Compliance with requirements versus situation-based adaptions to work operations in the construction industry

Abstract

This thesis studied two different safety approaches in the sharp end at a large Norwegian construction company; compliance with requirements versus situation-based adaption (resilience) to work operations. The research method in this thesis is based on qualitative interviews and this data collection took place at two construction projects in Norway; one in Trondheim and one in the Oslo area. The empirical findings are discussed in light of the theoretical findings on the field of compliance and resilience engineering.It was found that the case company had different rule sets to mitigate risk in different work activities in their two construction projects. The case company uses a set of simple, ?golden? rules concerning Behavioral Based Safety, such as use of protective equipment, whereas the most important means to handle risk in complex, hazardous operations was found to be the use of Job Safety Analyses (JSA). Based on the empirical findings, a set of recommendations regarding rule-making and rule-use is given. The conclusions and recommendations recognize operator involvement to be central in rule-making and leadership involvement to be central in rule-use at the sharp end. Rules and procedures should be subject to a continuous, dynamic process of modification to adjust to change and to fit local circumstances. Further, the inherent individual adaptive capabilities of operators play an important role when it comes to overcoming the gap between rules and reality.