lean Construction Journal, pp. 105-121.
Alinaitwe, H. (2009), “Prioritising lean construction barriers in uganda’s construction industry”, Journal
of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Anerao, S. and Deshmukh, S. (2016), “Waste minimisation by lean construction technology”,
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 3 No. 8,
pp. 1703-1707.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N. and Yusuff, R. (2011), “Evaluation of approaches to safety in lean manufacturing
and safety management systems and clarification of the relationship between them”, World
Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 19-26.
 Arleroth, J. and Kristensson, H. (2011), “Waste in lean construction – a case study of a PEAB Accidents in
construction site and the development of a lean construction tool”, Unpublished master thesis,
Chalmers University of technology, Gothenburg.
construction
Awada, M., Lakkis, B., Doughan, A. and Hamzeh, F. (2016), “Influence of lean concepts on safety in the
projects
lebanese construction industry”, Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. of the International, Group for Lean
Construction, Boston, Vol. 11, pp. 63-72.
Aziz, F. and Hafez, M. (2013), “Applying lean thinking in construction and performance improvement”,
Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 679-695.
Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2012), “Lean management methods for complex projects”, Engineering
Project Organisation Journal, Vol. 2 Nos 1/2, pp. 85-96.
Bashir, A. (2013), “A framework for utilizing Lean Construction strategies to promote safety on
construction sites”, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wolverhampton.
Bashir, A., Suresh, S., Proverbs, D. and Gameson, R. (2010), “Barriers towards the sustainable
implementation of lean construction in the United Kingdom construction organisations”, Arcom
Doctoral Workshop, University of Wolverhampton, pp. 1-8.
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

Bashir, A., Suresh, S., Proverbs, D. and Gameson, R. (2011), “A critical, theoretical, review of the
impacts of lean construction tools in reducing accidents on construction sites”, Proceedings of
27th Annual ARCOM Conference, Bristol, pp. 5-7.
Bashir, A., Suresh, S., Oloke, D., Proverbs, D. and Gameson, R. (2015), “Overcoming the challenges
facing lean construction practice in the UK contracting organisations”, International Journal of
Architecture, Engineering and Construction, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 10-18.
Battaglia, P. (2011), Nonprobability Sampling, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bayfield, R. and Roberts, P. (2005), “Contract or cooperation? Insights from beyond construction:
collaboration the honda experience”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 22-50.
Camuffo, A., De Stefano, F. and Paolino, C. (2017), “Safety reloaded: lean operations and high
involvement work practices for sustainable workplaces”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 143
No. 2, pp. 245-259.
Cano, S., Delgado, J., Botero, L. and Rubiano, O. (2015), “Barriers and success factors in lean
construction implementation: survey in pilot context”, Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Vol. 23, pp. 631-641.
Chi, S. and Han, S. (2013), “Analyses of systems theory for construction accident prevention with
specific reference to OSHA accident reports”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1027-1041.
Cudney, E., Murray, S. and Pai, P. (2015), “Relationship between lean and safety”, International Journal
of Lean Enterprise Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 217-231.
Enshassi, A. (2010), “Construction safety issues in Gaza Strip”, Journal of Building Research and
Information, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 370-373.
Enshassi, A., Al-Najjar, J. and kumaraswamy, M. (2009), “Delays and cost overruns in construction
projects in the Gaza Strip”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-251.
Enshassi, A., Mayer, P., Mohamed, S. and El-Masri, F. (2007), “Perception of construction managers
towards safety in Palestine”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 41-51.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S. and Abdel-Hadi, M. (2013), “Factors affecting the accuracy of Pre-Tender
cost estimates in the Gaza Strip”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 73-94.
Enshassi, A. and Abu Zaiter, M. (2014), “Implementation of lean tools on safety in construction projects
in palestine”, 22nd annual conference Proceedings IGLC, Oslo, pp. 1205-1218.
 JFMPC Enshassi, A., Ayyash, A. and Choudhry, R. (2016a), “BIM for construction safety improvement in Gaza
Strip: awareness, applications and barriers”, International Journal of Construction Management,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 249-265.
Enshassi, A., Kullab, A., AlKilani, S. and Sundermeier, M. (2016b), “Challenges to community
participation in Gaza Strip municipalities”, International Journal of Sustainable Construction
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-28.
Enshassi, A. and AbuHamra, L. (2017), “Challenges to the utilization of BIM in the palestinian
construction industry”, ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and
Robotics in Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania, Vol. 34, pp. 1-8.
Fewings, P. (2013), Construction Project Management: An Integrated Approach, Routledge, London.
Field, A. (2009), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Forman, M. (2010), “Lean construction and health and safety on site: Analysed in a planning and
empowerment perspective”, ARCOM Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference, 223-232.
Gambetese, J. and Pestana, C. (2014), “Connection between Lean Design/Construction and construction
worker safety”, CPWR Small Study Final Report, the Centre for Construction Research and
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

