Advertisement

Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 559–573 | Cite as

Assessing risk in sustainable construction using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM)

  • Lucio Villarinho Rosa
  • Assed Naked Haddad
  • Paulo Victor Rodrigues de Carvalho
Original Article

Abstract

Traditional tools found in occupational risk assessments are a preliminary hazard analysis and checklists, both based on the isolation of a particular activity from the entire process and created for application in specific environments of manufacture. This strategy makes the results of such evaluations distant from real situations. Construction is a complex endeavor and can involve multiple contractors and groups working under each contractor. Work occurs under constant change and varying demands. In this context, as workers move through their daily journey, their health and safety are often are threatened by activities carried out by other contractors or groups. The study utilizes the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), which aims to describe how function couplings may be combined in such a way that variability of performance, rather than failure or poor functioning, creates an occupational risk. The study also contributes to the evolution of FRAM, by proposing the application of the analytic hierarchy process, to investigate the relative importance of the criteria and alternatives for the identification of phenotypes of performance variability, as well as the aggregation of variability.

Keywords

Functional Resonance Analysis Method Analytic hierarchy process Occupational risk assessment Green building 

References

  1. Ali HH, Nsairat SF (2008) Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries: case of Jordan. Build Environ 44:1053–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen S, Mostue BA (2012) Risk analysis and risk management approaches applied to the petroleum industry and their applicability to IO concepts. Saf Sci 50:2010–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson N, Broberg A, Braberg A, Janlert L, Jonsson E, Holmlund K, Pettersson J (2002) Emergent interaction: a pré-study. Department of Computing Science, Umea University, UmeaGoogle Scholar
  4. Aneziris ON, Topali E, Papazoglou IA (2012) Occupational risk of building construction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 105:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM (2011) E 2114-01 Standard, terminology for sustainability relative to the performance of buildings. ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  6. Badri A, Nadeau S, Gbodossou A (2012) Proposal of a risk-factor-based analytical approach for integrating occupational health and safety into project risk evaluation. Accid Anal Prev 48:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bereton S, Mclouth L, Odell B, Singh M, Trent M, Yatabe J (1997) Overview of the preliminary safety analysis of the national ignition facility. J Fusion Energy 16:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bibbiy A (2010) Empleos verdes en La construcción: Cambios pequeños, gran efecto. Trabajo, La Revista de La OIT 70:38–41Google Scholar
  9. Carvalho PVR (2011) The use of Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) in a mid-air collision to understand some characteristics of the air traffic management system resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:1482–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang KF, Chiang CM, Chou PC (2007) Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005 – searching for suitability in Taiwan. Build Environ 42:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen H (2010) Green and healthy jobs for labor occupational health program. The Center for Construction Research and Training Report. University of California at Berkeley. http://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/publications/Green-Healthy%20Jobs%20fnl%20for%20posting.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2012
  12. Costa HG (2006) Multicriteria decision aid: AHP. Abepro, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  13. Ding GKC (2008) Sustainable construction: the role environmental assessment tools. J Environ Manag 86:451–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) (2012) Safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/UCM300932.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2013
  15. Fung IW, Lo TY, Tung KCF (2012) Towards a better reliability of risk assessment: development of a qualitative and quantitative risk evaluation model (Q2REM) for different trades of construction works in Hong Kong. Accid Anal Prev 48:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fung IWH, Tam VWY, Lo TY, Lu LLH (2010) Developing a risk assessment model for construction safety. Int J Project Manag 28:593–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gambatese J, Rajendran S, Behm M (2007) Green design and construction: understanding the effects on construction worker safety and health. Prof Saf 52:5–28Google Scholar
  18. Geetha MW, Xiuwen SD, Ted M, Elizabeth H, Yurong M (2007) Costs of occupational injuries in construction in the United States. Accid Anal Prev 39:1258–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gomes LFAM, Araya M, Carignano C (2004) Decision-making in complex scenarios: introduction to discrete methods of multicriteria decision. Pioneira, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  20. Grecco CHS, Vidal MCR, Cosenza CAN, Santos IJAL, Carvalho PVR (2014) Safety culture assessment: a fuzzy model for improving safety performance in a radioactive installation. Prog Nucl Energy 70:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guranli GE, Mungen U (2009) An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets. Int J Ind Ergon 39:371–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hollnagel E (2004) Barriers and accident prevention. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  23. Hollnagel E (2007) Why do we need resilience engineering? http://www.sites.google.com/site/erikhollnagel2/whatisresilienceengineering%3F. Accessed 17 Jan 2011
