Using leading and lagging indicators to select safe contractors at the prequalification stage of construction projects

References

• Singh D, Tiong RLK. A fuzzy decision framework for contractor selection. J Constr Eng Manage. 2005;131(1):62–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miroslaw JS, Jeffrey SR. Decision criteria in contractor prequalification. J Constr Eng Manage. 1988;4:148–164.
   Google Scholar
• Huang W-H, Tserng HP, Jaselskis EJ, et al. Dynamic threshold cash flow-based structural model for contractor financial prequalification. J Constr Eng Manage. 2014;140(10):04014047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramon San CJ. Contractor selection using multicriteria decision-making methods. J Constr Eng Manage. 2012;138(6):751–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tappura S, Sievanen M, Heikkila J, et al. A management accounting perspective on safety. Saf Sci. 2015;71:151–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang X, Hinze J. Owner’s role in construction safety. J Constr Eng Manage. 2006;132(2):164–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Votano S, Sunindijo RY. Client safety roles in small and medium construction projects in Australia. J Constr Eng Manage. 2014;140(9):04014045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang H, Zhang S, Su Y. The structure and emerging trends of construction safety management research: a bibliometric review. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;1–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alhumaidi HM. Construction contractors ranking method using multiple decision-makers and multiattribute fuzzy weighted average. J Constr Eng Manage. 2015;141(4):04014092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang JI, Liang C-L. Performance evaluation of process safety management systems of paint manufacturing facilities. J Loss Prev Process Indust. 2009;22(4):398–402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinze J, Thurman S, Wehle A. Leading indicators of construction safety performance. Saf Sci. 2013;51(1):23–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mengolini A, Debarberis L. Effectiveness evaluation methodology for safety processes to enhance organisational culture in hazardous installations. J Hazard Mater. 2008;155:243–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabowski MR, Ayyalasomayajula P, Haiyuan W, et al. Accident precursors and safety nets: initial results from the leading indicators of safety project. Trans Sco Nav Architect Mar Eng. 2007;115:288–295.
   Google Scholar
• Øien K, Utne IB, Herrera IA. Building safety indicators: part 1 – theoretical foundation. Saf Sci. 2011;49(2):148–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jallon R, Imbeau D, De Marcellis-Warin N. A process mapping model for calculating indirect costs of workplace accidents. J Saf Res. 2011;42(5):333–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang W-C, Liu -J-J, Chou S-C. Simulation-based safety evaluation model integrated with network schedule. Autom Constr. 2006;15(3):341–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The safe way to select a flooring contractor[Internet]. Washington (DC): CentiMark Corporate; 2015. [cited 2016 Dec 15]. Available from: http://www.centimark.com/centimark-blog/entry/the-safe-way-to-select-a-flooring-contractor
   Google Scholar
• Policy statement 350-construction site safety [Internet]. Washington (DC): American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE); 2012. [cited 2016 Dec 15]. Available from: http://www.asce.org/issues-and-advocacy/public-policy/policy-statement-350—construction-site-safety/
   Google Scholar
• Using contractors [Internet]. Merseyside (UK): Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 2012 Jun. [cited 2016 Dec 28]. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg368.pdf
   Google Scholar
• SafetyContractor for client services [Internet]. Cardiff (UK): Alcumus’s SafetyContractor; 2016. [cited 2016 Dec 28]. Available from: http://safecontractor.com/client/
   Google Scholar
• Working with contractors [Internet]. Edinburgh (UK): Scottish Centre for Healthy Working Lives; 2015. [cited 2016 Dec 28]. Available from: http://www.healthyworkinglives.com/advice/Legislation-and-policy/Workplace-Health-andSafety/working-with-contractors
   Google Scholar
• Screening for safety[Internet]. Itasca (IL): National Safety Concil; 2013 Apr. [cited 2017 Jan 7]. Available from: http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/screening-for-safety?page=2
   Google Scholar
• Reiman T, Pietikäinen E. Leading indicators of system safety – monitoring and driving the organizational safety potential. Saf Sci. 2012;50(10):1993–2000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng ST, Cheng KP, Skitmore RM. A framework for evaluating the safety performance of construction contractors. Build Environ. 2005;40(10):1347–1355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins A. Thinking about process safety indicators. Saf Sci. 2009;47(4):460–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard H, Hallowell M, Salas R, et al. Leading or lagging? Temporal analysis of safety indicators on a large infrastructure construction project. Saf Sci. 2017;91:206–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laufer A, Ledbetter WB. Assessment of safety performance-measures at construction sites. J Construct Eng Manage Asce. 1986 Dec;112(4):530–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins A. Reply to comments. Saf Sci. 2009;47(4):508–510.
   Google Scholar
• Grabowski M, Ayyalasomayajula P, Merrick J, et al. Leading indicators of safety in virtual organizations. Saf Sci. 2007 Dec;45(10):1013–1043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stricoff RS. Safety performance measurement: identifying prospective indicators with high validity. Prof Saf. 2000;45(1):36–39.
   Google Scholar
• Arezes PM, Sérgio Miguel A. The role of safety culture in safety performance measurement. Measuring Business Excellence. 2003;7(4):20–28.
   Google Scholar
• Mohaghegh Z, Mosleh A. Measurement techniques for organizational safety causal models: characterization and suggestions for enhancements. Saf Sci. 2009;47(10):1398–1409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard H, Wakefield R, Cashin P. The development and testing of ahierarchical measure of project OHS performance. Eng Constr Archit Manage. 2011;18(1):30–49.
   Google Scholar
• Tjandra SA, Shimko G. Key performance lagging and leading indicators for traffic safety improvement: case study of the city of edmonton, Alberta, Canada. ITE J-Inst Transp Eng. 2016 Apr;86(4):40–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tinmannsvik RK, Hovden J. Safety diagnosis criteria—development and testing. Saf Sci. 2003;41(7):575–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng EWL, Ryan N, Kelly S. Exploring the perceived influence of safety management practices on project performance in the construction industry. Saf Sci. 2012 Feb;50(2):363–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinze J, Gambatese J. Factors that influence safety performance of specialty contractors. J Constr Eng Manage. 2003;129(2):159–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed S. Empirical investigation of construction safety management activities and performance in Australia. Saf Sci. 1999 Dec;33(3):129–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Mashaleh MS, Rababeh SM, Hyari KH. Utilizing data envelopment analysis to benchmark safety performance of construction contractors. Int J Proj Manag. 2010;28(1):61–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sgourou E, Katsakiori P, Goutsos S, et al. Assessment of selected safety performance evaluation methods in regards to their conceptual, methodological and practical characteristics. Saf Sci. 2010;48(8):1019–1025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E, Celik M. A hybrid decision-making approach to measure effectiveness of safety management system implementations on-board ships. Saf Sci. 2014;68:169–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang Y-H, Shao P-C, Chen HJ. Performance evaluation of airport safety management systems in Taiwan. Saf Sci. 2015;75:72–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang C-H, Chou H-L. Assessment of patient safety management from human factors perspective: a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Hum Factors Ergonomics Manuf. 2015;25(5):614–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bao Q, Ruan D, Shen Y, et al. Improved hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS for road safety performance evaluation. Knowledge-Based Syst. 2012;32:84–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C-T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2000;114(1):1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang H, Zhang S, Su Y. Evaluating the efficiency of industrialization process in prefabricated residential buildings using a fuzzy multicriteria decision-making method. Math Probl Eng. 2017; 2017(7–8):1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng J-L. Introduction to Grey system. J Grey Syst. 1989;1(1):1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Kung C-Y, Wen K-L. Applying grey relational analysis and grey decision-making to evaluate the relationship between company attributes and its financial performance—a case study of venture capital enterprises in Taiwan. Decis Support Syst. 2007;43(3):842–852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei G-W. Gray relational analysis method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(9):11671–11677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang R-H. Application of grey relation analysis to hydroelectric generation scheduling. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst. 1999;21(5):357–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia Z-Y, Ma J-W, Wang F-J, et al. Characteristics forecasting of hydraulic valve based on grey correlation and ANFIS. Expert Syst Appl. 2010;37(2):1250–1255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li YX, Yang JG, Gelvis T, et al. Optimization of measuring points for machine tool thermal error based on grey system theory. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2008;35:745–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Muniz B, Montes-Peon JM, Vazquez-Ordas CJ. Safety culture: analysis of the causal relationships between its key dimensions. J Saf Res. 2007;38(6):627–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granerud RL, Rocha RS. Organisational learning and continuous improvement of health and safety in certified manufacturers. Saf Sci. 2011;49(7):1030–1039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Muniz B, Montes-Peon JM, Vazquez-Ordas CJ. Relation between occupational safety management and firm performance. Saf Sci. 2009;47(7):980–991.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ismail Z, Doostdar S, Harun Z. Factors influencing the implementation of a safety management system for construction sites. Saf Sci. 2012;50(3):418–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evelyn ALT, Florence YYL. Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sites. Build Environ. 2006;41(11):1584–1592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan AHS, Kwok WY, Duffy VG. Using AHP for determining priority in a safety management system. Ind Manage Data Syst. 2004;104(5):430–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam CM, Tong TKL, Chiu GCW, et al. Non-structural fuzzy decision support system for evaluation of construction safety management system. Int J Proj Manag. 2002;20(4):303–313.
   Google Scholar
• Shanmugapriya S, Subramanian K. Developing a PLS path model to investigate the factors influencing safety performance improvement in construction organizations. KSCE J Civ Eng. 2016;20:1138–1150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aksorn T, Hadikusumo BHW. Critical success factors influencing safety program performance in Thai construction projects. Saf Sci. 2008;46(4):709–727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teo EAL, Ling FYY. Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sites. Build Environ. 2006 Nov;41(11):1584–1592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Haadir S, Panuwatwanich K. Critical success factors for safety program implementation among construction companies in Saudi Arabia. Procedia Eng. 2011;14:148–155.
   Google Scholar
• British Standards Institute(BSI). Occupational health and safety management systems–requirements. London: BSI; 2007. Standard No. BS OHSAS 18001:2007.
   Google Scholar
• Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China(SAC). Occupational health and safety management systems-specification. Beijing: SAC; 2011. Standard No. GB/T28001:2011.
   Google Scholar
• Hallowell MR, Hinze JW, Baud KC, et al. Proactive construction safety control: measuring, monitoring, and responding to safety leading indicators. J Constr Eng Manage. 2013 Oct;139(10):04013010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo BHW, Yiu TW. Developing leading indicators to monitor the safety conditions of construction projects. J Manage Eng. 2016 Jan;32(1):04015016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas R, Hallowell M. Predictive validity of safety leading indicators: empirical assessment in the oil and gas sector. J Constr Eng Manage. 2016 Oct;142(10):04016052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadidi LA, Khater MA. Loss prevention in turnaround maintenance projects by selecting contractors based on safety criteria using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). J Loss Prev Process Indust. 2015 Mar;34:115–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Love PED, Teo P, Carey B, et al. The symbiotic nature of safety and quality in construction: incidents and rework non-conformances. Saf Sci. 2015;79:55–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sang X, Liu X, Qin J. An analytical solution to fuzzy TOPSIS and its application in personnel selection for knowledge-intensive enterprise. Appl Soft Comput. 2015;30:190–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu C, Fang D, Li N. Roles of owners’ leadership in construction safety: the case of high-speed railway construction projects in China. Int J Proj Manag. 2015;33(8):1665–1679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choudhry RM, Fang D, Ahmed SM. Safety management in construction: best practices in Hong Kong. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract. 2008 Jan;134(1):20–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MU, Snyder SW, Devereaux RS. The GAENEGeneralized acceptance of evolution evaluation: development of a new measure of evolution acceptance. J Res Sci Teach. 2016;53(9):1289–1315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar