ECAM-01-2013-0009

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
Design engineers’ perception of health and safety and its impact in the design
process
Susan Morrow Billy Hare Iain Cameron
Article information:
To cite this document:
Susan Morrow Billy Hare Iain Cameron , (2016),"Design engineers’ perception of health and safety
and its impact in the design process", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol.
23 Iss 1 pp. 40 - 59
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2013-0009
Downloaded on: 04 March 2016, At: 05:51 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 38 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 44 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Gary D. Holt, Jack Steven Goulding, Akintola Akintoye, (2016),"Enablers, challenges and
relationships between research impact and theory generation", Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 20-39 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2014-0161
Bee Lan Oo, Benson Teck-Heng Lim, (2016),"Game-based learning in construction management
courses: a case of bidding game", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 23
Iss 1 pp. 4-19 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2015-0029
Olugbenga Timo Oladinrin, Christabel Man-Fong Ho, (2016),"Embeddedness of codes of ethics in
construction organizations", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 23 Iss 1
pp. 75-91 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2014-0063
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:JournalAuthor:906050F1-FA54-4047-B626-D40BF6C860DB:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
DownloadedbyDoctorSusanMorrowAt05:5104March2016(PT)

Design engineers’ perception
of health and safety and its
impact in the design process
Susan Morrow, Billy Hare and Iain Cameron
School of Engineering and Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University,
Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider design engineers’ perception of health and safety
and its impact on their behaviour during design activity. The study presents three types of design
engineers each, exhibiting particular tendencies when faced with health and safety considerations
during design. The discovery of these tendencies pose important implications for education and
professional institutions and practical measures are suggested to help design engineers manage their
tendencies to be more conducive to ensuring improved health and safety performance.
Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory design method was used – grounded theory, to
include 13, in-depth, one-to-one interviews with design engineers, representing junior staff, middle and
senior management.
Findings – The paper provides empirical insights about how designers think and behave when asked
to consider health and safety issues during the design process. It identifies three group types of
designers: doers, receivers and givers, who will exhibit their particular tendencies based on how they
view and understand the term health and safety.
Research limitations/implications – The data obtained were from design engineers only, and
therefore the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test
the proposed propositions.
Practical implications – The paper includes implications for those involved in the creation and
development of designers e.g., educators and professional bodies. The data forms the basis for helping
designers to manage their perceptions towards the term health and safety and thus, their tendencies
exhibited in their behaviour.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to new understanding of designers’ behaviour and
considers the significance of how designers’ views of health and safety will influence their behaviour.
Keywords Perception, Health and safety, Education, Grounded theory, Design behaviour,
Designers
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
There is a common view that designers can have a significant influence on reducing
injury and ill-health to those involved in construction works (Working Well Together
(WWT), 2012; Behm, 2008; Weinstein et al., 2005). This common view is embodied in the
UK’s Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM). However, since its
introduction in 1994, and it’s subsequent revised version in 2007, which includes
further implicit duties for designers – there seems to be no clear indication that point to
a marked improvement in health and safety through design (HSE, 2012). Many
consider this to be a continuing problem (Gambatese et al., 2009; Hecker et al., 2005) and
this is evident when designers are still asking the question “how far is far enough”Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
Vol. 23 No. 1, 2016
pp. 40-59
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
DOI 10.1108/ECAM-01-2013-0009
Received 28 January 2013
Revised 1 November 2013
17 July 2015
Accepted 12 August 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm
The authors would like to express sincere thanks to Dr A. Roy Duff who provided insight and
expertise that greatly assisted this research.
40
ECAM
23,1

to satisfy the law (Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), 2010). This is also evidenced in a
paper by the Health and Safety Executive and Construction Industry Advisory
Committee (CONIAC), which highlights the findings of the CONIAC CDM Evaluation
Working Group, who state that: “there is a worrying level of divergence of opinion
within the design profession as to how they should discharge their duties and what the
limits of those duties are” (HSE, 2011).
Previous research has shown that designers are generally lacking in experience,
competence and guidance (CIRIA and Loughborough University, 2011) when asked to
discharge their duties under CDM. As a result, these research have tend to focus on
what designers are not doing (Hecker et al., 2005; Toole, 2005; Gambatese et al., 2009;
Martínez Aires et al., 2010) – as opposed to what they are doing – hence, offering
solutions to problems, mostly in the form of training tools and guidelines (e.g. Lingard
et al., 2009; Workcover, 2001) including many other industry guidance and best practice
notes (e.g. Association for Project Safety (APS), 2012; HSE & Construction Skills, 2007).
These efforts to address the difficulties and barriers (Gambatese, 2000) faced by
designers are in addition to the already existing mechanisms for improving health and
safety through project planning process models (e.g. International Organization for
Standardization, 2000), theoretical models incorporating gateways (Cameron and Hare,
2008) and safety management systems (e.g. British Standards Institute, 2008). All these
have aimed to help designers (amongst others) to improve on their working practices in
order to address health and safety performance.
There are also many studies that have placed focus on the designer’s outputs and its
effect on health and safety in the construction process (e.g. Gambatese, 2000; Fadier & De
la Garza, 2006; Choudhry et al., 2009), rather than focusing on their activities and
interactions during design. And, whilst these perspectives have provided much needed
understanding on the role of the designer and how they can integrate important health
and safety information into their drawings, very few have sought to wonder what it is
that designers actually do; what they see as being the main issues or problems during the
process of design and how they seek to resolve or process these, with the added
regulatory demand that they must consider health and safety. There are limited research
studies in the field of construction and the built environment that are written from the
viewpoint of the designer (Hale et al., 2007) and fewer still that focus specifically on the
issue of health and safety in design in relation to how designers actually work.
Many researchers (e.g. Lawson, 2006; Cross, 1990; Schön, 1988) consider design to be
a difficult and complex process and most would agree that the skill of designing is far
from being just a number of distinct and identifiable steps or stages (i.e. RIBA Plan of
Work) (The Royal Institution of British Architects, 2007). To date, existing literature
convey a message to designers that they must improve their working practices if health
and safety improvement is to be realised through their designs. However, few
researchers in the field of construction health and safety have based this message on
empirical data that considers what the designer sees as legitimate design activities.
Moreover, many do not question the individual prerequisites of a designer and the
individual characteristics that influence the design process and how this affects
the overall design outcome. It is mainly in design studies (e.g. Bucciarelli, 1988; Schön,
1982; Granath, 1991) that these questions of context and how designers think and work
are raised. Bucciarelli (1988) describes the different perspectives that “designing” can
bring; appearing as a mechanical and “iterative” process, a manager’s model of concern
– control of process as opposed to a control process and designing as a social process.
He concludes that design must be seen as a social process, a process of negotiation
41
Perception
of health
and safety

among disciplines and that the different frames of reference for the various numbers of
issues will generate different interest to different designers, all of which might contend
in a design process.
This paper is concerned with the process of design from the perspective of it being
seen as a social process; acknowledging that participants in design come to their
different design responsibilities with different perspectives, interests and expertise yet,
at the same time, they share certain norms and common goals. The study focus on
design engineers’ individual views, beliefs and interests specifically, in relation to the
term health and safety, grounded in their different technical competencies, how it is
dealt with and resolved and reflected in the design and in the process of designing.
By shifting the focus to designers’ perceptions and how this impact on their
design activities during the design process, a new understanding might be achieved.
This paper focuses on the design engineers’ perception of health and safety and its
impact on the design process. With this new understanding are implications for
education providers and professional institutions. Practical measures are also offered
to help designers manage their perceptions so that their designing is more conducive to
ensuring improved health and safety performance.
2. Research methodology
The basic question posed was “how do design engineers view and relate to the term –
health and safety, and how does this impact on their behaviour?” It was the intention
of the authors to seek to understand the subjective reality of design engineers,
from an interpretivist view, with the aim of making sense of and to understand
their actions. Therefore, a qualitative method in the form of grounded theory was
considered to be the most suited method for meeting the needs of the research
problem being studies (Glaser, 1998). Grounded theory was chosen over other
methods such as participatory action research (PAR) (Reason, 1994) and ethnography
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007) because the problem experienced by design
engineers was not yet known (a requirement of PAR) and also, because ethnography
is a verification process, meaning that there is less emphasis to finding what is
relevant for the participants and more towards testing hypotheses – most likely
generated by the researcher – to account for the patterns of behaviour of the
participants. It was decided that Glaser’s (1998, 2005) grounded theory method would
best serve the purpose for exploring the issue of health and safety through design
and to bring new understanding from the design engineer’s perspective thus,
discovering the problem area which exists for the participants and what is relevant
for them. The objectives of this paper are thus:
(1) to classify group types of design engineers in terms of their perception/attitudes
towards the term health and safety and; and
(2) to identify the impact of these perceptions on design engineers’ behaviour
during the design process.
Field interviews provide a useful method for data collection and it was determined that
one-to-one interview data would be the best method for inducing “stories” (Glaser, 1998)
from the participants. There was no structured questioning on the part of the authors
and the participants were encouraged to speak freely and to take the interview in
whichever direction that they chose to do so about health and safety in general, how
this topic relates to their role and their general feelings and opinions surrounding this
topic matter (Glaser, 1998).
42
ECAM
23,1

3. Data collection
3.1 Face-to-face interviews
Face-to-face, individual interviews were conducted in the Glasgow office of an international
planning, design and management consultancy, specialising in infrastructure development
worldwide. Interviews were carried out with design engineers within disciplines spanning
across five main business groups (i.e. consulting; maritime; property; transportation and
water and power). A total of 13 design engineers took part, each holding varying position
and level within the organisation: from graduate engineers to mid-level and senior
engineers, to associate director level. Interviewees were purposefully chosen to represent a
cross-section of design engineers within this organisation. Sample numbers were governed
by “saturation” (i.e. there is no n. Data completeness is based only on theoretical
completeness not on numbers or lengths of interviews or numbers of interviewees.
A concrete number cannot be offered in advance of the study for one never knows
beforehand the size or when the analysis will be complete) as advocated by Glaser (1998).
Each interview lasted between one to two hours for pragmatic reasons relating to the
design engineer’s time lost on project work and care by the authors to not disrupt the
normal running of the organisation’s operations whilst these interviews were being
conducted. Each interview was digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim and all
transcripts were initially coded using the NVivo 8 software.
4. Data analysis
Glaser’s (2005) grounded theory approach to analysis and coding was carried out.
Figure 1: the grounded theory analysis process outlines the main process stages taken.
Open coding was the initial step to analysing the data where the data were broken
down into incidents and these were compared using the constant comparative method,
as illustrated below in Figure 2. Open coding thus commenced with the aim to generate
concepts (e.g. constraints – what design engineers were concerned about) and
properties of concepts (e.g. lacking in information).
The constant comparative method used to analyse the data in this way elicited the
participants’ main concern (Glaser, 1998, p. 140) i.e., the core category. Memoing was
carried out throughout this process; stopping to record ideas, reflecting on any conflicts
found in the emphases of thinking about concepts and to carry the thinking (relating to
each category) to its most logical conclusions. Once the core category (i.e. their main
concern) was identified, selective coding commenced. Data analysis was now subject to
focusing on questions that related to the core category, and in particular finding out
how the design engineer deals with health and safety in relation to their main concern.
According to Glaser (1998), categories must earn their way into the theory by
“working” and being “relevant” and these two criteria for a grounded theory explains
why theoretical sampling is necessary; only data that is relevant to the core category
and related categories will help to develop the theory and pare down an otherwise
monstrous task to fit every concept generated. This is necessary as delimiting a
universe of collected data would be very arbitrary and less likely to yield an integrated
product. Up until this point, only substantive codes had been generated through
constant comparison. Theoretical codes needed to be generated to implicitly
conceptualise how the substantive codes would relate to each other. This is the
process of bringing the “whole story” together again (Glaser, 1998) and included the
sorting of the many memos that were generated. The practical aspect of sorting began
by taking the first memo from the pile and placing it on a large clear space (i.e. the
floor). The next memo in the pile was taken and compared with the first to see how it
43
Perception
of health
and safety

Substantive
Codes
through coding data incident by incident
CONSTANT
COMPARATIVE
METHOD
has been identified
SELECTIVE CODING begins
(only data that are relevant to
the core category)
THEORETICAL SAMPLING
SATURATION
is achieved when no further
properties are identified from the data
CODING ENDS
THEORETICAL
CODING
begins
this is the process of identifying the
theoretical codes which conceptualise
how given concepts relate to each other
sorting the memos into
piles by concepts
the writing up of the piles
of memos into a coherent
body of work
SORTING
WRITE UP
means that further
data collection is
focused on obtaining
data that are relevant
to the core category
and related categories
i.e.
OPEN CODING
this continues until a
Core Category
once identified
MEMOING
carried out
throughout the
process
a memo carries
ideas the
researcher has
about a concept or
property and how
concepts relate to
each other
these 2 stages
can occur
simultaneously
by using the
Figure 1.
The grounded theory
analysis process
CategoriesConceptsIncidents
“...statements..
.....incidents.....
.......story.........
....incidents....”
“......story.........
.......incidents...
...statements.....
...incidents......”
“......story.........
.......incidents...
.........story.......
..statements.....”
Core
Category
Figure 2.
Coding
44
ECAM
23,1

was related to the first memo on the floor. By continuing this process of taking each
memo in turn and constantly comparing it with the other memos already placed on the
floor, it soon became clear that the integration of these memos would grow quickly as
each memo fitted somewhere. This process means that delimiting is occurring
(i.e. parsimony and scope is being achieved), given that while each memo fitted, it was
also clear that some were not as relevant to the core category and hence, the theory as
others. As Glaser (1998) stress, it is necessary to cull out areas that are not as pertinent
to the theory and to achieve the “best fit”. Hence, theoretical completeness occurred as
delimiting occurred with most memos.
A key finding of the results (that forms part of the overall objectives of a wider research
study carried out – discussed in a later paper by the authors) is presented, revealing that,
depending on how the design engineer views, understands and interprets the term-health
and safety, it will affect how he responds to it in his everyday design tasks.
5. Results
The discovery of the main concern for all design engineers sits at the heart of the grounded
theory discovered from a wider research study and it is referenced here in order to situate
the main objectives of this paper. The main concern for all design engineers relate to the
concept – information; primarily, to work within the boundaries of the information. Design
engineers are faced with many issues, problems and aspects: a whole host of information,
which they must consider during the process of design. The difficulty for design engineers
is that they must process this information simultaneously. This information must therefore
be simultaneously sourced, gathered, arranged (e.g. prioritised) and processed in order for
them to meet their end goal or their main concern which is: to achieve a desired design
outcome. The findings are presented in Table I. This provides examples of the data analysis
and the coding process to discover the design engineer’s main concern ((i) finding their main
concern), how it is processed ((ii) finding out how they process their main concern), and in
particular, how health and safety is viewed (finding out their views on health and safety in
relation to their main concern) and being processed (finding out how they process health
and safety) in relation to their main concern. Each incident or quote taken from an
individual interviewee is referenced with a letter from the alphabet, followed by the date the
interview took place and where it can be found within the interview transcript. The
incidents or quotes are analysed as described in Figure 1 and the related concept or
category is noted in bold type together with their properties described in normal font. These
are referenced in the following text in support of the main findings found in this paper.
Health and safety is just one issue out of many issues that the design engineer faces
during the design process. The design engineer’s view, understanding and interpretation
of the term “health and safety” have various connotations. The associations with this
term include: office or workplace health and safety; operational safety; technical safety;
health and safety in the wider society; health and safety being seen as a “black art” – for
the experts to advise on; and health and safety which is “common sense” (G(09.11.2010),
page 3, paragraph 42); (C(22.09.2010), page 6, paragraph 36); (F(09.11.2010), page 8,
paragraph 83); (A(21.09.10), page 2, paragraph 7); (B(16.11.2010), page 5, paragraph 57);
(D(16.11.2010), page 6, paragraphs 60 and 63). The term health and safety was found to
mean different things to different design engineers. But, all design engineers interviewed
related health and safety (but not exclusively) with construction site-related activities
(e.g. C(22.09.2010), page 6, paragraph 36; G(09.11.2010), page 3, paragraph 42).
The results illustrate a pattern that indicates three groups or types of design engineers,
each group exhibiting particular tendencies in behaviour when dealing with health and
45
Perception
of health
and safety

