Regulations Affect A Construction Project Construction Essay

Published:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The UK construction industry is one of the most lucrative industries, but also one of the most dangerous. Incidents relating to health and safety have been prevalent for which several regulations have been drafted and implemented by the law to control these incidents - the CDM 2007 Regulations being the latest one. In the following dissertation, the researcher shall investigate whether CDM Regulations in the past and present have affected construction projects in general. A qualitative approach has been adopted to explore the regulations with emphasis on the efficacy of CDM 2007. The results indicate that CDM 2007 Regulations though have been effective, are far from perfect. Some improvements have been suggested for the same.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 4

Rationale 4

Aims and Objectives 5

Scope and Limitations 5

2 Methodologies 7

Interpretive Research Paradigm 7

Qualitative Method 7

Resources 8

3 Literature Review 9

What is CDM? 9

Importance of CDM 10

Value of CDM 13

4 Analyses 15

5 Conclusions 20

References 21

Appendices 23

1 Introduction

Rationale

The construction in the United Kingdom is a £17 billion industry that employs 2.2 million people. It is one of the biggest industries in the country and one of the most hazardous too (HSE 2010). The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) wing estimates that in the last 25 years 2,800 people have died from injuries in the course of their work, while many more have been victims of injuries and illnesses. In 2008-2009 alone, 1.2 million people have suffered from some form of illness due to occupational hazards, while 180 workers have been killed, beside 131,895 who incurred injuries. These alarming statistics have been the major concern for the authority, industry players, stakeholders and clients. Moreover, beside the lives lost and injuries, construction work breeds ill health stemming from blood lead exposure, back pain, muscle injuries etc., making it a hazardous occupation (HSE 2010).

The high rate of injuries and fatalities has been due to the incompetence of the construction project management, while others blame it on the clients' unwillingness to provide for safe work sites. Unions, which represent thousands of workers, are of the view that health and safety issues are still in the developmental stage. There are no proper regulations to control players. Yet, others still blame it on the bureaucratic structure of the HSE which has inevitably led to the less coordinated influence over the construction industry in terms of monitoring and controlling its practices. Regardless of the blame, practitioners acknowledge that the construction industry has an unsafe culture and requires change (Prior 2009).

Based on this status quo, the UK government has been regularly monitoring the industry by making provisions for health, safety and welfare of the stakeholders of the industry. The rationale is that a legal framework would induce industry practitioners to be more vigilant in their approach to construction projects and thereby help to reduce the rate of injuries and fatalities.

The construction industry regulations have come a long way, but are far from being perfect (Gerard 2009). In fact, many within and outside the industry are of the view that the revised regulations, Construction (Design and Management) 2007 (in short CDM 2007), still need improvement before they can actually achieve their objectives to improve health and safety in the industry, assign the right people for the right job to manage time and risks on construction sites and enable practitioners to focus on the planning and management of risks (HSE 2010). The current CDM 2007 Regulations have cost the nation billions of pounds to implement (Beal 2007).

Thesis Statement

In the following research study, the researcher shall endeavour to demonstrate that the new regulations, CDM 2007, affect construction projects in its lifecycle and require stringent improvement measures to reduce the rate of accidents at construction sites.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the study is to trace the development of CDM 2007 Regulations, and demonstrate that the new regulations have significant merits, but been ineffective in completely achieving their objectives.

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the areas where CDM 2007 Regulations have been limited in scope and make suggestions for. The following objectives shall be explored:

a. To demonstrate CDM 2007 Regulations and previous regulations affect project management outcomes.

b. To explore the efficacy of CDM 2007 implementation plans and guidance.

c. To explore options for improvement of CDM 2007 congruent with the construction industry's requirements.

The purpose is to explore options available for practitioners to reduce the rate of incidents, fatalities and injuries.

Scope and Limitations

The research is an exploratory study to trace the historical development of CDM 2007 regulations in the past decades. The lay readers shall find it interesting in finding out why the government's efforts have failed despite several attempts to improve on the legal framework for an industry that can be termed as the foundation of the country.

CDM 2007 shall be evaluated to understand the roles and responsibilities of practitioners more comprehensively, and how they can contribute by way of improvement suggestions and solutions for problems that they face in their everyday activities.

On the other hand, it must be noted that this study is not a technical or a legal document. Scholars in these fields shall find the research limited in scope and less interesting in terms of provisions for new regulations. Regardless, the purpose of the study is to contribute, in a positive manner, improvements of the construction industry.

2 Methodologies

Research is a process of systematic inquiry, and successful interpretation of the facts and evidence found therein. It relies on sources of inquiry for evaluation. Depending on the nature of the subject, approaches to research can be chosen, and evaluated based on the variables that interest the researcher (Dawson 2007). For this particular research, the author is interested in the components of CDM 2007 Regulations which are contributors to the regulations and those who are impacted by it. The basic premise is to explore the regulations, and attempt to interpret it from the implementers' point of view rather than from the regulators' point of view. For this purpose, the researcher shall adopt the following approaches:

Interpretive Research Paradigm

A paradigm can be defined as a world view. It is the basis upon which the researcher understands the value of the research. It is a method for interpreting the data gathered in the context of the research objectives. There are two broad aspects of paradigm to choose from - positivist and interpretive. A positivist perspective refers to the objective interpretation of the reality which is measurable by independent variables for testing the theory or predicting the theory developed. Yin (2002) terms this the quantitative approach that requires the use of numerical values and empirical data for arriving to research conclusions.

Alternatively, the interpretive paradigm starts off with the assumptions of the reality, and constructs frameworks surrounding the same, with the view to reach an understanding of the pervasive framework or phenomenon (Boland 1985). In this research, the researcher shall adopt the latter option to explore the complex legal framework of CDM 2007 with the view to interpret its consequences and impact on the construction industry.

Qualitative Method

Research methods can be categorised as qualitative or quantitative depending on the approach that the researcher wants to adopt for the study. A quantitative research "generates statistics through the use of large-scale survey research, using methods such as questionnaires or structured interviews" (Dawson 2007, p.16). It is an umbrella term for research that depends on scientific inquiries for deriving the research outcome. On the other hand, a qualitative research refers to an inductive inquiry which utilises concepts and theories which have been studied by others earlier as a foundation for leading the researcher to his/her own deduction (Stenbacka 2001). In a conceptual research, such as evaluation of existing regulations and standards, the researcher is of the view that it is feasible to study the topic from a qualitative perspective as this provides a wider scope for interpretation of data collected. Difficulties of focus in analysis are also resolved because it helps the researcher to identify conceptual variables and pursue the issue without "getting lost" in the theories (Schostak 2010; Schostak and Schostak 2008).

Resources

The above methods and approaches shall refer to both primary and secondary resources for building the conceptual frameworks necessary for analyzing CDM 2007 Regulations. Primary sources shall include the regulations, old and new, as well as government publications. To support evaluation, secondary sources such as journal articles, magazines, and internet websites shall be referred to.

3 Literature Review

What is CDM?

CDM is an acronym for Construction (Design and Management) Regulations which is a revised version of CDM 1994 and the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996.

CDM 2007 has its origin from the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974, which had been implemented as a regulation for contractors to implement at construction sites for the safety and health of its workers. Before 1974, there were no laws governing health and safety. The welfare of workers was governed by the common law of the Factories Act. The Construction Regulations 1961 was by way of law introduced to control the construction industry, while the 1974 Act was useful in risk assessments and statement of methods for everyday activities at factories, but not specifically construction. During this period, the rate of accidents and incidents were high and detracted people from entering into construction (Latham and Bennett 2009).

The CDM 1994 was introduced in 1995 after extensive consultation with those concerned, including clients, designers and, especially, the planning supervisors of the industry. CDM 1994's emphasis was on the Planning Supervisor for the maintenance of safety at the design, construction, maintenance and demolition stages of construction. However, eventually it was noted that the PS was often engaged at a high cost without much impact on the incident rates. Such failures were the results of client's failure to commit, the lack of contractor's understanding of their role or the designer's failure to design safe structures (Perry 2008). It was also bureaucratic and vague about the duty-holders of the health and safety requirements (Murphy 2007). The revision of the CDM was imminent. Hence, emerged CDM 2007. CDM 2007 has been evolutionary, according to HSE, rather than revolutionary. It stems from the demand for the "identification, reduction, management and communication of project-specific health and safety hazards." (CDM 2007).

CDM 2007 is a combination of the CDM 1994, ACoP (Approved Code of Practice) and the CHSW regulations of 1996. The objectives of CDM 2007 are to:

- Improve health and safety in the construction industry

- Ensure the right people are assigned to the right job at the right time to manage construction site risks

- Focus on effective planning and managing risks and not paperwork only

- Outline the individual roles and responsibilities on the project before it is launched to ensure everyone is clear about their participation in health and safety objectives as outlined in the Regulations

As a result of these emphases, CDM 2007 Regulations have to be implemented at the inception stage to prepare the team and site for health and safety (See Appendix 1).

Importance of CDM

The construction industry is multi-dimensional, engages professionals to manage various stages of the project. The efficacy of the project depends on the smooth management and coordination of activities in the construction lifecycle. This can be achieved if the duty holders in the project adopt and apply regulations and guidance properly.

Overall, CDM regulations have an important role to play in the management of complex construction projects (Griffiths 2002). Griffiths (2002) points out that the early and ongoing intervention by designers, contractors, clients and site managers can reduce the impact of risks. However, Griffith's views are based on the old CDM which have not a significant impact on the improvement of incident rates of accidents or injuries (See Appendix 2a and 2b).

That is why the need to improve CDM has persisted, resulting in CDM 2007. CDM 2007 Regulations emphasise on the "responsible person", according to Perry (2008), by clearly stating the duties of the holder way before the project takes flight. What this implies is that, unlike the previous CDM, the current regulations hold different individuals responsible at various stages of the construction project for injuries or fatalities. By removing the enforcing authority and replace it with the legal authority makes the public aware of their rights.

Moreover, CDM 2007 Regulations emphasise on implementation rather than paper work (Perry 2008). Construction project's major players like designers, contractors, clients, and project managers have clear roles and responsibilities with specific health and safety duties to carry out, instead of concentrating on paperwork on reporting to the authority as previously held. This allows stakeholders to be prepared for emergency planning, and established paradigm for implementation for business continuity instead of merely focussed on single project completion (Bosher 2008).

Each member has a role in the health and safety of the project. They need to follow the CDM arrangements made for pre-construction planning as well as the subsequent stages by reviewing the site for hazards, and control risks within the dimensions of CDM 2007 policy:

a. Client responsibilities - The client, according to the new regulations, is responsible for setting the standard for ensuring quality work environment and engaging resources for the safe construction of the project. Strict guidance for minimum standards, building materials, control and conditions for construction products are outlined. Under Section 10, for example, the client has a duty of care for providing information about hazardous materials, work conditions or contamination on site and providing suitable health and safety plans for the project (Fewings 2008).

b. Designer responsibilities - The designer under CDM 2007 Regulations is entrusted with the duty to design safe and healthy structures. Before the launch of the project, the designer needs to assess hazardous materials and site conditions to investigate the viability of the client's plans for the project. Furthermore, the structure needs to be designed to eliminate hazardous elements and instead provide safe environment for its users. This means safety in maintenance, use and value to the users must be envisaged in design (Fewings 2008).

c. Health and safety coordinator responsibilities - Under the CDM 2007 Regulations, the role of the Planning Supervisor has been eliminated and instead the health and safety coordinator has been appointed at the start of the project for the purpose of coordinating design and planning stages with the client. The coordinator is responsible for advising and ensuring that the contractor and designer chosen are aware of the health and safety plan of the project, and accordingly plans of the built structure comply with the same (Fewing 2008).

d. Principal contractor responsibilities - The principal contractor is the one responsible for mobilising the whole construction project from the initial planning stage to the post-project stage. The contractor is only second to the coordinator, and has the responsibility to control a wide range of subcontractors and organisations in the supply chain for the site. The contractor not only liaises with the client but also with the team of workers, designers and stakeholders. Risks in terms of information relevant to site maintenance, management and hazardous materials are communicated through the contractor to avoid risks on the job (Fewing 2008).

e. Building manager responsibilities - The building manager is the individual responsible for training the staff for safety and health maintenance. He/she is responsible for implementing the procedures, culture and safety-consciousness in the team who work on the project. Training involves from proper usage of work equipment to process of handling injuries or mishaps on the job. The basic role of the building manager is thus to be the controller of information of health and safety (Fewing 2008).

Apart from the above, the HSE manager, who is an in-house officer, needs to inspect the site regularly, carry out audit procedure and compliance, advise the management on improvement measures, compile accidents or incidents for further investigation and assist the contractor to develop a safe and healthy work environment.

These roles and responsibilities make it possible for outsiders and those directly engaged in construction work to identify the individual responsible for the various stages. The client is expected to take the leadership role in the construction lifecycle, instead of the back seat. Approval of specific requirements, legal approval, as well as conflict mediation have to go through the client. In case of private-public partnership or private finance initiative projects, where the identity of the client is vague, these roles and responsibilities can be assigned to particular departments (Construction Confederation 2007).

However, these requirements are also the reasons of CDM 2007's failure. Many of the industry's projects, according to Luff (2008), fall under the non-notifiable projects and, hence, led by inexperienced members of the industry. Small non-notifiable projects have the potential of jeopardising the continued standards and maintenance of health and safety. Since these projects do not fall under the CDM 2007 Regulations, the influencing authority HSE remains unaware of accidents or mishaps to apply CDM regulations (Luff 2008).

Value of CDM

Moreover, experts (Latham and Bennett 2009; Joyce 2007; Huan 2008) are of the view that although the concepts of CDM 2007 are there to urge duty holders to positively contribute to reduction of accidents and fatalities, the fact remains - the management is still held responsible for all aspects of accidents. Since CDM 2007 Regulations are based on the WSH Act, their logic is applied to construction incidents - that is, the management should eliminate hazardous work and reduce risks, or otherwise face legal and financial consequences. The problem with such regulations is that these cannot eliminate accidents or risks entirely through application. To change the old culture of blaming the management, CDM 2007 Regulations would have to be more stringent in their approach for health and safety practices as professional institutions (Huan 2008).

Since their inception, CDM 2007 Regulations have been revised to accommodate for limitations of CDM 1994. The areas that have been changed include simplification of regulations, flexibility, focus on planning and management; strengthen requirements for cooperation for integration into the construction supply chain, and raising the standards for achievement. But the effectiveness of their implementation is compromised because:

a. The client who is one of the most influential entities in the construction project is not competent to make decisions pertaining to routine construction procedures, such as composition of the project team, skill pool, health and safety issues and the roles of designers, contractors and coordinators.

b. The CDM Coordinator is often engaged at a later stage. The coordinator then receives relevant information on the construction project, later than scheduled, making the planning process longer than required.

c. Designers are still unaware of their responsibilities under CDM 2007 Regulations pertaining to health and safety issues. They have little training or education on work practices. Moreover, they do not consider health and safety issues like maintenance, repair, clean up, refurbishment or demolition concern them. This lack of concern also stems from the culture of pre-design for approval at the planning stage. Since the designs are prepared with detailed costs before the planning stage, the CDM coordinator has less control over the changes.

d. The duty of appointment of workers, tender for materials, and appointment of subcontractors rests on the principal contractor who is engaged at the planning stage. Delay results in increased project costs and, at times, forces the team to launch the project with lesser consideration for risks of lives.

e. The principal contractor often operates separately from the client's team. They tend to be hostile and protect their team regardless of the risks of health and safety planned by the client or advised by the principal coordinator (Latham and Bennett 2009).

Apart from the pre-construction issues, CDM 2007 efficacy is compromised by the reality of the construction lifecycle and value to the client. Projects are dependent on planning permissions, client's commitment to investment, and finding buyers for the developed structure. The requirement for focussing on planning stage, like the appointment of CDM coordinator, design and client's competence take a back seat in lieu of tenders, appointment of principal contractors, budgeting and getting the project to take flight. Issues like maintenance, cost of health and safety arrangements, and post-maintenance features are neglected. These elements not only impact the outcome of the project, but also impact the work in progress (Latham and Bennett 2009).

4 Analyses

CDM 2007 Regulations have been implemented for more than two years. The question that arises is whether they have been effective in achieving their objectives:

- To focus on planning and managing risks in construction projects

- To ensure engagement of competent professionals on the team to reduce risks and threats to lives

- To reduce the bureaucratic system of paper trail in health and safety reporting

Before the researcher answers this question, he/she needs to analyse CDM 2007 Regulations in the context of this study. At the beginning of the study, the researcher has established the following objectives congruent with CDM 2007 Regulations. These are discussed below, based on the findings from the literature review:

a. To demonstrate CDM 2007 Regulations' and previous regulations' affect project management outcomes.

The construction industry is one of the major industries of the UK economy with contribution of up to 8 percent of GDP and £17 billion in financial terms. Yet, it is perhaps one of the most hazardous too, with, according to Latham and Bennett (2009), "disproportionate level of fatalities, major injuries and incidents of ill-health". It is for this reason that regulations for health and safety have been implemented to regulate it. The latest regulations, CDM 2007 are improvements over the old ones with the view to eliminate the previous limitations and ensure more focussed implementation. However, major industry leaders, players and practitioners are of the view that the CDM 2007 Regulations have both negative and positive impacts on construction as a whole.

The value of the impact is great and can be estimated as costs incurred to the society from accidents, human lives and legal litigations. According to Bill McKenzie (2007), for the 10-year period appraised, the number of reported injuries in the construction industry is £7.9 billion, while minor injuries accounted for £216 million, and ill-health equalled to £10.2 billion. However, with the improvement over CDM 1994 Regulations, the industry and government have hopes to gain from the change, as shown in Appendix 3. Earlier in 2006, the UK had one of the lowest incidence rates among EU countries (Appendix 4). After the implementation of CDM 2007, the 2008 provisional estimates of fatality rate have fallen sharply, signifying the effectiveness of the regulations. However, it must also be noted that the change has not met the desired estimated target (See Appendix 5a, b, c) (Donaghy 2009).

Instead, construction practitioners have new roles and responsibilities assigned, which earlier had been vague. On paper, these changes can be said to have a positive impact on the industry's culture, but the reality is that it has harboured negative perceptions of CDM 2007 Regulations more than positive ones. According to a survey of construction practitioners, 47 percent are of the view that the duty holders of the Regulations are not competent of their assigned duties. In fact, they are of the view that practitioners may vouch for the positive effect of CDM 2007 on the industry but how effective is it for implementing on project is another case. The culture of paperwork for drafting policies and procedures may continue, but practical reality has a long way to go (CDM 2007 Survey 2007).

As a result, CDM 2007 Regulations have a superficial effect on projects in developing a culture of responsibilities, albeit on paper for the current time. In fact, CDM 2007 requirements have lengthened the process of pre-construction planning and designing. The role of the client, for example, is central in construction project, but it can be observed that the client is reluctant or unaware of construction activities. Even though the role of CDM Coordinator has been emphasised for advice and guidance, the client often engages them at a later stage when advice is too late for proper implementation. In this context, it can be said that the CDM 2007 Regulations have hindered rather than facilitated project management in the construction industry.

b. To explore the efficacy of CDM 2007 implementation plans and guidance.

As much as 59 percent of the CDM 2007 Survey indicates that executives at organisations recognise the importance of CDM 2007 as a policy for implementation, but to which depth they follow this policy is yet to be seen. Elements like leadership and communication for creating awareness, training and educating practitioners are usually absent from construction projects, but present at construction organisations. This means that construction organisations, especially contractors, designers and building managers, are aware of the positive impact of CDM 2007; but such awareness is not present at the clients' end. The survey also indicates that as much as 62 percent have support and resources to adopt CDM 2007 duties (CDM 2007 Survey 2007).

In the course of the literature review, the researcher understands that the CDM 2007 Regulations are improvements over the CDM 1994, with change of roles to improve health and safety incidents through the effective implementation of roles and by eliminating paper trail. According to Donaghy's (2009) study (See Appendix 5 and 6), incidents of fatalities and injuries have decreased significantly in the years that CDM 2007 Regulations have been implemented. But more importantly, it has not impacted the productivity of construction. The overall production level has increased, while the incidents rate has decreased. In this context, it can be said that CDM 2007 Regulations have been effective in their objectives.

Despite these facts, according to section A's discussion, practitioners in the construction industry are still feeling their way around. They recognise the importance of CDM 2007 for the improved health and safety environment in construction, but doubt players are equipped to effectively implement the regulations (Construction Confederation 2007; Luff 2008). One of the reasons which experts attribute this inefficiency is because of the lack of guidance and means for adopting CDM 2007 Regulations. For example, standards for health and safety measures are outlined, but practitioners are not guided through the process. Clients, who are not well-versed in construction activities, may assume health and safety measures. Designers who do not have concerns with health and safety issues are not trained to plan or participate in their implementation. On the other hand, the role of the Planning Supervisor, who has been replaced by the CDM Coordinator, has minimal impact on the process of implementing health and safety regulations because the coordinator often find out about the project after the planning process due to the client's reluctance to appoint them at the inception stage. This leaves the designers and principal contractors to relegate health and safety communication to members on the project. In such a scenario, it is expected that CDM 2007 implementation is likely to fail.

c. To explore options for improvement of CDM 2007 congruent with the construction industry's requirements.

The implementation authority for CDM 2007 Regulations is the HSE. In CDM 1994, the monitoring and controlling authority had been well-defined, but required much paperwork. In the latest Regulations, however, the monitoring authority has a punitive role while the internally-appointed duty holder, the building manager and the CDM 2007 coordinator have secondary roles because they are dependent on the client for pay and approval. This leaves less room for authoritative monitoring and executive decisions for designing or planning a safe work environment.

The framework for implementing CDM 2007 Regulations (See Appendix 7) can be improved, but requires added cost to project management practice. According to HSE prediction, health and safety directly impact the productivity of the industry. To improve productivity, improvement in the work environment is imperative. Elements like program for increasing employee satisfaction, safe work environment, training, and investment in skilled human resources with high qualifications and background can add value to the project. But, more importantly, construction companies and projects which adopt these practices can improve in performance as well. Some of the options for integrating improvement in the construction work environment are outlined in CDM 2007, but have to be guided and outlined for practitioners to adopt:

i. Development of campaigns for CDM 2007 implementation to ensure that the right guidance and options for adoption are communicated to the practitioners.

ii. Educating the client should become a priority for the contracting organisation and the authority to make sure that the client is clear of their duties. If required, training can also help the client to understand the process of construction and project management. This way they would be able to effectively manage the team responsible for project outcome.

iii. Key duty holders should be made aware of their roles and responsibilities, but more importantly, they need to adopt their duties at the inception stage. This should be made mandatory so that they know their responsibilities right from the beginning. Duty holders like the CDM coordinator and designer should have some executive decisions to carry out their roles more responsibly and effectively.

iv. Last, but not least, the inspectorate system is crucial for implementing CDM 2007. This is because they would have an unbiased role to play in the construction project. This should be carried out by a third party or from the HSE organisation, and appointed on the project for regular review of health and safety procedures. These are but some options available to construction practitioners in project management.

5 Conclusions

The above research study has been carried out with the view to gauge how Construction (Design and Management) Regulations affect a construction project. It is clear that CDM Regulations have a long history with improvements over old laws to achieve the objectives of managing risks and reducing accidents at construction sites. The current Regulations, CDM 2007 are far from perfect, although they are significantly better than the previous ones. For one thing, they have achieved their objectives of emphasising on planning and managing risks, reduction of risks, bureaucratic system of reporting authority and paper trail. Even statistics indicate that the rates of fatalities, injuries, and ill-health have improved significantly over the past few years. This should satisfy the industry practitioners and duty holders of CDM 2007 - client, contractor, designer, coordinator, and building manager.

However, in the researcher's view, the core objective of a safe and healthy work environment, as compared to other industries in the UK, has not materialised as envisioned. There is still room for improvement. From the above analysis, it is clear that accidents continue to happen at construction sites. Duty holders are still clueless of their roles and responsibilities. As a result, CDM 2007's application still requires improvements. Some of the options have been outlined in the analysis section, but one must bear in mind that the list is not exhaustive. As practitioners go along implementing CDM 2007, they will find that client dissatisfaction, employees' wariness of health and safety issues, and the continual rate of accidents will motivate them to devise ways to improve the work environment. But in the meanwhile, the UK government, along with the construction industry's leaders, should develop guidelines with examples for implementation of the CDM Regulations so as to accelerate and improve implementation processes.

References

Beal, A.N. (2007) CDM Regulations: 12 years of pain but little gain. Civil Engineering. Vol. 160 Issue 2, pp. 82-88.

Boland R. (1985) 'Phenomenology: A Preferred Approach to Research in Information Systems' in Mumford et al. (1985) Research Methods in Information Systems. North-Holland.

Bosher, L. (2008) Hazards and the built environment: attaining built-in resilience. Routledge.

CDM 2007 Impact survey reveals deficiencies in implementation across UK property, building and construction industries. Issued 21 2009. Hannover Consultancy on behalf of CDM2007.org, a business project of the London Borough of Bromley. Online available at: http://www.cdm2007.org/Press/Default.aspx

CDM 2007 (2007) The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007: Industry Guidance for Small, One-off and Infrequent Clients. CDM.

CIOB (2009) Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development. Chartered Institute of Building. John Wiley and Sons.

Construction Confederation (2007) CDM 2007 Guidance for Principal Contractor. Construction Industry Pubs.

Dawson, C. (2007) A practical guide to research methods. How To Books.

Donaghy, R. (2009) Phase 1 Report: Underlying causes of construction fatal accidents - A comprehensive review of recent work to consolidate and summarise existing knowledge. Health and Safety Executive Construction Division.

Fewings, P. (2008) Ethics for the Built Environment. Taylor & Francis.

Gerrard, N. (2009) Contractor fined £10,000 after worker fall. Contract Journal. Online available at: http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2009/01/27/64211/contractor-fined-10000-after-worker-fall.html

Griffiths, O.V. (2002) Understanding the CDM Regulations. Taylor & Francis.

HSE (2010) Construction: information. Health and Safety Executive. Online available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/information.htm

Huan, O.S. (2008) Report on UK CDM Regulations Implementation. Online available at: http://www.ies.org.sg/e-newsletter/Report_UK_CDM_Regulations_Implementation.pdf

Joyce, R. (2007) The CDM Regulations 2007 Explained. Thomas Telford Ltd

Latham, P. and Bennett, G. (2009) Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007: 2 years on. CIOB CDM presentation.

Luff, P. (2008) Construction matters: report, together with formal minutes, Volume 2. The Stationery Office.

McKenzie, B. (2007) Explanatory memorandum to the Construction (design and Management) Regulations 2007 No. 320. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as laid out before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.

Murphy, D. (2007) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007: A Review of the Changes to the Client's Responsibilities and the Other Key Duty Holders as Outlined in the CDM Approved Code of Practice Produced and Issued by the HSE February 2007

Perry, P. (2008) CDM 2007: Questions and Answers. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Prior, G. (2009) HSE targets refurb death sites. Contract Journal. Online available at: http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2009/02/23/65131/hse-targets-refurb-death-sites.html

Schostak, J. (2010) An introduction to qualitative research. Enquiry Learning. Online available at: http://www.enquirylearning.net/ELU/Issues/Research/Res1Cont.html

Schostak, J. F., and Schostak, J.R. (2008) Radical Research. Designing, Developing and Writing Research to Make a Difference, Routledge

Stenbacka, C. (2001) Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision. Vol. 39 No. 7 pp.551-555.

Yin, R. K. (2002) Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park, Sage Publications.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Source: CDM 2007

Appendix 2 a

Table Injuries in the construction industry reported to all enforcement

authorities analysed by severity of injury

Based on the findings of the Labour Force Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great Britain

 

 

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/7(r)

2007/8(p)

Employees

Fatal injuries

47

61

73

60

56

52

55

43

54

54

Non-fatal major injuries1,2

4,289

4,386

4,303

4,055

4,031

3,978

3,768

3,706

3730

3764

Over 3 day injuries

9,195

10,159

9,367

9,100

8,949

8,256

7,540

7,555

7161

7446

All reported injuries

13,531

14,606

13,743

13,215

13,036

12,286

11,363

11,304

10945

11264

Self-employed

Fatal injuries

18

20

32

20

14

19

14

17

25

18

Non-fatal major injuries1,2

367

363

405

540

690

750

728

766

727

703

Over 3 day injuries

381

345

429

595

629

739

748

829

754

702

All reported injuries

766

728

866

1,155

1,333

1,508

1,490

1,612

1506

1423

Members of the public

Fatal injuries

3

6

8

5

5

4

8

4

7

3

Non-fatal major injuries1,2

378

403

316

381

263

180

200

200

191

197

All reported injuries

381

409

324

386

268

184

208

204

198

200

Total

Fatal injuries

68

87

113

85

75

75

77

64

86

75

Non-fatal major injuries1,2

5,034

5,152

5,024

4,976

4,984

4,908

4,696

4,672

4,648

4,664

Over 3 day injuries

9,567

10,504

9,796

9,695

9,578

8,995

8,288

8,384

7,915

8,148

 

All reported injuries

14,678

15,743

14,933

14,756

14,637

13,978

13,061

13,120

12,649

12,887

Notes

p = provisional; r = revised.

1. Non-fatal injury statistics are based on the revised injury reporting requirements (RIDDOR 95) introduced in 1996.

2. The definition of a non-fatal injury to a member of the public is different from the definition of a a major injury to a worker.

Source of data: Health and Safety Executive - http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/indexoftables.htm#riddor

Contact: Infoline 0845 345 0055

Source: National Statistics 2010

Appendix 2b

Table Injuries to employees as reported to all enforcement authorities:

construction and all industries1

Great Britain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1998/99

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06(r)

2006/7(r)

2007/8(p)

Fatal and major:

Construction

407

387

361

360

332

332

311

306

307

All industries

123

111

112

112

121

119

111

110

107

All reported injuries:

Construction

1,271

1,217

1,161

1148

1012

986

939

882

906

 

All industries

690

648

625

618

635

590

566

546

519

Notes

p = provisional; r= revised.

1. Figures relate to rates per 100,000 employees.

Source of data: Health and Safety Executive - http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/indexoftables.htm#riddor

Contact: Infoline 0845 345 0055

Source: National Statistics 2010

Appendix 3 Cost and Benefits of CDM 2007 Regulations in Monetary Terms

Source: McKenzie 2007

Appendix 4 Fatalities After CDM 2007 Regulations Implementation

Source: Donaghy 2009

Appendix 5a

Source: Donaghy 2009

Appendix 5b

Source: Donaghy 2009

Appendix 5c

Source: Daughy 2009

Appendix 6

Source: Doughy 2009

Writing Services

Essay Writing
Service

Find out how the very best essay writing service can help you accomplish more and achieve higher marks today.

Assignment Writing Service

From complicated assignments to tricky tasks, our experts can tackle virtually any question thrown at them.

Dissertation Writing Service

A dissertation (also known as a thesis or research project) is probably the most important piece of work for any student! From full dissertations to individual chapters, we’re on hand to support you.

Coursework Writing Service

Our expert qualified writers can help you get your coursework right first time, every time.

Dissertation Proposal Service

The first step to completing a dissertation is to create a proposal that talks about what you wish to do. Our experts can design suitable methodologies - perfect to help you get started with a dissertation.

Report Writing
Service

Reports for any audience. Perfectly structured, professionally written, and tailored to suit your exact requirements.

Essay Skeleton Answer Service

If you’re just looking for some help to get started on an essay, our outline service provides you with a perfect essay plan.

Marking & Proofreading Service

Not sure if your work is hitting the mark? Struggling to get feedback from your lecturer? Our premium marking service was created just for you - get the feedback you deserve now.

Exam Revision
Service

Exams can be one of the most stressful experiences you’ll ever have! Revision is key, and we’re here to help. With custom created revision notes and exam answers, you’ll never feel underprepared again.