Potential of Virtual Design Construction Technologies to Improve Job-Site Safety in Gulf Corporation Council
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Current Scenario for Safety in the GCC
2.2. Digital Tools for Managing Safety in Construction
2.2.1. Building Information Modeling
2.2.2. Virtual Reality
2.2.3. Augmented Reality
2.2.4. Wireless Sensor Networks and Cloud Technology
2.2.5. Game Technologies
2.2.6. RTLS and RFID
2.3. Research Needs
3. Methodology
3.1. Population and Sample Size
3.2. Questionnaire Design
3.3. Questionnaire Specifics
- Part 1: Characteristics of the respondents and organizations.
- Part 2: Current safety conditions in GCC countries.
- Part 3: Understanding the awareness and utility of VDC for construction safety.
- Part 4: Ranking aspects of safety that have the potential to be improved using VDC.
- Part 5: Ranking barriers in implementing VDC to improve construction safety.
3.4. Characteristics of Respondents and Organizations
4. Data Analysis
4.1. Analysis of Data
4.2. Reliability of the Data
4.3. Normality of the Data
4.4. Non-Parametric Analysis
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Current Safety Conditions in the GCC
5.1.1. Safety Perceptions in the GCC
5.1.2. Mode of Communication for Safety Instructions in the GCC
5.2. VDC Perceptions Regarding Construction Safety
5.3. Potential of VDC Tools to Improve Safety
5.4. Barriers to Adopting Digital Design Tools for Construction Safety in the GCC
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zou, P.X.W.; Lun, P.; Cipolla, D.; Mohamed, S. Cloud-based safety information and communication system in infrastructure construction. Saf. Sci. 2017, 98, 50–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mo, Y.; Zhao, D.; Du, J.; Liu, W.; Dhara, A. Data-driven approach to scenario determination for VR-based construction safety training. Constr. Res. Congr. 2018, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koehn, E.; Kothari, R.K.; Pan, C. Safety in Developing Countries: Professional and Bureaucratic Problems. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1995, 121, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malekitabar, H.; Ardeshir, A.; Sebt, M.H.; Stouffs, R. Construction safety risk drivers: A BIM approach. Saf. Sci. 2016, 82, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, M.; Kunz, J. The scope and role of Information Technology in construction. Tech. Rep. 2004, 156, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Azhar, S. Role of visualization technologies in safety planning and management at construction jobsites. Procedia Eng. 2017, 171, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajendran, S.; Clarke, B. Building Information Modeling: Safety benefits and opportunities. Prof. Saf. 2011, 56, 44–51. [Google Scholar]
- Staff, E. Deloitte GCC Powers of Construction 2018 Report—Has the Industry Turned the Corner? 2019. Available online: http://www.dubaichronicle.com/2019/03/06/gcc-powers-of-construction-2018-report-has-the-industry-turned-the-corner/ (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- GCC Construction Project Value Exceeds Dhs9.25 Trillion in June. Available online: https://www.gulftoday.ae/business/2019/07/02/gcc-construction-project-value--exceeds-dhs9-25-trillion-in-june (accessed on 15 October 2019).
- Umar, T.; Egbu, C.; Honnurvali, M.S.; Saidani, M.; Al-Bayati, A.J. Briefing: Status of occupational safety and health in GCC construction. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law 2019, 172, 137–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HRW (Human Right Watch). Qatar: Take Urgent Action to Protect Construction Workers; Human Right Watch: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/27/qatar-take-urgent-action-protect-construction-workers (accessed on 10 October 2019).
- Bahrain: Over 200 Workplace Accidents, Including 12 Deaths, Documented in 2018: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. 2018. Available online: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/bahrain-over-200-workplace-accidents-including-12-deaths-documented-in-2018 (accessed on 25 October 2019).
- GOSI (General Organization for Social Insurance). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Open Data Library. 2018. Available online: https://www.gosi.gov.sa/GOSIOnline/Open_Data_Library&locale=en_US (accessed on 28 October 2019).
- Paulson, B. Designing to reduce construction costs. J. Constr. Div. 1976, 102, 588. [Google Scholar]
- Azhar, S.; Khalfan, M.; Maqsood, T. Building information modeling (BIM): Now and beyond. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 2012, 12, 15–28. [Google Scholar]
- Hayne, G.; Kumar, B.; Hare, B. The development of a framework for a design for safety BIM tool. Comput. Civ. Build. Eng. 2014, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hossain, M.A.; Abbott, E.L.; Chua, D.K.; Nguyen, T.Q.; Goh, Y.M. Design-for-Safety knowledge library for BIM-integrated safety risk reviews. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Lee, J.-K.; Venugopal, M.; Teizer, J.; Eastman, C.M. A framework for automatic safety checking of building information models. Constr. Res. Congr. 2012, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwabe, K.; König, M.; Teizer, J. BIM Applications of Rule-Based Checking in Construction Site Layout Planning Tasks. In Proceedings of the 33rd international symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Auburn, AL, USA, 18–21 July 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, S.; Boukamp, F.; Teizer, J. Ontology-based semantic modeling of construction safety knowledge: Towards automated safety planning for job hazard analysis (JHA). Autom. Constr. 2015, 52, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goulding, J.; Nadim, W.; Petridis, P.; Alshawi, M. Construction industry offsite production: A virtual reality interactive training environment prototype. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2012, 26, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pena, A.M.; Ragan, E.D. Contextualizing Construction Accident Reports in Virtual Environments for Safety Education. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 18–22 March 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froehlich, M.; Azhar, S. Investigating Virtual Reality Headset Applications for Construction Education and Practice. In Proceedings of the 52nd ASC annual international conference, Provo, UT, USA, 13–16 April 2016; pp. 13–16. [Google Scholar]
- Hilfert, T.; Teizer, J.; König, M. First person virtual reality for evaluation and learning of construction site safety. In Proceedings of the 33rd international symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Auburn, AL, USA, 18–21 July 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jeelani, I.; Han, K.; Albert, A. Development of immersive personalized training environment for construction workers. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2017, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sacks, R.; Whyte, J.; Swissa, D.; Raviv, G.; Zhou, W.; Shapira, A. Safety by design: Dialogues between designers and builders using virtual reality. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teizer, J.; Cheng, T.; Fang, Y. Location tracking and data visualization technology to advance construction ironworkers education and training in safety and productivity. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedro, A.; Le, Q.T.; Park, C.S. Framework for integrating safety into construction methods education through interactive virtual reality. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2016, 142, 04015011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limsupreeyarat, P.; Yabuki, N.; Tongthong, T. Toward the Improvement of Safety Planning for Construction Activities Performed at High Elevation by Using Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nottingham, UK, 30 June–2 July 2010; Volume 30. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, A.; Golparvar-Fard, M.; Kleiner, B. SAVES: A Safety Training Augmented Virtuality Environment for Construction Hazard Recognition and Severity Identification. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, London, UK, 30–31 October 2013; pp. 373–384. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, A.; Golparvar-Fard, M.; Kleiner, B. Design and development of SAVES: A construction safety training augmented virtuality environment for hazard recognition and severity identification. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2013, 841–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.-S.; Kim, H.-J. A framework for construction safety management and visualization system. Autom. Constr. 2013, 33, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, W.-F.; Lin, T.-H.; Lin, Y.-C. A Real-Time Construction Safety Monitoring System for Hazardous Gas Integrating Wireless Sensor Network and Building Information Modeling Technologies. Sensors 2018, 18, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Riaz, Z.; Parn, E.A.; Edwards, D.J.; Arslan, M.; Shen, C.; Pena-Mora, F. BIM and sensor-based data management system for construction safety monitoring. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2017, 15, 738–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, L.; Mahdjoubi, L. Construction Health and Safety, BIM and Cloud Technology: Proper Integration Can Drive Benefits for All Stakeholders. In Proceedings of the IEEE 5th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science, Bristol, UK, 2–5 December 2013; Volume 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohd, N.I.; Ali, K.N.; Bandi, S.; Ismail, F. Exploring gamification approach in hazard identification training for Malaysian construction industry. Int. J. Built Environ. Sustain. 2019, 6, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, G.A.; Dawood, N.N.; Kassem, M. Building an emergent learning environment for construction health and safety by merging serious games and 4D planning. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dzeng, R.J.; Hsueh, H.H.; Chang, R.N. 3D Game-Based Training System for Hazard Identification on Construction Site. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), Zhangjiajie, China, 15–17 August 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setayeshgar, S.; Hammad, A.; Vahdatikhaki, F.; Zhang, C. Real-time safety risk analysis of construction projects using BIM and RTLS. In Proceedings of the 30th international symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (ISARC 2013): Building therapeutic future in automation and robotics, Montreal, QC, Canada, 11–15 August 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, T.; Teizer, J. Real-time resource location data collection and visualization technology for construction safety and activity monitoring applications. Autom. Constr. 2013, 34, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sattineni, A.; Azhar, S. Techniques for Tracking RFID Tags in a BIM Model. In Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Bratislava, Slovakia, 25–27 June 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, B.; Du, Z.; Xie, D.; Huang, L. Research on Engineering Construction Safety Integration based on BIM and RFID. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 246, 03035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costin, A.M.; Teizer, J.; Schoner, B. RFID and BIM-enabled worker location tracking to support real-time building protocol and data visualization. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2015, 20, 495–517. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C.; Chen, J.; Yang, Y.; Hammad, A. Experimental Investigation of Using RFID Integrated BIM Model for Safety and Facility Management. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Construction Application of Virtual Reality, London, UK, 30–31 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hassan, M.A. Implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM): Practices and Barriers in Construction Industry in GCC. Master’s Thesis, Heriot-watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Gerges, M.; Austin, S.; Mayouf, M.; Ahiakwo, O.; Jaeger, M.; Saad, A.; El Gohary, T. An investigation into the implementation of Building Information Modeling in the Middle East. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2017, 22, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Lavrakas, P.J. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods; SAGE Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Israel, G.D. Determining Sample Size. In Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS); University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2013; Volume 6, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Forza, C. Survey research in operations management: A process-based perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2002, 22, 152–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, W.; Issa, R.R. BIM education and recruiting: Survey-based comparative analysis of issues, perceptions, and collaboration opportunities. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2014, 140, 04013014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enshassi, A.; Ayyash, A.; Choudhry, R.M. BIM for construction safety improvement in Gaza Strip: Awareness, applications and barriers. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2016, 16, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enshassi, L.; AbuHamra, S.M. Barriers to implementation of building information modelling (BIM) in the palestinian construction industry. Int. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. 2016, 8, 103. [Google Scholar]
- Suermann, P.C.; Issa, R.R. Evaluating industry perceptions of building information modelling (BIM) impact on construction. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2009, 14, 574–594. [Google Scholar]
- Fischhoff, B.; Slovic, P.; Lichtenstein, S.; Read, S.J.; Combs, B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978, 9, 127–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garson, G.D. Validity and Reliability (Statistical Associates Blue Book Series 12); Statistical Associates Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ghasemi, A.; Zahediasl, S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 10, 486–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suresh, S.; Renukappa, S.; Alghanmi, I.; Mushatat, S.; Olayinka, R. Examining the Satisfaction Level of Construction Workers Regarding Safety Management in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries 2017, 22, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vazquez, R.F.; Stalnaker, C.K. Latino workers in the construction industry. Prof. Saf. 2004, 49, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Hammad, A.M.; Assaf, S. Assessment of work performance of maintenance contractors in Saudi Arabia. J. Manag. Eng. 1996, 12, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganah, A.A.; John, G.A. BIM and project planning integration for on-site safety induction. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2017, 15, 341–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, R.E.; Gheisari, M.; Esmaeili, B. Using panoramic augmented reality to develop a virtual safety training environment. Constr. Res. Congr. 2018, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, C.T. Barriers of Implementing BIM in Construction Industry from the Designers’ Perspective: A Hong Kong Experience. J. Syst. Manag. Sci. 2014, 4, 24–40. [Google Scholar]