Incidences/quote
Concept/category: finding their main concern
(i) Finding their main concern
A (21.09.2010), page 10, paragraph 51
“[…] some of the levels are way too high its never
gonna happen in a month of Sundays […] and there
are other times when its just way way way over the
top with the things similarly with some of the
classifications for confined space entry […] so some
of the er just OTT”
B (09.11.10), Page 3, paragraph 42
“[…] i’m consciously aware eh day to day you get bombarded
with information […] what is important to the people er may
not necessarily be at the forefront of my shall we say er
programme what i need to get through the day […]”
Restrictor
This type of information presents difficulties;
Get bombarded with information
C (22.09.2010), page 1, paragraph 4
“[…] here are the physical constraints and here are the
operational constraints […] you have the political
constraints […]”
D (22.09.2010), Page 4, paragraph 16
“[…] those type of projects are unfortunately have
a lot more unknowns […]”
Constraints
Physical constraints, operational constraints,
political constraints
“[…] we just have health and safety or road safety if you like
concerns kind of embedded in the outcomes of what we’re
trying to achieve […]” and,
“[…] but that kind of thing is just kind of in-built
to the way we tend to approach things […]” and,
“[…] we design it this way because its safer and more efficient
and more convenient for pedestrians to cross the road […]”
K (21.09.2010), Page 3
“[…] its the wee trips and falling off ladders and things […] its
the little things […] you’ve got to look to the small things […]”
Restrictor absolute requirements
Inherent safety and health design requirements
Information that he is concerned with
Concept/category: finding out how they process their
main concern
(ii) Finding out how they process their main concern
A (21.09.2010), Page 1, paragraph 5
“[…] HASCOM and they are really really good tools because
there will be something that you’ve haven’t thought about […]”
A (21.09.2010), Page 13, paragraph 73
“[…] it works so’s you’re not exposed and it also works to make
sure that you’re designing something that is […] are happy”
A (21.09.2010), Page 13, paragraph 75
“[…] no matters who you are or what the thing
is everone should be working to the same
er guidelines principles […]”
“[…] but its not until you actually go to the operations people
and say how is this piece of kit working and they’ll tell you er
yes its doing the duty but we have a problem either getting the
screens from here to there or […] and we’ve had to er tweak
this and tweak that to make it better […] when you’re doing a
Utilising mechanisms:
KH is comfortable working with the various
systems, methods and processes and advocates
to its use
It helps to avoid being exposed
there are set rules
KH – relies on operations personnel to feedback
(continued)
Table I.
Coding analysis
46
ECAM
23,1

Incidences/quote
future design […] you incorporate that adaptations […] to try
and get it right […]”
“[…] and yeah and then at the end well thats when health and
safety come into it but we kinda pass over to the highways
designers to kinda take that to the next stage if you like”
E (09.11.2010), Page 5, paragraph 57
“[…] i do my design risk assessments but i don’t really need to
necessarily refer to them (CDM regs) for anything […] cos i’m
not really involved in any like writing projects or mm huh any
actual project work i guess thats more the project manager
thats refers to that.. as far as the designer risk assessment goes
that kind of covers everything i need to do but thats the only
way i i think thats the only way i need to refer to it […].”
F (09.11.2010), Page 7, paragraph 74
“[…] i think we should get a big lot of health and safety
professionals and lawyers into a room and decide what is the best
way to what would stand up in court what is the sort what is the
minimum er or bit better than the minimum or whatever standard
of risk assessment drawings whatever that we should be sending
out if they decide that then they could make up a a standard
template this is the sort of thing that should that should then they
can create proper guidance that would involve somebody taking
responsibility and saying this is or isn’t suposed to be […]”
Defaulting H&S
Fill in DRA
He craves the “do’s and don’ts”
Looks for information
Concept/category: finding out their views on health
and safety in relation to their main concern
(iii) Finding out their views on health and safety in relation to
their main concern
A (21.09.2010), Page 3
“[…] health and safety it really is its paramount […]”
“[…] the main issue is obviously the health and safety of the
operator […] to make sure that you are designing something
thats not going to put anybody at risk […]”
“[…] in terms of health and safety i’m afraid to say it is just one
of those extra things thats thought of at the end […]”
“[…] i don’t really think of that as health and
safety i just tend to think of that as like
design requirements […]
C (22.09.2010), page 2, paragraph 10
“[…] in terms of the construction health and safety elements its
not something we tend to tend to think about too much at the
concept design stage […]”
C (22.09.2010), page 7, paragraph 41
“[…] when i’m doing my job i just like i say the kind of what i
take to be the the safety requirements that i need to consider in
design work is so in-built to the requirements of the design work
that i don’t actually think about it em from a construction health
and safety point of view […] i mean its its almost so far down the
H&S is paramount
Safety of operator
H&S is an afterthought
Inherent H&S requirements
Have a specific view of what health and
safety is and what it isn’t
Does not relate health and safety to this
specific design stage
Far removed from the process
Construction site-related activities
Reality; the construction
Risk
Designer’s risk assessment
An unknown
Risk aversion
Construction site related
Office related
Far removed From the
construction process
Practical aspects
Practical experience
Far removed from the construction process
Power sector
(continued) Table I.
47
Perception
of health
and safety

Incidences/quote
line […] if we come up with the concept that should be buildable
then the construction health and safety element should be able to
be accommodated during detailed design […]”
C (22.09.2010), page 6, paragraph 36
“[…] first thing that comes to my mind is em construction health
and safety like the actual health and safety of the contractors
and the workers that are actually building […]”
D (22.09.2010), Page 20, paragraph 57
“[…] you know innovation is all about risk.. its essence being
innovative is is a risk […] a brand new anything theres always a
risk attached to it but if you pause or have CDM in the back of
your mind or even hone down you know the innovative
loop and then the thought rather it might never happen
you know […]”
F (09.11.2010), Page 4, paragraph 55
“[…] main thing that we produce regarding health and safety
would be a designer’s risk assessment […]”
F (09.11.2010), Page 8, paragraph 83
“[…] theres health and safety culture everywhere now with as i
was saying now with no win no fee people on the tele […] and
health and safety as part of that should also have a standard
should not be open to interpretation as much as it is i feel […]”
G (09.11.2010), Page 3, paragraph 42
“[…] when you hear health and safety you think about
construction site health and safety and health and safety round
the office not yeh not so much actually while you’re doing the
design work itself yeh […] its (design) more to do with whether its
physically possible to do it […] not is it dangerous to to to build it
in that way […] people don’t talk about that kind of thing as much
[…] as you know construction site health and safety in here”
C (22.09.2010), page 8, paragraph 49
“[…] its kind of its two its two positions removed i suppose its like
quite close to the guys who do the detailed design […] but the
guys who actually do the construction i’ve never i i don’t have any
em discussion or interaction […]”
D (22.09.2010), Page 5, paragraph 18
“[…] i don’t expect anyone that probably has got anything less
than maybe 5 years post graduate experience to even begin
to approach safety in design properly you know without first
getting […] to know what how what they’re building and to know
why this is not safe and why this is considered safe and how to
change that […]”
D (22.09.2010), Page 6, paragraph 20
“..i think to produce a safe design you need to have experience of
how designs are built […]”
G (09.11.2010), Page 3, paragraph 42
“…when i’m designing something […] its just that it doesn’t fall
down […] its definately more to do with how the structure the
structure is is going to you know handle the loads rather than how
its going to be constructed […] i mean […] recently worked on
something and it was all heavily to do with how its getting
Sector/type of work: their position affects
their views
Own little bubble
Repetitive working
Enclosed environment; happy to work within a
comfort zone
Cost driver
Being risk averse
Their drivers affect the design outcome
Their priorities affect the design outcome
Corporate health and safety
Black art
(continued)Table I.
48
ECAM
23,1

Incidences/quote
constructed but again still to do with how the structure reacts to it
while its being constructed rather than em the people involved in
building it […] definately more towards the structural side
of things”
D (09.11.2010), Page 7, paragraph 69
“[…] i pretty much just do the same tasks on different projects i do
the same thing […] you just do it the same way that you’ve always
done it […] rightly or wrongly […]”
H (22.09.2010), Page 4, paragraph 12 & 16
“[…] power (sector) side of things thats probably thats probably
the first time that i’ve i’ve felt that we can influence something
before actually even goes to goes to concept […]” and, “[…]
those type of projects are unfortunately have a lot
more unknowns […]”
A (21.09.2010), Page 6, paragraph 22
“[…] so invariably price will drive the thing not always but
invariably.”
D (22.09.2010), Page 2, paragraph 6 & 8
“[…] so the practicality of cost kind of drives have found
have driven some of the health and safety aspects at the
same time […] easier to build […] complex usually involves a risk
[…] simplifying design generally i think leads to safer design […]”
F (09.11.2010), Page 7, paragraph 73
“[…] to i mean we don’t want to get sued for anything and we
want to be known as a good company for design and for health
and safety track record […] we can’t er provide a […]
economically speaking we can’t em go to enormous expense in our
creating drawings that showing like health and safety risks […]”
C (22.09.2010), page 10, paragraph 69
“[…] whatever the client decides that he wants to try and force this
this through em and the consultant will obviously do his best to
make that work em but […]”
C (16.11.10), Page 5, paragraphs 54
“[…] my view of health and safety was […] the corporate health
and safety […] the kind of internal risk assessments of actual
project and how i operate in in the office […] or how i run myself
[…] health and safety in the workplace […] yeh its my is my
workstation safe and the space around […]”
D (16.11.10), Page 6, paragraphs 60 & 63
“[…] i think just creating a safe environment to work in
i guess like to minimise hazards and like ultimately like to
prevent death (laughs) in the workplace […] both (office
environment and) on site like obviously when a lot of engineering
works are on locations which are dangerous for many
reasons […] history’s dictated that accidents happen
in the workplace […]”
B (16.11.10), Page 5, paragraphs 57
“[…] it was a kind of a i don’t know black art to me i don’t know i
just didn’t it didn’t didn’t register on my my my thought process
[…]” and “[…] it became a lot clearer that that a lot a lot of it the
concept stage is just a bit of common sense […]”
(continued) Table I.
49
Perception
of health
and safety

Incidences/quote
Concept/category: finding out how they process
health and safety
(iv) Finding out how they process health and safety
“[…] one of the things which i embrace is er designers risk
assessments […]”
I (16.11.10), Page 5, paragraphs 60
“[…] its just a bit more thought and a bit more sense and
checking rather than some sort of a […] deeply thought out and
complex process […] its just adding that little layer […] if
you’re working with that everyday that comes naturally to you
whereas if you’re not then i suppose its it doesn’t […]”
J (16.11.10), Page 3, paragraphs 42
“[…] i wouldn’t know a, b or like what to do in terms of every
single thing i’d have to go on to the (intranet) site and look
through the procedures and i’d still have to follow that […]”
“[…] people tend to be in a hurry so people will just fill the form
in or use one from before just amend the title or changing it and
i feel that is wrong […]”
Utilising designers risk assessments
Applying common sense
Applying more thought
Look for more information
B (09.11.10), Pages 5 & 6, paragraph 51
“[…] when people take the responsibility for their own actions
you find er issues the issues are not an issue but when you’re
leaving it up to a piece of paper to fill in or to go through you’ll
have a very nice pieces of paper filled in but you don’t
necessarily translate into what reality is out on site […]”
“[…] a lot of individuals er don’t perceive themselves are the
threat or at the issue or risk or at the hazard when they fill in
the form in […] they don’t see themselves in that situation […]”
“[…] have contractor involvement in the designs in order to
mitigate […] to save time and effort […] so by getting them in
early doors we get er very save time save effort […] you then
are comfortable that the contractor can actually physically
build because hes telling you how hes intending to build it and
you can then think the design around that basis […]” and “[…]
basically bounce ideas off them […]”
“[…] HASCOM and they are really really good tools because
there will be something that you’ve haven’t thought about […]”
“[…] but one person’s view is not the team is better than one
person […]”
“[…] but its not until you actually go to the operations people and
say how is this piece of kit working and they’ll tell you er yes its
doing the duty but we have a problem either getting the screens
from here to there or […] and we’ve had to er tweak this and tweak
that to make it better […] when you’re doing a future design […]
you incorporate that adaptations […] to try and get it right […]”
By form-filling
Arranging information,
prioritising
taking responsibility
Contractor involvement
team involvement
Utilising tools
Team involvement
feedback
Simplify
Taking responsibility
Looking for others to take responsibility
To be told what to do and what not to do
Relying on others
Relying on others more senior
Relying on others
After thought
Defaulting responsibility
(continued)Table I.
50
ECAM
23,1

safety issues during design. These three groups are classified according to their perception
of the term health and safety and how their perceptions impact on their behaviour.
These three groups have been named: the doer; the receiver; and the giver (Table II): design
engineer group types outline their tendencies, depending on how they view and understand
the term health and safety and the impact on the design process as a result.
Incidences/quote
F (09.11.10), Page 2, paragraph 36
“[…] so i try to simplify it down modularise say the process such
like you don’t make things overtly complex er and you design out
risks and hazards within your er within the design and simple
things […]”
D (09.11.10), Page 2, paragraph 36
“[…] i do 100% i do believe (in health and safety) that myself i go
to work i come home in exactly the same state that i left the house
and everybody that works with me […] what i do in my day to
day when i undertake a design my i am mindful at all times that
ultimately somebody has to build what i design […]”
E (09.11.10), Page 8, paragraph 69
“[…] fundamentally comes down to ownership and i take
ownership of whats whats in front of me […]”
D (09.11.2010), Page 7, paragraph 74
“[…] i think we should get a big lot of health and safety
professionals and lawyers into a room and decide what is the best
way to what would stand up in court what is the sort what is the
minimum er or bit better than the minimum or whatever standard
of risk assessment drawings whatever that we should be sending
out if they decide that then they could make up a a standard
template this is the sort of thing that should that should then they
can create proper guidance that would involve somebody taking
responsibility and saying this is or isn’t suposed to be […]”
E (10.11.10), Page 5, paragraph 45 “[…] i think when you when
you do think about it you realise what benefits it can have but its
just thinking about it all the time i suppose thats what needs to be
drummed into us a bit more possibly […]”
F (10.11.10), Page 9, paragraphs 93
“[…] regarding the design as well we have some forms but i i
don’t i don’t work much with those forms cos i think its a higher
level cos i don’t do design risk assessments […]”
F (10.11.10), Page 6, paragraph 75
“[…] i’m still in the process of accommodating health and safety
to design it doesn’t come automatically i think about it obviously
but you don’t its so exciting all the technical part […]”
H (16.11.10), Page 9, paragraph 82
“[…] some people just either A don’t think about health and
safety or don’t care enough about it in their design […]”
H (22.09.2010), page 1, paragraph 4
“[…] in terms of health and safety i’m afraid to say it is just one
of those extra things thats thought of at the end […]”
“[…] and yeah and then at the end well thats when health and
safety come into it but we kinda pass over to the highways
designers to kinda take that to the next stage if you like” Table I.
51
Perception
of health
and safety

5.1 The doer
This group of design engineers think that they are making conscious efforts to dealing
with health and safety issues in their designs (B(09.11.2010), page 2, paragraph 36).
They are able to relate design elements to the practical construction process and can
think practically; being able to view health and safety as partly being common sense
[I(16.11.2010), page 5, paragraph 60]. They will rely on processes and systems
and feedback from others to help them make decisions on health and safety issues
(A(21.09.2010), page 1, paragraph 5). They are able to utilise their experience and
The doer:
(design engineers who
think they are dealing
with H&S)
The receiver:
wants to deal with H&S
but do not know how)
The giver:
(design engineers who do not
think H&S concern them)
Their view and
understanding
of the term
health
and safety
Can think in practical terms
H&S is Common sense
Able to relate design to the
Can think about all H&S
options (part of the process)
Understands that others are
able to contribute
(E.g. I(16.11.10), page 5,
paragraphs 60; B(09.11.10)
page 4, paragraph 45)
Is far removed from the
Craves for absolute
requirements; rely on others
(“experts”) to take
responsibility
Want to be told what to do,
looking for expert advice
Motivators; have
other priorities
(E.g. C(22.09.2010), Page 2,
paragraph 10; F(09.11.2010)
Page 7, paragraph 74)
Is far removed from the construction
process
Their role and level: concept design
and/or low level
Motivators: tend to prioritise
technical requirements, client
requirements, view these as being
more interesting aspects than H&S
(E.g. G(09.11.2010) Page 3, paragraph
42; C(22.09.2010),
What they do Conscious efforts; using
tools to help in this process;
not just form-filling
Gather information;
feedback
Prioritise; can have
positive/negative knock-on
effects
for H&S
Takes (accepts)
responsibility; for the H&S
of themselves and others
Detailed design
(E.g. A(21.09.2010), Page 13,
paragraph 73; J(16.11.10)
Page 3,
paragraph 42)
Form-filling; to avoid risk, to
satisfy others
Rely on others; H&S is a
specialist area
Look for more information
that tells them what to do
(E.g. B(09.11.2010), Page 2,
paragraph 36; E(09.11.10)
Rely on others; higher more
senior level
Default to others; view H&S as being
‘high end stuff’
Nothing; H&S is taken away because
of their role and level
Working within a comfort zone; very
little variety in daily design tasks
Reflect; learn
Concept design and/or junior level
(E.g. D(09.11.2010), Page 7,
paragraph 69; C(22.09.2010)
What happens Outcome is dependent on
their motivators
Knock-on effects; can have
positive or negative
outcomes on Health
and Safety
(E.g. C(22.09.2010), Page 10,
paragraph 69; D(22.09.10)
Page 2, paragraphs 6 & 8)
Their actions (e.g. form-
filling) have little real impact
They are susceptible to
positive/negative step
change depending on their
experience
(E.g. B(09.11.10), Page 2,
paragraph 36; I(16.11.10)
There is very little variation in their
design outcomes
They are susceptible to positive/
negative step change depending on
their experience
(E.g. D(09.11.10), Page 7, paragraph
69; I(16.11.10) Page 5,
paragraph 60)
Table II.
Design engineer
group types
52
ECAM
23,1

knowledge to consider any health and safety knock-on effects from decisions made on
other design considerations (F(09.11.2010), page 2, paragraph 36). They take responsibility
for the health and safety of those who are affected by their designs (B(09.11.2010),
pages 5&6, paragraph 51); (D(09.11.10), page 2, paragraph 36); (E(09.11.10), page 8,
paragraph 69). They see form-filling as being unrepresentative of actual practice (B
(09.11.2010), page 2, paragraph 36). These design engineers are generally involved in the
detailed design stages of the project.
5.2 The receiver
This group of design engineers wants to deal with health and safety to achieve positive
outcomes, but they struggle to do so. They will generally feel far removed from the
construction process and will seek information in order to feel that they are filling the gap
between design and construction (J(16.11.2010), page 3, paragraph 42). Their motivators
for wanting to deal with health and safety issues however, will most likely be as a result
of other priorities – meaning that health and safety is not always the direct driver
(A(21.09.2010), page 6, paragraph 22); (C(22.09.2010), page 10, paragraph 69). The result is
that form-filling is a likely outcome for these design engineers. Whilst there is a desire to
achieve a positive outcome to health and safety through their designs, these design
engineers tend to view this as a specialist area and hence, look for others to tell them what
to do and what not to do (D(09.11.2010), page 7, paragraph 74); (E(10.11.2010), page 5,
paragraph 45); (F(10.11.10), page 9, paragraph 93); (H(22.09.2010), page 1, paragraph 4).
5.3 The giver
This group of design engineers are generally not concerned with health and safety
issues in their design work (F(10.11.2010), page 6, paragraph 75). They will tend to feel
far removed from the construction process and will either consciously or unconsciously
determine that health and safety is not a concern to them (C(22.09.2010), page 7,
paragraph 41). Their role and level within the organisation will also be influential
towards how they deal with health and safety (H(16.11.10), page 9, paragraph 82).
They are generally at the early stages in their career and are also likely to be involved
in the concept design stages. These design engineers will tend to default and rely on
others to actively deal with health and safety because they will have other priorities
that are relative to their role and level and may be more interesting to them (C
(22.09.2010), page 1, paragraph 4); (F(10.11.2010), page 6, paragraph 75). They also tend
to work within a comfort zone that they have created, providing very few variations in
their daily, routine design tasks (D(09.11.2010), page 7, paragraph 69).
6. Discussion
The main proposition of this study is that the more the design engineer feels involved in
or feels part of the construction process and the more importance attached to health and
safety (i.e. his view and understanding towards the term health and safety), the greater
the design engineer’s propensity to process health and safety aspects into their design in
a positive, proactive and integrated way. This proposition is based on their view that
health and safety is related to construction site activities and the separation made
between the design and the construction phases. This is discussed in the following, in
connection with how the design engineer’s role is developed. The implications for
educational establishments and professional bodies are also presented, together with
some practical suggestions on how designers can begin to promote and manage the
proactive implementation and integration of health and safety in design.
53
Perception
of health
and safety

