Please wait a minute...
 首页  期刊介绍 期刊订阅 联系我们 横山亮次奖 百年刊庆
 
最新录用  |  预出版  |  当期目录  |  过刊浏览  |  阅读排行  |  下载排行  |  引用排行  |  横山亮次奖  |  百年刊庆
清华大学学报(自然科学版)  2023, Vol. 63 Issue (2): 160-168    DOI: 10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2022.22.055
  建设管理 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
施工协同工作的不安全行为类型及特征
古博韬, 曹思涵, 王尧, 黄玥诚, 方东平
清华大学 建设管理系, 北京 100084
Types and characteristics of unsafe behaviors in construction teamwork
GU Botao, CAO Sihan, WANG Yao, HUANG Yuecheng, FANG Dongping
Department of Construction Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
全文: PDF(3064 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 建筑业安全形势长期严峻,人的不安全行为是造成事故发生的重要原因。在施工现场,各类人员以任务为核心组成工作小组协同作业。每个工作小组至少有两个目标,其一推进施工进度,其二保障小组安全。小组成员间沟通、协作等交互作用对其行为有重要影响,但是目前建筑业不安全行为研究没有充分考虑小组的各类成员,缺乏对因成员交互而产生不安全行为的探索。该文以经典事故致因模型为理论基础,使用主题分析方法基于中美两国129份高质量事故调查报告,构建工作小组事故编码数据集,通过凝练主题界定施工小组不安全行为并形成行为清单。清单共包含3类一级行为、7类二级行为和32类三级行为。数据集的统计结果表明:72%的事故中存在清单中的“未监督”行为,缺少发挥监督职能的成员是导致工作小组事故的重要原因。该研究为管控施工不安全行为提供了参考。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
古博韬
曹思涵
王尧
黄玥诚
方东平
关键词 施工安全不安全行为工作小组主题分析    
Abstract:[Objective] The construction industry is suffering from a long-term and grave situation regarding construction safety. Unsafe behavior is a major cause of accidents. In practice, construction tasks are usually accomplished by people organized as a team. Each team has two primary goals: advance the construction process and ensure team safety. However, the current studies of the collaborative work of teams in the construction industry primarily consider scheduled tasks and fail to adequately consider the various types of members (workers, contractors, safety officers, subcontract safety officers, technicians, quality inspectors, supervisors, and government or A-party representatives) that are involved in working for safety. Moreover, members can be supported by the team. Interactions such as communication and collaboration among team members have an important impact on their behaviors; moreover, the types and characteristics of interacting and noninteracting unsafe behaviors that occur in collaborative work accidents deserve further exploration. [Methods] This study implements thematic analysis based on the classic accident causation model and 129 high-quality accident investigation reports from China and the United States. [Results] The results of the thematic analysis give a behavior list with 3 primary behavior types, 7 secondary behavior types, and 32 tertiary behavior types. Compared with traditional individual unsafe behaviors, construction collaborative unsafe behaviors increase by 23 team behavior types, including 11 unsafe sharing behavior types and 12 unsafe supervisory behavior types. The statistical results of the coded dataset show that (1) among the collaborative unsafe behaviors, unsafe actions, unsafe behaviors, and unsafe supervision appear 155, 86, and 152 times, respectively, and the sharing and supervisory unsafe behaviors also deserve more attention. (2) Among the unsafe sharing behaviors, lack of verbal communication is the most frequent, and therefore, training communication within the team must be focused on during management practice. (3) Among the unsafe supervisory behaviors, wrongly pointing out behavior is the most frequent, and therefore, training grassroots managers and grassroots supervisors to appropriately point out the safety hazards in collaborative work must be focused on during management practice. (4) For common workers, the most frequent unsafe behavior is breaking into the risk area; for special workers, procedure violations; and for grassroots managers and grassroots supervisors, no supervision at the site. These results indicate a large difference in the unsafe behaviors that must be heeded for different roles in the work team and the deeper reasons for the difference need to be further explored. (5) Unsupervised behavior is presented in 72% of the accidents and the lack of members performing supervisory functions is an important cause of work team accidents. [Conclusion] This study provides references for controlling unsafe construction behaviors.
Key wordsconstruction safety    unsafe behavior    construction team    thematic analysis
收稿日期: 2022-08-17      出版日期: 2023-01-14
基金资助:黄玥诚,助理研究员,E-mail:huangyuec@tsinghua.edu.cn
引用本文:   
古博韬, 曹思涵, 王尧, 黄玥诚, 方东平. 施工协同工作的不安全行为类型及特征[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 63(2): 160-168.
GU Botao, CAO Sihan, WANG Yao, HUANG Yuecheng, FANG Dongping. Types and characteristics of unsafe behaviors in construction teamwork. Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology), 2023, 63(2): 160-168.
链接本文:  
http://jst.tsinghuajournals.com/CN/10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2022.22.055  或          http://jst.tsinghuajournals.com/CN/Y2023/V63/I2/160
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
[1] 方东平, 黄新宇, HINZE J. 工程建设安全管理[M]. 2版. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2005. FANG D P, HUANG X Y, HINZE J. Safety management of engineering construction[M]. 2nd ed. Beijing: China Water & Power Press, 2005. (in Chinese)
[2] FANG D P, CHEN Y, WONG L. Safety climate in construction industry: A case study in Hong Kong[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2006, 132(6): 573-584.
[3] WANG J Y, ZOU P X W, LI P P. Critical factors and paths influencing construction workers' safety risk tolerances[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2016, 93: 267-279.
[4] HEINRICH H W. Industrial accident prevention: A scientific approach[M]. 2nd ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1941.
[5] ANDERSEN L P, KARLSEN I L, KINES P, et al. Social identity in the construction industry: Implications for safety perception and behaviour[J]. Construction Management and Economics, 2015, 33(8): 640-652.
[6] ANDERSEN L P, NØRDAM L, JOENSSON T, et al. Social identity, safety climate and self-reported accidents among construction workers[J]. Construction Management and Economics, 2018, 36(1): 22-31.
[7] NEWAZ M T, ERSHADI M, JEFFERIES M, et al. Assessing safety management factors to develop a research agenda for the construction industry[J]. Safety Science, 2021, 142: 105396.
[8] REASON J. The human contribution: Unsafe acts, accidents and heroic recoveries[M]. London, UK: CRC Press, 2017.
[9] 傅贵. 安全管理学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013. FU G. Safety management[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2013. (in Chinese)
[10] 张孟春. 建筑工人不安全行为产生的认知机理及应用[D]. 北京: 清华大学, 2012. ZHANG M C. Cognitive mechanism of construction worker's unsafe behaviors and its application[D]. Beijing: Tsinghua University, 2012. (in Chinese)
[11] REASON J. Human error[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[12] HOLLNAGEL E. Barriers and accident prevention[M]. London, UK: Routledge, 2016.
[13] 傅贵, 殷文韬, 董继业, 等. 行为安全“2-4”模型及其在煤矿安全管理中的应用[J]. 煤炭学报, 2013, 38(7): 1123-1129. FU G, YIN W T, DONG J Y. Behavior-based accident causation: The “2-4” model and its safety implications in coal mines[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2013, 38(7): 1123-1129. (in Chinese)
[14] MITROPOULOS P, ABDELHAMID T S, HOWELL G A. Systems model of construction accident causation[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2005, 131(7): 816-825.
[15] YE G, TAN Q, GONG X L, et al. Improved HFACS on human factors of construction accidents: A China perspective[J]. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018, 2018: 4398345.
[16] 周光辉. 地铁车站施工机械作业安全风险评价[D]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2012. ZHOU G H. Working safety risk evaluation of machineries in subway stations construction[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2012. (in Chinese)
[17] 刘文平. 基于BIM与定位技术的施工事故预警机制研究[D]. 北京: 清华大学, 2015. LIU W P. The schematic studies of construction accident warning system based on BIM and positioning technology[D]. Beijing: Tsinghua University, 2015. (in Chinese)
[18] TASA K, TAGGAR S, SEIJTS G H. The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92(1): 17-27.
[19] RILEY W, HANSEN H, GVRSES A P, et al. The nature, characteristics and patterns of perinatal critical events teams[M]// HENRIKSEN K, BATTLES J B, KEYES M A, et al. Advances in patient safety: New directions and alternative approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and tools). Rockville, USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2008.
[20] CARLSON J, MIN E L N, BRIDGES D. The impact of leadership and team behavior on standard of care delivered during human patient simulation: A pilot study for undergraduate medical students[J]. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 2009, 21(1): 24-32.
[21] MITROPOULOS P, MEMARIAN B. Team processes and safety of workers: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes of construction crews[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2012, 138(10): 1181-1191.
[22] FAPOHUNDA T M. Towards effective team building in the workplace[J]. International Journal of Education and Research, 2013, 1(4): 1-12.
[23] COOPER G E, WHITE M D, LAUBER J K. Resource management on the flight deck[C]// Proceedings of a NASA/Industry Workshop. San Francisco, USA: NASA, 1980.
[24] HELMREICH R L, MERRITT A C, WILHELM J A. The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation[M]// DISMUKES R K. Human error in aviation. London, UK: Routledge, 2017: 275-288.
[25] MARTÍNEZ-CÓRCOLES M, GRACIA F J, TOMÁS I, et al. Empowering team leadership and safety performance in nuclear power plants: A multilevel approach[J]. Safety Science, 2013, 51(1): 293-301.
[26] WOLF F A, WAY L W, STEWART L. The efficacy of medical team training: Improved team performance and decreased operating room delays: A detailed analysis of 4863 cases[J]. Annals of Surgery, 2010, 252(3): 477-485.
[27] ADU E T, OPAWOLE A. Assessment of performance of teamwork in construction projects delivery in south-southern Nigeria[J]. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 2019, 18(1): 230-250.
[28] TÖRNER M, POUSETTE A, LARSMAN P, et al. Coping with paradoxical demands through an organizational climate of perceived organizational support: An empirical study among workers in construction and mining industry[J]. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2017, 53(1): 117-141.
[29] FANG D, ZHAO C, ZHANG M. A cognitive model of construction workers' unsafe behaviors[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2016, 142(9): 04016039.
[30] MITROPOULOS P, MEMARIAN B. A framework of teamwork attributes affecting workers' safety[C]// Proceedings of Construction Research Congress 2012. West Lafayette, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2012: 1400-1409.
[31] 马琳瑶, 王尧, 黄玥诚, 等. 建设行政主管部门的安全领导力特征及关键维度[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 62(2): 221-229. MA L Y, WANG Y, HUANG Y C, et al. Safety leadership characteristics and key dimensions of building industry regulators[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 2022, 62(2): 221-229. (in Chinese)
[32] THORNE S. Data analysis in qualitative research[J]. Evidence-Based Nursing, 2000, 3(3): 68-70.
[33] NOWELL L S, NORRIS J M, WHITE D E, et al. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria[J/OL]. (2017-10-02)[2022-07-28]. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2017. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ full/10.1177/1609406917733847.
[34] BRAUN V, CLARKE V. Using thematic analysis in psychology[J]. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, 3(2): 77-101.
[35] SASOU K, REASON J. Team errors: Definition and taxonomy[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1999, 65(1): 1-9.
[1] 黄玥诚, 李泊宁, 郁晓霞, 王尧, 方东平. 依恋关系在施工团队成员安全互动中的作用路径[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 63(2): 169-178.
[2] 马琳瑶, 王尧, 黄玥诚, 李鹏程, 方东平. 建设行政主管部门的安全领导力特征及关键维度[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 62(2): 221-229.
[3] 管仲尧, 项天, 方东平, 郭红领. 改进的建筑工人疲劳与不安全行为实验测量方法[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 61(10): 1186-1194.
[4] 郭红领, 张知田, 郁润. 基于危险系数的施工工人不安全行为评估[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 59(11): 873-879.
[5] 郭红领, 张伟胜, 刘文平. 基于设计-施工安全(DFCS)的安全规则[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 55(6): 633-639.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《清华大学学报(自然科学版)》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn