IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1264-d209568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Potential Use of Near-Miss Information to Improve Construction Safety Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Zhipeng Zhou

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210000, China)

  • Chaozhi Li

    (Nanjing Building Safety Supervision Station, Nanjing 210000, China)

  • Chuanmin Mi

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210000, China)

  • Lingfei Qian

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210000, China)

Abstract

Construction project management usually has a high risk of safety-related accidents. An opportunity to proactively improve safety performance is with near-miss information, which is regarded as free lessons for safety management. The research status and practice; however, presents a lack of comprehensive understanding on what near-miss information means within the context of construction safety management. The objective of this study is to fill in this gap. The main findings enrich the comprehensive understanding of the near-miss definition, the near-miss causation model, and the process of near-miss management. Considering that near-misses are more tacit and obscure than accidents, the process for near-miss management involves eight stages: discovery, reporting, identification, prioritization, causal analysis, solution, dissemination, and evaluation. The first three stages aim to make near-misses explicit. The other five are adopted to better manage near-miss information, compiled in a well-designed near-miss database (NMDB). Finally, a case study was conducted to show how near-miss information can be utilized to assist in construction safety management. The main potential contributions here are twofold. Firstly, corresponding findings provide a knowledge framework of near-miss information for construction safety researchers who can go on to further study near-miss management. Secondly, the proposed framework contributes to the guidance and encouragement of near-miss practices on construction sites.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhipeng Zhou & Chaozhi Li & Chuanmin Mi & Lingfei Qian, 2019. "Exploring the Potential Use of Near-Miss Information to Improve Construction Safety Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1264-:d:209568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1264/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1264/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nakano, Mikihisa & Akikawa, Takuya, 2014. "Literature review of empirical studies on SCM using the SSPP paradigm," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 35-45.
    2. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    3. Moons, Karen & Waeyenbergh, Geert & Pintelon, Liliane, 2019. "Measuring the logistics performance of internal hospital supply chains – A literature study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 205-217.
    4. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Yuan, Yan & Goto, Mika, 2017. "A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 104-124.
    5. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley & Matthew Cronin, 2011. "Why Near‐Miss Events Can Decrease an Individual's Protective Response to Hurricanes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 440-449, March.
    6. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2016. "Near-miss events, risk messages, and decision making," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 34-44, March.
    7. Peter Madsen & Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2016. "Airline Safety Improvement Through Experience with Near‐Misses: A Cautionary Tale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1054-1066, May.
    8. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Paltrinieri, Nicola, 2014. "On the application of near accident data to risk analysis of major accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 116-125.
    9. William H Starbuck & Philippe Baumard, 2005. "Learning From Failures: Why It May Not Happen," Post-Print hal-03228735, HAL.
    10. Aldred, Rachel, 2016. "Cycling near misses: Their frequency, impact, and prevention," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 69-83.
    11. Hans-Gerd Ridder, 2017. "The theory contribution of case study research designs," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 10(2), pages 281-305, October.
    12. Catherine H. Tinsley & Robin L. Dillon & Matthew A. Cronin, 2012. "How Near-Miss Events Amplify or Attenuate Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1596-1613, September.
    13. Button, Kenneth & Drexler, Jonathan, 2006. "Are measures of air-misses a useful guide to air transport safety policy?," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 168-174.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Silvia Maria Ansaldi & Patrizia Agnello & Annalisa Pirone & Maria Rosaria Vallerotonda, 2021. "Near Miss Archive: A Challenge to Share Knowledge among Inspectors and Improve Seveso Inspections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Rita Yi Man Li & Kwong Wing Chau & Frankie Fanjie Zeng, 2019. "Ranking of Risks for Existing and New Building Works," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-26, May.
    3. Tatsuhiko Anzai & Takashi Yamauchi & Masaki Ozawa & Kunihiko Takahashi, 2021. "A Generalized Structural Equation Model Approach to Long Working Hours and Near-Misses among Healthcare Professionals in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-11, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Azadegan, Arash & Srinivasan, Ravi & Blome, Constantin & Tajeddini, Kayhan, 2019. "Learning from near-miss events: An organizational learning perspective on supply chain disruption response," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 215-226.
    2. Alexa Tanner & Ryan Reynolds, 2020. "The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: the post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(2), pages 1679-1693, November.
    3. Heinrich, Timo & Seifert, Matthias & Then, Franziska, 2020. "Near-losses in insurance markets: An experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    4. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "A Polytomous Item Response Theory Model for Measuring Near-Miss Appraisal as a Psychological Trait," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 75-86, June.
    5. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley & William J. Burns, 2014. "Near‐Misses and Future Disaster Preparedness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1907-1922, October.
    6. Ihnji Jon & Shih‐Kai Huang & Michael K. Lindell, 2019. "Perceptions and Expected Immediate Reactions to Severe Storm Displays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 274-290, January.
    7. Heather Rosoff & Jinshu Cui & Richard S. John, 2013. "Heuristics and biases in cyber security dilemmas," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 517-529, December.
    8. Dahlin, Kristina & Chuang, You-Ta & Roulet, Thomas J, 2018. "Opportunity, Motivation, and Ability to Learn from Failures and Errors: Review, Synthesis, and Ways to Move Forward," SocArXiv 4qwzh, Center for Open Science.
    9. Sarah A. Kusumastuti & Jim Blythe & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2020. "Behavioral Determinants of Target Shifting and Deterrence in an Analog Cyber‐Attack Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 476-493, March.
    10. Atris, Amani Mohammed & Goto, Mika, 2019. "Vertical structure and efficiency assessment of the US oil and gas companies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Raphael Flepp & Oliver Merz & Egon Franck, 2024. "When the league table lies: Does outcome bias lead to informationally inefficient markets?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(1), pages 414-429, January.
    12. Knoppen, Desirée & Sáenz, María Jesús, 2017. "Interorganizational teams in low-versus high-dependence contexts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 15-25.
    13. Badunenko, Oleg & Galeotti, Marzio & Hunt, Lester C., 2021. "Better to grow or better to improve? Measuring environmental efficiency in OECD countries with a Stochastic Environmental Kuznets Frontier," FEEM Working Papers 316226, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Bai-Chen Xie & Jie Gao & Shuang Zhang & ZhongXiang Zhang, 2017. "What Factors Affect the Competiveness of Power Generation Sector in China? An Analysis Based on Game Cross-efficiency," Working Papers 2017.12, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Arnaud Abad & Michell Arias & Paola Ravelojaona, 2023. "Environmental Productivity Assessment: an Illustration with the Ecuadorian Oil Industry," Post-Print hal-03574542, HAL.
    16. Fernando Rojas & Peter Wanke & Víctor Leiva & Mauricio Huerta & Carlos Martin-Barreiro, 2022. "Modeling Inventory Cost Savings and Supply Chain Success Factors: A Hybrid Robust Compromise Multi-Criteria Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(16), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Starbuck, William H. & Barnett, Michael L. & Baumard, Philippe, 2008. "Payoffs and pitfalls of strategic learning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 7-21, April.
    18. Pan, Yue & Ou, Shenwei & Zhang, Limao & Zhang, Wenjing & Wu, Xianguo & Li, Heng, 2019. "Modeling risks in dependent systems: A Copula-Bayesian approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 416-431.
    19. Katerina Gkalitsiou & Dimosthenis Kotsopoulos, 2023. "When the Going Gets Tough, Leaders Use Metaphors and Storytelling: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study on Communication in the Context of COVID-19 and Ukraine Crises," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-42, April.
    20. Peter Madsen & Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2016. "Airline Safety Improvement Through Experience with Near‐Misses: A Cautionary Tale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1054-1066, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1264-:d:209568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.