- Bosch-Sijtsema, P.; Isaksson, A.; Lennartsson, M.; Linderoth, H.C. Barriers and facilitators for BIM use among Swedish medium-sized contractors—“We wait until someone tells us to use it”. Vis. Eng. 2017, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Xie, B.; Tivendal, L.; Liu, C. Critical barriers to BIM implementation in the AEC Industry. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2015, 7, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassem, M.; Brogden, T.; Dawood, N. BIM and 4D planning: A holistic study of the barriers and drivers to widespread adoption. J. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag. 2012, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kartam, N.A.; Flood, I.; Koushki, P. Construction safety in Kuwait: Issues, procedures, problems, and recommendations. Saf. Sci. 2000, 36, 163–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatem, W.A.; Abd, A.M.; Abbas, N.N. Barriers of adoption building information modeling (BIM) in construction projects of Iraq. Eng. J. 2018, 22, 59–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Organization Role | No. of Distributed Questionnaires | No. of Returned Questionnaires | Returned Questionnaires (%) | No. of Rejected Questionnaires | No. of Accepted Questionnaires | Accepted Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Client | 25 | 22 | 88 | 4 | 21 | 84 |
Consultant | 25 | 24 | 96 | 5 | 20 | 80 |
Project Management Consultant | 25 | 22 | 88 | 3 | 22 | 88 |
Prime Contractor | 25 | 23 | 92 | 3 | 22 | 88 |
Sub-contractor | 25 | 22 | 88 | 5 | 20 | 80 |
Academic | 25 | 23 | 92 | 4 | 21 | 84 |
Total | 150 | 136 | 91 | 24 | 126 | 84 |
Characteristics of Respondents | Percentage |
---|---|
Highest academic qualification | |
Diploma | 11 |
Bachelors | 52 |
Masters | 33 |
Doctorate | 4 |
Demographic information | |
United Arab Emirates | 37 |
Saudi Arabia | 23 |
Qatar | 22 |
Oman | 7 |
Bahrain | 6 |
Kuwait | 5 |
Professional experience (years) | |
0–5 | 36 |
6–10 | 33 |
11–15 | 21 |
16–20 | 3 |
21 and above | 7 |
Organization type | |
Government | 12 |
Semi-government | 6 |
Private | 82 |
Sector | Percentage | Frequency |
---|---|---|
Construction | 56 | 70 |
Education | 8 | 10 |
Energy | 6 | 7 |
Manufacturing | 3 | 4 |
Transportation | 9 | 11 |
Administration | 3 | 4 |
Management | 15 | 20 |
Profession | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
BIM professional | 28 | 22 |
Mechanical engineer | 6 | 5 |
Design engineer | 8 | 6 |
Civil site engineer | 6 | 5 |
Architect | 8 | 6 |
Draftsman/CAD operator | 5 | 4 |
QA/QC engineer | 6 | 5 |
Materials engineer | 3 | 2 |
Planning engineer | 13 | 10 |
HSE engineer | 4 | 3 |
Academic faculty member | 8 | 6 |
Project manager | 19 | 16 |
Researcher | 6 | 5 |
Sustainability engineer | 3 | 2 |
Facility maintenance supervisor | 1 | 1 |
Administrator | 2 | 2 |
w | Part 4 | Part 5 |
---|---|---|
1 | Not at all important | Not a barrier |
2 | Not so important | Somewhat of a barrier |
3 | Somewhat important | Moderate barrier |
4 | Very important | Extreme barrier |
5 | Extremely important |
Part Description | No. of Variables | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|
Safety factors that could be improved using BIM | 17 | 0.947 |
Barriers in BIM to improve safety | 11 | 0.816 |
Total | 28 | 0.8815 |
Construction Safety Factors that Can Be Improved Using VDC | Statistic | df | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|
Hazard identification and recognition | 0.273 | 79 | 0.000 |
Site layout | 0.268 | 79 | 0.000 |
Analyzing confined and congested spaces | 0.244 | 79 | 0.000 |
Safety training and capacity building of workers | 0.236 | 79 | 0.000 |
Safety induction of workers | 0.310 | 79 | 0.000 |
Safety reports, internal and external audits | 0.275 | 79 | 0.000 |
Toolbox talk meetings | 0.200 | 79 | 0.000 |
Safety inspections | 0.239 | 79 | 0.000 |
Compliance with OSHA rules and regulations | 0.234 | 79 | 0.000 |
Safety designing and planning of temporary structures (scaffolds, stairs, and frameworks) | 0.255 | 79 | 0.000 |
Fall-hazard prevention strategies | 0.254 | 79 | 0.000 |
Active site safety monitoring for critical activities | 0.272 | 79 | 0.000 |
Risk assessment and mitigation | 0.247 | 79 | 0.000 |
Better communication between stakeholders | 0.244 | 79 | 0.000 |
Designing of emergency and evacuation plans | 0.263 | 79 | 0.000 |
Emergency drills | 0.278 | 79 | 0.000 |
Inspection of heavy equipment and machinery | 0.252 | 79 | 0.000 |
Barriers to Implementation of VDC Tools | Statistic | df | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|
Lack of knowledge about VDC technologies | 0.216 | 126 | 0.000 |
High setup, implementation, and maintenance costs | 0.218 | 126 | 0.000 |
Lack of effective training | 0.250 | 126 | 0.000 |
Lack of knowledge about return on investment for VDC technologies | 0.238 | 126 | 0.000 |
Temporary nature of construction projects | 0.218 | 126 | 0.000 |
Lack of guidance and SOP for proper implementation of VDC technology for safety | 0.227 | 126 | 0.000 |
Not demanded by clients | 0.233 | 126 | 0.000 |
Resistance to technological adaptation | 0.204 | 126 | 0.000 |
Overall poor safety culture in the construction industry | 0.214 | 126 | 0.000 |
Lack of standard practices in the construction industry | 0.219 | 126 | 0.000 |
Contractual limitations | 0.202 | 126 | 0.000 |
Safety Applications with Potential for Improvement Using VDC | Chi-Squared | df | Asymp. Sig. |
---|---|---|---|
Hazard identification and recognition | 4.644 | 5 | 0.461 |
Site layout | 7.233 | 5 | 0.204 |
Analyzing confined and congested spaces | 7.07 | 5 | 0.215 |
Safety training and capacity building of workers | 1.758 | 5 | 0.882 |
Safety induction of workers | 1.549 | 5 | 0.907 |
Safety reports, internal and external audits | 3.477 | 5 | 0.627 |
Toolbox talk meetings | 7.56 | 5 | 0.182 |
Safety inspections | 7.36 | 5 | 0.195 |
Compliance with OSHA rules and regulations | 3.185 | 5 | 0.672 |
Safety designing and planning of temporary structures (scaffolds, stairs, and frameworks) | 4.734 | 5 | 0.449 |
Fall-hazard prevention strategies | 4.895 | 5 | 0.429 |
Active site safety monitoring for critical activities | 2.345 | 5 | 0.8 |
Risk assessment and mitigation | 2.674 | 5 | 0.75 |
Better communication between stakeholders | 9.449 | 5 | 0.092 |
Designing of emergency and evacuation plans | 8.532 | 5 | 0.129 |
Emergency drills | 3.294 | 5 | 0.655 |
Inspection of heavy equipment and machinery | 4.171 | 5 | 0.525 |
Barriers Impeding VDC Intervention | Chi-Square | df | Asymp. Sig. |
---|---|---|---|
Lack of knowledge about VDC technologies | 2.68 | 5 | 0.749 |
High setup, implementation, and maintenance costs | 4.142 | 5 | 0.529 |
Lack of effective training | 3.859 | 5 | 0.57 |
Lack of knowledge about return on investment for VDC technologies | 3.054 | 5 | 0.692 |
Temporary nature of construction projects | 5.021 | 5 | 0.413 |
Lack of guidance and SOP for proper implementation of VDC technology for safety | 2.369 | 5 | 0.796 |
Not demanded by clients | 2.91 | 5 | 0.714 |
Resistance to technological adaptation | 10.102 | 5 | 0.072 |
Overall poor safety culture in construction industry | 2.216 | 5 | 0.818 |
Lack of standard practices in construction industry | 3.531 | 5 | 0.619 |
Contractual limitations | 6.484 | 5 | 0.262 |
Client | Consultant | Project Management Consultant (PMC) | Prime Contractor | Subcontractor | Academic | Overall Rank | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sr. No | Safety Factors | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank |
1 | Designing of emergency and evacuation plans | 88.00 | 5 | 87.50 | 1 | 73.33 | 15 | 80.69 | 5 | 89.33 | 1 | 95.00 | 1 | 86 | 1 |
2 | Fall-hazard prevention strategies | 80.00 | 14 | 81.25 | 11 | 86.67 | 1 | 83.45 | 1 | 82.67 | 4 | 95.00 | 1 | 85 | 2 |
3 | Safety designing and planning of temporary structures (scaffolds, stairs, and frameworks) | 88.00 | 5 | 83.75 | 8 | 86.67 | 1 | 81.38 | 5 | 82.67 | 4 | 85.00 | 3 | 85 | 2 |
4 | Hazard identification and recognition | 92.00 | 3 | 85.00 | 6 | 86.67 | 1 | 81.38 | 5 | 77.33 | 16 | 85.00 | 3 | 85 | 2 |
5 | Safety induction of workers | 88.00 | 5 | 87.50 | 1 | 80.00 | 6 | 79.31 | 10 | 86.67 | 2 | 80.00 | 6 | 84 | 5 |
6 | Risk assessment and mitigation | 96.00 | 1 | 78.75 | 15 | 77.78 | 11 | 80.69 | 5 | 86.67 | 2 | 80.00 | 6 | 83 | 6 |
7 | Active site safety monitoring for critical activities | 88.00 | 5 | 80.00 | 13 | 86.67 | 1 | 82.07 | 2 | 82.67 | 4 | 80.00 | 6 | 83 | 6 |
8 | Better communication between stakeholders | 96.00 | 1 | 87.50 | 1 | 71.11 | 16 | 80.00 | 9 | 82.67 | 4 | 80.00 | 6 | 83 | 6 |
9 | Analyzing confined and congested spaces | 92.00 | 3 | 86.25 | 4 | 80.00 | 6 | 82.07 | 2 | 76.00 | 17 | 70.00 | 13 | 81 | 9 |
10 | Safety training and capacity building of workers | 84.00 | 12 | 83.75 | 8 | 80.00 | 6 | 79.31 | 10 | 82.67 | 4 | 75.00 | 11 | 81 | 9 |
11 | Emergency drills | 80.00 | 14 | 83.75 | 8 | 80.00 | 6 | 76.55 | 15 | 78.67 | 12 | 85.00 | 3 | 81 | 9 |
12 | Inspection of heavy equipment and machinery | 88.00 | 5 | 76.25 | 16 | 82.22 | 5 | 78.62 | 10 | 80.00 | 10 | 75.00 | 11 | 80 | 12 |
13 | Safety inspections | 88.00 | 5 | 86.25 | 4 | 75.56 | 13 | 77.93 | 14 | 81.33 | 9 | 70.00 | 13 | 80 | 12 |
14 | Site layout | 80.00 | 14 | 85.00 | 6 | 80.00 | 6 | 82.07 | 2 | 78.67 | 12 | 65.00 | 16 | 78 | 14 |
15 | Safety reports, Internal and external audits | 84.00 | 12 | 76.25 | 16 | 75.56 | 13 | 73.79 | 17 | 78.67 | 12 | 80.00 | 6 | 78 | 14 |
16 | Compliance with OSHA rules and regulations | 76.00 | 17 | 81.25 | 11 | 77.78 | 11 | 78.62 | 10 | 80.00 | 10 | 70.00 | 13 | 77 | 16 |
17 | Toolbox talk meetings | 88.00 | 5 | 80.00 | 13 | 71.11 | 16 | 75.17 | 16 | 78.67 | 12 | 65.00 | 17 | 76 | 17 |
Client | Consultant | Project Management Consultant (PMC) | Prime Contractor | Sub-Contractor | Academic | Overall Rank | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sr. No | Barriers | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank | RII (%) | Rank |
1 | Lack of knowledge about return on investment for VDC technologies | 70% | 4 | 80% | 2 | 79% | 1 | 77% | 1 | 75% | 2 | 84% | 1 | 77% | 1 |
2 | Lack of knowledge about VDC technologies | 70% | 4 | 80% | 2 | 79% | 1 | 72% | 4 | 72% | 3 | 82% | 3 | 76% | 2 |
3 | Lack of effective training | 73% | 2 | 76% | 8 | 68% | 8 | 74% | 3 | 77% | 1 | 84% | 1 | 75% | 3 |
4 | Not demanded by clients | 78% | 1 | 80% | 2 | 70% | 6 | 76% | 2 | 68% | 6 | 73% | 6 | 74% | 4 |
5 | Lack of guidance and SOP for proper implementation of VDC technology for safety | 68% | 6 | 79% | 5 | 68% | 8 | 71% | 5 | 72% | 3 | 77% | 4 | 72% | 5 |
6 | Resistance to technological adaptation | 65% | 9 | 81% | 1 | 71% | 5 | 69% | 7 | 63% | 10 | 75% | 5 | 71% | 6 |
7 | High setup, implementation, and maintenance costs | 73% | 2 | 78% | 7 | 73% | 4 | 70% | 6 | 63% | 9 | 68% | 8 | 71% | 6 |
8 | Contractual limitations | 68% | 6 | 79% | 5 | 63% | 10 | 63% | 10 | 66% | 7 | 70% | 7 | 68% | 8 |
9 | Overall poor safety culture in construction industry | 68% | 6 | 70% | 11 | 75% | 3 | 63% | 10 | 64% | 8 | 68% | 8 | 68% | 8 |
10 | Lack of standard practices in construction industry | 63% | 10 | 76% | 8 | 70% | 6 | 65% | 9 | 71% | 5 | 61% | 9 | 68% | 8 |
11 | Temporary nature of construction projects | 58% | 11 | 74% | 10 | 57% | 11 | 66% | 8 | 64% | 8 | 61% | 9 | 63% | 11 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shafiq, M.T.; Afzal, M. Potential of Virtual Design Construction Technologies to Improve Job-Site Safety in Gulf Corporation Council. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093826
Shafiq MT, Afzal M. Potential of Virtual Design Construction Technologies to Improve Job-Site Safety in Gulf Corporation Council. Sustainability. 2020; 12(9):3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093826
Chicago/Turabian StyleShafiq, Muhammad Tariq, and Muneeb Afzal. 2020. "Potential of Virtual Design Construction Technologies to Improve Job-Site Safety in Gulf Corporation Council" Sustainability 12, no. 9: 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093826