Key Performance Indicators (Kpis) To Promote Building Developers Safety Performance in The Construction Industry

Mahmoud, Abubakar Sadiq; Ahmad, Mohd Hamdan; Yatim, Yahya Mohd; Dodo,
Yakubu Aminu
Article
Key performance indicators (KPIs) to promote building
developers safety performance in the construction
industry
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM)
Provided in Cooperation with:

The School of Industrial, Aerospace and Audiovisual Engineering of Terrassa (ESEIAAT), Universitat
Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Suggested Citation: Mahmoud, Abubakar Sadiq; Ahmad, Mohd Hamdan; Yatim, Yahya Mohd; Dodo,
Yakubu Aminu (2020) : Key performance indicators (KPIs) to promote building developers safety
performance in the construction industry, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
(JIEM), ISSN 2013-0953, OmniaScience, Barcelona, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, pp. 371-401,
https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.3099
This Version is available at:

https://hdl.handle.net/10419/261724
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:
Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal
Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. and scholarly purposes.
Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to
Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the
machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public.
Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen If the documents have been made available under an Open Content
(insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise
gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.
genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
JIEM, 2020 – 13(2): 371-401 – Online ISSN: 2013-0953 – Print ISSN: 2013-8423
https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.3099
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to Promote Building Developers

Safety Performance in the Construction Industry
Abubakar Sadiq Mahmoud1 , Mohd Hamdan Ahmad1 , Yahya Mohd Yatim1 , Yakubu Aminu Dodo2
1
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia UTM (Malaysia)
2
Istanbul Gelisim University (Turkey)
sadiqmahmoud2@gmail.com, b-hamdan@utm.mu, b-yahya@utm.my, yadodo@gelisim.edu.tr
Received: January 2020

Accepted: May 2020
Abstract:
Purpose: The aim of this study is to establish key performance indicators (KPIs) that can be deployed in
the evaluation and promotion of safety performance of building developer’s in Nigeria.
Design/methodology/approach: A thorough review of the literature was performed to generally
identify sets of KPIs used to evaluate the safety performances of building developer’s during construction.
Interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with eleven (11) subject matter experts and
professionals to ensure inclusion, validation and clarity of the indicators and to further provide
agreement/disagreement, and importance ratings for the identified KPIs. The KPIs was grouped into
appropriate categories, keeping out redundant KPIs, and ensuring KPIs are clear and measurable. The
Relative Importance Index (RII) and Mean values were computed.
Findings: Results from the study consist of 137 KPIs, grouped into 9 categories including: Planning, design
and procurement, communication on & maintenance of effective safety behaviour, construction safety policy,
construction safety personnel, management effort and support, safety training and enlightenment,
administration of safety processes, investigation and reporting of accidents, and rewards and sanctions for
project stakeholders. These KPIs were observed to be at different levels of importance from the
respondents. The following KPIs were considered based on their extreme importance judging from the
respective RII values: communicating safety requirements to designer (98.18%), safety performance set as
part of contractor selection criterion (96.36%), availability and accessibility of the relevant insurance policies
(98.18%) and appropriate issuance of motivational directives by the top management (100%).
Originality/value: Many studies have been done in the past where KPIs as it relates to construction
safety were identified. However, the specificity of these KPIs to countries other than Nigeria requires
similar research be conducted to identify building developer safety performance KPIs for the Nigerian
construction industry
Keywords: construction safety, key performance indicators KPIs, building developers, assessment, construction
safety performance
To cite this article:
Mahmoud, A.S., Ahmad, M.H., Yatim, Y.M., & Dodo, Y.A. (2020). Key performance indicators (KPIs) to
promote building developers safety performance in the construction industry. Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, 13(2), 371-401. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.3099
-371-
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management – https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.3099
1. Introduction
Nations all over the world consider the construction industry as a major stimulant to their economic growth and
development (Okoye, Mbakwe & Igbo 2018). According to Alarcón, Acuña, Diethelm and Pellicer (2016) the
construction industry is project-based with many stakeholders consisting of professionals such as designers,
building developers, contractors, subcontractors and workers among others working as a team to achieve a
common goal. In achieving such goal, however, the life of workers is always threatened by occupational hazards.
The complex nature of the activities carried out in building construction as noted by Muiruri & Mulinge (2014);
Suárez-Sánchez, Carvajal-Peláez and Catala-Alis (2017) lead to various impacts on the health and safety of workers
with occupational risks during building production. Gambatese and Behm (2008) opine that despite the numerous
ongoing research, accident still occurs.
Diugwu and Baba (2014) suggested that, successful delivery of the project depends on the level of compliance
with safety regulations. This has led to the establishment of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) to enforce safety laws and regulations (Jaselskis, Anderson & Russel 1996). Occupational safety forms
part of operations on construction site as various skills and activities are required to be done in an environment
that is safe (Wachter & Yorio, 2014). In addition, a number of research have been conducted globally in order to
improve the safety performance of the construction industry (Alarcón et al., 2016; Choudhry, Fang & Mohamed,
2007; Jannadi & Almishari, 2003; Misiurek & Misiurek, 2017; Okoye, Ezeokonkwo & Ezeokoli, 2016). Many
research efforts have been considered at several levels, such as design for safety”, “safety culture”, “safety
climate”, and “behaviour base safety BBS” (Choudhry, 2014; Choudhry, Fang & Mohammed, 2007; Fang & Wu,
2013; Toole & Gambatese, 2008). In spite of the wide recognition of the importance of safety in the
construction industry, it appears there is rare research conducted to identify building developer’s safety
performance indicators. Thus, it becomes pertinent to have developed some KPIs which will guide the building
developer’s commitment to safety performance before and throughout the construction stages. Besides, these
elements will give an enabling environment for the industry.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are used as a marker, or sign to assess the level of a construction safety on site,
and thus, determine its specific quality and performance (Lavy, Garcia & Dexit, 2014a,b). Also, the KPIs refers to a
tool used to assess the efficiency of a facility either completed or under construction and are usually documented,
which is a common construction industry approach (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White, 1987). Lavy, Garcia and Dixit
(2014a,b) amongst other researchers that identified the effectiveness of KPIs in the assessment of building
performance and highlighted the significance of establishing KPIs for effective performance evaluation. However,
KPIs differs in relation to the reason of assessment and typology of facility being examined and the case study at
hand (Kim, Yanq, Yeo & Kim, 2005). Previous research has sought to identify a set of causes of accidents and
performance indicators to assess the safety performance of various construction stakeholders. But, there are only a
few studies that have done toward building developer safety performance (Jensen, Laustsen & Jensen, 2016).
Therefore, this paper seeks to establish KPIs ideal for building developer in Nigeria. Gambatese (2000) established
six 6 criteria for safety program to be successful with low injury or accident rate, the six factors can be used as a
guide by building developers to ensure safety responsibilities. These factors include: (1) indicate a clear position with
regard to safety; (2) ensure that safety issues are considered during project planning and design phase; (3) consider
contractor previous performance on safety during the selection process, contractual agreement should address
safety issues; (4) designate safety duties during the construction process; (5) take part in all project safety process
during construction. Also, Construction Industry Institute - CII (2015) identified many best practices that address
construction safety on the project site, these include safety planning, participation by top management, safety
training and education, recognition and rewards, accident investigation and reporting. Accordingly, this study
adapted 5 criteria from the work (Construction Industry Institute - CII, 2015) and 4 other criteria from the work of
Gambatese 2000 as dependent variables. Thus, nine performance elements for building developers were established
to ensure safety during planning, design and construction phases. The elements include: (1) the Planning, design
and procurement.; (2) Communication & maintenance of effective safety behaviour; (3) construction safety policy,
(4) construction safety personnel; (5) management effort and support, (6) safety training and enlightenment, (7)
administration of safety processes, (8) investigation and reporting of accidents, (9) rewards and sanctions for
-372-
project stakeholders. Thus, the objective of this paper is to establish a set of KPIs as a causal factor for each of the
9 elements for building developer to assess their safety performance.
2. Research Methodology
To achieve the objective of this research, the following activities were undertaken:
• An extensive literature review was conducted to source for the broad and different KPIs appropriate to
evaluate the building developers’ safety performance.
• KPIs is grouped into appropriate categories, leaving out redundant KPIs, and ensuring the KPIs are
unambiguous and measurable.
• Interviews and focus group discussions with eleven (11) member panel of experts and professionals were
conducted to ensure inclusion, validation and clarity of the indicators and to further provide
agreement/disagreement, and adequate ratings for the identified KPIs.
• Statistical analysis was performed on the results to derive the rate of agreement/disagreement with the
identified KPIs, as well as the computed Relative Importance Index (RII) and the Mean Value and finally
the level of importance.
• Panel member’s main business includes: design, construction supervision and property development,
and they all acknowledge the significance of safety on site. Details of panel members are presented in
Table 1.
Profile Subgroup Number Percentage of respondents

Gender
Male 3 27.3%
Female 8 72.7%
Age
20-30 1 9.1%
31-40 4 36.4%
41-50 4 36.4%
> 51 2 18.2%
Education level
PhD 0 0.0%
Masters 10 90.9%
Bachelors 1 9.1%
Work experience in construction industry in years
6-10 4 36.4%
11-20 5 45.5%
21-30 2 18.2%
Professional certification
FNIA 2 18.2%
MNIA 3 27.3%
CSP 2 18.2%
COREN 1 9.1%
Others 3 36.4%
-373-
Profile Subgroup Number Percentage of respondents

Current engagement /designation
Representative ministry of 1 9.1%
labour
Former president NIA 1 9.1%
Building development control 2 18.2%
(Public sector)
University lecturers 2 18.2%
Others (private sector) 5 45.5%
Note: FNIA-Fellow Nigerian Institute of Architect, MNIA- Member, Nigerian Institute of Architect, CSP- Certified Safety
Professional, COREN- Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria.
Table 1. Panel member’s profile
3. Key Performance Indicators for Building Developer

Øien, Utne, Tinmannsvik and Massaiu (2011) maintain that performance indicator is considered to measure both
qualitative and quantitative data, which seeks to generate information on a matter of concern with safety. They are
used as indicators to assess the level of construction safety on site and it determines the quality of performance
(Kim, Yanq, Yeo & Kim, 2005). Herrera (2012) also upholds that, performance indicators play a vital part in
providing information on organizational performance, increasing organizational potential for safety and motivating
people to work in safety. Performance indicators, however, are not universal, and may vary according to the
evaluation purpose and the case study at hand (Kim, Yanq, Yeo & Kim, 2005). Thus, Hale (2009) state that the
main function of the performance indicators is to direct the sociotechnical activity in the organization by
motivating certain safety-related activities such as the practices, abilities, skills and motivation of the personnel, the
organizational potential for safety. Hale also acknowledges that organizations will improve significantly if
performance indicators are used for operations. However Okoro, Musonda and Agumba (2017) posit that
understanding and managing organizational processes and practices is becoming a primary concern of safety
management system. Herrera (2012) concludes that in order to be in controls of a site, it becomes necessary to
have the required information such as safety performance indicators so as to avoid what may occur in the future
like accidents. Though, many studies, like Reiman and Pietikäinen (2012), Shea, De Cieri, Donohue, Cooper and
Sheehan (2016); Sinelnikov, Inouye and Kerper (2015) have been carried out to identify indicators such as “leading”
and “lagging” indicators to evaluate the safety performance on site. However, lagging indicator is based on the
premise of an accident occurring and taking action that is reactive. Thus, Hale (2009) argues that performance
indicators are geared toward being proactive.
A number of research studies have pursued to identify the causes of construction accident and performance
indicators (KPIs) for the various stakeholders in the construction industry (Chan & Chan, 2004; Lavy et al., 2014b;
Takim & Akintoye, 2002). Thus, many studies have mentioned construction safety policy, planning, procurement
and design, construction safety personnel, communication & maintenance of effective safety behavior,
management effort and support, safety training and enlightenment as important factors in ensuring safety on
construction sites (Ajayi, 2016; Alzahrani & Emsley, 2013; Dodo, 2012; Farooqui, 2011; Gambatese & Hinze, 1999;
OSHA, 2015; Teo & Lin, 2005). In addition, administration of safety processes, accident reporting and
investigation, rewards and sanctions for project stakeholders (Hinze & Gambatese, 2003; Karakhan & Gambatese,
2017; Umeokafor, Kostis, Lundy, Isaac, Stuart, Igwegbe et al., 2014; van der Molen, Basnet, Hoonakker, Lehtola,
Lappalainen, Frings-Dresen et al., 2018) were acknowledged to influence the level of safety performance of a
construction site. In summary, the 137 KPIs, grouped into 9 distinctive categories for this study were garnered
from reviewing literature, design guidelines, published research papers, technical report and documents. These
categories are summarized in Tables 2-9, along with their respective references. Descriptions of the 9 categories are
presented in the sections that follows.
-374-
3.1. Construction Safety Policy

The American Society of Civil Engineers - ASCE (2012) established that policy statement outline developer’s
responsibility as the pillar for improving safety performance. The policy suggested that developer’s should take an
active role and consider safety based on the specific project. The policy should have provision for contractor’s
selection based on safety records (Construction Industry Institute - CII, 2015). Xinyu and Hinze (2006) also
suggest that the contractor selection should be centered on the contractor that have established safety program. In
addition, Gambatese (2000) also mentioned that building developer should be proactively engaged in all phases of
project management in all issues relating to safety. The study by Xinyu and Hinze (2006) concluded that a building
developer can positively impact project performance by active participation at the conceptual phase. Agwu (2012)
identified that total safety management, when integrated in the policy of the organizations, has the potentials of
enhancing safety practices on construction sites, it is recommended that for enhanced development of individuals
and organizations, improved occupational safety policy is a paramount investment in terms of precautions and
safety intelligence. Inuwa, Githae & Diang (2014) reported that comprehensive safety policy requires that safety be
reflected at all project phases. It is obvious that the safety performance of workers has a strong link with safety
policies of the building developer.
3.2. Planning, Design and Procurement

The participation of building developer at all project phases is a fundamental requirement for zero accidents
on the project site (Gambatese & Hinze, 1999; Hallowell & Hansen, 2016). The developer is the main party in
the construction industry and the beneficiary of the end product, thus, play a very significant role during the
construction project life circle (Biswas, Bhattacharya & Bhattacharya, 2017; Jazayeri, Liu & Dadi, 2017) .
Usually, the building developer request the services of the designer, contractor and other industry stakeholder
in the delivery of the built facility (Bello, 2012; Haslam, Hide, Gibb, Gyi, Pavitt, Atkinson et al., 2005). In line
with the developer’s scope of work, the designer produce the construction drawings and the contractor
implement it on the site to make it a reality. Many industry practitioners perceive that safety is the
responsibility of the contractors neglecting the role of other stakeholder that play a vital role in preventing the
menace of accident during project execution (Heinz, Hallowell & Baud, 2013; Toole & Gambatese, 2008). To
achieve high safety performance Huang and Hinze (2006); opined that it is essential the inclusion of safety
issues at the planning stage and also providing financial support to the contractor with site monitoring. A
number of researchers clarify that architect and engineers have a leading impact on the much desired safety
performance on site with zero injury tolerance (Tymvios & Gambatese, 2016). A study conducted by
Gambatese, Behm and Hinze (2005) established that 42% of accident at construction site are linked to the
safety design concept during the early stage. However, due to the lack of commitment from the stakeholders,
designers produce working drawings without consideration to the safety during implementation. Also,
according to European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)
(1991), 60% of project accident can be mitigated if safety decision is considered at the design stage. Sadeghi,
Mathieu, Tricot and Al Bassit (2015), Zhou, Whyte and Sacks (2012) opined that safety during construction
project site is best determined during the early stage of planning and design conceptualization. A research
conducted by Szymberski (1997) reported that construction safety is significantly impacted when safety on site
is considered at the conceptual level. As shown in Figure 1 adapted from Szymberski (1997), the time/safety
influence curve, demonstrate the part at which safety can be impacted for most desirable. Additionally,
Anumba (1999) reported that there is an economic benefit when safety is considered at the design stage.
Construction Industry Institute - CII (2003), state that considering safety at the design stage demonstrate
management effort and safety commitment, and firms that implement such strategies reported fewer
accidents.
-375-
Figure 1. Time/safety influence curve (Szymberski, 1997)
3.3. Construction Safety Personnel and Safety Culture

Safety personnel relate to the safety and health officer who supervise the worker activities on a construction site
(Gunduz, Birgonul & Ozdemir, 2017). These activities point to the safety performance and approaches of the
workers and the management in the construction industry (Biggs & Biggs, 2013). Dingsdag, Biggs and Sheahan
(2008) reported that there is a need for the engagement of safety personnel to handle the impediments to worker
operations. In addition, Gunduz et al. (2017) revealed that, safety performance have proved to be positively
impacted by the existence improvement in safety personnel on the project site. Zwetsloot, Kines, Ruotsala,
Drupsteen, Merivirta and Bezemer (2017) recommended that safety culture covering specific factors like
commitment of the management, involvement of safety personnel and adoption of safety regulations with
enforcement without compromise impact significantly on the overall safety performance of a company. In a
research aimed at reviewing accidents and violation of safety regulations on Nigerian construction sites,
(Mahmoud, Sanni-Anibire Hassanain & Ahmed, 2019; Aniekwu, 2007) found professionals and workers on site
responsible for most accidents occurring on a site which requires a zealous effort of safety managers for the
coordination of personnel and materials on site. However, this view contradicts the view of Mudi, Bioku, &
Kolawole (2015) that linked the occurrence of accidents on construction sites to indiscipline among workers, poor
strategies of communication and conditions of the site.
3.4. Communication & Maintenance of Effective Safety Behaviour

An efficient communication between supervisor, construction workers and the management effectively provide a
better and improve compliance to safety policies and standards (Ling, Liu & Woo, 2009). The efficiency of
conveying such information is subject to the diverse ways, for example, everyday tool box meetings, posters and
bulletin board (Park & Kim, 2013). The management efforts toward safety will establish a basis for the various
means of communicating the needed information to all levels of workers on the project site (CPWR, 2008).
Injuries and accidents on a construction site may happen due to poor behaviour and attitudes of workers
(Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2010). There is a direct correlation between workers’ behaviour and performance of safety
on construction site. Moreover, poor worker behaviour and attitudes and their negligence to safety has encourage
more construction workers not to use safety gears (Idoro, 2008). In this respect, workers skills and knowledge must
be translated into the commitment approach based on establishing procedures, policies or regulations and must
stem out of motivation to work safely (Filstad, 2011).
-376-
3.5. Management Commitment and Support

According to Zwetsloot et al. (2017) safety commitment is the extent to which organizational leadership is
represented by the willingness to prevent and promote safety as part of organizational goals, values and morale.
Safety performance is a concept of commitment approach based on establishing safety program. Thus far, due to
increased interest toward safety commitment, several studies have been undertaken to examine how commitment
can improve safety performance globally (Huang, Verma, Chang, Courtney, Lombardi, Brennan et al., 2012;
Zwetsloot, et al., 2017). While the significance of safety commitment in improving safety performance is widely
accepted. Many literature demonstrate how commitment served as an effective tool in improving safety
performance (Abudayyeh, Fredericks, Butt & Shaar, 2006; Barling & Hutchinson, 2009; Michael, Evans, Jansen &
Haight, 2005; Zwetsloot et al., 2017) this has necessitated the construction industry to embrace the concept of
commitment. Suraji, Duff and Peckitt (2001) shows a research conducted by the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) indicates that 75% of serious accident in the construction industry are mostly initiated by lack of
management’s commitment and effective support. De Silva and Walimalaratne (2012) established that the
construction company with good safety performance is due to management support and commitment toward
safety on the project site. Farooqui (2011) indicate that zero accident is achievable when management are
committed to safety improvement and upholding to established industry standards.
3.6. Administration of Safety Processes

Safety administration and processes denote management of work activities on the construction site that is
detrimental to the well-being of workers (Tappura, Nenonen, & Kivistö-Rahnasto, 2017). The process of
production in construction projects is evidently hampered by failure to comply with safety practice. Umoh and
Torbira (2013) suggested that attitude of workers and how they behave towards the delivery of their works while
minimizing accidents and increasing output is the major driver of safety practice. In his view, however, Smallwood
(2002) opines that accidents cannot be avoided in the building industry and is more of a component in building
production process due to the danger inherent in it; which negatively affects adherence to safety regulations.
Mahmoud, Sanni-Anibire Hassanain and Ahmed (2019) found that professionals and workers on site are
responsible for most accidents occurring on a site. However, this view contradicts the view of Mudi et al. (2015)
that linked the occurrence of accidents on construction sites to indiscipline among workers, poor strategies of
communication and conditions of the site. The main issues in managing construction site processes is the efficiency
of control of many subcontractors, operating on the construction site due different specialization in trades, as such
the chances of high accident occurrence will increase (Ali, Kamaruzzaman & Sing, 2010). Moreover, sometimes
contractors transfer safety responsibility to the subcontractors, thus, workers operate with unsafe practice in an
unsafe environment (Shen, Ju, Koh, Rowlinson & Bridge, 2017). Various method of construction on project site
must meet different construction safety standards, policy, procedure and program. Accidents occur due to unsafe
actions or unsafe conditions of work (Kadiri, Nden, Avre, Oladipo, Edom, Samuel & Ananso, 2014). Accidents
occur when unskilled workers are tasked to undertake a work they are not skilled enough to handle like loading
unsafely, arranging and placing, non-use of safety/protective equipments, and exposure to hazardous materials and
stressed (Wu, Li & Fang, 2017).
3.7. Rewards and Sanctions for Project Stakeholders

Safety rewards are a method used in the construction industry to motivate workers to foster safety procedure and
worker behaviour (Zhang, Zhou, Zhuang & Zhu, 2015). Though, expensive and appropriate for short term (Fass,
Yousef, Liginlal & Vyas, 2017). Reward and sanction are introduce on site to signal a commitment to safety
performance (Gu & Yang, 2015). The Construction Industry Institute - CII, indicated that the most effective
method is having a written safety incentive program (Construction Industry Institute - CII, 2015). Appreciation, for
demonstrating a good safety procedure should be acknowledged to motivate workers (Ghasemi, Mohammadfam,
Soltanian, Mahmoudi & Zarei, 2015). However, Funso, Sammy and Gerryshom (2016) is of the view that financial
reward may compromise worker’s performance on safety, more so, economic reward may hinder workers to report
all near misses, incident, or even accident. Thus, the study suggested a form of acknowledgement or written
appreciation will boots significantly the morale of workers. Molenaar, Park and Washington (2009) identified that
-377-
social incentive is an influential index for worker safety performance. Accordingly, workers should be actively
engaged in the policy formulation and review process that will empower them to consider the risk at all levels of
project execution. Though Fass et al. (2017) research findings support the system of financial reward which they
argued reduced construction accident. Other researchers illustrates that despite the introduction of safety incentive,
the accident situations did not change much (El-Nagar, Hosny & Askar, 2015). Also, Alarcón et al. (2016) and
Jaraiedi, Plummer and Aber (1995) debated that incentive do not significantly impact on the safety performance.
Molenaar et al. (2009) indicated that incentive effectiveness depends on how they are being allocated. On the other
hand, Aksorn and Hadikusumo (2008) opined that incentive and sanction on safety performance do not necessarily
resulted in the anticipated output of improving safety, but rather depend on the relationship of the different
stakeholders in a project. Therefore, evaluating the workers attitude and behaviour toward safety operation before
engaging a contract will be able to produce a desired outcome. Building developer should identify policies,
approached and strategies inculcate safety culture before and during the project implementation, though, the
project completed within a time frame should be considered. (Choi & Kwak, 2012).
3.8. Investigation and Reporting of Accident

Accidents happen in all kinds of construction project, the majority of accidents on construction site are as a result
of unsafe environment and unsafe act (Khosravi, Asilian-Mahabadi, Hajizadeh, Hassanzadeh-Rangi, Bastani &
Behzadan, 2014; Alarcón et al., 2016). Identifying and eliminating construction accident on the project site is not
always possible without identifying the causal factor through accident investigation. A number of preventive
methods are acknowledged to protect workers from project site hazards or to reduce the severity of the accident.
These methods involve the use of guardrail systems, safety harnessing systems, safety signs and housekeeping (Chi,
Chang & Ting, 2005). The accident investigation is aimed at the determining of all root causes of accidents and
suggesting that measure should be taken to prevent future recurrence. Wu, Gibb and Li (2010) establish that
company that tract incident and near misses have improved safety performance, the research also discovered that
companies having a sufficient record of near misses have lower accident and injury rates. Thus, addressing the
causal factor would prevent the incident from happening again, hence it will strengthen the safety performance of
the company.
3.9. Safety Training and Enlightenment

Choudhry and Fang (2008) established that construction workers that received formal safety training and
orientation record lower injury rates compared to workers that received informal orientation. OSHA (2015),
indicates that part of the features of a safer firm are providing workers on the project site with training and
orientation before commencing work. The International Labour Organization - ILO (1995) also promoted safety
and health on construction with emphasis on training by adopting the 1988 Safety and Health in Construction
Convention (No. 167), and Recommendation (No. 175). Tackett, Goodrum and Maloney (2006) shows that
significant safety enhancement can be achieved by application of construction site safety training on all projects,
formalized supervisor training, hiring a full-time corporate training director, computerized tracking of worker
training and increased evaluation of workers’ skills and knowledge upon hiring. Nevertheless, the majority of the
study indicate safety orientation and training have to be considered as a prerequisite before engaging constructors
on a project. Safety passport training’s modules should be introduced at every construction site.
4. Results and Findings

4.1. Assessment of the KPI Questionnaire Survey
The respondents’ assessments of the questionnaire survey were analysed based on the Relative Importance Index
(RII) calculated according to the following equation (Dominowski, 1980; Hassanain, Sanni-Anibire, Mahmoud &
Hamida, 2019):
(1)
-378-
Where ai is the constant representing the weight assigned to i; and x i is the variable representing the frequency
assigned to i. The response for i is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and is illustrated as follows:
• x0 = frequency of “Extremely Important” response corresponding to a0 = 5.
• x1 = frequency of “Very Important” response corresponding to a1 = 4.
• x2 = frequency of “Important” response corresponding to a2 = 3.
• x3= frequency of “Somewhat Important” response corresponding to a3 = 2.
• x4 = frequency of “Not Important” response corresponding to a4 = 1.
For the quantification of the level of importance for each of the KPIs, the following range was adopted:
• An RII value within (0 ≥ 12.5%) implies that, the respondents categorized the KPI as “not important”.
• An RII value within (12.5 ≥ 37.5%) implies that, the respondents categorized the KPI as “somewhat
important”.
• An RII value within (37.5 ≥ 62.5%) implies that, the respondents categorized the KPI as “important”.
• An RII value within (62.5 ≥ 87.5%) implies that, the respondents categorized the KPI as “very important”.
• An RII value within (87.5 ≥ 100%) implies that, the respondents categorized the KPI as “extremely
important”.
Tables 1-9 is an illustration of the various KPIs in 9 categories, with their corresponding agreement levels, as well as
their RII values, mean value and levels of importance. Also referred findings from similar authors that were
reviewed.
4.2. Planning, Design and Procurement

Results in Table 2, which shares similar findings with other researchers, indicate that respondents unanimously
agreed on the inclusion of 24 KPIs in the Planning, design phase and procurement. except in 7 places where about
22 respondents differed in opinion. Also, 16 KPIs in this group (preconstruction) were ranked “extremely
important” with RII values above 87.5%. These include: Safety related issues considered in the feasibility study (RII
of 96%), communicating a safety requirement to the designer (RII of 98%), and Safety performance set as part of
contractor selection criterion (RII of 96%). Contractor accident and injury rates (RII of 100%), availability of
insurance policy (RII of 100%), safety requirements are outlined in the contract document for preselected
contractors (RII of 100%), available plan for report of injury and incidents on site by the contractor (RII of 100%)
were among the KPIs ranked with RII values at 100%. Availability of plan on accidents mitigation to be submitted
by the contractor (RII of 98%), meeting up the benchmark for “extremely important” KPIs. Although 3 KPIs were
rated “important” in this category.
S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

Importance (Similar findings
RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Design Firm Engagement
Safety related issues (Bello, 2012; Luo
considered in the feasibility & Van Den Brand,
1 11 96.36 4.72 0.47 EI
study during the design 2016; van der
conceptualization phase Molen et al., 2018)
Responsiveness of design (Umeokafor 2017;
firms towards safety to Weidman,
2 3 8 80.00 3.91 0.70 VI
forms the bases for their Dickerson &
selection Koebel, 2015)
-379-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Construction safety
(Gambatese et al.,
3 constructability considered 11 94.55 4.64 0.67 EI
2008)
by designers
Engaging safety (Weinstein,
4 professionals to review the 11 92.73 4.55 0.69 EI Gambatese, Asce
design. & Hecker, 2005)
Design decisions that
(Gambatese et al.,
5 impact safety on 11 81.82 4.45 0.52 VI
2005)
construction worker
Communicating safety (Saifullah & Ismail,
6 11 98.18 4.82 0.40 EI
requirement to designer. 2012)
Building developers safety
professionals are engaged (Gambatese, Asce,
in reviewing the design Toole, Asce,
7 11 92.73 4.64 0.50 EI
along with the designers to Abowitz, Asce et
ensure safety during the al., 2017)
construction phase.
Contractor Selection
Safety performance sets as (Construction
8 part of contractor selection 11 96.36 4.72 0.47 EI Industry Institute -
criterion CII, 2015)
(Construction
Safety forms a criterion for
9 9 2 89.09 4.18 0.75 EI Industry Institute
prequalifying contractors
CII, 2015)
Contractor accident and (Xinyu & Hinze,
10 11 94.55 4,73 0.46 EI
injury rates. 2006)
Considering safety awards
11 8 3 56.36 2.82 1.08 I
received by the contractor.
Safety programs applicable
12 to the services to be 10 1 72.73 3.55 0.52 VI
performed (Hinze 2002;
Contractor designated Dodo, 2012)
13 8 4 60.00 3.00 0.45 I
safety supervisor
Availability of contractor
14 safety 9 2 60.00 3.00 0.77 I
management/program
Established accident
(Umeokafor, et al.,
15 reporting and mitigating 11 96.36 4.82 0.40 EI
2014 )
program
Availability of insurance
16 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI (Odeyinka, 2000)
policy
Contractual Arrangement
Contractor to comply with
(Ayob, Shaari, Zaki
17 all applicable safety rules & 9 2 70.00 3.50 0.82 VI
& Munaaim, 2018)
regulation
-380-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Safety requirements are
outlined in the contract (Wu, Wang, Zou &
18 11 100 4.73 0.46 EI
document for preselected Fang, 2016)
contractors
Written safety program to (Mustapha,
19 be submitted before work 11 98.18 4.55 0.52 EI Aigbavboa &
commences Thwala, 2017)
Availability of plan on
accidents mitigation to be
20 11 98.18 4.55 0.69 EI
submitted by the
contractor (Asanka &
Ranasinghe, 2016;
Available plan for report of
Hallowell &
21 injury and incidents on site 11 96.36 4.64 0.50 EI
Gambatese, 2009)
by the contractor
Contractor to establish the
22 11 83.64 4.18 0.60 VI
applicable site safety plan
Preconstruction meeting
with the contractors on
(Hare, Cameron &
23 safety matters prior to the 11 90.91 3.91 0.70 EI
Duff, 2006)
commencement of
construction
Involvement of the
building developer at all
24 11 93.33 4.64 0.50 EI (Fang & Wu, 2013)
project phases with regard
to safety.
Table 2. Key Performance Indicators for Planning, design and procurement
4.3. Communication on & Maintenance of Effective Safety Behaviour

As shown in Table 3 respondents unanimously agreed with the inclusion of the KPIs in this group except in two
KPIs where one or two respondents differed. Meanwhile, respondents ranked all the KPIs “extremely important”
except in 6 places, these include: contractor is provided with support for safety on site, defined responsibilities of
site safety personnel, all project participant/stakeholders are made to understand safety plan of the project clearly,
safety, commitment are communicated to contractors, health and safety implementation plan effectively
communicated to all are ranked with RII of 72%, 85%, 78%, 81%, 87% and 80% respectively which were
perceived by respondents to be “very important”. Table 3 also shares similar findings with other researchers.

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Maintenance of Effective Safety Behaviour
Prioritizing safety in the (Choe & Leite,
1 11 98.18 4.91 0.30 EI
selection of contractors 2017)
Targets accident-free
2 11 96.36 4.81 0.40 EI (Hinze, 2000)
project completion
Set appropriate procedure (Charehzehi &
3 11 92.73 4.73 0.46 EI
for preventing accidents Ahankoob, 2012)
-381-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Promotion of safety
performance forms the
4 11 100.00 5.00 0.00 EI (Fang & Wu, 2013)
basis for the engagement
of construction personnel
(International
The contractor is provided
Labour
5 with support for safety on 10 1 72.00 3.45 0.82 VI
Organization -
site
ILO, 1995)
The contractor bears (Manu, Ankrah,
6 responsibility for the safety 11 100.00 5.00 0.00 EI Proverbs & Suresh,
of his workers 2013)
The contractor is provided
7 with a safety manual which 11 98.18 4.91 0.30 EI
must be complied with
A minimum of one safety
8 personnel is appointed to a 11 92.73 4.64 0.67 EI
project (Dodo, 2012)
Established unit to check
9 the safety performance of 11 89.09 4.45 0.52 EI
contractors
Defined responsibilities of
10 11 85.45 4.27 0.64 VI
site safety personnel
Communication of Effective Safety Behaviour
All project
participant/stakeholders
11 are made to understand the 11 78.18 3.91 0.53 VI
safety plan of the project
clearly
Safety commitment is
12 communicated to 9 2 81.82 4.09 0.53 VI
contractors
Communicate practically
anticipated hazards
13 11 98.18 4.90 0.30 EI
associated with the nature
of the work (Choudhry, Fang,
& Rowlinson,
Health and safety
2008; Ulang, 2005).
implementation plan
effectively communicated
14 to all contractor and 11 87.27 4.36 0.50 VI
subcontractor workers
within their respective
companies.
Lessons learned from
accidents are
communicated to workers
15 11 94.55 4.73 0.64 EI
with a view to enhancing
positive safety
performance
-382-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Communications
procedures for safety are
16 11 80.00 4.00 0.44 VI (Ulang, 2005)
established by the safety
program
Table 3. Key Performance Indicators for the communication & maintenance of effective safety behaviour
4.4. Construction Safety Policy

As indicated in Table 4, respondents agreed to all KPIs in this category except for 5 KPIs of which 2 KPIs has 16
respondents disagreed with the inclusion of these KPIs. Meanwhile, all the respondents ranked all the KPIs
between “very important” and “extremely important” excluding 2 KPIs which were perceived as “important”,
including: “SMS implementation” (RII of 58%), “Inclusion of safety basis like training on safety or experience
among the criteria of recruiting workers” (RII of 51%). This might be connected to the lack of formal safety
regulation in the industry that stakeholders consider the KPIs less important. Table 4 also shows similar findings
from other researchers.

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Construction Safety Policy
Implementation of
1 available safety rules and 7 4 69.09 3.45 0.82 VI
regulations
(Mustapha,
Understanding of Aigbavboa &
2 company sets down rules 11 92.73 4.64 0.50 EI Thwala, 2017)
and regulations
3 SMS implementation 3 8 58.18 2.91 0.83 I
Understanding of Factories
4 Act and other applicable 11 81.82 4.09 0.30 VI (Ezenwa, 2001)
regulations
Understanding of permit-
5 11 96.36 4.82 0.40 EI
to-work system
(Helix ESG, 2003)
Application of the permit-
6 11 80.00 4.00 0.44 VI
to-work system
Availability and accessibility
7 of relevant insurance 11 98.18 4.91 0.30 EI (Odeyinka, 2000)
policies
Inclusion of
(Diugwu & Baba,
8 subcontractors in the safety 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI
2014)
program
9 Specified the roles and 11 96.36 4.82 0.40 EI (Boyd, 2014;
responsibility of the Choudhry et al.,
management team in the 2008)
improvement of health and
safety
-383-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Inclusion of safety basis
like training on safety or
10 experience among the 3 8 50.91 2.63 0.81 I
criteria of recruiting
workers
Documented program for
11 11 83.64 4.18 0.60 VI
safety procedures
Inclusion of safety issues
among the criteria for
12 11 96.36 4.82 0.40 EI
engaging supervisory and
management personnel
Properly planned
procedure for the review (Vitharana & De
13 of policy on health and 11 80.00 4.00 0.45 VI Silva, De Silva,
safety at least once 2015)
annually.
The policy sets achievable
goals in terms of health
14 and safety performance, 9 2 92.73 4.64 0.67 EI (Hare et al., 2006)
which includes effort to
encourage improvement
Effective procedure for the
(Choudhry et al.,
15 implementation of safety 8 3 76.36 3.82 0.75 VI
2007)
plan
Documented policy on
(Tam, Zeng &
16 personal protective 11 96.36 4.82 0.40 EI
Deng, 2004)
equipment (PPE)
Ensures that all
stakeholders on a project
(Hare & Cameron,
17 comply with all legislative 11 76.36 3.82 0.40 VI
2012)
requirements related to
health and safety
Establishing relevant
policies, standards and safe (Hare & Cameron,
18 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI
work practices necessary to 2012)
address worker safety
Table 4. Key Performance Indicators for construction safety policy
4.5. Construction Safety Workers

Two or three respondents in this category disagreed with 3 out of the 9 KPIs as shown in Table 5. However, all the
KPIs in this category was ranked between “very important” and “extremely important” with factors such as
“demonstration of safety culture by the management”, “availability of health and safety training”, “language and
communication challenges by workers are adequately resolved before work started” having an RII value of 100%.
Also, similar findings by other authors is shown in Table 5.
-384-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Construction Workers Safety
Implementation of safe
working attitude and
1 8 3 76.36 3.82 0.40 VI (Teo & Lin, 2005)
behaviour of workers and
supervisors
Demonstration of safety (Agwu & Olele,
2 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI
culture by the management 2014)
Availability of health and (van der Molen et
3 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI
safety training al., 2018)
(Williams, 2008;
Define the roles and
Williams,
4 responsibilities of safety 9 2 67.27 3.36 0.80 VI
Adul-Hamid &
committees
Misnan, 2018)
Workers understand the
5 goals and objectives of the 8 3 63.64 3.36 0.92 VI (Teo & Lin, 2005)
safety committee
Language and
communication challenges
(Cheng & Wu,
6 by workers are adequately 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI
2013)
resolved before work
started
Adaptation of the working
7 11 72.73 3.64 0.50 VI (Teo & Lin, 2005)
environment by workers
Cultural background of the
8 11 68.00 3.27 0.90 VI
workers are considered
(Chuks &
Consideration of Uchenna, 2012)
9 educational level of 11 94.55 5.00 0.00 EI
workers
Table 5. Key Performance Indicators for Construction Safety Workers
4.6. Management Effort and Support

Results presented in Table 6 indicate that respondents were in complete agreement with all the 17 KPIs except in
two or three respondents differed in opinion on 9 KPIs. It is also acknowledged that 29 respondents disagreed with
the inclusion of 5 out of the 9 KPIs. These are: provision for review of injury reports by top management (RII of
58%), direct involvement of top management in the activities of safety committees (RII of 56%), accident cases
reported on a site influence the number of safety personnel deployed to the site (RII of 51%). Top management
directly takes part in the enforcement of safety on sites (RII of 36%), and corporate safety targets are set by the
management (RII of 56%). Moreover, all other KPIs are ranked between “very important” and extremely
important’ with RII values above 63%. Table 6 also shows similar findings by other authors.
-385-

RII Mean StDev
by other authors)
100% value
Management Effort and Support
Management emphasis on
(Choudhry &
1 the establishment of safety 8 3 63.64 3.18 0.406 VI
Fang, 2008)
committees for all projects
Monitoring of contractor’s
performance in terms of
2 11 98.18 4.90 0.302 EI (Idoro, 2012)
safety on the construction
projects
Safety makes a major
criterion for evaluating the (Choudhry &
3 9 2 76.36 3.81 0.603 VI
performance of a Fang, 2008)
supervisor
Availability of proper
procedure for receiving and (Hinze, Asce,
4 reviewing feedback of 10 1 76.36 3.81 0.404 VI Hallowell, Asce &
workers on health and Baud, 2013)
safety related issues
Provision for review of
(Haslam et al.,
5 injury reports by top 5 6 58.18 2.90 0.700 I
2005)
management
Appropriate issuance of
(Delegach, Kark,
motivational directives by
6 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI Katz-Navon & van
the top management to
Dijk, 2017)
enhance safety
Involvement of top
management in the (Hu, Chan, Le,
7 establishment of reward 9 2 83.64 4.18 0.751 VI Jiang, Xie & Hon,
system to enhance adherence 2012)
to safety plan by all personnel
Direct involvement of top
(Choudhry &
8 management in the activities 2 9 56.36 2.63 0.809 I
Fang, 2008)
of safety committees
Obvious emphasis on the
(Alarcón et al.,
9 management on safe work 10 1 72.73 3.81 0.603 VI
2016)
above output
Accident cases reported on
a site influence the number (Fonseca, Lima &
10 8 3 50.91 2.54 0.934 I
of safety personnel Duarte, 2014)
deployed to the site
Top management directly
11 takes part in the enforcement 3 8 36.36 2.09 1.04 SI
of safety on sites.
Corporate safety targets are
12 8 3 56.36 2.81 0.404 I (Alarcón et al.,
set by the management
2016)
Availability of personnel
specifically responsible for
13 11 78.18 3.90 0.539 VI
handling and implementation
of safety policy
-386-

RII Mean StDev
by other authors)
100% value
Emphasis on open
discussion between (Choudhry &
14 11 83.64 4.81 0.404 VI
workers and supervisors on Fang, 2008)
safety related matters
Encourages involvement
15 of workers on decisions 11 98.18 4.90 0.301 EI
that affect safety on site
Involvement of workers in (Park & Kim,
16 preparation of safety 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI 2013; Choudhry &
programs for the site Fang, 2008)
Subcontractors are
17 involved in all aspects of 11 94.55 4.72 0.467 EI
site safety issues
Table 6. Key Performance Indicators for Management Effort and Support
4.7. Safety Training and Orientation

Respondents unanimously agreed with the inclusion of the KPIs in this group except in six KPIs where one or two
respondents differed or disagreed. Perceived levels of importance are “very important”, as shown in Table 7 that
shares similar findings with other researchers. 5 KPIs is rated as “extremely important” with RII values between
96%-100%, indicating appreciation for inclusion of the KPIs. However, the KPI that is rated the lowest in this
category is “a training meeting for all supervisors is required by the safety program” with RII of 70.91% which
shows disagreement with the KPIs.

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Safety Training and Orientation
Workers to undergo
orientation on safety (Choudhry &
1 11 98.18 5.00 0.00 EI
before work commences Fang, 2008)
on site
Supervisors are trained and
(Sacks, Perlman &
2 oriented to health and 9 2 76.36 3.27 0.78 VI
Barak, 2013)
safety
Safety program covers the
3 training of workers on the 10 1 74.55 3.73 0.46 VI
field
Provision is made in the (Tackett et al.,
4 budget for safety 11 98.18 4.91 0.30 EI 2006)
training/education
The management staff is
5 11 96.36 4.82 0.40 EI
trained on health and safety
Discussion of safety on
site activities and possible
6 11 98.18 4.91 0.30 EI (Elliott, 2016)
incidents is required by the
safety program
-387-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Conduct safety orientation
for all site visitors is
7 9 2 78.18 3.00 0.63 VI
required by the safety
program
New skills are checked to
8 monitor impact of training 10 1 83.64 4.18 0.05 VI
on health and safety
The safety plan arranges
9 for formal orientation of 11 83.64 5.00 0.00 VI
subcontractors (Sacks et al., 2013;
Define level of safety and OSHA, 2015)
10 awareness required of all 10 1 75.00 4.18 0.40 VI
workers
Safety program requires a
safety orientation plan for
11 9 2 72.00 3.60 0.80 VI
all new individuals to the
site
A training meeting for all
12 supervisors is required by 11 70.91 3.54 0.52 VI
the safety program
A well-written policy for
13 health and safety training in 11 100.00 5.00 0.00 EI
the safety program
Safety program inspires
14 active participation of 11 78.18 4.90 0.30 VI
workers in training sessions (Sacks et al., 2013;
Safety program requires OSHA, 2015)
15 training certifications for 11 74.55 3.81 0.40 VI
operation of equipment.
Training is provided to
16 workers at a minimum for 11 78.18 3.91 0.53 VI
new site work
Table 7. Key Performance Indicators for Safety Training and Orientation
4.8. Administration of Safety and Processes

A total of 18 KPIs has been represented in this category as shown in Table 8. All respondents unanimously agreed
on the inclusion of the KPIs except 2 with 11 respondents disagreed. Furthermore, about 16 KPIs are perceived as
“very important” while 1 KPI is perceived as “extremely important” which represent the highest level of
importance in this category “workers’ commitment to safe work practice are rewarded” with an RII value of 100%.
The KPI with the lowest perceived rating is “safety program requires emergency response drills” which has an RII
value of 45.45%, which indicate a lack of significant value for response drills in eliminating accident on the site,
also 9 respondents disagreed with this KPI. Similarly, other researchers share similar findings as shown in Table 8.
-388-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Administration of Safety and Processes
Established procedure to (Arezes &
1 11 76.36 4.90 0.30 VI
measure safety achievements Sérgio-Miguel, 2003)
Investigate non-compliance
2 for proper use of personal 11 82.27 4.36 0.67 VI (Chi, et al., 2005)
protective equipment (PPE)
Workers commitment to (Zahoor, Chan,
3 safe work practice are 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI Utama, Gao &
rewarded Zafar, 2017)
Rules of work are routinely (Hale & Borys,
4 11 81.82 4.09 0.53 VI
reviewed 2013)
Provision for the
monitoring of safety
5 11 83.64 4.18 0.60 VI
inspection to understand
its impact and coverage
Proper planning towards
6 retrieval and analysis of 11 81.82 4.00 0.89 VI (Saurin, 2016)
safety inspection reports
Proper planning to ensure
actions are taken based on
7 9 2 74.55 3.72 0.78 VI
the analysed reports of
inspection
Safety site layout is made
8 before the commencement 11 78.18 3,81 0.60 VI
of the project (Huang & Wong,
Safety issues are discussed 2015)
9 at preconstruction and 11 85.45 4.27 0.46 VI
progress meetings
Procedures for identifying
safety risk and its (Arezes &
10 management are 11 80.00 4.00 0.63 VI Sérgio-Miguel,
established in the safety 2003)
program
Safety program requires
11 2 9 45.45 2.27 0.90 I
emergency response drills
Provision is made for (Hallowell &
safety bulletin boards Gambatese, 2009)
12 11 78.18 3.91 0.30 VI
accessible to workers
during working hours
Maintenance of a site (Hallowell &
accident record book to Gambatese, 2009)
13 document accidents, 11 94.55 5.00 0.00 VI
impact and preventive
safety measures.
14 Posters and signs for site 11 80.00 4.00 0.44 VI
safety are obviously
displayed on the project
site
-389-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Safe operational
procedures for all
15 contractors and 11 81.82 4.09 0.30 VI
subcontractor are
documented.
Procedures for checking
the appropriate utilization
16 of PPE as well as 11 83.64 4.18 0.40 VI
inspection and training are (Haslam et al.,
established. 2005)
Available/appropriate
17 11 83.64 4.18 0.40 VI
PPEs on project sites.
Adequate provision of (Findley, Smith,
18 First Aid and CPR facilities 11 80.00 4.00 0.63 VI Kress, Petty &
on project sites Enoch, 2004)
Table 8. Key Performance Indicators for Administration of Safety and Processes
4.9. Investigation and Reporting of Accident

All participants unanimously agreed the inclusions to all KPIs in this group and the perceived level of importance
to be “very important”, as shown in Table 9, except one KPI “near misses are reported in the incident logs” which
is perceived to be “extremely important”. The KPI with the lowest RII was “utilization of safety reports for the
improvement of safety performance” (RII of 69.09%) which shows respondents perceived level of importance in
reducing accidents on sites. Also, Table 9 shows similar research outcome by other authors.

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Investigation and Reporting of accident
Utilization of safety
1 reports for improvement 11 69.09 3.45 0.69 VI (Wu et al., 2016)
of safety performance
Near misses are
2 investigated to prevent 11 80.00 4.18 0.98 VI
future site incidents
(Asanka &
Near misses are reported in Ranasinghe, 2016;
3 11 100 5.00 0.00 EI
the incident logs Umeokafor et al.,
2014 )
Appropriate procedures to
4 prevent recurrence of 11 80.00 4.00 1.09 VI
accidents
Record keeping of accident
5 and incident logs have ease 11 78.18 3.91 0.94 VI
of access (Hallowell &
Gambatese, 2009;
Keep a record of accidents Kartam, Flood &
and incidents of the Koushki, 2000)
6 11 74.55 3.73 0.46 VI
contractors and
subcontractors.
-390-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Review and audit safety
7 procedures used by the 11 81.82 4.36 0.67 VI
contractor (Khosravi et al.,
Occasionally audits 2014)
8 contractor safety 11 80.00 4.00 0.44 VI
procedures and operations.
Table 9. Key Performance Indicators for Investigation and Reporting of accident
4.10. Rewards and Sanctions for Project Stakeholders

Results in Table 10 indicate that respondents agree to the inclusion of all the KPIs except two or three respondents
that disagreed. However, the KPI “appropriate penalty in the form of reporting to relevant law enforcement
authorities” and “provision of penalty in the form of rank demotion” had almost all the respondents disagreed,
which were perceived as “somewhat important” (with RII values 53.33% and 32.73% respectively) this clearly
indicate the non-inclusion of the KPIs in reducing construction accidents. Furthermore, two of the KPIs were
perceived as “extremely important’ “provision of rewards for good safety performance” with RII of 96.36% and
“availability of reward in the form of certificate of corporate recognition” with RII of 98.18%. Table 10 also
shows similar findings by other researchers.

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Rewards and Sanctions for Project Stakeholders
Penalties are spelt out for
(Teo, Ling & Ong,
1 dissatisfactory safety 8 3 70.91 3.64 0.92 VI
2005)
performance
Provision of rewards for (Alarcón et al.,
2 11 96.36 4.81 0.40 EI
good safety performance 2016; Arditi,
Provision of sanctions and Yasamis &
3 8 3 74.55 3.73 1.10 VI Member, 1998;
penalties
Ashworth, 2013;
Provision of penalty in Choi & Kwak,
4 10 1 76.36 3.62 0.92 VI
form of work stoppage 2012; Hu et al.,
Provision of reward in 2012; Rose &
5 8 3 70.91 3.55 0.82 VI Manley, 2011)
form monetary bonus
Availability of reward in
6 form of certificate of 11 98.18 4.91 0.30 EI
corporate recognition
Provision of reward in the
7 11 80.00 4.00 0.44 VI
form of rank elevation
The appropriate penalty in
the form of reporting to
8 2 9 53.33 3.00 0.89 SI
relevant law enforcement
authorities
9 Provision of penalty in 3 8 32.73 1.64 0.92 SI
form of rank demotion
-391-

RII Mean StDev.
by other authors)
100% value
Established penalty in
10 form of disengagement 9 2 69.09 3.45 0.68 VI
from work
Availability of monetary
11 11 81.82 4.09 0.70 VI
fines and penalty
Table 10. Key Performance Indicators for Rewards and Sanctions for project stakeholders
5. Discussions and Conclusions

Key performance indicators refer to a tool used to assess the efficiency of construction facilities. Such KPIs differ
in relation to the reason of the assessment and typology of facility being examined. Kylili, Fokaides and
López-Jiménez (2016) among other researchers also identified their effectiveness in the assessment of building
construction performance. Despite existing research in the area of construction safety, there is no established KPIs
that could be used to reliably assess or promote building developer safety performance.
This study, established 137 KPIs that can be deployed for promoting or assessing building developer’s safety
performance in the construction industry in Nigeria. In-depth review of the literature supported by evaluation
from 11 subject matter experts and professionals that validated and ensure clarity and inclusion. The KPIs were
further categorized into 9 categories that include: Planning, design and procurement. Construction safety policy,
construction safety personnel, communication & maintenance of effective safety behavior, management effort and
support, safety training and orientation, administration of safety processes, accident reporting and investigation,
rewards and sanctions for project stakeholders. The categorization was used as a basis of presenting the KPIs to
show the response of survey conducted on 11 respondents. The survey required the respondents to either
agree/disagree with statements and rank the KPIs by their perceived relevance.
Results from the focus group discussion revealed that the respondents consider all the KPIs important, even as
some of the KPIs are rated less important, compared to the ones perceived to be “extremely important”. Thus,
factors such as “Near misses are reported in the incident logs”, “Availability of reward in form of certificate of
corporate recognition” “Involvement of the building developer at all project phases” with RII value of 100%, 98%,
and 93% respectively to be extremely important. Also, “language and communication challenges by workers are
adequately resolved before work start” with an RII value of 100%, “establishing relevant policies, standards and
safe work practices necessary to address worker safety” with an RII value of 100% are among the KPIs considered
extremely important. Some KPIs is perceived to be “important” by the respondents include: “SMS
implementation”, “accident cases reported on a site influence the number of safety personnel deployed to the site”
(RII of 51%), “conduct safety orientation for all site visitors is required by the safety program”, (RII of 51%).
Moreover, “safety program requires emergency response drills” (RII of 45%), is among the KPIs considered
“important”. Also, other KPIs perceived to be as “somewhat not important” such as “top management directly
takes part in the enforcement of safety on sites” RII of 35%, “appropriate penalty in the form of reporting to
relevant law enforcement authorities” RII of 53%.
The established KPIs therefore, presents a guideline to ensure safety performance of construction stakeholders in
the construction industry in Nigeria. The guideline would be of much use to building developers, research
institutions, Architects, Contractors and professionals involved in building construction in Nigeria. The study would
also encourage further research into the KPIs of other construction types. It is worthy of note that much care was
taken to establish all possible KPIs for building developer, however, citation of some relevant literature may have
been omitted, or some KPIs may still look uncaptured to the perception of the reader. Finally, implementation of
the established KPIs in the form of measurement tool on real-life case studies would be the target of future
research work to show the application of the KPIs in assessment of construction safety performance of building
developers in Nigeria.
-392-
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors have declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abudayyeh, O., Fredericks, T.K., Butt, S.E., & Shaar, A. (2006). An investigation of management’s commitment to
construction safety. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2), 167-174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.005
Agwu, M. (2012). Total Safety Management: A Strategy for Improving Organisational Performance in Chosen
Construction Companies in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Social Science.
https://doi.org/10.9734/BJEMT/2012/1317
Agwu, M.O., & Olele, H.E. (2014). Fatalities in the Nigerian Construction Industry : A case of poor safety culture.
British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, 4(3), 431-452. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJEMT/2014/6439
Ajayi, R. (2016). Evaluation of Health and Safety Planning Process on Construction Sites in Kaduna Metropolis, Nigeria.
399-408.
Aksorn, T., & Hadikusumo, B.H.W. (2008). Critical success factors influencing safety program performance in Thai
construction projects. Safety Science, 46(4), 709-727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.006
Alarcón, L.F., Acuña, D., Diethelm, S., & Pellicer, E. (2016). Strategies for improving safety performance in
construction firms. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 94, 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.021
Ali, A.S., Kamaruzzaman, S.N., & Sing, G.C. (2010). A Study On Causes Of Accident And Prevention In Malaysian
Construction Industry. Journal of Design + Build.
Alzahrani, J.I., & Emsley, M.W. (2013). The impact of contractors’ attributes on construction project success: A
post construction evaluation. International Journal of Project Management.
American Society of Civil Engineers-ASCE (2012). Quality in the Constructed Project: a Guide for Owners, Designers and
Constructors. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784411896
Aniekwu, N. (2007). Accidents and safety Violations in the Nigerian construction industry. Journal of science and
technology, 27, 81). https://doi.org/10.4314/just.v27i1.33027
Anumba, C. (1999). Concurrent Engineering in Construction - An Opportunity to Improve Construction Safety;
Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the CIB
Working Commission; Honolulu, HA; March 24- 27; pp. 157-164
Arditi, D., Yasamis, F., & Member, S. (1998). of Owners and Contractors. Engineering, 124, 361-373.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:5(361)
Arezes, P.M., & Sérgio-Miguel, A. (2003). The role of safety culture in safety performance measurement. Measuring
Business Excellence. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040310509287
Asanka, W.A., & Ranasinghe, M. (2016). Distribution of Responsibilities and Applicability of Risk Assessments in
Construction Safety. Annual Sessions of IESL, 455-463.
Ashworth, A. (2013). Contractual procedures in the construction industry, sixth edition. In Contractual Procedures in
the Construction Industry (6th ed.). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315847061
-393-
Ayob, A., Shaari, A.A., Zaki, M.F.M., & Munaaim, M.A.C. (2018). Fatal Occupational Injuries in the Malaysian
Construction Sector – Causes and Accidental Agents. Earth and Environmental Science PAPER.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/140/1/012095
Barling, J., & Hutchinson, I. (2009). Commitment vs. Control-based Safety Practices, Safety Réputation, and
Perceived Safety Climate. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00208.x
Bello, M.A. (2012). Minimizing Impediments to Design for Construction Safety (DFCS) Implementation on Capital Projects.
Dissertation.
Biggs, H.C., & Biggs, S.E. (2013). Interlocked projects in safety competency and safety effectiveness indicators in
the construction sector. Safety Science, 52, 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.03.014
Biswas, G., Bhattacharya, A., & Bhattacharya, R. (2017). Occupational health status of construction workers: A
review. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health, 6(4), 1.
https://doi.org/10.5455/ijmsph.2017.0745302112016
Boyd, M. (2014). Recruiting high skill labour in north america: Policies, outcomes and futures. International Migration.
https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12139
Chan, A.P.C., & Chan, A.P.L. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. In
Benchmarking. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770410532624
Charehzehi, A., & Ahankoob, A. (2012). Enhancement of safety performance at construction site. International
Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology. https://doi.org/10.4038/engineer.v48i3.6840
Cheng, C.W., & Wu, T.C. (2013). An investigation and analysis of major accidents involving foreign workers in
Taiwan’s manufacture and construction industries. Safety Science, 57, 223-235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.02.008
Chi, C.F., Chang, T.C., & Ting, H.I. (2005). Accident patterns and prevention measures for fatal occupational falls
in the construction industry. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4 spec.), 391-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2004.09.011
Choe, S., & Leite, F. (2017). Construction safety planning: Site-specific temporal and spatial information integration.
Automation in Construction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.007
Choi, K., & Kwak, Y.H. (2012). Decision support model for incentives/disincentives time-cost tradeoff. Automation
in Construction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.006
Choudhry, R.M. (2014). Behavior-based safety on construction sites: A case study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 70,
14-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.03.007
Choudhry, R.M., & Fang, D. (2008). Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on
construction sites. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.027
Choudhry, R.M., Fang, D., & Mohamed, S. (2007). Developing a Model of Construction Safety Culture. Journal of
Management in Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2007)23:4(207)
Choudhry, R.M., Fang, D., & Rowlinson, S. (2008). Challenging and Enforcing Safety Management in Developing
Countries: A Strategy. International Journal of Construction Management.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2008.10773110
Chuks, O.K., & Uchenna, P. (2012). Appraising the Influence of Cultural Determinants of Contruction Workers Safety
Perceptionand Behaviour in Nigeria. March 2013, 11-24.
Construction Industry Institute - CII (2003). Value of best practices report. Rep. No. BMM 2003-4, Construction
Industry Institute, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute - CII (2015). Successful Delivery of Mega-Projects. CII Annual Conference.
-394-
CPWR (2008). The construction chart book: the U.S. construction industry and its workers (Issue April). Available at:
www.cpwr.com
De Silva, N., & Wimalaratne, P.L.I. (2012). OSH management framework for workers at construction sites in Sri
Lanka. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(4), 369-392.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981211237094
Delegach, M., Kark, R., Katz-Navon, T., & van Dijk, D. (2017). A focus on commitment: the roles of
transformational and transactional leadership and self-regulatory focus in fostering organizational and safety
commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1345884
Dingsdag, D.P., Biggs, H.C., & Sheahan, V.L. (2008). Understanding and defining OH&S competency for
construction site positions: Worker perceptions. Safety Science, 46(4), 619-633.
Diugwu, I.A., & Baba, D.L. (2014). A Health and Safety Improvement Roadmap for the Construction Industry.
https://doi.org/10.6106/JCEPM.2014.4.1.037
Dodo, M. (2012). Best practices for optimizing DOD contractor safety and occupational health program performance. December.
Dominowski, R.L. (1980). Research methods. Prentice-Hall.
El-Nagar, R., Hosny, H., & Askar, H.S. (2015). Development of a safety performance index for construction
projects in Egypt. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 3(5), 182-192.
Elliott, J. (2016). Safety I and safety II: the past and future of safety management. Ergonomics.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1093290
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (1991). From Drawing Board to
Building Site (EF/88/17/FR): Dublin, Ireland.
Ezenwa, A.O. (2001). A study of fatal injuries in Nigerian factories. Occupational Medicine.
https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/51.8.485
Fang, D., & Wu, H. (2013). Development of a Safety Culture Interaction (SCI) model for construction projects.
Safety Science, 57, 138-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.02.003
Farooqui, R.U. (2011). Achieving Zero Accidents – A Strategic Framework for Continuous Safety Improvement in the
Construction Industry. https://doi.org/10.25148/etd.FI11050608
Fass, S., Yousef, R., Liginlal, D., & Vyas, P. (2017). Understanding causes of fall and struck-by incidents: What
differentiates construction safety in the Arabian Gulf region? Applied Ergonomics, 58, 515-526.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.05.002
Filstad, C. (2011). Organizational commitment through organizational socialization tactics. Journal of Workplace
Learning. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621111154395
Findley, M., Smith, S., Kress, T., Petty, G., & Enoch, K. (2004). Safety Program Elements in Construction.
Professional Safety, 49(2), 14-21. http://libproxy.unm.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12136203&loginpage=Login.asp&scope=site
Fonseca, E.D., Lima, F.P.A., & Duarte, F. (2014). From construction site to design: The different accident
prevention levels in the building industry. Safety Science, 70, 406-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.006
Funso, A., Sammy, L., & Gerryshom, M. (2016). Impact of Motivation on Productivity of Craftsmen in
Construction Firms in Lagos, Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 8(4), 271.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v8n4p271
Gambatese, J.A., Behm, M., & Hinze, J.W. (2005). Viability of Designing for Construction Worker Safety, 131(9), 1029-
1036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:9(1029)
-395-
Gambatese, J.A., Asce, M., Toole, T.M., Asce, F., Abowitz, D.A., Asce, M. et al. (2017). Owner Perceptions of
Barriers to Prevention through Design Diffusion. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001296
Gambatese, J.A., Behm, M., & Rajendran, S. (2008). Design’s role in construction accident causality and prevention:
Perspectives from an expert panel. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.010
Gambatese, J., & Hinze, J. (1999). Addressing construction worker safety in the design phase designing for
construction worker safety. Automation in Construction. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(98)00109-5
Gambatese, J.A. (2000). Owner involvement in construction site safety. Construction Congress.
https://doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)71
Ghasemi, F., Mohammadfam, I., Soltanian, A.R., Mahmoudi, S., & Zarei, E. (2015). Surprising incentive: An
instrument for promoting safety performance of construction employees. Safety and Health at Work.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2015.02.006
Gu, C., & Yang, Y. (2015). Incentive mechanism for customer collaboration in product development: An
exploratory study. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1603
Gunduz, M., Birgonul, M.T., & Ozdemir, M. (2017). Fuzzy Structural Equation Model to Assess Construction Site
Safety Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001259
Hale, A. (2009). Why safety performance indicators? Safety Science, 47(4), 479-480.
Hale, A., & Borys, D. (2013). Working to rule or working safely? Part 2: The management of safety rules and
procedures. In Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.013
Hallowell, M.R., & Gambatese, J.A. (2009). Construction Safety Risk Mitigation. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, 135(December), 1316-1323. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000107
Hallowell, M.R., & Hansen, D. (2016). Measuring and improving designer hazard recognition skill: Critical
competency to enable prevention through design. Safety Science, 82, 254-263.
Hare, B., & Cameron, I. (2012). Health and safety gateways for construction project planning. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981211206115
Hare, B., Cameron, I., & Duff, A.R. (2006). Exploring the integration of health and safety with pre-construction
planning. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980610690729
Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. et al. (2005). Contributing factors in
construction accidents. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4 spec.), 401-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2004.12.002
Hassanain, M.A., Sanni-Anibire, M.O., Mahmoud, A.S., & Hamida, M.B. (2019). Design guidelines for the
functional efficiency of laboratory facilities. Architectural Engineering and Design Management.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2019.1675580
Helix ESG (2003). Permit to work. In Permit to Work System. https://doi.org/10.1205/026095703770045474
Herrera, I. (2012). Proactive safety performance indicators, resilience engineering perspective on safety management. Doctoral Thesis.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. PhD Thesis, 12, 123-9.
Hinze, J. (2002). Safety Incentives: Do They Reduce Injuries? Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction.
Hinze, J., Asce, M., Hallowell, M., Asce, A.M., & Baud, K. (2013). Construction-Safety Best Practices and Relationships to
Safety Performance, 139(10), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000751
-396-
Hinze, J., & Gambatese, J. (2003). Factors That Influence Safety Performance of Specialty Contractors. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 129(2), 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(159)
Hinze, J., Hallowell, M., & Baud, K. (2013). Construction-Safety Best Practices and Relationships to Safety
Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000751
Hinze, J.W. (2000). Moving toward a Zero Injury Objective. Journal Construction and Engineering Management.
ttps://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:5(399)
Hu, Y., Chan, A.P.C., Le, Y., Jiang, W.P., Xie, L.L., & Hon, C.H.K. (2012). Improving Megasite Management
Performance through Incentives: Lessons Learned from the Shanghai Expo Construction. Journal of Management
in Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000102
Huang, C., & Wong, C.K. (2015). Optimisation of site layout planning for multiple construction stages with safety
considerations and requirements. Automation in Construction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.03.005
Huang, X., & Hinze, J. (2006). Owner ’s Role in Construction Safety. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, February, 164-173. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:2(164)
Huang, Y., Verma, S.K., Chang, W., Courtney, T.K., Lombardi, D.A., Brennan, M.J. et al. (2012). Management
commitment to safety vs . employee perceived safety training and association with future injury. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 47(2012), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.12.001
Idoro, G.I. (2008). Health and safety management efforts as correlates of performance in the Nigerian construction
industry. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 14(4), 277-285. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.27
Idoro, G.I. (2012). Influence of the monitoring and control strategies of indigenous and expatriate nigerian
contractors on project outcome. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries.
International Labour Organization - ILO (1995). Safety, health and welfare on construction sites: A training
manual. International Labour Organization.
Inuwa, I.I., Githae, W., & Diang, S. (2014). Indigenous Contractors Involvement and Performance in Construction
Procurement Systems in Nigeria. Global Journal of Researches in Engineering: General Engineering, 14(1), 13.
Jannadi, O.A., & Almishari, S. (2003). Risk Assessment in Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 129(5), 492-500. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:5(492)
Jaraiedi, M., Plummer, R.W., & Aber, M.S. (1995). Incentive/disincentive guidelines for highway construction
contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(1), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1995)121:1(112)
Jaselskis, E.J., Anderson, S.D., & Russell, J.S. (1996). Strategies for achieving excellence in construction safety
performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1996)122:1(61)
Jazayeri, E., Liu, H., & Dadi, G.B. (2017). Perception Differences between Contractors and Owners Regarding Drivers of
Construction Safety, 6(2), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.safety.20170602.02
Jensen, P.L., Laustsen, S., & Jensen, E. (2016). Development of the Relationship Between Small Building
Contractors and Developers in Order to Meet OSH Requirements. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 8(2),
37-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2010.11667747
Kadiri, Z.O., Nden, T., Avre, G.K., Oladipo, T.O., Edom, A., Samuel, P.O., & Ananso, G.N. (2014). Causes and
Effects of Accidents on Construction Sites (A Case Study of Some Selected Construction Firms in Abuja FCT
Nigeria). IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE).
Karakhan, A.A., & Gambatese, J.A. (2017). Identification, Quantification, and Classification of Potential Safety Risk
for Sustainable Construction in the United States. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(7).
-397-
Kartam, N.A., Flood, I., & Koushki, P. (2000). Construction safety in Kuwait: Issues, procedures, problems, and
recommendations. In Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00041-2
Khosravi, Y., Asilian-Mahabadi, H., Hajizadeh, E., Hassanzadeh-Rangi, N., Bastani, H., & Behzadan, A.H. (2014).
Factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents on construction sites: A review. International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 20(1), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2014.11077023
Kim, S.S., Yang, I.H., Yeo, M.S., & Kim, K.W. (2005). Development of a housing performance evaluation model
for multi-family residential buildings in Korea. Building and Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.09.014
Kylili, A., Fokaides, P.A., & López-Jiménez, P.A. (2016). Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) approach in buildings
renovation for the sustainability of the built environment: A review. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.096
Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A., & Dixit, M.K. (2014a). KPIs for facility’s performance assessment, Part I: Identification and
categorization of core indicators. Facilities. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-09-2012-0066
Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A., & Dixit, M.K. (2014b). KPIs for facility’s performance assessment, Part II: Identification of
variables and deriving expressions for core indicators. Facilities. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-09-2012-0067
Ling, F.Y.Y., Liu, M., & Woo, Y.C. (2009). Construction fatalities in Singapore. International Journal of Project
Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.11.002
Luo, Y., & van den Brand, M. (2016). Metrics design for safety assessment. Information and Software Technology, 73,
151-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.12.012
Mahmoud, A.S., Sanni-Anibire, M.O., Hassanain, M.A., & Ahmed, W. (2019). Key performance indicators for the
evaluation of academic and research laboratory facilities. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation,
37(2), 208-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-08-2018-0066
Manu, P., Ankrah, N., Proverbs, D., & Suresh, S. (2013). Mitigating the health and safety influence of
subcontracting in construction: The approach of main contractors. International Journal of Project Management.
Michael, J.H., Evans, D.D., Jansen, K.J., & Haight, J.M. (2005). Management commitment to safety as organizational support :
Relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood manufacturing employees. 36, 171-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2005.03.002
Misiurek, K., & Misiurek, B. (2017). Methodology of improving occupational safety in the construction industry on
the basis of the TWI program. Safety Science, 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.10.017
Molenaar, K.R., Park, J.I., & Washington, S. (2009). Framework for Measuring Corporate Safety Culture and Its
Impact on Construction Safety Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
Mudi, A., Bioku, J., & Kolawole, O. (2015). Assessing the Characteristics of Nigerian Construction Industry in
Infrastructure Development. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 4(11), 546-555.
Muiruri, G., & Mulinge, C. (2014). Health and Safety Management on Construction Projects Sites in Kenya A Case
Study of Construction Projects in Nairobi County. FIG Congress 2014 - Engaging the Challenges – Enhancing the
Relevance Kuala Lumpur (14). Malaysia 16-21 June, 14.
Mustapha, Z., Aigbavboa, C., & Thwala, W. (2017). Contractor health and safety compliance for small to medium-
sized construction companies. In Contractor Health and Safety Compliance for Small to Medium-Sized Construction
Companies. https://doi.org/10.1201/b22259
Odeyinka, H.A. (2000). An evaluation of the use of insurance in managing construction risks. Construction
Management and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900407329
-398-
Øien, K., Utne, I.B., Tinmannsvik, R.K., & Massaiu, S. (2011). Building Safety indicators: Part 2 - Application,
practices and results. Safety Science, 49(2), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.05.015
Okoro, C.S., Musonda, I., & Agumba, J. (2017). Identifying Determinants of Construction Worker Performance on
Construction Sites : A Literature Review. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 8(1), 60-64.
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijimt.2017.8.1.703
Okoye, P.U., Ezeokonkwo, J.U., & Ezeokoli, F.O. (2016). Building Construction Workers ’ Health and Safety
Knowledge and Compliance on Site. Journal of Safety Engineering, 5(1), 17-26.
https://doi.org/10.5923/j.safety.20160501.03
Okoye, P.U., Mbakwe, C.C., & Igbo, E.N. (2018). Modeling the construction sector and oil prices toward the growth
of the Nigerian economy: An econometric approach. Economies. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies6010016
OSHA (2015). Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and Training Guidelines. Safety And Health.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.03.010
Park, C.S., & Kim, H.J. (2013). A framework for construction safety management and visualization system.
Automation in Construction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.09.012
Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowitz, H.Z.E., & White, E.T. (1987). Post Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand
Reainhold Comp.
Reiman, T., & Pietikäinen, E. (2012). Leading indicators of system safety - Monitoring and driving the
organizational safety potential. Safety Science, 50(10), 1993-2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.015
Rose, T., & Manley, K. (2011). Motivation toward financial incentive goals on construction projects. Journal of
Business Research, 64(7), 765-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.07.003
Sacks, R., Perlman, A., & Barak, R. (2013). Construction safety training using immersive virtual reality. Construction
Management and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.828844
Sadeghi, L., Mathieu, L., Tricot, N., & Al Bassit, L. (2015). Developing a safety indicator to measure the safety level
during design for safety. Safety Science, 80, 252-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.08.006
Saifullah, N.M., & Ismail, F. (2012). Integration of Occupational Safety and Health during Pre-construction Stage in
Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.127
Saurin, T.A. (2016). Safety inspections in construction sites: A systems thinking perspective. In Accident Analysis and
Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.032
Shea, T., De Cieri, H., Donohue, R., Cooper, B., & Sheehan, C. (2016). Leading indicators of occupational health
and safety: An employee and workplace level validation study. Safety Science, 85.
Shen, Y., Ju, C., Koh, T.Y., Rowlinson, S., & Bridge, A.J. (2017). The impact of transformational leadership on safety
climate and individual safety behavior on construction sites. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 14(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14010045
Sinelnikov, S., Inouye, J., & Kerper, S. (2015). Using leading indicators to measure occupational health and safety
performance. Safety Science, 72, 240-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.09.010
Smallwood, J.J. (2002). The Influence of Health and Safety (H & S) Culture on H & S Performance. In:
Greenwood, D. (Ed.), Proceedings 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction
Management, 1, 217-226. 2-4 September, Northumbria, UK.
Suárez Sánchez, F.A., Carvajal-Peláez, G.I., & Catala-Alis, J. (2017). Occupational safety and health in construction:
a review of applications and trends. Industrial Health, 55(3), 210-218. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2016-0108
Suraji, A., Duff, A.R., & Peckitt, S.J. (2001). Development of causal model of construction accident causation.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000210260.55124.A4
-399-
Szymberski, R. (1997). Construction Project Safety Planning. TAPPI Journal.

Tackett, J., Goodrum, P.M., & Maloney, W.F. (2006). Safety and Health Training in Construction in Kentucky. June.
Takim, R., & Akintoye, A. (2002). Performance indicators for successful construction project performance. In
University of Northumbria. Association of Researchers in Construction Management.
Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X., & Deng, Z.M. (2004). Identifying elements of poor construction safety management in
China. In Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2003.09.001
Tappura, S., Nenonen, N., & Kivistö-Rahnasto, J. (2017). Managers’ viewpoint on factors influencing their
commitment to safety: An empirical investigation in five Finnish industrial organisations. Safety Science, 96, 52-61.
Teo, E.A.L., Ling, F.Y.Y., & Ong, D.S.Y. (2005). Fostering safe work behaviour in workers at construction sites.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980510608848
Teo, E., & Lin, A.I. (2005). Singapore’s contarctors’ attitudes towards safety culture. Journal of Construction Research.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S1609945105000316
Toole, T.M., & Gambatese, J. (2008). The Trajectories of Prevention through Design in Construction. 39, 225-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.02.026
Tymvios, N., & Gambatese, J.A. (2016). Perceptions about Design for Construction Worker Safety: Viewpoints
from Contractors, Designers, and University Facility Owners. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
Ulang, N. (2005). Communication of Construction Health and Safety Information in Design. In Dainty, A.R.J.
(Ed.), Proceedings 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 2, 1233-1241.
7-9 September 2009, Nottingham, UK.
Umeokafor, N. (2017). An appraisal of the barriers to client involvement in health and safety in Nigeria’s
construction industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-06-2016-0034
Umeokafor, N., Kostis, E., Lundy, S., Isaac, D., Stuart, A., Igwegbe, U. et al. (2014). The Pattern of Occupational
Accidents, Injuries, Accident Causal Factors and Intervention in Nigerian Factories. Developing Country Studies.
Umoh, G.I., & Torbira, L.L. (2013). Safety Practices and the Productivity of Employees in. International Journal of
Business and Management Review, 1(3), 128-137.
van der Molen, H.F., Basnet, P., Hoonakker, P.L.T., Lehtola, M.M., Lappalainen, J., Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. et al.
(2018). Interventions to prevent injuries in construction workers. In Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006251.pub4
Vinodkumar, M.N., & Bhasi, M. (2010). Safety management practices and safety behaviour: Assessing the mediating
role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(6), 2082-2093.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.021
Vitharana, V.H.P., De Silva, G.H.M.J.S., & De Silva, S. (2015). Health Hazards, Risk and Safety Practices in
Construction Sites – A Review Study. The Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka, XLVIII(03), 35-44.
https://doi.org/10.4038/engineer.v48i3.6840
Wachter, J.K., & Yorio, P.L. (2014). A system of safety management practices and worker engagement for reducing
and preventing accidents: An empirical and theoretical investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.07.029
Weidman, J., Dickerson, D.E., & Koebel, C.T. (2015). Prevention through Design Adoption Readiness Model (PtD
ARM): An integrated conceptual model. Work. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152109
Weinstein, M., Gambatese, J., Asce, M., & Hecker, S. (2005). Can Design Improve Construction Safety ?: Assessing the
Impact of a Collaborative Safety-in-Design Process, 131(October), 1125-1134. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(2005)131:10(1125)
-400-
Williams, J.H. (2008). Improving participation in safety. Professional Safety, 53(12), 40-45.
Williams, O.S., Adul-Hamid, R., & Misnan, M.S. (2018). Accident Causal Factors on the Building Construction
Sites: A Review. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 5(1), 78-92.
https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v5.n1.248
Wu, C., Li, N., & Fang, D. (2017). Leadership improvement and its impact on workplace safety in construction
projects: A conceptual model and action research. International Journal of Project Management.
Wu, C., Wang, F., Zou, P.X.W., & Fang, D. (2016). How safety leadership works among owners, contractors and
subcontractors in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management.
Wu, W., Gibb, A.G.F., & Li, Q. (2010). Accident precursors and near misses on construction sites: An investigative
tool to derive information from accident databases. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.04.009
Xinyu, H., & Hinze, J. (2006). Owner‚Äôs Role in Construction Safety: Guidance Model. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:2(174)
Zahoor, H., Chan, A., Utama, W., Gao, R., & Zafar, I. (2017). Modeling the Relationship between Safety Climate
and Safety Performance in a Developing Construction Industry: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(4), 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040351
Zhang, R., Zhou, Y., Zhuang, H., & Zhu, X. (2015). Study on the project supervision system based on the
principal-agent theory. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1328
Zhou, W., Whyte, J., & Sacks, R. (2012). Construction safety and digital design: A review. Automation in Construction,
22, 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.07.005
Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M., Kines, P., Ruotsala, R., Drupsteen, L., Merivirta, M.L., & Bezemer, R.A. (2017). The
importance of commitment, communication, culture and learning for the implementation of the Zero Accident
Vision in 27 companies in Europe. Safety Science, 96, 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.001
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2020 (www.jiem.org)
Article’s contents are provided on an Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Creative commons International License. Readers are
allowed to copy, distribute and communicate article’s contents, provided the author’s and Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management’s names are included. It must not be used for commercial purposes. To see the complete license contents, please
visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
-401-

Key Performance Indicators (Kpis) To Promote Building Developers Safety Performance in The Construction Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Performance Indicators (Kpis) To Promote Building Developers Safety Performance in The Construction Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Performance Indicators (Kpis) To Promote Building Developers Safety Performance in The Construction Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mahmoud, Abubakar Sadiq; Ahmad, Mohd Hamdan; Yatim, Yahya Mohd; Dodo,

Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM)

Provided in Cooperation with:

This Version is available at:

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to Promote Building Developers

sadiqmahmoud2@gmail.com, b-hamdan@utm.mu, b-yahya@utm.my, yadodo@gelisim.edu.tr

Received: January 2020

To cite this article:

Profile Subgroup Number Percentage of respondents

Profile Subgroup Number Percentage of respondents

3. Key Performance Indicators for Building Developer

3.1. Construction Safety Policy

3.2. Planning, Design and Procurement

Figure 1. Time/safety influence curve (Szymberski, 1997)

3.3. Construction Safety Personnel and Safety Culture

3.4. Communication & Maintenance of Effective Safety Behaviour

3.5. Management Commitment and Support

3.6. Administration of Safety Processes

3.7. Rewards and Sanctions for Project Stakeholders

3.8. Investigation and Reporting of Accident

3.9. Safety Training and Enlightenment

4. Results and Findings

4.2. Planning, Design and Procurement

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

4.3. Communication on & Maintenance of Effective Safety Behaviour

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

4.4. Construction Safety Policy

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

4.5. Construction Safety Workers

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

4.6. Management Effort and Support

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

4.7. Safety Training and Orientation

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

4.8. Administration of Safety and Processes

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

4.9. Investigation and Reporting of Accident

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

4.10. Rewards and Sanctions for Project Stakeholders

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

S/No Performance Indicators Agree Disagree Importance Rating Level of Ref.

5. Discussions and Conclusions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Szymberski, R. (1997). Construction Project Safety Planning. TAPPI Journal.

Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2020 (www.jiem.org)

You might also like