Training, OR.
Gambatese, J., Pestana, C. and Lee, H. (2016), “Alignment between lean principles and practices and
worker safety behaviour”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 1,
pp. 1-10.
Holt, G. (2014), “Asking questions, analysing answers: relative importance revisited”, Construction
Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 2-16.
Ikuma, L., Nahmens, I. and James, J. (2011), “Use of safety and lean integrated kaizen to improve
performance in modular homebuilding”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 137 No. 7, pp. 551-560.
Issa, U. (2013), “Implementation of lean construction techniques for minimising the risks effect on
project construction time”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 697-704.
Kilpatrick, J. (2003), “Lean principles”, Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Vol. 68, pp. 1-5.
Lee, S.H. (2006), “Constructing effective questionnaires”, in Pershing, J., Stolovitch, H.D and Keeps, E.
(Eds), Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practices, and Potential, 3rd ed.,
John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 760-777.
Marhani, M., Jaapar, A., Bari, N. and Zawawi, M. (2013), “Sustainability through lean construction
approach: a literature review”, Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 101, pp. 90-99.
Mastroianni, R. and Abdelhamid, T. (2003), “The challenge: the impetus for change to lean project
delivery”, Proc. 11th conference of International Group for Lean Construction, VT, 418-426.
Mathers, N., Fox, N. and Hunn, A. (2007), Surveys and Questionnaires, The National Institute for Health
Research, pp. 3-48.
Mitropoulos, P., Cupido, G. and Namboodiri, M. (2007), “Safety as an emergent property of the
production system: How lean practices reduce the likelihood of accidents”, Proceedings IGLC-15,
MI, pp. 282-293.
Modi, D. and Thakkar, H. (2014), “Lean thinking: reduction of waste, lead time, cost through lean
manufacturing tools and technique”, International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 334-339.
Nahmens, I. and Ikuma, L. (2009), “An empirical examination of the relationship between lean
construction and safety in the industrialized housing industry”, Lean Construction Journal,
Vol. 1, pp. 1-12.
Naoum, S. (2007), Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students, 2nd ed., Elsevier, London.
Neuman, W. (2013), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Pearson
education limited.
 Ogunbiyi, O. (2014), “Implementation of the Lean approach in sustainable construction: a conceptual Accidents in
framework”, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Lancashire, Preston.
construction
Ogunbiyi, O., Oladapo, A. and Goulding, J. (2013), “A review of lean concept and its application to
sustainable construction in the UK”, International Journal of Sustainable Construction
projects
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 82-92.
Ogunbiyi, O., Oladapo, A. and Goulding, J. (2014), “An empirical study of the impact of lean
construction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK”, Journal of Construction
Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 88-107.
Ogunbiyi, O., Oladapo, A. and Goulding, J. (2012), “Lean procurement: the use of lean construction
techniques in project value enhancement”, Joint CIB W070, W092 and TG72 International
Conference on Facility Management, Cape Town, pp. 143-149.
Oladiran, O. (2017), “An investigation into the usage of lean construction techniques in Nigeria”,
Journal of Construction Project Management and Innovation, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1712-1725.
Pallant, J. (2005), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for
Windows (Version), Allen & Unwin.
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

Pestana, C. and Gambatese, J. (2016), “Lean practices and safety performance”, Construction Research
Congress, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1710-1719.
Razuri, C., Alarcon, L. and Diethelm, S. (2007), “Evaluating the effectiveness of safety management
practices and strategies in construction projects”, Proceedings IGLC- 15, MI, pp. 271-281.
Sacks, R., Rozenfeld, O. and Rosenfeld, Y. (2009), “Spatial and temporal exposure to safety
hazards in construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135
No. 8, pp. 726-736.
Saldivar, M. (2012), A Primer on Survey Response Rate, Learning Systems Institute, FL State
University, FL.
Salem, O., Pirzadeh, S., Ghorai, S. and Abdel-Rahim, A. (2014), “Reducing environmental, economic, and
social impacts of work-zones by implementing lean construction techniques”, Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Vol. 22, pp. 145-155.
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Luegring, M. (2005), “Site implementation and assessment of
lean construction techniques”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-21.
Sarhan, J., Xia, B., Fawzia, S. and Karim, A. (2017), “Lean construction implementation in the Saudi
Arabian construction industry”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 46-69.
Sarhan, S. and Fox, A. (2013), “Barriers to implementing lean construction in the UK construction
industry”, The Built and Human Environment Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Saurin, T., Formoso, C. and Cambraia, F. (2006), “Towards a common language between lean
production and safety management”, Proceedings IGLC-14, Santiago, 483-495.
Shang, G. and Pheng, L. (2014), “The last planner system in china’s construction industry: a SWOT
analysis on implementation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32 No. 7,
pp. 1260-1272.
Tezel, A. and Aziz, Z. (2016), “Visual management/visual controls implementation pilot: 5S in
Highways Construction and Maintenance”, Project Report, University of Salford.
Thomassen, M., Sander, D., Barnes, K. and Nielsen, A. (2003), “Experience and results from
implementing lean construction in a large Danish contracting firm”, Proceedings of 11th Annual
Conference on Lean Construction, VT, 644-655.
Vieira, A. and Cachadinha, N. (2011), “Lean construction and sustainability-complementary paradigms-
a case study”, Proceeding of IGLC-19, Lima, 611-621.
Wandahl, S. (2014), “Lean construction with or without lean–challenges of implementing lean
construction”, Proc. 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
Oslo, 23-27.
 JFMPC Wong, L., Wang, Y., Law, T. and Lo, C. (2016), “Association of root causes in fatal fall-from-Height
construction accidents in Hong Kong”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 142 No. 7, pp. 1-12.
Zhou, B. (2012), “Lean principles, practices, and impacts: a study on small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs)”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 241 Nos 1/2, pp. 457-474.

Further reading
AbuHamra, L. and Enshassi, A. (2016), “Strategies for safety and productivity improvement”, Journal
of Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 1.

Corresponding author
Adnan Enshassi can be contacted at: aenshassi@gmail.com
Downloaded by University Library At 08:40 27 June 2019 (PT)

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