Issuu on Google+

International Journal of Industrial Engineering& Technology (IJIET) ISSN 2277-4769 Vol. 3, Issue 3, Aug 2013, 11-20 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.


Research Scholar, Mechanical Engineering Department, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (K L University), Vaddeswaram & Associate Professor, NICMAR, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India


Dean, Mechanical Engineering Department, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (KL University), Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT Construction industry is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of considering human factors into account in safety management. Accidents are commonly attributed to at -risk behaviour or human error. Behaviour-based safety programs have become a popular approach in managing the employee issues in safety. Behaviour-based safety has become a popular way of managing the employees since it revolves around what motivates and reinforces people’s behaviour. Behavior of workers has been the main focus as it is identified to be the root cause of many construction accidents. Promoting safe behavior at work is a critical part of the Management of Health and Safety. One way to improve safety performance is to introduce a behavioral safety process that identifies and reinforces safe behavior. To achieve this objective, we identified key elements of behavior based safety program, questionnaire was circulated to respondents of construction segments in India and the data was analyzed by using Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution. Implementation of behavior based programe in real segment needs improvement. The study is also helpful for benchmarking behavior based safety programs within organizations and brings radical changes in the way it approaches safety. The paper focuses on examining the perceptual impacts of implementation of behavior based safety program in various construction segments. The interpretation of results should be taken with caution. It is helpful to management of large construction organizations involved in both real estate and infrastructure sectors to have knowledge about adequacy of behavior based safety programs.

KEYWORDS: Behaviour Based Safety (BBS), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Construction Segments

INTRODUCTION Behavior-based safety originated from the work of Herbert William Heinrich in the 1930s,who reviewed thousands of accident reports completed by supervisors of Traveler's Insurance Company and concluded that roughly 90% of all accidents, illnesses and injuries in the workplace are directly attributable to "man-failures" or at-risk behaviours of workers. This conclusion became the foundation of what BBS has come to be today (Agwu, 2013). BBS addresses the fact that there are additional reasons for injuries in the workplace: environment, equipment, procedures and attitudes. behaviour-based safety has become a popular way of managing the people side of safety since it revolves around what motivates and reinforces people’s behaviour.BBS is designed to change employees behaviours from “at risk” to “safe” behaviours using both positive and negative reinforcements by focusing and analyzing what people do and applying a research- supported intervention strategy for improvement. It is not based on assumptions, personal feelings or common knowledge but on scientific knowledge. It is also an excellent tool for collecting data on the quality of a company’s safety


S. V. S. Raja Prasad & Y. V. S. S. S. V. Prasad Rao

management system and an effective step in creating a truly proactive safety culture where loss prevention is a core value. It is easy to understand but often hard to implement and sustain.Human factors and its influence in safety –critical situations were examined. In this study a human resource performance management model and balance score card technique were exploited to identify the most critical human factors (Vogt, J., Lonhardt, J., Koper, B., &Pennig, S., 2010). The 88-10-2 ratio Heinrich professes that among the direct and proximate causes of industrial accidents: 88% are unsafe acts of persons; 10% are unsafe mechanical or physical conditions;2% are unpreventable.Man failure is the problem and psychology is an important element in correcting it and advocates identifying the first proximate and most easily prevented cause in the selection of remedies (Heinrich,1941). Many studies have proven that workers unsafe behavior more than unsafe conditions are involved in accidents (Morteza Oostakhan, Amirabbas Mofidi & Amirhosain Davudian Talab,2012).Behavior-Based Safety is a methodology which aims at improving safety by integrating behavioral science, quality and organization development principles with safety management in order to reduce industrial injuries. In other words it focuses on behavior of all the employees to improve the entire process. It uses the principles of Behavioral Science and tries to apply them to the industry. When combined with administrative and engineering measures BBS has been a very effective tool in achieving and maintaining good safety standards. Behaviors can be objectively observed and measured before and after an intervention process is initiated. This application of the scientific method provides feedback for cultivating improvement. The acronym DO IT (standing for define, observe, intervene, and test, can be used to teach this principle of BBS to employees who are empowered to intervene on behalf of their co-workers’ safety and want to continuously improve their intervention skills (Scott Geller, 2005).BBS emphasizes that employees need to take an ownership of their safe as well as unsafe behaviours.Employees are to be encouraged even they behave unsafely and they are explained repeatedly to correct unsafe behavior.Behavioural approaches to safety management are now common place (Cooper,M.,Philips,R.,Sutherl &,V.J.,Makin,P.J.,1994; Cox& Cox, 1996) and are designed to improve workplace safety by promoting those behaviours deemed critical to health, safety and risk control. This is Not surprising given that between 80% and 90% o fall workplace accidents and Incidents can be attributed to unsafe behaviours(Cooper et al,1994).Behavioural approaches to safety management characteristically focus on changing employee behaviours rather than attitudes. The underlying assumption being that once a person’s behavior has change a change in attitudes will follow (Bem, 1967).