  24. Hollnagel E (2012) FRAM: the functional resonance analysis methods. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  25. Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Levenson N (2006) Resilience engineering: concepts e precepts. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  26. ILO (International Labor Organization) (2009) Inspecting occupational safety and health in the construction industry. International Training Centre ISBN 978-92-9049-489-8Google Scholar
  27. ISO/IEC (2009) Risk management: risk assessment techniques ISO/IEC 31010. International Organization for Standardization/International Eletrotechinical CommissionGoogle Scholar
  28. Jou Y, Lin C, Yenn T, Yang C, Yang L, Tsai R (2009) The implementation of a human factors engineering checklist for human–system interfaces upgrade in nuclear power plants. Saf Sci 47:1016–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levenson N (2004) A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf Sci 42:237–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macdonald MA, Lipscomb JH, Bondy J, Glazner J (2009) Safety is everyone’s job: the key to safety on a large university construction site. J Saf Res 40:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mehta RK, Agnew MJ (2010) Analysis of individual and occupational risk factors on task performance and biomechanical demands for simulated drilling task. Int J Ind Ergon 40:584–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitropoulos P, Namboodiri M (2011) New method for measuring the safety risk of construction activities: task demand assessment. J Constr Eng Manag 137:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Navon R, Kolton O (2006) Model for automated monitoring of all hazards in building construction. J Constr Eng Manag 132:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nieto-Morote A, Ruz-Vila F (2009) A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment. Int J Project Manag 29:220–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) (2009) Summary of the making green jobs safe workshop. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-201/pdfs/2011-201.pdf. Accessed 12 Jun 2012
  36. Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Papadopoulos G, Georgiadou P, Papazoglou C, Michaliou K (2010) Occupational and public health and safety in a changing work environment: an integrated approach for risk assessment and prevention. Saf Sci 48:943–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parra-Lopez C, Calatravra J, Haro-Gimenez T (2007) A multi-criteria evaluation of the environmental performances of conventional, organic and integrated olive-growing systems in the south of Spain based on experts knowledge. Renew Agric Food Syst 22(3):189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perez-Alonso J, Carreno-Ortega A, Callejon-Ferre AJ, Vaquez-Cabrera J (2011) Preventive activity in the greenhouse-construction industry of south-eastern Spain. Saf Sci 49:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peterson DL, Silsbec DG, Sdmoldt DL (1995) A planning approach for developing inventory and monitoring programs in natural parks - Work document. Natural Resources Report. http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/peterson.pdf. Acessed 15 June 2009
  41. Pinto A, Nunes IL, Ribeiro LA (2011) Occupational risk assessment in construction industry: overview and reflection. Saf Sci 49:616–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saurin TA, Junior GCC (2011) Evaluation and improvement of a method for assessing HSMS from the resilience engineering perspective: a case study of an electricity distributor. Saf Sci 49:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks) (2007) The appropriateness of the risk-assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance. Documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_010.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2012
  46. Schulte PA, Heidel D, Okun A, Branche C (2010) Making green jobs safe. Ind Health 48:377–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sennett R (1998) The corrosion of character: the personal. Consequences of work in the new capitalism. W.W. Norton, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Steen R, Aven T (2011) A risk perspective suitable for resilience engineering. Saf Sci 49:292–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swuste P, Gulijk CV, Zwaard W (2010) Safety metaphors and theories: a review of occupational safety literature of the US, UK and the Netherlands, till the first part of the 20th century. Saf Sci 48:1000–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tiwari DN, Loof R, Paudyal GN (1999) Environmental-economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques. Agric Syst 60(2):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. USGBC (United States Green Building Council) (2009) LEED 2009 for new construction and major renovations rating system. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5546. Accessed 21 Jun 2011
  52. Vidal AL, Sahin E, Martelli N, Berhoune N, Bonan B (2010) Applying AHP to select drugs to be produced by anticipation in a chemotherapy compounding unit. Expert Syst Appl 37:1528–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woods DD (2006) Essential characteristics of resilience. In: Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Levenson N (eds) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucio Villarinho Rosa
    • 1
  • Assed Naked Haddad
    • 2
  • Paulo Victor Rodrigues de Carvalho
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidade Federal FluminenseNiteróiBrazil
  2. 2.Universidade Federal Do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Instituto de Engenharia NuclearRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations