PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to report on findings from a research project, commissioned by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), to investigate the integration of health and safety with pre‐construction planning.Design/methodology/approachFour steering groups and three expert panels were interviewed, using focus group methods, to define critical success factors through qualitative, grounded theory, analysis.FindingsThe main outcomes from the analysis are: critical success factors rely on adopting integrated teams; and effective two‐way flow of information is essential. Also, existing design and management tools can be adapted to satisfy the factors identified as opposed to prescribed requirements for a standard health and safety plan.Originality/valueThis study has informed further research including the development of a gateway process model and supporting integrated management tools. It has also informed HSE with policy decisions for their review of CDM.

Approaches to planning for health and safety in the UK construction industry have been criticised for being bureaucratic and irrelevant, especially if done by individuals in isolation. This paper reports on the findings of a research project, commissioned by the UK Health and Safety Executive, which investigated the integration of health and safety with construction project planning. A combination of group and individual interviews were undertaken, with qualitative methods of analysis, to develop integrated management tools for all members of the project team. Eight integrated tools were developed: a responsibility chart; an option evaluation chart; health and safety hazard workshops; safety information on drawings; red-amber-green lists; health and safety milestones on programmes; and a design change control process. These were found to aid project planning while simultaneously integrating health and safety issues. However, recommendations are given on how their application can be improved.Health, management, qualitative, planning, safety,

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose -Present findings from a UK study, funded by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), on the relationship between safety advisor roles and safety performance. Design/methodology/approach -Roles and organisational factors for contractors' safety advisors (independent variables) were derived from existing literature. The dependent variable was "safety performance", measured by accident incidence rate (AIR). Data were provided by 101 contractors and variance of means analysis was conducted. Findings -Contractors using only external safety consultants had an average AIR approximately three times those with internal safety staff. However, simply increasing internal safety personnel did not lead to increased safety performance. Contractors, where at least one safety advisor had authority to give orders had a lower mean AIR than those who did not. Other significant variables were: delivering safety training to employees; vetting sub-contractors; and the inclusion of an environmental management role. Practical implications -Employing at least one full-time internal safety person is better than relying solely on a safety consultant. If these safety advisers report to senior management then they have a greater chance of influencing others to act safely or commit resources to manage safety. Delivery of training, vetting sub-contractors and including environmental duties should feature in safety advisor roles. Originality/value -The assumption that merely increasing safety personnel improves safety has been challenged. It is apparent from these findings that what the safety personnel actually do is more important than how many are employed. This is a major finding in relation to theory and practice which challenges previous research.