ECD733 | RISK MANAGEMENT

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT:

CRITICAL REVIEW ON ARTICLES OF RISK

ASSESSMENT AMONG CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS

Name | Hifzhan Irfan bin Zahidi

ID | 2019585785

Lecturer’s name | Dr. Nur Kamaliah Mustaffa

Submission date | 11 November 2019

INTRODUCTION

The construction industry is well known as one of the most hazardous activities. It is
paramount that safety on the construction site. Risk is defined as the outcome of an action
taken or not taken, in a particular situation which may result in loss or gain. Risk assessment
is termed as the overall process or method in which hazards and risk factors are identified
(hazard identification), the risk related to the hazard are analysed and evaluated (risk analysis
and risk evaluation), and appropriate means determined to either eliminate the hazard or
control the risk when the hazard cannot be eliminated (risk control)1. In other words, risk
assessment is used for estimating the likelihood and the outcome of risks to human health,
safety and the environment and for enlightening decisions about how to deal with those risks
2
. This review aims to compare and contrast, determine the strengths and weaknesses, and
suggest some recommendations towards the papers in review.

The first paper in review was written by Murat Gunduz and Heikki Laitinen. It is titled
“Construction Safety Risk Assessment with Introduced Control Levels”3. Majority of the
construction Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are not well-versed with risk assessment
concepts and methods. The control levels introduced were done by implementing 3TRA-CON
(3T-RiskAssessment-Construction) methodology by replacing conventional definition of
probabilities with control levels. The objective of this paper is to introduce a systematic and
user-friendly risk assessment methodology for construction companies of all sizes generally.
Theoretically, the methodology was easier to implement and obtained more accurate risk
scores. Practically, it was found to be user-friendly among SMEs which made them update
their risk strategy easily during numerous construction stages. Method efficiency and field data
sufficiency were discussed further in this review.

The second paper was written by R. Ghousi, M. Khanzadi and K. Mohammadi

Atashgah. The title of the paper is “A Flexible Method of Building Construction Safety Risk
Assessment and Investigating Financial Aspects of Safety Program”4. Previous studies have
increased six times between 2000 and 2011, showing the significance of safety issues in
construction projects, meanwhile the occurrence of accidents affected the financial aspect of
projects increased proportionally. The aim of this paper is to present a new method for safety
risk assessment with more consistencies and correlating it with the effects on the safety cost
with safety programs. The factors affecting the safety risks in construction projects, risk priority
numbers, safety program’s compulsory items and project manager’s perspective on safety
risks were discussed further in this review.
 The third research was written by Vladimir Mucenski, Igor Pesko, Jasmina Drazic,
Goran Cirovic, Milan Trivunic and Dragana Bibic. The research is entitled “Construction
Worker Injury Risk Assessment in Relation to Their Experience and Age”5. Most of the
previous research projects observed were analysed on the workers’ age and their respective
injury occurrence. The importance of professional training was discussed further in this review.

SUMMARY

The first paper introduced a method with some distinctive features which include a new
method of risk assessment by exchanging the conventional definition probabilities with control
levels. The writers’ purposes are to assist construction Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
with risk assessments concepts and methods, and to aid them in understanding risk
assessment in its simplest form possible. The organization of the text was adequate as the
aim, literature review, methodology, discussion and conclusion were stated clearly and
arranged in an organized manner.

A new flexible method of safety risk assessment was introduced by adding the Hybrid
Value Number (HVN) to the assessment equation in the second paper, in addition to some
conventional methods as well. The writers’ purposes are to provide the results and present a
new safety risk assessment method with increased result consistency in project conditions,
and to investigate on clarification of how safety program could assist the project managers in
terms of costing or budget. The organization of text were satisfactory as the content of the
paper was arranged in a proper manner and the purpose of the study were explained
accordingly and justified throughout this study.

The risk of workers’ injuries based on age and experience was obtained based on the
previous analysis. The writers’ purposes are to relate the construction workers’ experience
and age, and to imply the importance the construction workers’ awareness and knowledge in
safety at work. This paper was written with the objectives of defining potential sources of risk,
connection with various types of works, materials used, tools, mechanization, features of the
working force, listed parameters significance over the data on injuries and quantify the risk
parameters. However, the organization of the text in the introduction of this paper was unclear
as the aim or objective was not stated and this could affect the reader’s understanding on this
paper.
CRITIQUE

The risk assessment method proposed in the first article was the 3TRA-CON. The
method mentioned is a ready-made checklist items which are then separated into the basic
modules covering all main risk factors. Due to its modular structure, it is considered convenient
and easy to modify the method according to a specific type of construction project. This was
done to encourage construction SMEs to implement their own risk assessment. This approach
introduced a new, user-friendly risk assessment methodology which can be utilized among
construction SMEs since they have difficulty in carrying out proper risk assessment due to
hardships of searching for qualified personnel or time constraint. First paper used a modified
risk matrix and results were obtained from a European Union (EU) project called ISGIP which
was based in Turkey. However, there was only a mention of 22 construction SMEs involved
but there was no mention of data related to risks obtained from the project to support the
paper. Semi-quantitative analysis was adopted in this study to overcome some of the
shortcomings linked to the qualitative approaches by giving values to the qualitative scales.
While the traditional risk matrix may have inaccurate relationship with the actual magnitude of
probability, this study came up with a proposal to replace the probability with current level of
prevention and control. The three levels proposed were sufficient control or no problems
appeared, some need for improvement or problems have appeared, and considerable need
for improvement or problems exist often. This proposed score control level could be useful
especially among construction SMEs as they may not have adequate past experience to
determine the scale on probability. The costing aspect was absent in this paper compared to
the second paper.

