Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8484 Georgia Avenue
Suite 1000
Silver Spring, MD 20910
phone: 301.578.8500
fax: 301.578.8572
w w w. c p w r. c o m • w w w. e l c o s h . o rg
Reducing Highway Construction Fatalities Through Improved Adoption of Safety Technologies
Chinweike EseonuJohn GambateseChukwuma Nnaji
Oregon State University
March 2018
©2018, CPWR-The Center for Construction Research and Training. All rights reserved. CPWR is the research and training arm of NABTU. Production of this document was supported by cooperative agreement OH 009762 from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH.
REDUCINGHIGHWAYCONSTRUCTIONFATALITIES
THROUGHIMPROVEDADOPTIONOFSAFETY
TECHNOLOGIESWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnology
Submitted by: Chinweike Eseonu, Assistant Professor, School of Mechanical, Industrial
and Manufacturing Engineering John Gambatese, Professor, School of Civil and Construction
Engineering, Oregon State University Chukwuma Nnaji, PhD Candidate, School of Civil and Construction
Engineering, Oregon State University
Submittedto:TheCenterforConstructionResearchandTraining(CPWR)
(CPWRSmallStudyNo.17‐4‐PS)
i | P a g e
TableofContents1. Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2. KeyFindings ........................................................................................................................................ 2 3. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 4. StudyGoalandObjectives .................................................................................................................. 5 5. Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 5 6. Accomplishmentsandresults,includingtheirrelevanceandpracticalapplication ..................... 6 7. Changes/problemsthatresultedindeviationfromthemethods ................................................ 37 8. Listofpresentations/publications .................................................................................................. 38 9. Disseminationplan ........................................................................................................................... 38 10. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 38 11. FutureResearchOpportunities ................................................................................................... 39 12. References ..................................................................................................................................... 40 13. Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 45
1 | P a g e
1. AbstractHighwayconstructioniscommonlyassociatedwithhighratesofworkeraccidents.Thesehighratesareoftenlinkedtotherequirementofworkincloseproximitytolivetrafficandheavydutyconstructionequipment.Existingtransportationresearchshowsthattechnologicalsolutions,likeWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnology(WZAIT)improveworkzonesafety.However,feworganizationsinthehighwayconstructionindustryhaveadoptedthesesafetytechnologies.Industryactorsreportconcernsabouttechnologyeffectiveness,costimplicationsadoptingnewtechnology,andlackoftechnologyfeature‐synergy.Fewstudieshaveexploredstrategiesforimprovingworkzonesafetytechnologyadoption,implementation,andeventualdiffusionacrossthehighwayconstructionindustry.Tofillthisgapinresearchandpractice,thisstudyattemptstodeveloptoolsandidentifyeffectiveprocessesthatcouldbeusedtoimprovetheadoptionofworkzonesafetytechnologiesusingworkzoneintrusiontechnologyasacasestudy.
2 | P a g e
2. KeyFindingsI. Technological,individual,organizational,andexternalfactorsdeterminethe
extenttowhichWZITadoptionissuccessfulandsustained.
II. WZIATfinancialbenefitsoutweighassociatedcostsifthetechnologiescanpreventbetween12.6%and34%oftheintrusionaccidentsthatleadtoinjuriesandfatalities.
III. Twenty‐onefactorsinfluenceWZIATadoption(Table4).Thesefactorsarelargelytechnology‐relatedandwereidentifiedthroughliteraturereviewandinterviewswithsubjectmatterexpertsemployedatcontractorfirmsanddepartmentsoftransportation.
IV. Lackofsharedlanguage/meaning/criteriabetweenendusers(constructioncompanies)andtechnologymanufacturers/salespeople.Eachgroupprovideddifferentsafetytechnologyfeatureimportanceratings.
V. LaborcostassociatedwithWZIATcontributesasignificantfractionoftotalimplementationcost.
VI. Themostimportanttechnology‐basedfactorswere
o workercomprehensionofwarningsignal,o adequatecoveragedistance,ando fewornofalsenegativeandfalsepositive.
VII. Easeofuseandsubjectivenormarestrongpredictorsofaworker’sintentionto
acceptandimplementaworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology
3 | P a g e
3. IntroductionWorkZoneInjuriesandFatalities
TheconstructionindustryhasthehighestworkerfatalitylevelsintheUnitedStates.Withinconstruction,highwayconstructionaccountsfor16%ofthesefatalities(BLS2017).Onaverage,thistranslatesto121annualworkzonefatalitiesbetween2005and2014,withonefatalityevery15hoursandoneworkzoneincident‐relatedinjuryoccurringevery16minutes(FHWA2017).Factorssuchasdriverdistraction,weather,androadwayconditionshavebeenidentifiedasmajorcausesofworkzoneaccidents.Thevolumeofhighwayconstructionandmaintenanceprojectsisexpectedtoincreaseaseconomicgrowthspurspublicandprivateinvestment.Thismeanstherearemoreworkzonesandincreasedprobabilityofharmtoworkersandmotorists.
Figure1.Basichighwayconstructionworkzonelayout(AdaptedfromITSI,2011)
Forthisreport,aworkzoneaccidentisanyincidentthatoccurswithinaworkzone.Thisincludesworkzoneapproachandexit.Existingresearchshowsthatmostcrashesoccurwithinthe“activityarea”(GarberandZhao,2002),whichiswheremostconstructionworkersarelocated.Activityareasinclude“work”,“traffic”,and“buffer”zones.Vehicleintrusionpastthechannelizingdevices(pictureinsertsinFigure1)isaprimarycauseofworkerfatalities.
4 | P a g e
Figure2showsthatworker“runover”byintrudingvehiclesorconstructionequipmentistheprimarycauseofworkzonefatalities.Othercausesincludecollisionbetweenvehiclesandmobileequipment,andincidentsinwhichworkersarecaughtbetweenorstruckbyconstructionequipment.
Figure2.Distributionbycauseoffatalitybetween2005and2014(n=1209)
(AdaptedfromFHWA2017)
HowdoesTechnologyaffectWorkZoneSafety?
Recently,theFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)andotheragenciesimpactedbyworkzoneinjuriesandfatalitiesintroducedseveralprogramstohelpcurbworkzonefatalityrates.ExamplesofsuchprogramsaretheNationalWorkZoneAwarenessWeekandTurningPoint.Whilepost‐programassessmentsindicateworkzonefatalitieshavedecreased,annualmotorist‐induceddeathshaveremainedrelativelystagnant(Bello2009;Sant2014).Inresponse,regulatory,industry,andotheragenciesacrosstheUnitedStateshaveencouragedhighwayconstructionstakeholderstoadoptworkzonesafety.Thisapproachisbolsteredbyresearchthatshowssynergybetweentechnologyuseandimprovedworkersafety.
5 | P a g e
Inpreparingthisreport,theOregonStateUniversityteamundertookadetailedliteraturereviewofover132articles.Therewasamarkedincrease–byabout700%–inworkzonesafetytechnology(WZST)researchbetween2002and2012.TherehasalsobeenanincreaseinWZSTproduction.Asaresult,thereisaneedtoassesswhyadoptionissignificantlylowerthanWZSTresearchanddevelopment.ExistingresearchhaslookedatWZSTperformanceasameansofassessingtheadoptionchallenge.Thisincludesworktoassesseffectivenessofproximitywarningsystems(Parketal.2015),truck‐mountedattenuators(UllmanandIragavarapu2014),andportablechangeablemessagesigns(GambateseandZhang2016).However,otherstudiesshowthatWZSTadoptionispersistentlylowbecause1)itisdifficulttoquantifytheholisticbenefitsofcertaintechnologiesusingadirectmeasureofeffectiveness(DMOE),2)returnoninvestment(ROI)andbenefit‐costanalyses(BCA)areoftennegativeorinconclusive,and3)thereareconflictingopinionsaboutWZSTusefulnessandeaseofuse(Fyhrie2016;Ederaetal.2013;Huebschmanetal.2003).WhileresponsestochallengeslikeROIarefocusedonmanagement,DMOEandopinionsabouteaseofuseandusefulnesscallforemployee/workerfocusedstrategies.ThefollowingsectionisfocusedonaWZST–WorkZoneintrusionalerttechnology(WZIAT)–thathasnotsuccessfullydiffusedacrossthehighwayconstructionindustry.
WorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnology
Workzoneintrusionalerttechnologies(WZIATs)arealert‐producingdevicesusedtowarnworkerswithinanactivityareaofanimpendingaccidentcausedbyavehicleintrudingintotheworkzone.Theobjectiveistosecureadditionaltimeforworkerstoreactwhenanintrusionoccurs.Firstintroducedtoworkzonesin1995,WZIATwastheproductofaStrategicHighwayResearchProgram(SHRP)sponsoredstudy(AgentandHibbs1996).SincetheSHRPprogram,severalWZIATshavebeendeveloped,evaluatedbydepartmentsoftransportation(DOTs),andimplementedinworkzonesonanumberofhighwayprojects.
6 | P a g e
TherearecurrentlyfourcommerciallyavailableWZIATs.Table1isasummaryoftheseWZIATs,includingattributesextractedfrompastresearch(Wangetal.2011;ELWC2015;HighwayResourceSolution2015;Gambateseetal.2017;Marksetal.2017).InadditiontotheWZIATslistedinTable1,OldcastleMaterialsrecentlyintroducedanalerttechnologynamedAdvancedWarningandRiskEvasion(AWARE).Thesystemreliesonpositionandorientationsensorsandradarstoconstantlymonitortheworkzone.Whileinitiallyintendedtoalertdriversoftheirintrusionintoaworkzone,thesystemisalsobeneficialforalertingworkersofintrudingvehicles.AWAREisundergoingtestingandisnotcurrentcommerciallyavailable(http://artisllc.com/highway‐safety/;http://theasphaltpro.com/oldcastle‐aware‐system/).DespitetheintroductionofWZIATover20yearsago,therehasbeenlimitedapplicationofWZIATinworkzones(Wangetal.2011;Gambateseetal.2017).Thisphenomenoncouldbeattributedtoseveralfactorssuchasreportedinaccuratealarms,difficultytoinstallandretrievedevices,lackofevaluationprotocol,non‐existingbusinesscaseanalysis,andlowproductawareness(Fyhrie2016;Wangetal.2011).
4 | P a g e
Table1:Commercially‐AvailableWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnologies
Intellicone Intellistrobe SonoBlaster WorkerAlertSystem(WAS)
Manufacturer HighwayResourceSolution IntelliStrobeSafetySystems
TranspoIndustries AstroOptics,LLC
Website www.intellicone.co.uk www.intellistrobe.com www.transpo.com www.astrooptics.comAccessories Lamps,motiondetector,and
portablesitealarm Flagger‐W1‐AGandRemoteControlRadio‐FC401‐1
Singlealarmunit Pneumatichose,flashingalarmlight,personalvibratingandaudioalert
Alert
Mechanisms
Impact‐tilt,wirelesssensoractivatedalarmsystem
Pressuredtriggerpneumatictubealarmsystem
Impact‐tiltactivatedalarmsystem
Pressuredtriggerpneumatictubealarmsystem
Suggested
Application
Longerthanoneday,tappershorterthan1,500ft.
Alongtapper Onedayorshorter,tappershorterthan1,500ft.
Priceestimate $2,000each $25,000 $100each $600eachTypeofAlarm Audioandvisual Audioandvisual Audio Audio,visual,andhapticSoundlevel 75dB@50feet 90dB@50feet* 90dB@50feet 80dB@50feetDeployment Installdeviceonchannelizer
alongtaperandworkzonePlacetubeatthebeginningoftaper.
Attachdevicetochannelizeralongtaper
Placetubeatthebeginningoftaper.
5 | P a g e
4. StudyGoalandObjectivesTheprimarygoalofthisstudyistoreduceworkzoneincident(injuryandfatality)occurrenceandseveritybyidentifyingfactorsthatdriveworkzonesafetytechnologyadoptioninthehighwayconstructionindustry.Previousresearchshowsthattechnologyutilizationincreasesworkersafety,soitisexpectedthatproactivesteps,likeeffectiveworker‐centricsafetytechnologyadoption,willreduceworkzoneincidentoccurrenceandseverity.Objectivesestablishedforthestudyinordertomeettheprimarystudygoalinclude:
I. Investigatehowsafetytechnologyaffectsworkersandhighwayconstructionworkzones;
II. Developandevaluateamodelforworkzonesafetytechnologyacceptance;andIII. DevelopproposedframeworksfordeterminingfinancialimplicationsofWZIAT
adoption,andstandardizedprotocolsforevaluatingWZST‐includingWZIAT.
5. MethodsAmixed‐methodsapproachinvolvingacombinationofqualitativeandquantitativemethodswasadoptedtoinvestigatetheresearchobjectives.Specifically,anextensivereviewofextantliteratureonWZSTwasconductedtoidentifyandassesstheeffectivenessofthetechnologiescurrentlyusedtoprotectworkersinconstructionworkzones.InadditiontoidentifyingtheWZSTs,theliteraturereviewprovidedanopportunitytoidentifypotentialbarriersanddriversofadoptingWZSTaswellaskeytechnologyattributesthatinfluencetechnologyacceptance.Aconcurrenttriangulationprocesswhichreliedonacross‐sectionalsurveyof,andin‐depthinterviewswith,highwayconstructionstakeholderswasutilizedtoprovideadditionalcontextualinformationonfactorsthatinfluencetheacceptanceofWZSTs.Lastly,acasestudyapproachwasadoptedtoprovideobservationaldatarequiredtodevelopbenefit‐costanalysis(BCA)andreturnoninvestment(ROI)forworkzoneintrusionalerttechnologies.
6 | P a g e
6. Accomplishmentsandresults,includingtheirrelevanceandpracticalapplication
Toensurethattheresearchobjectivesweresufficientlymet,thefollowingresearchquestionsweredevelopedtoguidethestudy:
I. Whatarethemajorcausesofworkerfatalitiesandhowoftendotheyoccur?II. WhatistheusefrequencyandperceivedeffectivenessofexistingWZIT?III. Areend‐usersreceptivetotheadoptionofnewworkzonesafetytechnology
(WZIATandothertechnologies)?IV. Whatisthecurrentprocess/protocolusedforadoptingworkzonesafety
technology(WZIATandothertechnologies)?V. Whatfactorsimpacttheacceptance,use,anddiffusionoftechnologyinhighway
construction?VI. Doessafetyclimateimpactsafetybehavior(decisiontoadoptatechnology)VII. Towhatextentdoesend‐user(consumer)andsafetytechnologymanufacturer
WZSTexpectationsconverge?VIII. DoesinvestmentinWZIATrepresentvalueformoneyforcontractorsandDOT’s?Answerstotheresearchquestionsweredistributedacrossfiveprimarytaskswhichweresuccessfullyexecutedbytheresearchers.Eachofthetasksandcorrespondingresultsareprovidedbelow.Task1:Investigatetheimpactofsafetytechnologyonworkzoneconstruction
workers
AssessinganddocumentingtheimpactofsafetytechnologiesusedinhighwayworkzoneswastheprimaryobjectiveofTask1.Inaddition,identifyingthemajorcausesofworkerfatalitiesinworkzonesandtheenablersandbarrierstoadoptionofworkzonesafetytechnologywasconductedwithinthissection.Toachievetheseobjectives,theresearchersreliedonasystematicreviewprocessusingaprovenreviewframework(Hongetal.2012;YiandChan2014),aretrospectiveanalysisofworkerfatalitieswithinFACEdatabase,andinterviewresultsfromaprecedingstudy(Gambateseetal.2017).Intotal,132articleson
7 | P a g e
workzonesafetytechnologyassessmentwereidentifiedthroughthesystematicreviewprocessinvolvingfourdatabases.PublicationtrendsshowthatthenumberofstudiesfocusedonWZSTevaluationshasincreasedsteadilyoverthepast25years.Atthesametime,thenumberoffatalitiesinworkzoneshasreducedprogressively.Althoughdifficulttoassert,thetrend,depictedinFigure3,suggeststhepossiblepresenceofarelationshipbetweenthelevelofinterestandadoptionofsafetytechnologiesandthereductionofworkerfatalities.
Figure3:NumberofWorkZoneFatalitiesandWZSTEvaluationStudies
WhilethetrendinevaluationstudiesisabettermetricformeasuringthelevelofinterestinWZST(comparedtotheactualadoptionofsuchtechnologies),anindicationofinterestisexpectedtotranslatetoactualtechnologyadoption(Davisetal.1989).
8 | P a g e
ThetechnologiesevaluatedinthearticlesreviewedprimarilyfellwithinthreecategoriesbasedontheobjectiveoftheWZSTasfollows:
I. Speedreductionsystems(SRS):Thesetechnologiesareusedtoreducethetravelingspeedofmotoristsatadvancedwarningareas,transitionareas,bufferareas,andworkareas.Thetechnologiescouldhavedirectorindirectphysicalimpactonthetravelingvehicle.
II. Intrusionpreventionandwarningsystems(IPWS):Technologiessetuptopreventerrantdriversfromintrudingintoaworkzoneand/orwarnworkersofimminentdangerduetoanintrusionintotheworkzone.
III. Workerdetectionsystems(WDS):Thesearetechnologiesimplementedinsideaworkzonetoalertworkersandequipmentoperatorsofanimminentcollisionbetweenaworkerandequipment.
AsseeninFigure4,theWZSTSmostfrequentlyevaluatedwerechangeablemessagesystems(CMS),speedenforcementsystems(SE),lanemergesystems(LMS),andwarninglights.Thesetechnologiesfallwithinthespeedreductionsystemscategory.
Figure4:NumberofEvaluationStudiesforeachWZST
9 | P a g e
Overall,theliteraturereviewindicatesthatthereisagrowinginterestintheevaluationanduseofWZSTs.Nevertheless,findingsfromthepresentstudyindicatevaryingevaluationapproachesareexecutedforsimilarWZSTs.ThelackofminimumevaluationrequirementsforWZSTscreatesanavalancheofmethodologies,whichmakesitinherentlydifficulttocomparefindingsamongstsimilarstudies.Next,aretrospectiveanalysisofworkzoneincidentswasconductedtoassesstheusefulnessofWZIAT.AcomprehensiveassessmentofNIOSHFatalityAssessmentandControlEvaluation(FACE)ProgramreportswasconductedbytheresearcherstodetermineifWZIATcouldhaveplayedasignificantroleinpreventingthereportedfatalities.Intotal,25highwayworkzonerelatedfatalitycaseswerereportedandevaluatedbyNIOSHbetween1984and2007.Although80%ofthedocumentedfatalitieswereprimarilycausedbyworkersbeingstruckbyequipment,threefatalitieswereinducedbyintrudingvehicles.Table2summarizesfactsabouteachintrusionfatality.AsseeninTable2,usingadditionalworkzonesafetydevicessuchasworkzoneintrusionalerttechnologiescouldhaveimprovedthesurvivalrateoftheworkerskilled.Table2:SummaryofFACEReportsofHighwayWorkZoneFatalities
CauseofFatality FACERecommendationsPossiblyPreventedby
WZIAT?
Sleepingdriverstruckmaintenanceworkerinworkzone
Periodicallymonitorandevaluateemployeeconformancewithsafeoperatingprocedures;adoptpoliciesthatrequireworkerstoworkonthemediansideoftheguardrail;educatethepublicregardingworkzonesafetyissues
YES
InstallWZIATequippedwithaudioandvibratoryalertsapproximately400feetupstreamoftheworker
10 | P a g e
DriverlostcontrolofvehicleandveeredintotheworkzonestrikingaDOTworker
Considertheuseofsupplementaltrafficcontroldevices;considerinstallingrumblestripsalongtheroadwaypavementedgestowarnmotorists
YES
Equipworkerswithpersonalalertsystems.InstallWZIATacrosspotentialentrypointsaroundtheworkzone
Flaggerstruckbysecondarycontactfromtrucktravelingat55milesperhour
Considertheuseofadditionalwarningsignsandtrafficcontroldevices;provideandrequireuseofhand‐heldorotherportableradiocommunicationsequipmentbyflaggersatalltimes
YES
ImplementWZIATwithspeeddetectorandpersonalalertsystemswithatleast600feettransmissiondistance
Task2:DevelopframeworkforWZSTassessment,adoption,IntrusionTechnology
AcceptanceModel(ITAM),andWZSTevaluationprotocol
HighwayWorkZoneTechnologyAssessmentProcess
Giventheimportantrolesafetytechnologiesplayinkeepingworkerssafeinaworkzone,itisessentialtocaptureinformationthatcouldhelpimprovetheadoption,implementation,andacceptanceofusefultechnologies.DOTsplayacentralroleintheadoptionofWZST.Insomestates,DOTsincludecertaintechnologiesintothetrafficcontrolplantherebymakingtheuseofthosetechnologiesmandatoryforcontractors.Adecisionprocessmap(showninFigure5)detailingaworkzonesafetytechnologyacceptanceprocesswasdevelopedbasedontheresearchers’experienceconductingevaluationstudiesonworkzonesafetytechnology.InterestinadoptingaspecificworkzonesafetytechnologyisgenerallyinstigatedbypeerDOTs,researchers,ormanufacturers.
11 | P a g e
ReferringtoFigure5,tobeconsideredforevaluation,thesafetytechnologyhastobecapturedintheDOTqualifiedproductlist(QPL).AQPLisalistofproductsandsupplierswhoseproductsareapprovedtouseonprojectswithoutadditionaldocumentationandtesting.IfthetechnologyisamongtheitemsintheQPL,theDOTevaluatesinternalinterestintheproduct.Ifadequateinterestisachieved,theRequestforProposal(RFP)scopeisexpandedtoincludeacategorythataddressesthetechnology.Subsequently,researcherswillbeencouragedtosubmitproposalsforevaluatingtheworkzonesafetytechnology.ItisimportanttonotethattheprocessdescribedaboveisstrictlyforasituationwhereaDOTischampioningtheevaluationofaspecificworkzonesafetytechnology.Iftheideaemanatesfromaresearcher,theresearchersubmitsaResearchProblemStatement(RPS)(assumingthereleasedRFPaccommodatestheevaluationtopic).IftheRPSissuccessful,theresearcherwillbeencouragedtosubmitafullproposal.IftheproposalisacceptedbytheDOT,thetechnologyisthentestedtodetermineitseffectiveness.Theassessmentusuallyincludesapilottestandlivetesting,andincertaincases,anextensivecosteffectivenessanalysis.Iftheproposalisrejected,theevaluationprocessisterminated.Subsequently,followingtestingofthetechnology,areportisdevelopedtodisseminatethefindingsfromthestudy.Iftheworkzonesafetytechnologyisconsideredeffective,theDOTadoptsthetechnologyandmayrequirecontractorstousethetechnologyinfutureprojects.Iftheeffectivenessofthetechnologyisnotconclusive,recommendationsthatcouldimprovefutureadoptionofthetechnologyaremadeavailable.
12 | P a g e
Figure5:DOTDecisionMapforWorkZoneSafetyTechnologyAdoption
ItisimportanttonotethatalthoughDOTsprescribetheuseofcertainsafetytechnologiesaspartofacontractrequirement,contractorscouldchoosetoutilizeadditionalsafetytechnologiesinconstructionworkzones.Currently,informationontheprocessutilizedbycontractorstoarriveatacongruentdecisionforadoptingsafetytechnologyisnonexistent.Therefore,theresearchersproposedandvalidatedaframeworkthatdescribestheprocessofadoptingasafetytechnology.Also,thisframeworkcouldbeimplementedwithinthe“AssessTechnology”stageoftheDOTtechnologyacceptanceprocess.
13 | P a g e
SafetyTechnologyAdoptionFactors
Anintegrativereviewofliteratureindicatesthattechnologyadoptioncanbepredictedbyassessingseveralfactorsdistributedintofourprimarycategories:individual,organizational,technological,andenvironmental.AtheoreticalframeworkdescribingtheprocessleadingtotechnologyadoptioncanbefoundinFigure6.Projectmanagersfromeighthighwaycontractingorganizationswereinterviewedtovalidatetheaccuracyoftheproposedadoptionprocess.ThesecompanieswereprimarilylocatedinthePacificNorthwestwithannualrevenuerangingbetween$10millionand$2billion.
Figure6.SafetyTechnologyAdoptionProcess
14 | P a g e
Oneprimarydeficiencyinextantliteratureassociatedwithworkzonesafetyisthelackofsomeconsensusontheprimaryphasesforconductinganevaluationstudy.Anevaluationstudyisakeycomponentinthetechnologycategoryofthesafetytechnologyadoptionprocess.Inthenextsection,theresearcherssummarizetheprimarystepsrequiredtoconductaneffectiveWZSTevaluationstudy.TheevaluationprotocolwasdevelopedaspartofastudyconductedbyGambateseetal.(2017).
WZSTEvaluationProtocol
Developingatestingprotocol,groundedinscientificrigor,playsapivotalroleinvalidatingthefindingsofanevaluation‐basedstudy.AccordingtoFyrie(2016),itisessentialtodevelopatestingprotocolforWZSTstoimproveperceptionofusefulnesswhichcouldimpactuserintentiontoadopttechnologyalongsideencouragingtheproductionofadditionalWZSTs.Inordertodeveloparigorousprocess,theresearchersreliedonStrategicHighwayResearchProgram(SHRP)reportsandpastworkzonetechnologyevaluationreports(AgentandHibbs1996;Brownetal.2015;Marksetal.2017;MarksandTeizer2013;Novosel2014;Parketal.2017;Teizeretal.2010;ZhangandGambatese2017).TosuccessfullyevaluateaWZST,thestepsdepictedinFigure7arerecommendedanddescribedindetailbelow.
Figure7:WZSTEvaluationProtocol
15 | P a g e
Step1:DocumentationofTechnologiesItisimperativetoaggregateandreviewliteratureoncurrentlyavailabletechnologiesthathavehighpotentialforpreventinginjuriesinhighwayworkzones.ThisstepcanbeachievedthroughacomprehensivesearchofarchivalpublicationsusingInternetsearchengines.TheoutputofthissearchanddocumentationshouldincludetechnicalspecificationsoftheWZST,associatedbenefitsofusingtheWZST,limitationstoitsuse,andsummariesoffindingsfrompriorresearchonthetechnology.Step2:SurveyofCurrentPracticeStep2involvesconductingasurveyofhighwayconstructionandmaintenancekeystakeholdersincludingstatedepartmentsoftransportation(DOTs),constructionandtrafficcontrolcontractors,equipmentvendors,etc.Theobjectiveofthesurveyistodocumentcurrentandrecommendedpractices,barriers,enablers,andimpactsassociatedwiththeWZST.FindingsfromStep2resultintheidentificationofthestatusquooftheconstructionindustryanditscurrentbestpracticeintermsofpreventingaccidentsthatcouldbepreventedbyimplementingtheWZST.Step3:PilotTestingofTechnologiesBasedontheresultsofSteps1and2,asampleoffeasibletechnologiesshouldbeselectedforpilottesting.Selectionshouldconsidertechnologyavailability,cost,easeofuse,potentialforimprovingsafety,andpotentialforincorporatingthetechnologyintypicaltransportationcontrolplans.Pilottestingoftheselectedtechnologiesshouldbeconductedundercontrolled,off‐roadwayconditions.Eachselectedtechnologyshouldbeassessedtocaptureitscapabilities,andrecordhowitisimplemented.Theresultsofthepilottestingprovidevitalinformationonfeasibilityofuse,capabilities,andlimitationsrelatedtoeachtechnologyunderinvestigation.Step4:SelectionofTechnologiesforLiveTestingFollowingcompletionofthepilottestingandanalysisoftheresults,Step4involvesconductingfocusgroupsessionswithkeystakeholderssuchasDOTpersonnelandconstructioncontractorstoidentifyandselectspecifictechnologiestoimplementandtest
16 | P a g e
inanactiveworkzone.Feedbackoneachofthetechnologiesshouldbesolicitedfromeachtargetedgroup.Thosetechnologiesthataredeemedpromisingbythefocusgroupparticipantsshouldbeselectedforfurtherevaluation.Inaddition,potentialconstructionand/ormaintenanceprojectsonwhichtoconductlivetestingofthetechnologiesshouldbediscussedwiththeparticipatingDOTpersonnelandcontractorsandselectedforStep5.Step5:ImplementationandEvaluationofSelectedTechnologiesStep5involvesimplementingtheselectedtechnologiesoneachselectedcasestudyproject.Dependingonthecasestudyprojectsselected,eachtechnologyshouldbeappliedunderdifferentworkzoneconditions(e.g.,short‐termandlong‐term,daytimeandnighttime,andstationaryandmobile).Eachselectedtechnologyshouldbeimplementedduringactualworkoperationstypicallyexperiencedonprojects.Thetestingprotocolshouldaddressavarietyofcriteriasuchas:easeofimplementationanduse,abilitytodetectpotentialhazard,abilitytowarnofimpendinghazard,sensitivitytofalsealarms,andimpactonrisktoworkersafety,andimplementationcost.Uponcompletionoftesting,feedbackoneachtechnologyshouldbecollecteddirectlyfromtheconstructionandmaintenanceworkersinvolvedineachcasestudyproject.Next,theresearchersproposeabasictheoreticalframework–ITAM‐forcapturinginformationthatinfluencestheacceptanceandutilizationofaWZST(WZIATascasestudy)byendusers.IntrusionAlertTechnologyAcceptanceModel(ITAM)Structure
Consumermarketingresearchhasbenefitedgreatlyfromapplyingpredictive(forecasting)andassessmentmodelsthatdrawfromunderstandingkeyfactorsthatinfluenceintentiontoacceptaproduct.Thepresentstudycombinesthepredictivestrengthoftwowell‐foundedtechnologyacceptanceandbehavioraltheoriesasameanstounderstandfactorsthatinfluencetheadoptionofaWZST.Althoughdesignedmainlyusingconstructs(parameters)associatedwithWZIAT,theproposedmodelcanbeappliedtoWZSTandothertechnologyadoptionsituationswithsimilarcharacteristics.ThetwomodelstobecombinedareTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM)andTheoryofPlannedBehavior(TPB)(Mathieson1991;VenkatechandDavis1996;Mathiesonetal.2001;Chuttur2009).Figure
17 | P a g e
8depictsthesimplifiedintrusionalerttechnologyacceptancemodel(ITAM)usedinthisstudy.
Figure8:IntrusionAlertTechnologyAcceptanceModel
Theconstructsabovecanbedefinedas: PerceivedEaseofUse(PEU):beliefthatusingatechnologywillrequirelittleeffort SubjectiveNorm(SN):anindividual’sperceptionregardingagivenactionwhichis
significantlyinfluencedbythejudgementofsignificantothers PerceivedUsefulness(PU):beliefthatusingatechnologywouldimprovejob
performance BehavioralIntention(BI):anindicationofaperson’sintentiontoperformagiven
taskBIwaschoseninsteadofactualbehavior(observableresponsesuchasacceptingtouseatechnology)sincetheuseoftechnologiessuchasWZIATisnotwidespread.Inaddition,pastresearchindicatesthatinmostcases,behavioralintention,isagoodpredictorofactualuse(Venkateshetal.2002).Theresearcherskeptthemodelsimplegiventheexploratorynatureofthepresentstudy.FuturestudiesshouldconsiderincludingotherTPBconstructssuchasattitudeandperceivedbehavioralcontrol.
18 | P a g e
Task3:Collectandanalyzedatafromhighwayconstructionstakeholders
TheresearchersconductedanonlinesurveyinordertoanswerresearchquestionsV,VI,andVII.FollowingreviewofthesurveyinstrumentandprotocolbytheOSUInstitutionalReviewBoard(seecopyofsurveyquestionnaireintheAppendix),theresearcherspre‐testedthereliabilityandconsistencyofthesurveyquestionsusingdatareceivedfromcivilandconstructionengineeringstudentsatOSU.Beforecollectingstudentfeedback,apresentationwhichincludedvideosandpicturesofworkzoneintrusionaccidents,workzonesafetytechnologies,andresultsfromaWZIATevaluationstudywasfacilitatedandconductedbytheresearchersforthestudents.ThepresentationwasconductedtoensureparticipatingstudentshadsufficientinformationtoprovideusefulfeedbackonfactorsthatcouldinfluencetheadoptionofWZIAT.Atotalof145responseswerereceivedfromparticipatingstudentsintwodifferentcoursesofwhich135responseswereanalyzed(10responseswereincomplete).ReliabilitytestsincludingKaiser‐Myer‐Olkin,Cronbachalpha,andBarletttestofsphericitywereconductedtoensurethattheresearchtoolscapturedreliableinformation.Followingevaluationofthesurveyinstrument,thesurveyquestionnairewasdistributedtothetargetedhighwayconstructionstakeholders.Surveyresponseswerecollectedfrom181individuals(316,includingstudents)withinthetargetpopulation.Specifically,owneragencies,includingDOTsandresearchinstitutions,accountedfor38%(69)ofthereceivedresponseswhilegeneralcontractors,workzonesafetyconsultants,andworkzonetechnologymanufacturersandvendorsaccountedfor38%(53),11%(20),and21.5%(39)oftheresponses,respectively.Furthermore,64respondents(35%)self‐identifiedasprojectmanagerswhile37trafficengineers(20%ofrespondents)responded.Responsestothequestion“Areyoufamiliarwithworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology”indicatethatmostoftheparticipantsarefamiliarwithWZIAT(80%ofthe141responsesreceivedtothequestion,approximately62%ofallrespondents).
19 | P a g e
WZIATfeature/attributeimportance(combinedandbyworkcategory)
Forsomequestions,therespondentswereaskedtoprovidetheiropinionaboutWZIATusingaLikert‐typescale(e.g.,1=notimportant,5=veryimportant).Whenasked“HowimportantarethefollowingattributestoyourdecisiontoadoptWZIAT,”participantsindicatedthatworkercomprehensionofwarningsignal(meanresponse=4.44)andadequatecoveragedistance(meanresponse=4.25)areconsideredthemostinfluentialattributesthatimpactthedecisiontouseaWZIAT.TheresultsaresummarizedinTable3.Easeofstorageisconsideredtheleastimportantattribute(mean=2.94).AcomprehensivetableoftheresultscanbefoundintheAppendix.Table3:WZIATFeature/AttributeImportancetoAdoptionDecision
MeanResponseregardingImportanceof
Feature/Attribute
(1=notimportant,5=veryimportant)
WZIATFeatures/Attributes Contractor
(n=53)
DOT
(n=69)
Manuf.&
Vendors
(n=39)
Total
(n=316)
Workercomprehensionofwarningsignal
4.6 4.67 4.3 4.44
Adequatecoveragedistance 4.51 4.36 4.22 4.25Driveradequatelycomprehendsvisualandaudiowarning
4.25 4.39 3.62 4.21
Impactofwarningalertondriver 4.17 4.41 3.78 4.18Fewornofalsealarms 4.38 4.33 4.03 4.17Limitsworkerexposure 4.51 4.48 4.08 4.15Multiplewarningalertsources 4.08 4.23 4.16 4.08Reusable 4.19 3.79 4.10 4.04Manuf.=technologymanufacturer
20 | P a g e
Differenceinmeanratingbetweengroups
Itisessentialtoconductastatisticalanalysistoverifythepresenceofanalignmentbetweenthesubgroups’‐especiallycontractorsandmanufacturers–perceptionsofimportantWZIATattributes.Thisverificationcanbeachievedbyeitheraparametricornon‐parametricindependentsamplemeantest(t‐test).First,theresearchersassessedthedatabyworkgrouptoguidetheapplicationofparametricornon‐parametrictesting.Atestfordatanormalitywasnotconductedgiventhatthesamplesizeforeachgroupwasatleast30(GhasemiandZahediasl2012).Levene’sTestofEqualityofvariancewasconductedtodetermineiftheassumptionofhomogeneityofvariancewasviolated.Thetestreturnedamixedresultwithsixoutofthe21factorsviolatingtheequalvarianceassumption.Takingaconservativeapproach,theresearcherelectedtoperformanon‐parametrictwo‐sampletest–theMann‐WhitneyUTest‐toreducetheTypeIerrorrate.Table4summarizestheresultsfromtheMann‐WhitneyUTestbetweenresponsesreceivedfrommanufacturersandotherworkgroups.AsseeninTable4,thelevelofimportanceassignedtoeachWZIATattributedifferedsignificantlyforsevenoutof21attributeswhencomparingthemanufacturers’responsestothosereceivedfromtheDOTemployees.Thisresultindicatesthepossibilityofamisalignmentbetweentheend‐users’andmanufacturers’perceptionsoftheimportanceofeachWZIATattribute.ThisresultsuggestsaneedforheightenedinvolvementofDOTsandcontractorsinthedevelopmentphaseofsimilartechnologies.Thedevelopmentofstandardtoolsthathelpbridgetheknowledgegapbetweenmanufacturersandend‐usersshouldbeencouraged.
18 | P a g e
Table4:Non‐Parametrictestfordifferenceinmeanbetweengroups;Mann‐WhitneyUTest
WZIATAdoptionfactors Contractorvs.
Manufacturer
DOTvs.
Manufacturer
Contractorvs.DOT
UStatistic p‐value UStatistic p‐value UStatistic p‐valueEaseofdeployment/retrieval 973.5 0.602 1292.5 0.707 1652.5 0.317Easytomovethetechnologyaround 728 0.032 1271 0.596 1588.5 0.176Userfriendliness 849 0.105 1052.5 0.043 1700.5 0.45Littleornoimpactontrafficflowandcontrolwithinworkzone 822 0.081 1332.5 0.929 1415 0.024Limitsworkerexposure 778 0.026 1039.5 0.031 1797 0.852Easytostore 857 0.139 1104 0.107 1771 0.755Resistancetoenvironmentalandphysicalimpact 871.5 0.467 923.5 0.023 1482.5 0.057Reusable 978 0.629 1019.5 0.029 1328.5 0.008Easytomaintain 900 0.352 1185 0.53 1712.5 0.722Extendedbatterylife 866.5 0.141 997.5 0.022 1586 0.221Costoflaborandequipment 885.5 0.305 1167 0.385 1754 0.794Availabilityofequipmentinthemarket 734.5 0.047 1254 0.792 1527.5 0.123Costofreplacingparts/maintenance 956.5 0.668 1264 0.846 1755 0.796Impactofwarningalertondriver 936 0.697 1102.5 0.207 1605.5 0.206
17 | P a g e
Workercomprehensionofwarningsignal 824.5 0.142 1018 0.043 1750.5 0.621Multiplewarningalertsources 860 0.283 1268 0.951 1591.5 0.183Adequatecoveragedistance 874.5 0.327 1260.5 0.907 1627 0.243Limitedphysicalimpactonvehicle 729 0.033 1208.5 0.638 1604 0.222Driveradequatelycomprehendsvisualandaudiowarning 725.5 0.027 869.5 0.004 1737 0.604Fewornofalsenegativeandpositivealarms 804 0.114 1063.5 0.122 1799 0.866Lessdependenceonexistinginfrastructure 923.5 0.621 1218 0.683 1805 0.899
19 | P a g e
Potentialimpactofsafetyclimate
Giventhatpastresearchindicatesapossiblecorrelationbetweensafetyclimateandsafetybehavior(SchwatkaandRosecrance2016),theresearchersexploredthepotentialrelationshipbetweensafetyclimateandconstructionworkerdecisionstoadoptasafetytechnology.Toachievethisobjective,theresearchersutilizedanadaptedversionofasafetyclimatematurityassessmenttooldevelopedbyTheCenterforConstructionResearchandTraining(CPWR)alongsidethe“behavioralintention”constructoftheITAM.Thesafetyclimatemeasuringscalehaseightleadingindicators:DemonstratingManagementCommitment;AligningandIntegratingSafetyasaValue;EnsuringAccountabilityatAllLevels;ImprovingSupervisoryLeadership;EmpoweringandInvolvingWorkers;ImprovingCommunication;TrainingatAllLevels;andEncouragingOwner/ClientInvolvement(CPWR2015).Toutilizethescale,workersareaskedtoanswerquestions(between3to6questions)withineachleadingindicator.Thequestionsaredesignedtoillicitresponsesregardingthecompany’scommitmentandattitudetowardssafetyusingascalethatrangesfrominattentivetoexemplary(seehttps://www.cpwr.com/whats‐new/new‐safety‐climate‐assessment‐s‐cat‐websiteformoreinformationonthesafetyclimatemeasuringscale).Duetothelengthofthesafetyclimatescale(36questionsrequiringadecentamountofreading),theresearchersreducedthenumberofquestionsforeachleadingindicatortotwo(16intotal).Thereductionwasachievedthroughevaluatingthestatisticalanalysisconductedbythedevelopersofthesafetyclimatescale–selectingtheitemsineachcategorywiththehighestmeanscoreandtheleastvariance.Atotalof53contractorscompletedthesurveysubstantially.However,onlyatotalof45oftherespondingcontractors(85%)providedsufficientinformationforexploringtheconnectionbetweensafetyclimateandadoptiondecision.Toexplorethepotentiallinkbetweensafetyclimateandtechnologyadoption,theresearchersseparatedtherespondentsintotwogroups–“exemplary”and“belowexemplary”–usingtheaggregatemeanvalueofeachleadingindicator.Thatis,theresponsesreceivedfromeachsurveyparticipantweresummedandthendividedby16(thetotalnumberofquestionsacrosstheeightleadingindicators).Theresearcherselected
20 | P a g e
tosetacumulativemeanthresholdof4.0andaboveas“exemplarysafetyclimate”inlinewiththedesignofthesafetyclimatemeasuringtool.Ameanvaluebelow4.0wasconsiderednotexemplary.Twenty‐fiveofthe45respondingcontractors(56%)self‐reportedacumulativemeanaveragegreaterthan4.0.Next,linearregressionwaschosentoinvestigatethelevelofimpactsafetyclimatecouldhaveonthe“behavioralintention”construct.Toconducttheanalysis,thesafetyclimaterating(SCR)meanvalueforthetwogroups(exemplaryandnotexemplary)werechosenasindependentvariableswhilethemeanvalueof“behavioralintention”(BI)‐whichispartoftheITAMconstruct‐wasselectedasthedependentvariable.Priortoconductingthelinearregression,theresearcherscheckedtoverifyifanyassumptionwasviolated.Althoughthesamplesizerequirementwasmet(atleast20casesperindependentvariable),theresearchersobservedthatthedatawasnotlinearandshowedevidenceofheteroscedasticity.Giventheconcernsidentifiedwithinthedata,theresearcherselectedtoconductanonparametricanalysisfocusingondirectionality.SpearmancorrelationwasexecutedtoinvestigatethedirectionalrelationshipbetweenSRCandBI.Althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,theresults,highlightedinTable5,indicatethatSCRfortheexemplarygrouphasapositivecorrelationwithBI(γ=0.374).Table6showstherelationshipbetweenSCRandBIforthe“belowexemplary”groupwaslessthanthatoftheexemplarygroup(γ=0.021).Table5.CorrelationbetweenBehavioralIntention(BI)andSafetyClimateRating
(SCR)of“Exemplary”Group
Spearman'srho SCR BISCR CorrelationCoefficient 1.000 0.374 Sig.(1‐tailed) . 0.052 N 25 25BI CorrelationCoefficient 0.374 1.000 Sig.(1‐tailed) 0.052 . N 25 25
21 | P a g e
Table6.CorrelationbetweenBehavioralIntentionandSafetyClimateRating(SCR)of
“BelowExemplary”Group
Spearman'srho SCR BISCR CorrelationCoefficient 1.000 0.021 Sig.(1‐tailed) . 0.461 N 20 20BI CorrelationCoefficient 0.021 1.000 Sig.(1‐tailed) 0.461 . N 20 20
Task4:ConductfinancialanalysisforWZIAT
Onepossiblereasonfortherelativelylownumberofcommerciallyavailableintrusionalarmtechnologiesisthelackofacost‐benefitanalysis(Fayrie2016).Furthermore,asintrusionalarmtechnologiesrequiresomeinvestment,consumers(DOTsandcontractors)needanempiricalframeworktodeterminethefinancialimplicationoftheintervention.Todeveloparobustframeworkthatprovidesparametersthatcanbeusedtojudgeiftheinvestmentintheintrusionalarmisworthwhile,theresearchersreliedontheframeworksdescribedbyAASHTO(2010),Theissetal.(2014),AricoandRavani(2008),andSunetal.(2011).GiventhattheimplementationofWZIATrequiresatwo‐phaseadoptionprocess(adoptionbystatedepartmentoftransportationandcontractor),itisimportantthatfinancialmetricsspecifictotheend‐usersareconsidered.Hence,aframeworkforROI(Contractor)andBCA(DOT)wasdeveloped.ThreeWZIATs–AWARE,Intellicone,andWAS–wereevaluatedaspartofthefinancialanalysis.
22 | P a g e
CostofImplementingWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnologies
AccordingtoBoardmanetal.(2001),nineprimarystepsarerequiredinothertoconductabasicfinancialanalysisforgovernmentinterventions,regulations,policies,programs,etc.Thestepsare:I. SpecifythesetofalternativeprojectsII. DecidewhosebenefitsandcostscountIII. Cataloguetheimpactsandselectmeasurementindicators,orunitsIV. PredicttheimpactsquantitativelyoverthelifeperiodoftheprojectV. Monetize(adddollarvaluesto)allimpactsVI. DiscountbenefitsandcoststoobtainpresentvaluesVII. ComputethenetpresentvalueofeachalternativeVIII. PerformsensitivityanalysisIX. MakerecommendationbasedonfindingsGiventhescopeofthecurrentstudy,theresearchersfocusedonthestepsrequiredtodevelopafinancialimplicationanalysisframeworkforeachWZIAT(StepsIII,IV,V,VI,andVII).StepsIIItoVinvolvetheidentification,collection,andmonetizationofinputsandoutputs(information)requiredtoperformafinancialanalysis.Tables7and8captureessentialinformationrequiredtoestimatethecostofimplementingthetechnologies.TheinformationpresentedinTables7and8wasacquiredthroughinterviewswithcontractors,reviewingliteratureonWZIATsandotherworkzonesafetytechnologies,andassessingmanufacturer’swebsitesandmanuals.
23 | P a g e
Table7.CostInputData
CostItem WorkzoneIntrusionAlertTechnology
AWARE Intellicone WASCapitalcost($/device) 50,000 2,000 $750Costofrequiredaccessory/ies($) 35 Batterycost($/device) 20 15 Batterylife(weeks) 32 32 DeviceReplacementrate(%/year) 0.125 0.125 0.125StrobeReplacementrate(%/year) 0.10 0.13Maintenanceworkerwagerate($/h) 26 26 26Maintenancetime(hr/week/mile) 2.1 4.2 4.2Wageratemultiplier 1.5 1.5 1.5Disposalcost 0 0 0Costperday:
Maintenancecost($) 20.48 40.95 40.95Devicecost($) 78.12 $3.13 $1.17Sensorcost($) $0.05 Batterycost($) 0.16 0.12
Table8.CostofusingWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnologiesinWorkZones
CostItem WorkzoneIntrusionAlertTechnologies
AWARE Intellicone WASNumberofdevicespermile 1 1 8
Usedononesideofroadway 2 2 16Usedonbothsidesofroadway 1 1 8
Numberofaccessoriespermile
24 | P a g e
Usedononesideofroadway 12 5Usedonbothsidesofroadway 24 10
Costperdeviceperday($/day) 78.13 3.13 1.17Costpermileperday($/mile/day) 0.17 ‐Laborcostperdeviceperday($/day) 20.48 40.95 40.95Costpermileperday($/mile/day)
Usedononesideofroadway 98.60 46.14 50.33Usedonbothsidesofroadway 197.20 92.28 100.65
Costpermileperyear($/mile/year) Usedononesideofroadway 7,888.00 3,691.00 4,026.00Usedonbothsidesofroadway 15,776.00 7,382.00 8,052.00
InformationinTable7indicatesthatAWARE,Intellicone,andWAScost(operationandcapitalcost)$98.60,$46.14,and$50.33perday,respectively.WiththeexceptionofAWARE,operationcostistheprimarycostdriver,notthecapitalcost(Intellicone=88.5%andWAS=81.5%oftotalcost).Theseestimatesdoesnotincludeadditionalcostforpersonalsafetydevices;justthecostsofbuyingandoperatingthebasictechnologyareincluded.Aneighty‐dayworkyearwasassumedbasedonfivework‐monthsayearandfourwork‐daysaweek.TheworkdaywasestimatedbasedonthedurationofatypicalpavingseasoninthePacificNorthwest.Thenumberofannualworkdayswillvarydependingonthelocation.Thecostperdaycalculationincludedastraight‐linecapitalcostdeprecationofeachtechnology.Ashelflifeofeightyearswasassumedbasedonpastresearch(Theissetal.2014).Table8summarizesthecostofimplementingWZIATonprojectsusingcostpermileperyear($/mile/year).TheanalysisshowninTable8includescalculationforoneandbothsidesofaroadwaygiventhatconstructioncouldhappensimultaneouslyonbothsidesoftheroadway(bothdirectionsoftraffic).ThetotalcostforapplyingtheAWARE,Intellicone,andWASinaworkzoneis$15,776,$7,382,and$8,052permileperyear,respectively.ThefactorsusedtoarriveatthevaluesinTable8areincludedintheAppendix.
25 | P a g e
InjuryCostModel
Thefollowingstepswereundertakeninordertoestimatethecostassociatedwithworkzoneaccidents:I. EstimatetotalnumberofworkzoneintrusionaccidentsII. Estimateinjuryseverityofworkzoneintrusionaccidents(usingMAIS)III. UsecomprehensivecostmethodtoassigncosttoinjuryseverityIV. UseValueofaStatisticalLife(VSL)toestimatefractionforeachinjurycategoryV. Determineworkzoneintrusion‐inducedaccidentcostVI. Useworkzonerequiredlengthandtypeofactivitytoseparateoutactivitiesthat
cannotimplementWZIATVII. DeveloptablethatshowstotalcostandavertedcostThenumberofworkzoneintrusionaccidentswasestimatedusinginformationfromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans)andOregonDepartmentofTransportation(ODOT).TheseveritylevelofworkzoneaccidentswasestimatedusingtheMaximumAbbreviatedInjuryScale(MAIS)(AAAM2015).ThecoefficientforeachseveritylevelwasgeneratedusingtheValueofaStatisticalLife(VSL).TheVSListheadditionalcostthatindividualsarewillingtobearforimprovingsafety(riskreduction)(Moran2016).Table9highlightstheseveritylevelsandcostassociatedwhicheachlevel(Moran2016).Table9.CostAssociatedwithDifferentLevelsofAccidentSeverity
MAISLevel Severity VSL(2016)Fraction Cost(million$)
MAIS1 Minor 0.003 0.029MAIS2 Moderate 0.047 0.45MAIS3 Serious 0.105 1.01MAIS4 Severe 0.266 2.55MAIS5 Critical 0.593 5.69MAIS6 Fatal 1.000 9.6
26 | P a g e
IntrusioncrashdatafromODOTindicatesthat165intrusion‐inducedaccidentsoccurredbetween2011and2015,anaverageof33workzoneintrusionaccidentsayear.AccordingtoWong(2010),308workzoneintrusionaccidentswerereportedinCaliforniabetween1998and2007,averaging31workzoneaccidentsayear.Inaddition,Wong(2010)reportedthataccidentdistributionwhenclassifiedbyworkzonedurationvaried;mobileoperationsaccountedfor49%oftheaccidents,shortdurationoperationsaccountedfor9%,andshort‐termstationaryoperationscontributed29%ofworkzoneaccidents.Althoughnotcurrentdata,theresearcherselectedtousethedatafromCaltrans(Wongetal.2010)duetothesegmentationofthedataintousefulseveritylevels.Sincetheaveragecrashratesaresimilar,theresearchersassumedthatthetrendisapplicableto2017aswell.Theoutcomesofaworkzoneintrusionledtoaminorinjury91%ofthetime.Amoderateandseriousinjuryoccurred7%and0.0034%ofthetime,respectively.Onaverage,afatalityoccurredapproximately2%ofthetimewhenanaccidentoccurred.Inagreementwithapreviousstudy(Gambateseetal.2017),somecontractorswereoftheopinionthatWZIATshouldnotbeusedonmobileprojectsgiventheinherentneedtomovefrequently.However,someDOTpersonnelindicatedthepossibilityofusingWZIATinmobileoperationstoimproveworkersafety.Therefore,theresearchersdecidedtoincludemobileoperation‐relatedaccidentsinthecostanalysisfortheBCAbutnotfortheROI.BenefitCostAnalysis
Table10liststheinjuryseverity,injurycost,totalcosts,andtheavertedcost.TheInjurySeverityandInjuryCostareextractedfromTable9whiletotalcostisamultipleofthenumberofworkersinjuredwithineachinjuryseveritycategoryandinjurycost.Forinstance,theTotalCostofInjurySeverity1iscalculatedbymultiplyingtheinjurycost(0.029)withthenumberofworkerswithaminorinjury(91%of308or281).TheavertedcostrepresentspotentialcostassociatedwithavoidinganinjuryorfatalitywithintheworkdurationsusingacountermeasuresuchasWZIAT.
27 | P a g e
Table10.ComparisonofWorkZoneInjuryCost(total)toPotentialAvertedCost‐
BCA
InjurySeverity(MAIS)
InjuryCost(million$)
TotalCost(million$)
AvertedCosts(million$)
1 0.029 8.128 8.1282 0.45 9.702 9.7023 1.01 1.041 1.0414 2.55 0 05 5.69 0 06 9.6 59.14 59.14
Total 78.01 78.01ExpectedYearly
Average 7.801 7.801
TheestimatedavertedcostisoptimisticsincetheunderlyingassumptionisthatimplementationofWZIATwouldpreventallinjuriesandfatalities.Duetoinsufficientdata,itwasimpossibletoestimatetheactualfractionofpreventableworkzoneintrusion‐inducedinjuriesandfatalitieswhenWZIATisapplied.Therefore,applyingareductionfactorwouldbeprudentinordertonotover‐estimatethepotentialofthetechnologies.Table11highlightstheavertedcostwhenapplyingreductionfactorsrangingbetween10%and90%.Table11:ApplicationofConservativeFactors(BCA)
InjurySeverity(MAIS)
AvertedCosts(million$)
FractionofPreventableInjuriesandFatalities(million$)10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
1 8.128 0.81 1.63 2.44 3.25 4.06 4.88 5.69 6.50 7.322 9.702 0.97 1.94 2.91 3.88 4.85 5.82 6.79 7.76 8.733 1.041 0.10 0.21 0.31 0.42 0.52 0.625 0.73 0.83 0.944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 | P a g e
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 59.14 5.91 11.81 17.74 23.66 29.57 35.48 41.40 47.31 53.22
Total 78.01 7.80 15.60 23.40 31.20 39.01 46.81 54.60 62.41 70.20ExpectedYearlyAverage
7.801 0.78 1.560 2.34 3.12 3.90 4.68 5.46 6.24 7.02
ResultsfromthedataanalysisindicatethatWZIATtechnologyisworthwhiledependentonatechnology’spotentialtopreventbetween12.6%and34%ofintrusion‐inducedworkeraccidents(AWARE=34%,Intellicone=16.1%,andWAS=17.6%).ThesepercentagesaretheinjuryandfatalitycostequivalentofthetotalcostofpurchasingandoperatingWZIATs.ReturnonInvestment
ThepotentialcostofinjuriesandfatalitiesassociatedwithworkzoneintrusionandthemonetaryvalueoftheinjuriesandfatalitiesthatcouldbesavedbyimplementingWZIATarepresentedinTable11.UnlikeAvertedCostvaluesinTable10,AvertedCostinTable12suggestthatitisnotfeasibletoaccrueallthepotentialbenefits(costsavings)associatedwithimplementingasafetycountermeasure.Althoughthetotalcostassociatedwithworkzoneaccidentsis$7.8millionyearly,WZIAThasthepotentialtoimpactonlyapproximately51%oftheassociatedcost.ThisrestrictedextentofimpactisbecausethecontractorsinterviewedindicatedthattheyarenotwillingtoimplementWZIATinmobileoperations–whichaccountforapproximately49%ofinjuriesandfatalities.Theresearchersmultipliedthetotalnumberofaccident(308)by51%todeterminethepotentialavertedcost.Itisimportanttonotethatbyapplying49%,theresearchersassumedalinearrelationshipbetweenseverityandfrequencyofinjury–thatis,injuriesreducedacrosstheseveritylevelsequally‐whichisnotalwaysthecase.Table12.ComparisonofallWorkZoneInjuryCosts(total)toPotentialAvertedCost‐
ROI
InjurySeverity(MAIS)
InjuryCost(million$)
TotalCost(million$)
AvertedCosts(million$)
29 | P a g e
1 0.029 8.128 4.1452 0.45 9.702 4.9483 1.01 1.041 0.5314 2.55 0 05 5.69 0 06 9.6 59.14 30.159Total 78.01 39.784ExpectedYearlyAverage
7.801 3.978
Inaddition,theresearchersappliedconservativefactorssimilartothoseappliedinTable11toaccountfortheinjuriesandfatalitieswithinthe51%non‐mobileactivities.Table13showsthataminimumavertedcostof$398,000peryearisobtainableifWZIATpreventsatleast10%ofworkzoneintrusioninjuriesandfatalities.Table13:ApplicationofConservativeFactors(ROI)
InjurySeverity(MAIS)
AvertedCosts(million$)
FractionofPreventableInjuriesandFatalities(million$)10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
1 4.15 0.42 0.83 1.24 1.66 2.07 2.487 2.90 3.32 3.732 4.95 0.5 0.99 1.49 1.98 2.47 2.969 3.46 3.96 4.453 0.53 0.05 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.27 0.319 0.37 0.42 0.484 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 30.16 3.02 6.03 9.05 12.06 15.08 18.10 21.1 24.13 27.14
Total 39.79 3.98 7.96 11.9 15.91 19.89 23.87 27.85 31.83 35.81ExpectedYearlyAverage
3.978 0.40 0.8 1.19 1.59 1.99 2.39 2.78 3.18 3.58
30 | P a g e
Ideally,theinjurycostmodelforcalculatingtheROIshouldbebasedoneachcompany’ssafetyrecord,thatis,informationonworkerfatality,losttimeinjury,andinjurywithoutlosttime.Thisinformationwasnotprovidedbythecontractorsinterviewedaspartofthisstudy.Therefore,theresearchersutilizedthecomprehensiveCaltransaccidentdata.Tomaintainunitconsistency,contractorsinterviewedwereaskedfortheapproximateamountofmilespavedeveryyear.Theaverageresponsefromthreecontractorswasapproximately15milesperyear.Basedonthedataanalysis,WZIATwouldbeusefultocontractorsifthetechnologiesprevent2%‐3%ofinjuriesandfatalitiescausedbyintrudingvehicles.AlthoughtheROIcouldhaveasignificantimpactontheadoptionofaWZIAT,ifatechnologyispartofastate’sstipulatedtrafficcontrolplan,thecontractorisrequiredtousethetechnologyregardlessofROI.
Task5:Evaluateproposedmodelsandprotocols
Toassessthefactorsthatinfluenceaworker’sintentiontoadoptWZIAT,arangeof2‐4variableswereusedtomeasureeachconstruct(perceivedeaseofuse,socialnorm,etc.).Thevariableswereselectedfrompastliteratureandadaptedtofittheresearchobjective.Utilizingvariablesfrompreviousstudiesensuredthatfaceandinternalvalidityweremaintained.Apathanalysis–asubsetofstructuralequationmodeling(SEM)‐usingAMOS25Graphics(AMOS25.02017)wasconductedtoanalyzethecorrelationsbetweeneachconstructandaworker’sintentiontoadoptWZIAT.ToconductSEM,asampletoconstructvariableratioofatleast10:1isrequired.Thatis,foreveryvariabletested,atleast10casesorrespondentsarerequired.Intotal,142respondents’(contractor=53,DOT=69,consultants=20)providedfeedbackusedforthisanalysisleadingtoa14:1ratio(10variables).First,areliabilitytestwasconductedtoverifydataconsistency.ResultsfromtheCronbachalphatestshowedthatthesurveywasgenerallyreliable(minimumα=0.65).Next,fourprimaryhypotheseswereproposedbasedonpastresearchandtheresearcher’sexperience:
31 | P a g e
H1=Perceivedeaseofuse(PEU)ofWZIATwillpositivelyaffectbehavioralintention(BI)toadoptWZIAT
H2=Perceivedusefulness(PU)ofWZIATwillpositivelyaffectbehavioralintentiontoadoptWZIATadoptionintention
H3=Socialnorm(SN)willpositivelyaffectbehavioralintentiontoadoptWZIAT H4=PerceivedeaseofuseofWZIATwillpositivelyaffectperceivedusefulness
AsseeninFigure9,allfourprimaryhypothesesweresupported.ThepathanalysisresultssuggestthatincreasedPUofWZIATincreaseswithanend‐user’sBItoacceptWZIAT(γ=0.41).Inthiscase,PUcomprisesfactorssuchasthetechnology’sabilitytoprovideadequatesafetycoverage,adequatealerts,etc.PEU‐whichrepresentsthelevelofeaseassociatedwithimplementingthetechnology‐alsoshowedapositiverelationshipwithBItoacceptatechnology(γ=0.23).Thisrelationshipimpliesthatworkers’BItoacceptWZIATisassociatedwithincreasedperceivedeaseofuse.SocialnormalsoshowedapositivecorrelationwithbehavioralintentiontoadoptWZIAT(γ=0.34).ThePEUofWZIATalsocorrelatedpositivelywithPU,suggestingthatPEUplaysasignificantroleonhowworkersperceivetheusefulnessofWZIAT(γ=0.45).Thisresultisconsistentwiththerelativelyhighratingoffactorsassociatedwithease(e.g.,easytomaintain,easeofdeployment/retrieval,andeasytomovearound)seeninAppendix.Together,PEU,PU,andSNexplain54%ofthevarianceinanindividual’sBItoacceptWZIAT.PEUexplains21%ofthevarianceinPU.
32 | P a g e
Figure9:ResultsofHypothesisTesting
Theimplicationsoftheresultsareasfollows: WorkersmustperceivethatusingWZIATisnotcomplicatedandwillnotrequire
extensivelearning.WZIATsthatareeasytoinstall,retrieve,move,andmaintainwilllikelybeacceptedbeforeWZIATsthataremorecomplex.
GiventhattheprimarycostdriverofusingWZIATonprojectsisthelaborcostassociatedwithmoving,retrieve,andmaintainingWZIATs,technologiesthatareeasiertousewillsignificantlyimprovethePEUandincreasetheBCAtherebyincreasingtheoddsofadoption.
SupervisorsandmanagersplayanimportantroleindrivingtheacceptanceofWZIAT(throughSN).
InordertoachievehighbehavioralintentiontoacceptWZIAT,itisessentialthePEU,PU,andSNarehigh.
DevelopandtestABMmodel
Agent‐BasedModeling(ABM)isaheterogeneoussimulationmethodusedtopredictagroupleveloutputbyaggregatingindividualagentreactionsandinteractions(Hamiltonetal.2009;RandandRust2011).Givenitsbottom‐upapproachtopredictingtheoutcome,itisconsideredagoodtheoreticaltoolforforecastingandunderstandingtheimpactofindividualdifferencesongroupleveloutcomesinsocialscienceandmarketingresearch.
33 | P a g e
Oneobjectiveofthecurrentstudywastoinvestigatethepossibilityofcombiningadiffusionsimulationmethod‐agent‐basedmodelinthiscase‐andinformationobtainedfromatechnologyacceptancemodel.Responsesreceivedfromtheinterviewsandsurveyswereusedtocreateconstraintsandboundariesforthesimulations.TodeveloptheABM,itisessentialtodefinethephasesinadoption.AccordingtoInnovationDiffusiontheory,apopulationcanbedividedintothreegroupwhenassessingtechnologyadoptionwithinapopulation:non‐adopters,potentialadopters,andadopters(Leeetal.,2011).Individualswhodonotconsideranewtechnologyaretermednon‐adopterswhilepotentialadoptersareindividualswhoconsidertheadoptionofanewtechnology.Thepresentstudyfollowsasimilarpremise.Technologyadoptioncouldoccuratanorganizationalleveland/orindividuallevel.Technologyadoptionintheconstructionindustryisconsideredmosteffectivewhenitoriginatesandexemplifiesatop‐downdynamic(topmanagementinitiatestheadoptionprocedure)(MitropoulosandTatum2000).Incontrast,successfultechnologyacceptance,thatis,theactualuseofthetechnology,isanemergentphenomenon–similartoabottom‐upapproach.Forthepresentagent‐basedmodel,threeprimaryconstructs–SN,PU,andPEU–determinetheintentionofanend‐usertomovefromanon‐adoptertoapotentialadopter.Thisfactorscouldbeextendedtoincludeorganizationaldemographicinformationsuchascompanysize(employeesandrevenue),companytype(sub‐contractorvs.generalcontractor),andindividualdemographicinformationsuchasage,experience,gender,etc.Atransitionfromnon‐adoptertopotentialadopterisachievedwhenthepotentialconstructvalueofanagentisgreaterthanorequaltoauser‐definedconstructthreshold.Thisthreshold–thecoefficient‐indicatesameasureofsensitivity.Consistentwithfindingsinthepresentstudy,AffordabilityTheory,andpreviousstudies(Gambateseetal.2017;Rasoulkhanietal.2017;Lynneetal.1995),costofimplementingthetechnologyiscomputedastheprimaryfactorthatinfluencesanagent(andorganization)toadoptaworkzonesafetytechnology(seeTable14).Affordabilityinthecontextofthepresentstudyisdefinedasthevalueofthetechnologyrelativetoitscost(ROIandBCA).Figure10typifiesthisrelationshipbetweennon‐adopter,potentialadopter,andadopter.The
34 | P a g e
adoptedmodelingprocessissimilartothoseappliedinpastresearch(Rasoulkhanietal.2017).
Figure10:Simulationtheoreticalframework
Tables14and15listthefactorsrequiredtodevelopandoperationalizetheagent‐basedmodel.ThecoefficientslistedinTable14areextractedfromthestructuralequationmodelingconductedintheprevioussectionwhilethecostinformationinTable15isextractedfromfindingsfromthefinancialanalysis.Table14:Coefficientandvalueofsimulationconstructs
Construct Value Coefficients
Perceivedusefulness IfYes=1,ifNo=0 0.41Perceivedeaseofuse IfYes=1,ifNo=0 0.23Subjectivenorm IfYes=1,ifNo=0 0.34Table15:WZIATCostSummary
Technology Costpermile Benefitcostanalysis* Returnoninvestment*
AWARE $5,776.00 0.58 136%Intellicone $7,382.00 1.24 106%
WAS $8,052.00 1.14 98%*assumingeachtechnologycanprevent20%ofinjuriesandfatalitiesItisimportanttonotethatalthoughTable15suggeststhatAWAREhasanegativeBCA,AWAREwouldlikelypreventmorethan20%ofaccidentsandfatalitiescausedbyworkzoneintrusiongivenitsadvancedtechnologyandeaseofimplementation.Twentypercent
35 | P a g e
wasselectedintheabsenceofempiricaldataandinordertocreatearangeofvaluesforthecomputationalmodel.AnyLogic8.0wasutilizedtodevelopacomputationalmodelforsimulatingthechangeinworker’sbehavior.Inthismodel,onlyoneclassofagent–DOTlevel‐isincorporated.Thisclassofagentrepresentsthefirststepintheadoptionprocess(DOT‐>constructioncompany‐>constructionworkers).Ideally,themodelshouldreflectmultipleclassesofagentstomimicthecomplexnatureoftechnologyadoptiononhighwayconstruction.However,theapproachsufficesgiventheexploratorynatureofthepresentstudy.Futurestudyshouldmodeltheinteractionsbetweenagentsusingmorecomplexconstraintsandboundaries.Intotal,50agents,representingeachstateDOTwereutilizedintheadoptionmodel.AstateDOTwouldlikelyadoptaWZIATifthestateDOTbelievestheWZIATisuseful,easytouse,orisusedbyotherstates.Todeterminethethresholdthattriggersachangeofstate(fromnon‐adopter‐>potentialadopter‐>adopter),theregressioncoefficientsfromtheSEMwereutilized.Theseconstructswereparameterizedusingstochasticcomputationandusedwithinthesimulationasprobabilisticfactorsfordeterminingbehavior.Theformulabelowshowsthemathematicalexpressionofthemodel:
Br1=w1(PUr)+w2(PEUr)+w3(SNr)Br2=w4(BCA)
WhereBr1andBr2referstothepotentialadoptionandadoptionbehaviorrespectively.Wnrepresentstheregressioncoefficientforeachconstruct.Thesumofthevaluesinequation1couldrangefrom0to1withnumbersbelow0.5consideredlowandnumbersabove0.5consideredhigh.Ifthesumoftheconstructexceeds0.5,theagentinquestionmovesintothenextstate(fromnon‐adoptertopotentialadopter).Aprobabilitythresholdof0.5wasselectedsimilartopreviousstudies(Scalcoetal,2017).Thesameprocessappliestotransitioningfrompotentialadoptertoadopter.BCAwasselectedasthepreferredfinancialmetricsincetheclassofagentinquestionistheDOT.GiventhatinvestmentswithBCAresultsabove1areconsideredpositiveinvestments,theresearcherssetatransitionthresholdof1andarangeof0.5to1.5.
36 | P a g e
TheredareainFigure11representsnon‐adopterwhileyellowandgreenrepresentspotentialadoptersandadopters.ThesimulationstartdateisMay2018anditterminatesinJanuary2025–approximately7yearsintotal.Thesimulationbeginswithall50stateDOTsinanon‐adopterstate.ThenumberofDOTsinthenon‐adoptersstatereducedbyabout78%bytheendofthesimulationin2025.Withinasimilartimeframe,19stateDOTsadoptedWZIAT.
Figure11:WZIATdiffusionbetween2018‐2025withinStateDOTs
Figure12depictstherateofadoptionwhentheregressioncoefficientofPU,PEU,andSNofthetechnologiesisincreasedby15%(cumulativecoefficient).Thisincreaseresultedtoahigherrateofadoptionbyyear2025(approximately75%ofDOTsutilizingWZAIT).TheresultsindicatesthatmorestateDOTswilladoptWZIATiftheybelievethatWZIATismoreusefulintermofitseffectiveness,durability;andiseasiertoimplement,retrieve,andmaintain.Also,resultsfromthemodelindicatesthatsocialinfluencessuchcouldbeakeyfactorfordiffusiontooccur.Forinstance,astateDOTwouldbeinfluencedbythedecisionofanotherstateDOTwithincloseproximitytoadoptWZIAT.
37 | P a g e
Figure12:IncreaseddiffusionofWZIAT.
7. Changes/problemsthatresultedindeviationfromthemethodsWhileexecutingthestudy,theresearchersencountereddifficultiesgeneratingresponsesfromworkzonesafetytechnologymanufacturersandhighwayconstructioncontractorswhichimpactsthegeneralizabilityofthestudyfindings.Althoughtheoreticallysound,thedevelopmentofanacceptancemodelusingABMrequiresadditionalparametersandboundariestoensurethatallpotentialfactorsareaccountedfor.ItisimportanttonotethatalthoughTPBandTAMwerecombinedtodevelopanacceptancemodelforWZIAT,extendingthetheoriestoincludemodelssuchastask‐technologyfit(TTF)andtheoryofreasonedaction(TRA)couldhelpidentifymoreconstructsthathaveanimpactontheacceptanceofworkzonetechnologiessuchasWZIAT.Developingthefinancialanalysisinvolvedmakingsomeassumptionsforinformationthatwereunobtainable.These
38 | P a g e
assumptionswereclearlystatedandshouldbeconsideredwhengeneralizingtheresultsofthisstudy.
8. Listofpresentations/publicationsFindingsfromthisstudywillbepublishedinacademicjournalsandpresentedinconferences,workshops,and/orseminars.1. Nnaji, C., Gambatese, J., and Eseonu, C. (2017). “Theoretical Framework for Improving
Adoption of Safety Technology in Construction Industry.” 2018 Construction ResearchCongress(CRC2018),NewOrleans,LA.[AcceptedonOctober17,2017]
2. Nnaji,C.,Lee,H.,andGambatese,J.(2017).“Canworkzoneintrusion‐inducedinjuriesandfatalitiesbereducedefficiently?”ProfessionalSafety,ASSE[Acceptance,Jan.20,2018]
3. Nnaji,C.,Gambatese, J., Lee,H.W., andZhang,F. (2017). “Assessing the ImpactofWorkZone Safety Technology: A Systematic Review.” Accident and Analysis and PreventionJournal.[SubmittedtothejournalonSeptember19,2017]
9. DisseminationplanTheresearchershavesubmittedandpublishedsectionsofthisstudyinacademicjournalsandconferenceproceedings.Theresearchersalsoplantosubmitacomprehensivejournalpaperfromthestudytoatopacademicjournal.
10. ConclusionsWorkerswithinhighwayworkzonesareanat‐riskpopulationgiventheinherentlyriskynatureoftheirjobs.Thecurrentstudyassessedtheroletechnologyplaysinimprovingworkersafetyandprovidesinformationthatshouldeasetheprocessofadoptingandimplementingtechnologyonhighwayprojects.Currenttechnologiesusedinworkzonesafetymanagementplayanessentialroleinimprovingworkersafetythroughreducingmotoristspeed,alertingequipmentdriversofpotentialcollisionwithworkers,andinformingworkersofanintrudingvehicle.Thefindingsfromthepresentstudyprovideessentialinformationsuchasthekeypredictorsofsafetytechnology,financialanalysis,andprimaryfactorsthataffectauser’sintentionto
39 | P a g e
acceptaWZIATtoconstructionpractitionersinvolvedintechnologyadoptiondecision‐making.Forinstance,thepresentstudyillustratesthesevereimpactthatlaborcosthasontheoveralldailycostofutilizingWZIAT.ReducingthetimeworkersareinvolvedinmanagingaWZIATvastlyreducesthecostassociatedwithimplementingWZIAT.Utilizingthisinformation,stakeholderscanarriveatacongruentdecisionregardingWZIATadoptionthatissupportedbyempiricaldataandwhichinturnimprovestheoutcome–inthiscase,areductionininjuriesandfatalitiesinhighwayconstructionworkzones.
11. FutureResearchOpportunitiesProvidedbelowarerecommendationsforfutureresearchbasedonfindingsfromthecurrentstudy:
Thedevelopmentofadaptablestandardtoolsthathelpbridgetheknowledgegapbetweenmanufacturersandend‐usersshouldbeencouraged
Thereisaneedforthedevelopmentofarobustmodelforpredictingpotentialadoptionoftechnology
MonteCarlosimulationshouldbeappliedtothefinancialanalysistohelpnormalizesomeassumptions
Workforcedevelopmenttrainingisneededforworkerstohelpimproveintegrationofsafetytechnologywithinconstructionoperations
40 | P a g e
12. ReferencesAAM(2017).“ISS,NISSandMAISMappingwithAAAM’sICDISSMap.”Associationforthe
AdvancementofAutomotiveMedicine.(Jan.05,2018)
AAAM(2015).“Overview.”AssociationfortheAdvancementofAutomotiveMedicine
AASHTO(2010).“UserandNon‐UserBenefitAnalysisforHighways.”AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials.(Jan.21,2017)
Arico,M.C.,andRavani,B.(2008).AdvancedHighwayMaintenanceandConstructionTechnologyResearchCenter.
Agent,K.,andHibbs,J.(1996).“EvaluationofSHRPWorkZoneSafetyDevices”.KentuckyTransportationCenterResearchReport.381.KTC‐96‐30
Bello,D.(2009).“StateofWorkZoneSafety.”(Aug.21,2017)
Boardman,A.Greenberg,D.,Vining,A.,andWeimer,D.(2001).“Cost‐BenefitAnalysis:ConceptsandPractice.”seconded.PrenticeHall.
BLS(2017).“Fataloccupationalinjuriescountsandratesbyselectedindustries,2015‐16.”(Nov.11,2017)
Brown,H.,Sun,C.,andCope,T.(2015).“Evaluationofmobileworkzonealarmsystems.”TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,(2485),42‐50.
Chuttur,M.Y.(2009).“Overviewofthetechnologyacceptancemodel:Origins,developmentsandfuturedirections.”WorkingPapersonInformationSystems,9(37),9‐37.
41 | P a g e
CPWR(2015).StrengtheningJobsiteSafetyClimatebyUsingandImprovingLeadingIndicators.TheCenterforConstructionResearchandTraining.https://www.cpwr.com/safety‐culture/strengthening‐jobsite‐safety‐climate>(Jan.12,2017)
Davis,F.D.(1989).“Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnology.”MISquarterly,319‐340.
Edara,P.,Sun,C.,andRobertson,A.(2013).“EffectivenessofWorkZoneIntelligentTransportationSystems.”ReportNo.InTransProject,06‐277.
ELWC(2015).“SonoBlaster–WorkZoneSafety.”(Oct.14,2015).
FederalHighwayAdministration(2017).“FactsandStatistics–WorkZoneSafety.”.(Dec.17,2017).
Fyrie,P.(2016).“WorkZoneIntrusionAlarmsforHighwayWorkers.”AHMCTResearchCenter.
42 | P a g e
Hamilton,D.J.,Nuttall,W.J.,&Roques,F.A.(2009).Agentbasedsimulationoftechnologyadoption(No.0923).EPRGWorkingPaperSeries.
HighwayResourceSolution.(2015).“Intellicone.”(Sept.02,2015).
Huebschman,C.R.,C.Garcia,D.M.Bullock,andD.M.Abraham.(2003).“ConstructionWorkZoneSafety.”PublicationFHWA/IN/JTRP‐2002/34.JointTransportationResearchProgram,IndianaDepartmentofTransportationandPurdueUniversity,WestLafayette,Indiana.https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284313166
Hong,Y.,Chan,D.W.,Chan,A.P.,andYeung,J.F.(2011).“Criticalanalysisofpartneringresearchtrendinconstructionjournals.”Journalofmanagementinengineering,28(2),82‐95.
InfrastructureTrainingandSafetyInstitute(ITSI)(2011).“ReferenceGuidetoWorkZoneTrafficControl”(March21,2018)
Lee,Y.,Hsieh,Y.andHsu,C(2011).“AddingInnovationDiffusionTheorytotheTechnologyAcceptanceModel :SupportingEmployees’IntentionstouseE‐LearningSystems.”JournalofEducationalTechnologyandSociety,14(4)
Mathieson,K.(1991).“Predictinguserintentions:comparingthetechnologyacceptancemodelwiththetheoryofplannedbehavior.”Informationsystemsresearch,2(3),173‐191.
Mathieson,K.,Peacock,E.,andChin,W.W.(2001).“Extendingthetechnologyacceptancemodel:theinfluenceofperceiveduserresources.”ACMSIGMISDatabase:theDATABASEforAdvancesinInformationSystems,32(3),86‐112.
Marks,E.,Vereen,S.,andAwolusi,I.(2017).“ActiveWorkZoneSafetyUsingEmergingTechnologies2017”(No.UTCAReportNumber15412).
43 | P a g e
Marks,E.,andTeizer,J.(2013).“Methodfortestingproximitydetectionandalerttechnologyforsafeconstructionequipmentoperation.”ConstructionManagementandEconomics,31(6),636‐646.
Mitropoulos,P.,andTatum,C.(2000).“Forcesdrivingadoptionofnewinformationtechnologies.”Journalofconstructionengineeringandmanagement,126(5),340‐348.
Moren(2016).GuidanceonTreatmentofEconomicValueofaStatisticalLife(VSL)inU.S.DepartmentofTransportationAnalysis–2016Adjustment.(Nov15,2017)
Novosel,C.(2014).“EvaluationofAdvancedSafetyPerimeterSystemsforKansasTemporaryWorkZones.”PhDdiss.,UniversityofKansas.
Park,J.,Yang,X.,Cho,Y.K.,andSeo,J.(2017).“Improvingdynamicproximitysensingandprocessingforsmartwork‐zonesafety.”AutomationinConstruction,84,111‐120.
Pegula,S.(2013).“Ananalysisoffataloccupationalinjuriesatroadconstructionsites,2003–2010.”TheBureauofLaborStatistics.Availableat(Sept.16,2017)
Park,J.,Marks,E.,Cho,Y.K.,andSuryanto,W.(2015).“Performancetestofwirelesstechnologiesforpersonnelandequipmentproximitysensinginworkzones.”JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,142(1),04015049.
Park,J.,Yang,X.,Cho,Y.K.,andSeo,J.(2017).“Improvingdynamicproximitysensingandprocessingforsmartwork‐zonesafety.”AutomationinConstruction,84,111‐120.
Rankin,J.H.,andLuther,R.(2006).“Theinnovationprocess:adoptionofinformationandcommunicationtechnologyfortheconstructionindustry.”CanadianJournalofCivilEngineering,33(12),1538‐1546.
44 | P a g e
Rand,W.,andRust,R.T.(2011).“Agent‐basedmodelinginmarketing:Guidelinesforrigor”.InternationalJournalofResearchinMarketing,28(3),181‐193.
Rasoulkhani,K.,Logasa,B.,Reyes,M.P.,andMostafavi,A.(2017).“Agent‐basedmodelingframeworkforsimulationofcomplexadaptivemechanismsunderlyinghouseholdwaterconservationtechnologyadoption.”InSimulationConference(WSC),2017Winter(pp.1109‐1120).IEEE.
Sant(2014).“Work‐ZoneSafety:IntrusionAlert.”RoadandBridges.(June09,2016)
Schwatka,N.V.,andRosecrance,J.C.(2016).“Safetyclimateandsafetybehaviorsintheconstructionindustry:Theimportanceofco‐workerscommitmenttosafety.”Work,54(2),401‐413.
Sun,C.,Edara,P.P.,Hou,Y.,Robertson,A.,andSmith,D.(2011).“Cost‐BenefitAnalysisofSequentialWarningLightsinNighttimeWorkZoneTapers.”UniversityofMissouri,ReporttotheSmartWorkZoneDeploymentInitiative.
Teizer,J.,Allread,B.,Fullerton,C.,andHinze,J.(2010).“Autonomouspro‐activereal‐timeconstructionworkerandequipmentoperatorproximitysafetyalertsystem.”AutomationinConstruction,19(5),630‐640.
Theiss,L.,Miles,J.,Ullman,G.,andMaxwell,S.(2014).“PhotometricEvaluationofSteady‐BurnWarningLightsinWorkZones”.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,(2458),88‐95.
Theiss,L.,Pratt,M.,Ullman,G.,andMaxwell,S.(2014).“EvaluationofCost‐EffectivenessofSteady‐BurnWarningLightsinWorkZones.”TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,(2458),65‐73.
Ullman,G.,andIragavarapu,V.(2014).“AnalysisofExpectedCrashReductionBenefitsandCostsofTruck‐MountedAttenuatorUseinWorkZones.”TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,(2458),74‐77.
45 | P a g e
Venkatesh,V.,Speier,C.,andMorris,M.G.(2002).“Useracceptanceenablersinindividualdecisionmakingabouttechnology:Towardanintegratedmodel.”Decisionsciences,33(2),297‐316.
Venkatesh,V.,andDavis,F.D.(1996).“Amodeloftheantecedentsofperceivedeaseofuse:Developmentandtest.”Decisionsciences,27(3),451‐481.
Wang,M.,Schrock,S.,Bai,Y.,andRescot,R.(2011).“Evaluationofinnovativetrafficsafetydevicesatshort‐termworkzones.”ReportK‐TRAN:KU‐09‐5,TheUniversityofKansas.
Wong,J.M.,Arico,M.C.,andRavani,B.(2011).“Factorsinfluencinginjuryseveritytohighwayworkersinworkzoneintrusionaccidents.”Trafficinjuryprevention,12(1),31‐38.
Yi,W.,andChan,A.P.(2013).“Criticalreviewoflaborproductivityresearchinconstructionjournals.”JournalofManagementinEngineering,30(2),214‐225.
Zhang,F.,andGambatese,J.(2017).“HighwayConstructionWork‐ZoneSafety:EffectivenessofTraffic‐ControlDevices.”PracticePeriodicalonStructuralDesignandConstruction,22(4),04017010.
13. AppendixAppendixA:Survey
ReducingHighwayConstructionFatalitiesthroughImprovedAdoptionofSafety
TechnologiesDearParticipant,Wewouldliketothankyoufortakingthetimetoparticipateinthissurveyentitled“ReducingHighwayConstructionFatalitiesthroughImprovedAdoptionofSafetyTechnologies."
46 | P a g e
Thepurposeofthisstudyistodevelopatoolthatimprovestheadoptionanddiffusionofsafetyinnovationsintheconstructionindustry.Ifyouchoosetotakepartinthissurvey,youwillbeaskedtoprovidethefollowinginformation:
Perceptiononwhatfactorsinfluencestheacceptanceofworkzonesafetytechnologies· Perceptionontheimpactofworkzonesafetytechnologies· Personalattributessuchastitle,typeofcompany/organization,yearsofexperience,etc.
Thesurveyisexpectedtotakeapproximately15minutestocomplete.Yourresponsestothissurveyandpersonalinformationprovidedwillbekeptconfidential,usedonlyforacademicpurposesrelatedtothestudy,andwillnotbedistributedtothepublic.Allidentifyinginformationconnectingrespondentstotheirresponseswillberemovedaspartofthedatacollectionprocess.Publicationsgeneratedfromtheresearchstudywillnotincludeanyinformationthatcanbeusedtoidentifyrespondents.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthesurvey,pleasecontacttheresearcherslistedbelow.Ifyouhavequestionsaboutyourrightsorwelfareasasurveyparticipant,pleasecontacttheOregonStateUniversityInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB)Officeat541‐737‐8008,[email protected]:Dr.ChinweikeEseonu(PrincipalInvestigator),Mechanical,IndustrialandManufacturingEngineering,OregonStateUniversity,204RogersHall,Corvallis,OR97331;Cell‐phone:541‐737‐0024;E‐mail:[email protected],CivilandConstructionEngineering,OregonStateUniversity,101KearneyHall,Corvallis,OR97331;Cell‐phone:(541)737‐8913;E‐mail:[email protected],CivilandConstructionEngineering,OregonStateUniversity,101KearneyHall,Corvallis,OR97331;Cell‐phone:(541)908‐0475;E‐mail:[email protected]:Bycontinuingthesurvey,Ihavereadtheabovedescriptionoftheresearch.IfIhadquestionsorwouldlikeadditionalinformation,Icontactedtheresearchersandhadallofmyquestionsansweredtomysatisfaction.Iagreetovoluntarily
47 | P a g e
participateinthisresearch.Byansweringthesurveyquestionsandrespondingtothissurvey,IaffirmthatIhavereadtheaboveinformation,agreetoparticipateintheresearch,andamatleast18yearsofageorolder.
SurveyQuestionsDemographicInformation
Q1Pleaseselectyourrole OwnerAgency(e.g.OregonDOT,etc.)(1) GeneralContractor(2) Sub‐Contractor(3) Consultant(6) EquipmentManufacturer(7) EquipmentSupplier(4) Student(8) Other(5)____________________Q2Whatindustrydoyou(orhaveyou)workedin?Selectallthatapply. HeavyCivil(1) MarineConstruction(2) VerticalConstruction(ResidentialandCommercial)(3) IndustrialConstruction(4) Other(5)____________________Q3Selectthejobtitlethatbestdescribeswhatyoudo. ProjectManager(1) ProjectEngineer(2) TrafficControlDesigner(3) SafetyOfficer(4) SafetyEquipmentSupplier(5) RoadMaintenanceCrew(6) TrafficControlConsultant(9) TrafficControlCrew(7) Other(8)____________________
48 | P a g e
Q4.Whatistheapproximateannualrevenueofyourcompany?Q5.Whatisthesizeofyourcompany?(Approximatenumberofemployees)Q6.Whichsectorwouldyoubestdescribemostofyourcompany'sprojects?(Selectallthatapply) Residential(1) Commercial(2) HeavyCivil(3) Energy(4) Industrial(5) Marine(6)Q7Howmanyyearsofexperiencedoyouhaveintheconstructionindustry? Lessthan1year(1) 1‐5years(2) 5‐10years(3) 10‐20years(4) Morethan20years(5)Thequestionsinthenextsectionfocusonfactorsthatcouldimpacttheuseofaworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology.Aworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology(WZIAT)isatypeofsafetysystemusedinaroadwayworkzonetoalertfieldworkersandsecuretimeforthemtoescapewhenerrantvehiclesintrudeintotheworkzone.PleaseanswerthefollowingquestionswiththeWZIATinmind.Q8Areyoufamiliarwithworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology? Definitelyyes(1) Probablyyes(2) Probablynot(3) Definitelynot(4)Q9HowimportantarethefollowingattributestoyourdecisiontoadoptWZIAT?
49 | P a g e
NotImportant
(1)
SlightlyImportant
(2)
Neutral(3) Important(4)
VeryImportant
(5)
EaseofDeployment/Retrieval(1)
Easytomovethetechnologyaround(2)
UserFriendliness(learningcurve)(3)
LittleornoImpactonTrafficFlowandControlwithinworkzone(4)
Limitsworkerexposure(duringdeployment/retrievaloftechnology)(5)
Easytostore(6)
Resistancetoenvironmentalandphysicalimpact(7)
Reusable(8)
EasytoMaintain(9)
ExtendedbatteryLife(reliability)(10)
Costoflaborandequipment(11)
Availabilityofequipmentinthemarket(12)
Costofreplacingparts/maintenance(13)
ImpactofwarningalertondriverorDrivercomprehensionofvisualand
audiowarning(14)
50 | P a g e
Workercomprehensionofwarningsignal(conspicuity,qualityofalarm)
(15)
Multiplewarningalertsources(audio,visual,haptic/vibratory)(16)
Adequatecoveragedistance(Sensor/light/sound/haptic)(17)
Limitedphysicalimpactonvehicle(collisionwithtechnology)(18)
Driveradequatelycomprehendsvisualandaudiowarning(19)
Fewornofalsenegativeandpositivealarm(20)
Lessdependenceonexistinginfrastructure(21)
51 | P a g e
Q10HowdoesWZIATimpactworkers? Strongly
disagree/unlikely(1)
Somewhatdisagree/unlikely(2)
Neitheragree/likenordisagree/unlikely(3)
Somewhatagree/likely(4)
Stronglyagree/likely(5)
ImplementingWZIATenablesworkerstobemoreproductive(1)
UsingWZIATimprovesworkerssafety(2)
UsingWZIATimprovesworkquality(3)
WZIATiseasytouse(4)
WZIATwouldhaveasteeplearningcurve(5)
WorkerswillfindWZIATeasytouse(6)
PeoplewhoareimportanttomewouldthinkIshoulduseWZIAT(7)
IwilluseWZIATbecausepeoplewhoinfluencemybehavior(manager,etc.)
wouldwantmetouseit(8)
IwillencouragetheuseofWZIAT(9)
IwilllikelyincorporateWZIATintoyourworkoperations(ifitwasmy
decisiontomake)(10)
IwillrecommendtheuseofWZIATtomyboss(11)
52 | P a g e
Thequestionsinthenextsectionfocusonsafetyclimateandculture.“Safetyclimate”isdefinedas“thevalues,attitudes,motivations,andknowledgethataffecttheextenttowhichsafetyisemphasizedovercompetinggoalsindecisionsandbehaviors.”(Barnes2009)Pleasekindlyindicatehowyouperceiveyourorganization'sattitudetowardsworkersafetymanagement.Q11Inmycompany,management… Doesnotparticipateinsafetyaudits.(1) Onlyparticipateinsafetyauditsinresponsetoaworkerinjuryoradversesafetyevent.(2) Participateinsafetyauditsonlywhenrequired.(3) Initiateandactivelyparticipateininternalsafetyaudits.(4) Activelyparticipateininternalsafetyauditsandusetheinformationformanagement
performanceevaluation.(5)Q12Inmycompany,… Thereisnoformalsafetymanagementsystem;safetytrendsarenotanalyzed.(1) Thesafetymanagementsystemisreviewedandsafetytrendsareonlyanalyzedinresponseto
workerinjuryoranadversesafetyevent.(2) Thesafetymanagementsystemisreviewedandsafetytrendsareanalyzedfromtimetotime.
(3) Thesafetymanagementsystemisreviewedandsafetytrendsareanalyzedannuallytoensure
effectivenessandrelevance.(4) Thesafetymanagementsystemisreviewedandsafetytrendsareanalyzedbi‐annuallyto
ensureeffectivenessandrelevance.(5)
53 | P a g e
Q13Inmycompany,… Theprimaryfocusisonincreasingproductivityandreducingcosts.Employeesarerewarded
fortakingshortcutstomeetproductiongoals.(1) Whenaprojectfallsbehindschedule,productionbecomesvaluedmorethansafety.(2) Aslongasminimumsafetyrequirementsarebeingmet,productionandcostreductionarethe
mainprioritiesofaproject.(3) Forthemostpart,safetyisnotcompromisedforthesakeofproductivity.Projectsare
completedassafelyaspossible.(4) Safetyisnevercompromisedforproductivity,schedule,orcost.Safetytrulycomesfirst.(5)Q14Inmycompany,management… Doesnotinvestinsafetyprogramdevelopmentorprovideadequateresourcestoconductwork
safely.(1) Onlyinvestsinsafetyprogramdevelopmentanddevotesminimalresourcestosafetyactivities
afteranaccidentoranadverseeventhasoccurred.(2) Participatesinsafetyprogramdevelopmentandallocatesresourcestotheextentthatitis
requiredbyregulatoryauthoritiesortheowner.(3) Providesadequateresourcestoensureasafeworkingenvironment.Developsasafetyprogram
thatissharedwithallemployees.(4) Provideson‐goingfinancialsupportforongoingdevelopmentofsafetypolicies,programs,and
processes.Investsinsystemsandprocessestocontinuallyimprovethejobsitesafetyclimate.(5)
54 | P a g e
Q15Inmycompany,… Therearenosafetyrelatedmetricsincludedinmanagerorsupervisors’performance
evaluations.(1) Theonlysafetymetricusedinmanagersandsupervisors’evaluationsisthenumberofworker
injuries,andoftenthatisignored.(2) Managersandsupervisorsareheldaccountableformeetingtheminimumrequiredsafety
standards;but,poorprojectsafetyperformancecarriesfewrealconsequences.(3) Managersandsupervisorsareprimarilyheldaccountableforlaggingsafetyindicators(e.g.,
RecordableInjuryRate),butsomeleadingindicators(e.g.,safetyclimatemetrics)havebeenincluded.(4)
Managersandsupervisorsareheldaccountableforleading(e.g.,safetyclimatemetrics)andlaggingsafetyindicators.Proactivesafetyleadershipisacriticalcomponentoftheirevaluationandpromotion.(5)
Q16Inmycompany,safetyexpectations,roles,andresponsibilities…
Arenotidentifiedorarticulatedtoindividualsworkingintheworkplace.(1) Areonlyclarifiedafteranadversesafetyevent.(2) AreonlysettomeetOSHArequirements.(3) Arefrequently,clearly,andconsistentlycommunicatedtoemployees.(4) Arediscussedwithemployeesacrosstheentirecompany,withsub‐contractors,and
owners;theyarereinforcedonadailybasis.(5)
55 | P a g e
Q17Inmycompany,… Supervisorshavenosupervisorytrainingandhavelittleunderstandingorknowledgeof
regulatoryrequirements.(1) Afteranincidentoccursorregulatoryactionistaken,thereisadiscussionamonghigherlevel
managementabouttheimportanceofsupervisoryleadership.(2) SupervisorstakeOSHA30‐hourtrainingandthusarefamiliarwithOSHAregulationsbutthey
havelittleornoleadershiptraining.(3) Supervisorsaretrainedonregulatoryguidelinesandleadership.(4) Supervisorsareprovidedwithandrequiredtotakeleadershiptrainingthatincludestopics
suchas:howtocommunicatewith,andmotivateteammembers;howtoconductpre‐planningmeetings;andhowtoinspirecrewmemberstoalsobeproactivesafetyleaders.(5)
Q18Inmycompany,supervisors… Manageandpunishusingintimidationandfocusonlyonindividualbehaviorwithouttaking
whatmayhavebeenafaultyprocessintoaccount.(1) Startcaringfortheircrewandactingassafetyleadersonlyafteranincidentoccursor
regulatoryactionistaken.Thebehaviordisplayedisshort‐lived.(2) “Talkthesafetytalk”,butoftendonotfollowtheirownadviceandexpectations.(3) Initiateandactivelyparticipateinsafetyprogramactivitiesthatarefocusedoncontinuous
improvement.(4) Instillasenseofsafetyownershipatalllevels,serveaseffectivesafetycommunicators,
excellentrolemodelsforsafety,andareabletocoachandteach.Safetyisinfusedintoeverymeeting.(5)
Q19Inmycompany,employees… Feelnosenseofresponsibilityfortheirco‐employees’ortheirownsafety.(1) Aren’tengagedinpromotingsafetyuntilafteranaccidentoccurs.(2) Areengagedinpromotingsafetytotheextentthatisrequired.(3) Participateinallaspectsofensuringsafeworkingconditions,beginningattheplanningand
designstages.(4) Areempoweredandrewardedforgoingaboveandbeyondtoensuresafeworkingconditions
wheretheyalwaysfeelresponsiblefortheirandtheirco‐employeessafety.(5)
56 | P a g e
Q20Inmycompany,… Workerfeedbackregardingsafetyconditionsandhazardreductionisnotsought.Theyjust
wantemployeesto“getthejobdone.”(1) Employeesareaskedforsafetyadviceandfeedbackafteraninjuryoradversesafetyeventhas
occurred.(2) Workerfeedbackregardingsafetyissoughtonlywheninitiatedbyemployeesorduring
mandatorysafetymeetings.(3) Managementactivelyinvolvesemployeesinidentifyinghazardsandsolvingsafetyproblemsby
includingthemindailypre‐jobsafetyandcrewtask/hazardanalysis.(4) Managementactivelyseeksworkerinputonsafety.Safetyandevennon‐safetymeetingsand
walk‐aroundsfocusonsolvingspecificproblemsidentifiedbyemployeesandothers.(5)Q21Inmycompany,Injuryandillnessdata… Arenotcollected,unlessthere’safatalitythatmustbereportedtoOSHAorotherentities.(1) Arecollected,buttheyareonlyreviewedafteranadversesafetyeventhasoccurred.Issuesare
notformallytrackednorareresolutionscommunicatedacrosstheorganization.(2) ArecollectedforthepurposeofbeingcompliantwithOSHArequirements.Supervisorspass
safetyinformationontotheircrewonlywhenrequiredbymanagement.(3) Areregularlyandformallycollectedandsharedwithmanagersandsupervisors;supervisors
areencouragedbutnotrequiredtoshareinformationwiththeiremployees.(4) Aregatheredthroughformalsystemsforregularlysharingandfollow‐upimprovementactions
withmanagers,supervisor,andemployees.(5)Q22Inmycompany,… Thereisnoadequatesafety‐relatedcommunicationeffort.(1) Safety‐relatedcommunicationeffortsoccuronlyinresponsetoanadversesafetyevent.(2) Safety‐relatedcommunicationeffortmeetsOSHArequirements.(3) Safety‐relatedcommunicationeffortismadewhenthere’sanewstandardorpolicythatneeds
tobefollowed.(4) Safetyrelatedcommunicationeffortisformalizedbothverticallyandhorizontallythroughout
thecompanyandintheworkplace.(5)
57 | P a g e
Q23Inmycompany… Thereisnotrainingverificationprocess.(1) Trainingcardsorcertificatesareonlyinvestigatedafteranincidenthasoccurred.(2) TrainingisverifiedonlytotheextentrequiredbyOSHAregulations.(3) Trainingforallemployees,includingsub‐contractors,isverifiedregularly.(4) Trainingforallemployees,includingallsub‐contractorsisverifiedbeforeworkisconductedon
everyproject.Knowledgeandskillcompetenceareregularlyassessed.(5)Q24Inmycompany,… Trainershavenoformalqualifications.(1) Becauseofjob‐siteexperiencealone,seniorlevelemployees(e.g.,foreman)areaskedto
conductsafetytraining.(2) AformalsafetycurriculumisdevelopedandadministeredbytrainerswhomeetminimalOSHA
qualifications.(3) Safetycurriculumisdevelopedbyhighlyqualifiedtrainers.(4) Safetycurriculumisdevelopedandadministeredbyhighlyqualifiedandexperiencedcontent
expertswithknowledg