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Indian construction industry can be broadly classified into 2 sub-segments (NSDC, 2005) as in Figure 1. 

Real estate (Residential, Commercial/Corporate, Industrial and Special Economic Zones)

Infrastructure (Transportation, Urban development, Utilities)

Figure 1: Categorization of Indian Construction Industry


Analysis of Implementation of Behaviour Based Safety Program in Indian Construction Segments, Using TOPSIS

The study was conducted in Indian construction segments that is real estate and infrastructure to ascertain the elements BBS by using TOPSIS.

BEHAVIOUR BASED SAFETY Employee involvement in safety can be increased through behavioral safety efforts as well. Such efforts can also help organizations reduce at-risk behaviors that lead to injuries (Williams & Geller, 2000). ABC Model of BBS Behavioral psychologists (especially in the safety field) frequently use the activator-behavior-consequence (ABC) model to explain at-risk (and safe) behaviors (Geller, 1998). Basically, activators or antecedents get a person’s attention to behave in a certain way. This leads to consequences as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: ABC Model of BBS Activators include such things as safety signs, meetings and rules. Behaviors (safe or at-risk) are observable actions and include actions such as using a safety harness or locking out an energy source. Positive consequences include going home from work safely and personal pride (for safe work practices). Negative consequences include injuries and reprimands (for risky work practices). In addition, consequences can be strong or weak. Strong consequences are probable, soon and significant, while weak consequences are improbable, delayed and insignificant. Key Elements of BBS BBS program to be systematic and sustainable the program must initially focus on managers and their behaviors and then flow to employees (Fulwiler, 2000) and also identified eight elements that are key when building a comprehensive BBS program. These elements include: Management commitment and expectations, Employee involvement, Goal setting and action planning, Technical and regulatory requirements, job specific safe operating procedures, training and resource capability, behaviour observation and feedback, Performance tracking and accountability It has been determined by several BBS experts that practicing BBS can help lead to reduced workplace injuries in the workplace. This injury improvement; however, does not come easy as many organizations have experienced failure with BBS. To counter this employee resistance and ensure BBS program success organizational leader must ensure they address all identified road blocks. While there were several roadblocks identified in this literature review, a few key factors seemed to repeat themselves. These repeatedly identified factors include: Strong management and employee leadership, Effective training programs, Program communication, Employee buy-in and ownership, Employee involvement. From extensive literature survey and consultations with BBS experts, safety consultants and professionals, the following key elements were identified for successful implementation of BBS in construction segments in India.The key elements









requirements[A4] , safe operating procedures[A5], training[A6], resources[A7] , behavior observation and feedback[A8] , performance tracking[A9] .


S. V. S. Raja Prasad & Y. V. S. S. S. V. Prasad Rao

Three level hierarchy diagram shown in Figure 3 has been used to evaluate the implementation of BBS in construction segments in India. Figure 3 show that level 1 refers to the goal, level 2 composes of the nine key elements of BBS and level 3 refers to different alternatives that is construction segments. The objective of this study is to find out the best alternative on the basis of implementation of nine key elements of BBS.

Figure 3: Three Level Hierarchy Diagram

METHODOLOGY TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) method in Multi-criteria Decision making tool, is a Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (D. L. Olson, 2004; C. L. Hwang&K. Yoon, 1981; M. Mojahed & J. Dodangeh, 2009; Wang, T. C & Lee, H.D., 2009).The principle behind TOPSIS is that the chosen alternative should be as close to the ideal solution as possible and as far from the negative-ideal solution as possible. The ideal solution is formed as a composite of the best performance values exhibited (in the decision matrix) by any alternative for each attribute. The negative-ideal solution is the composite of the worst performance values. TOPSIS is very simple and easy to implement. For that it is used when the user prefers a simpler weighting approach. On the other hand, the AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) approach provides a decision hierarchy and requires pair wise comparison among criteria. The user needs a more detailed knowledge about the criteria in the decision hierarchy to make informed decisions in using the AHP. According to this technique; the best alternative would be the one that is nearest to the positive ideal solution and farthest from the negative ideal solution. The positive ideal solution is a solution that maximizes the benefit criteria and minimizes the cost criteria, whereas the negative ideal solution maximizes the cost criteria and minimizes the benefit criteria. In other words, the positive ideal solution is composed of all best values attainable of criteria, whereas the negative ideal solution consists of all worst values attainable of criteria. In this study, TOPSIS method is used for determining the final ranking of the construction segments in implementing BBS. Here, S = {S1, S2,….., Sn} is a discrete set of n possible key elements and Q = {Q1, Q2,….., Qθ} is a set of θ attributes. W= {W1, W2… Wθ} is the vector of attribute weights so that they must sum to 1, otherwise it is normalized (Hwang, 1992). TOPSIS Procedure Step-1 Arrange different behavior based safety program parameters which are collected from construction segments according to their preferences through questionnaire. Step-2 Construct the decision matrix D as

Analysis of Implementation of Behaviour Based Safety Program in Indian Construction Segments, Using TOPSIS


(1) A1, A2,…, Am are possible alternatives among which decision makers have to choose and C1, C2,.…, Cn are criteria with which alternative performances are measured,xij is the rating of alternative Ai with respect to criterion Cj,Weights, W = [W1, W2,…, Wn]; While Wj is the weight of criterion Cj. Step-3 Standardize the evaluation matrix in Eq. (2), the process is to transform different scales and units among various criteria into common measurable units to along comparisons across the criteria. (D *)

(2) Assume GiY to be of the evaluation matrix D of alternative I under evaluation criterion k, then an element GiY of the normalized evaluation matrix D* can be calculated by Equation (3). n GIy* = GIy //sqrt∑ (GIy) I=1


Step-4 Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix in Equation (4). Considering the relative importance of each attribute, the weighted normalized evaluation matrix is calculated by multiplying the normalized evaluation matrix GIy* with its associated weight WY to obtain the result ViY, So ViY = GIy* × WY

(4) Normalized Decision Matrix, Rij = DIJ / sqrt (DIJ) *2


Step-5 Construct the Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix V which is found by the following elation V= R X RP , where R is the Normalized Decision Matrix and RP is the relative priority.



S. V. S. Raja Prasad & Y. V. S. S. S. V. Prasad Rao

Step-6 Calculate the separation of each alternative from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solutions in equations (7) to (10) respectively. This means that Si+ is the distance in Euclidean sense of each alternative from the positive ideal solution and Si- is the distance from the negative ideal solution and those are defined as followings: Si+ = sqrt∑ (Viy – Gimax )*2


Y=1 -

Si = sqrt∑ (Viy – Giimin )*2


Y=1 where i = 1, 2,…, n. In this Viy is the particular component or parameter value of a machine, Gimax is the maximum value for that parameter and Giimin is the minimum value for that parameter in weighted normalized decision matrix. Ideal Solution is determined from Step-5, A+ = Maximum weighted normalized value for a particular factor A+ = { V1+ , V2+, V3+, V4+, V5+, V6+, V7+, V8+, V9+ }


A- = Minimum weighted normalized value for a particular factor A- = { V1-, V2-, V3-, V4-, V5-, V6-, V7-, V8-, V9- }


The relative closeness to the ideal solution is calculated in Equation (11). Ci* = Si-/ Si-+ Si+


where i= 1, 2,…….., n, and 0 ≤ Ci*≤ 1.

RESULTS Data collected through a questionnaire including nine key parameters of BBS was designed and distributed to ten different construction segments. Questions were designed based on the nine key elements of BBS in order to measure perceptions of respondents from the condition of parameters in each segment. Questionnaires were forwarded to all the managers and supervisors of ten construction segments. To measure the implementation of BBS in construction segments respondents were asked to rate on a five-point likert scale varying from “very bad” (1) to “very good” (5).Questionnaires (500) were forwarded at the rate of 50 per segment and filled in questionnaires collected from the respondents personally and verified for completeness. The mean values of the collected data for key elements of BBS in construction segments are shown in Table 1 for implementing step 1. Table 1: Data of Ten Construction Segments on Nine Key Elements of BBS Power Irrigation Urban Infra Railways Civil Aviation Roadways Ports Residential Commercial

A1 4.20 3.25 3.75 2.60 3.20 3.60 4.00 4.40 2.50

A2 3.60 3.00 3.90 2.80 3.00 3.80 3.80 3.60 2.50

A3 3.20 2.75 3.60 3.00 3.50 3.40 3.60 3.80 3.00

A4 4.20 4.15 4.20 2.10 4.50 4.10 3.95 4.20 2.80

A5 3.70 3.20 3.10 3.20 4.20 4.00 3.40 3.80 3.20

A6 3.10 3.60 2.80 2.60 3.00 3.20 2.80 3.60 2.20

A7 3.00 3.00 3.20 2.00 4.00 3.40 3.80 3.80 2.50

A8 3.60 2.20 2.80 2.20 2.20 2.80 3.60 3.20 2.00

A9 2.80 1.80 2.60 2.20 2.80 2.60 2..40 3.80 2..50


Analysis of Implementation of Behaviour Based Safety Program in Indian Construction Segments, Using TOPSIS

SEZ’S Sum of Squares(SSQ) Square root of SSQ Mean

3.00 122.835 11.08 3.45

3.40 113.66 10.66 3.34

Table 1: Contd., 3.60 4.00 4.10 112.93 151.055 130.47 10.63 12.29 11.42 3.35 3.82 3.6

2.60 88.81 9.42 2.95

3.40 106.49 10.32 3.21

2.50 76.61 8.75 2.71

2.20 68.57 8.30 2.83

The weights are calculated for nine key elements and are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Weights for Nine Key Elements A1 0.2163

A2 0.0683

A3 0.1079

A4 0.0665

A5 0.1889

A6 0.0826

A7 0.0935

A8 0.0583

A9 0.1176

Now the evaluation matrix is standardized or normalized, i.e., each component or parameter value of a BBS is divided by the corresponding SSRT in Table 1, and it is presented in Table 3 for adopting Step-3. Table 3: Standardized Evaluation Matrix Power Irrigation Urban Infra Railways Civil Aviation Roadways Ports Residential Commercial SEZ’S Square root of SSQ

A1 0.3791 0.2933 0.3384 0.2347 0.2888 0.3249 0.3610 0.3971 0.2256 0.2708 11.08

A2 0.3371 0.2814 0.3659 0.2627 0.2814 0.3565 0.3565 0.3371 0.2345 0.3189 10.66

A3 0.3010 0.2587 0.3387 0.2822 0.3292 0.3198 0.3387 0.3575 0.2822 0.3387 10.63

A4 0.3417 0.3377 0.3417 0.1709 0.3662 0.3336 0.3214 0.3417 0.2278 0.3255 12.29

A5 0.3240 0.2802 0.2715 0.2802 0.3678 0.3502 0.2977 0.3327 0.2802 0.3590 11.42

A6 0.3291 0.3821 0.2972 0.2760 0.3185 0.3397 0.2972 0.3821 0.2335 0.2760 9.42

A7 0.2907 0.2907 0.3100 0.1938 0.3876 0.3295 0.3682 0.3682 0.2422 0.3295 10.32

A8 0.4114 0.2514 0.3200 0.2514 0.2514 0.3200 0.4114 0.3657 0.2286 0.2857 8.75

A9 0.3373 0.2169 0.3132 0.2651 0.3373 0.3132 0.2892 0.4578 0.3012 0.2651 8.30

Weighted normalized decision matrix is obtained is shown in Table 4 to implement step 4&5 Table 4: Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix Weights Power Irrigation Urban Infra Railways Civil Aviation Roadways Ports Residential Commercial SEZ’S Max Min

A1 0.2163 0.0820 0.0634 0.0732 0.0508 0.0625 0.0703 0.0781 0.0859 0.0488 0.0586 0.0859 0.0488

A2 0.0684 0.0231 0.0192 0.0250 0.0179 0.0192 0.0244 0.0244 0.0231 0.0160 0.0218 0.0250 0.0160

A3 0.1079 0.0325 0.0279 0.0365 0.0304 0.0355 0.0345 0.0365 0.0385 0.0304 0.0365 0.0385 0.0279

A4 0.0665 0.0227 0.0224 0.0227 0.0072 0.0243 0.0222 0.0214 0.0277 0.0151 0.0216 0.0277 0.0072

A5 0.1889 0.0612 0.0529 0.0512 0.0529 0.0695 0.0662 0.0562 0.0628 0.0529 0.0678 0.0695 0.0512

A6 0.0826 0.0272 0.0316 0.0245 0.0277 0.0263 0.0281 0.0245 0.0316 0.0193 0.0228 0.0316 0.0193

A7 0.0935 0.0272 0.0272 0.0289 0.0181 0.0362 0.0308 0.0344 0.0344 0.0226 0.0308 0.0362 0.0181

A8 0.0582 0.0239 0.0146 0.0186 0.0146 0.0146 0.0186 0.0239 0.0212 0.0133 0.0166 0.0239 0.0133

A9 0.1176 0.0397 0.0255 0.0368 0.0311 0.0397 0.0368 0.0340 0.0538 0.0354 0.0311 0.0538 0.0255

The separation of each alternative from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution are calculated as shown in Table 5 for Step-6. Table 5: Separation of Each Alternative from Positive and Negative Ideal Solutions S1+ S2+ S3+ S4+ S5+ S6+

0.0211 0.0441 0.0312 0.0552 0.0300 0.0192


0.0442 0.0263 0.0356 0.0078 0.0384 0.0376


S. V. S. Raja Prasad & Y. V. S. S. S. V. Prasad Rao

S7+ S8+ S9+ S10+

Table 5: Contd., 0.0274 S7- 0.0408 0.0082 S8- 0.0008 0.0523 S9- 0.0141 0.0388 S10- 0.0320

The relative closeness to the ideal solution is computed form Table 5 and it is shown in Table 6 for Step-7. Table 6: Relative Closeness to the Ideal Solution Power Irrigation Urban Infra Railways Civil Aviation Roadways Ports Residential Commercial SEZ’S

0.6769 0.3736 0.5329 0.1238 0.5614 0.6620 0.5982 0.0888 0.2123 0.4520

1 7 5 9 4 2 3 10 8 6

CONCLUSIONS Safety in construction industry is dynamic and safety norms are to be implemented as per progress of the work. Most of the workers in construction industry in India are seasoned agricultural labourers and have no idea about implementation of safety norms.Behaviour based safety programs plays a pivotal role to train and change the behaviours of workers.Though all the segments are giving importance to BBS, the real estate sector that is residential and commercial segments ,ranked 10 and 8 respectively needs improvement. In infrastructure segment, railways need considerable improvement. The results indicate clearly, power sector is way ahead among other segments.


Agwu,(2013). Perception Survey of the Impact of Behaviour Based Safety on Accident Prevention in the Bonny NLNG Construction Project, Nigeria ,British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade,3(1): 48-59.


Bem, D.J.(1967).Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of the cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review74 (3), 183–200


C. L. Hwang, & K. Yoon, Multiple (1981). Attribute Decision Making: Methods and applications, SpringerVerlag: New York.


Cooper,M.,Philips,R.,Sutherl &,V.J.,Makin,P.J.,(1994).Reducing accidents using goal setting and feedback: a field study.Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology,67,219–240.


Cox,S.&,Cox,T.,(1996).Safety,Systems and People.Butterworth-Heinneman,London.


D. L. Olson,(2004). Comparison of Weights in TOPSIS Models.Mathematical and Computer Modeling, Pergamon.


Fulwiler, R. D. (2000). Behavior-based safety and the missing links. Occupational Hazards, 62(1), 53. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Analysis of Implementation of Behaviour Based Safety Program in Indian Construction Segments, Using TOPSIS



Geller, E.S. (1998). Understanding behavior-based safety: Step-by-step methods to improve your workplace (2nd ed.). Neenah, WI: J.J. Keller & Associates Inc.


Heinrich HW. (1941).Industrial accident prevention. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill

10. Human Resource and Skill Requirements in the Building, Construction Industry and Real Estate Services(2005). National Skill Development Corporation Report, 11. Hwang, C.L, (1992).Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 12. J. Dodangeh, M. Mojahed, & R. Yusuff Mohd,(2009). Best project selection by using of Group TOPSIS Method, International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology -Spring Conference, pp. 50-53. 13. M. Mojahed, & J. Dodangeh,(2009). Using Engineering EconomyTechniques with Group TOPSIS Method for Best Project Selection, IEEE, pp. 232-234. 14. Morteza Oostakhan, Amirabbas Mofidi & Amirhosain Davudian Talab,(2012).Behavior-Based Safety Approach at a Large Construction Site in Iran, Iranian Rehabilitation Journal, Vol. 10. 15. Scott Geller,(2005) Behavior-Based Safety and Occupational Risk Management, Behaviour modification, Vol. 29 No. 3, 539-561, DOI: 10.1177/0145445504273287. 16. Vogt, J., Lonhardt, J., Koper, & B., Pennig, S.,(2010), Human factors in safety and business management, Ergonomics, 53(2), 149-163. 17. Wang, T.C.& Lee, H.D., (2009), Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 8980–8985. 18. Williams, J.H. & Geller, E.S. (2000). Behavior-based interventions for occupational safety: Critical impact of social comparison feedback. Journal of Safety Research, 31, 135-142.

2 analysis of implementation full