The four most notable results obtained from the second paper were the most prominent
factors affecting safety risks, the largest risk priority numbers, safety programs with personal
protective equipment (PPE) included and a small investment on safety programs to decrease
total safety risks. This study used multiple tools along the methodology. Some tools adopted
in this paper were brainstorming, work breakdown structure (WBS), risk matrix, Preliminary
Hazard Analysis (PHA), HVN and so on. However, this methodology could be impractical
among construction SMEs due to various tools implemented which would hard for them to
execute a proper risk assessment and would consume a lot of time compared to the first paper
which was only a modification of traditional risk matrix tool which would require less time for
them to carry out. HVN was introduced to provide a new assessment method which could
adapt itself with every construction condition by considering the factors influencing the safety
risks. The equation was derived as follows: HVN = Ʃ Wi Fi. Fi, where Fi is the factor influencing
the risk and Wi is the weightage of each factor. With this equation, the quality and quantity can
be defined based on the project’s type and situation, making this method flexible. This
research also included cost factor which is one of the most essential factors for the sake of
the continuity of a construction project. It was claimed theoretically that there will be a
decrease in 75% of total safety risks by investing a small amount of 1.5% of construction
budget towards safety programs. The inclusion of financial factor in this research could pique
the interest of investors and project managers if successful conduction of safety programs
could indeed reduce in cost in treating injuries posed towards the construction workers. Due
to the nature of this research mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses, it was initially a good
idea to close the gaps coming from the shortcomings of qualitative and quantitative analyses.
However, there were too many results obtained from the tools proposed in this research. This
could make the readers to be confused and disinterest them to read through to the end.
Nonetheless, the abundance of data provided could be useful to other researchers and big
construction companies who are searching and make good use of them.

The literature review done in the third paper involved several research projects from
other countries other than Republic of Serbia, which are not the origin country of the writers.
While these previous researches helped in understanding, it didn’t exactly reflect on the actual
situation in Republic of Serbia as there is a distinction in cultural and societal aspects.
Quantitative analysis was fully implemented in this study. However, the quality of the analysis
depends on the accuracy and the entirety of the numerical values, and the validity of the
models used. The data for this research were collected through the reports of injuries at work
addressed to the occupational medicine department in Novi Sad and were related to
construction companies with the head offices in AP Vojvodina for a duration of 4 years from
2004 to 2007. Since this paper was published in 2015, the data is considered doubtful as they
were outdated and did not reflect on the current situation. The costing aspect was absent in
this paper, whereby the inclusion of costing aspect could potentially strengthen its relevance
like the other two papers in review. The writers were able to conclude the risks of construction
workers’ injuries depending on the age and the experience of the workers.
CONCLUSION

In the first paper written by Vladimir Mucenski, Igor Pesko, Jasmina Drazic, Goran
Cirovic, Milan Trivunic and Dragana Bibic, the risk assessment method proposed was 3TRA-
CON consisting of checklist and its modular structure, making it easier and more convenient
to use especially among construction SMEs. There should be field data on at least one
construction SME participated in ISGIP project to make this paper more reliable. Semi-
quantitative analysis adopted in this study was able to overcome some of the flaws originated
from the qualitative approaches. The replacement of the traditional probability with current
level of prevention and control was proven to aid construction SMEs to familiarise with risk
assessment. A study should be done on the effects of the proposed method on financial aspect
of construction project as proposed by the second paper in review.

The second paper was able to capture the factors affecting safety risks, risk priority
numbers, importance of safety programs with personal protective equipment (PPE) included
and return of investment on safety programs to decrease total safety risks. In order to omit
some of the redundant quantitative analyses provided, semi-quantitative analysis should be
introduced in this study for easier understanding towards the writers, readers and construction
companies especially SMEs. HVN was introduced which could adapt itself with every
construction condition by considering the factors influencing the safety risks, making this
method flexible qualitatively and quantitatively. A decline in total safety risks by investing a
minute amount of construction budget towards safety programs is monumental among
investors and project managers. The data obtained in this study could be beneficial for other
potential research topics that are in line with this study.

The last study in review should reflect more in the present by obtaining recent data
instead of outdated ones. It is recommended to propose a semi-quantitative analysis approach
such as 3TRA-CON method to arrange the database and at the same time identify the rating
of each risk presented in this study. The costing aspect should be included to support this
study and also to take reliance on. The risks of construction workers’ injuries depending on
the age and the experience of the workers were successfully obtained by writers.
REFERENCES

1. Retrieved 26 April 2019, from

https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/risk_assessment.html#:~:targetText=Ris
k%20assessment%20is%20a%20term,analysis%2C%20and%20risk%20evaluation).
2. Silvianita, Silvianita & Khamidi, Dr. Mohd Faris & Kurian, V.J.. (2011). Critical review of a
risk assessment method and its applications. 2011 International Conference on Financial
Management and Economics. 83-87.
3. Gunduz, Murat & Laitinen, Heikki. (2018). Construction Safety Risk Assessment with
Introduced Control Levels. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 24. 11-18.
10.3846/jcem.2018.284.
4. Ghousi, R., Khanzadi, M., & Atashgah, K.M. (2018). A FLEXIBLE METHOD OF
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT AND INVESTIGATING
FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF SAFETY PROGRAM.
5. Mučenski, Vladimir & Pesko, Igor & Dražić, Jasmina & Ćirović, Goran & Trivunić, Milan &
Bibić, Dragana. (2015). Construction Workers Injury Risk Assessment in Relation to their
Experience and Age. Procedia Engineering. 117. 530-538.
10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.205.