7. Implications for educational establishments
Education providers are instrumental in the development of design students
(Casakin and Kreitler, 2010). They provide the knowledge, motivation and the
grounding necessary for them to progress and the ability to further acquire the
skills necessary to engage in the design process with any level of competency.
This influence and how a particular design specialism is developed in relation to how
the role of the designer is viewed (by themselves and others) arguably begin even
before the student steps foot into a university environment. An individual chooses to
study particular subjects based on stipulations by universities on gaining entry to
particular degrees. These stipulations play an important part in how the role of each
type of designer is developed from a very early stage, given that a university
admitting a student into architecture without having obtained a mathematics
qualification would probably not admit the same student into a civil engineering
degree (Lawson, 2006).
It is in the classroom environment that the design student is normally taught
the legal and moral issues surrounding health and safety. They are even taught the
business and economic benefits. However, a health and safety module, taught in most
universities, is only seen as being an introduction to the topic, with little technical detail
or depth (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2010). It is an environment
where the aim is to enlighten students; opening up new ways of thinking, a broadening
of horizons, with the hope that the design student responds to issues of health and
safety that allows them to look beyond the particular design specialism studied. It is
arguably here, that the traditional separation between the design and the construction
process begins. Hence, the particular view of the term health and safety that is
associated with construction site-related activities and that which is separate from
designing activities.
Educators are in a position to change how the next generation of designers
develop their views, understanding and associations with the term health and safety
(Chan, 2002). Educators need to recognise that the term health and safety can conjure
up different images and connotations in design students and that they play an
important role in how this term can develop further during the course of studying a
design specialism (University of Sheffield, 2012).
It is recommended that careful consideration be given to instigate new ways of
presenting and teaching health and safety that will support its integration with other
core design elements being taught. This will avoid any negativity associated with this
term and the prevailing idea that health and safety is a standalone subject, reserved
only for the experts or health and safety professionals to advise on (University of
Sheffield, 2012). One suggested way is to re-phrase the term itself that will promote an
alternative way to viewing safety and health in design. Educational establishments
must also forge stronger relations with constructors and other construction industry
members to support experience-based learning; working closely with industry to
overcome practical difficulties such as access to live projects so that practical skills and
knowledge gained can be integrated into the designing elements from the earliest
stages of the design student’s development; making a positive change shift by instilling
the relevance of health and safety to their role in design.
8. Implications for professional bodies
As with educators, professional bodies have a direct role to play in the development of
the designer. They have an influence on how educational establishments design and
54
ECAM
23,1

implement their teaching aims – for example, in relation to health and safety through
design – by validating parts of the study programme towards achieving full institutional
membership (e.g. The Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2012). Professional
bodies stipulate particular membership requirements and shape how the designer’s role
is perceived by others and towards themselves in relation to health and safety and
design. It is perhaps through the association with an institute that the designer’s role and
how it is viewed, is most prevalent. Additionally, their requirements for continuous
professional development (CPD) to maintain chartered membership means that there is
scope to influence the transitions from being a novice to expert designer thus, supporting
and ensuring the continuity of lifelong learning.
Professional bodies must continue to forge robust partnerships with educators,
constructors, and practitioners to ensure that a concerted, planned and structured
effort is made to influence how designers are viewed and how they view themselves
in their role in relation to health and safety and design. This should promote the
relevance of health and safety to their role and bridge the gap between design and
construction processes. It is suggested that professional bodies should review their
membership requirements to support and ensure the continuity of learning between
the educational institutions to the working practice. Membership requirements
should be amended to better fit the aims and aspirations for improvements to health
and safety performance. This can be achieved if the student is provided with the
opportunity to engage with practice during their education and the specific
requirement to gain on-site practical experience. Additionally, a requirement for
implementing a robust programme for student-practitioner mentoring would be a
good starting point.
9. Managing health and safety considerations
The importance of discovering these three group types of design engineers is
that design engineers now have a base for recognising their tendencies when
tasked with considering health and safety issues alongside other design
considerations. They are now aware that how they view and understand the term
health and safety, including all its associations, will influence how they deal with it
during the design process. The three group types identified will help manage the
process of promoting or inhibiting particular tendencies in their behaviour, allowing
a step change towards active improvements on safety and health through design
(Table III): managing tendencies, outline the suggested steps for managing group
type tendencies. This is not a definitive list and should be seen as a starting point for
further research.
Design organisations must manage the effects of how their designers view and
understand the term health and safety. They must aim to discover and manage the
differences in individual’s patterns of behaviours – in their designing for safer
and healthier solutions – even when subjected to the same policies, procedures
and processes if they are to be successful in nurturing a safety culture. They must
work with professional bodies and educational establishments to ensure that the next
generation of designers are appropriately mentored, helping to change their view of
health and safety so that it is considered relevant and combined with their other
traditionally higher priority design parameters (e.g. cost, time and quality).
It is recommended that design organisations should develop a mentoring
programme or review their existing mentoring arrangements to ensure adequacy,
appropriateness and usefulness towards safety in design principles. A mentoring
55
Perception
of health
and safety

programme can provide the opportunity to design students to engage with practice
during their education thus, providing opportunities for the continuity of learning
and nurturing of the student as he makes the transition from student to work life. The
personal interaction with other professionals through a personal mentoring process is
not only essential for the novice designer’s CPD, but can also provide the expert
designer with the opportunities to self-reflect through this personal interaction.
A creative approach is needed to instigate new ways of looking at mentoring so that it
will stimulate a holistic approach to learning.
10. Conclusion
This study has identified three group types of design engineers, indicating how health and
safety issues are being processed, according to how they view and understand the term
health and safety. It has been recommended that much of their existing view and
understanding needs to be changed and educators and professional bodies can play an
important role. This paper has presented the problem of health and safety in design from a
new perspective; the problem as seen through the designer’s eyes. As a result, this
new understanding forms the basis for helping designers to manage health and
safety considerations and further, stimulates new ideas to tackling this problem.
The focus on CDM implementation has perhaps over the years, offered too many solutions
to problems that have been perceived by those other than the designers themselves. It is
time to start shifting focus from satisfying those tasked with regulating, to those with the
difficult task of designing. A move towards synthesising research from design studies and
construction health and safety is required. It is time for construction health and safety
professionals to shift focus from what designers are not doing to what they are doing in
order to better understand the intricacies of how designers can best tackle the requirement
that they must consider health and safety in their designs.
The doer:
(design engineers who think
they are dealing with H&S)
The receiver:
wants to deal with H&S
but do not know how)
The giver:
(design engineers who do not
think H&S concern them)
Managing
their
tendencies
Take cognisance of the
effects on health and safety
outcomes depending on
their priorities
Should reflect on their
proposed design solution to
limit any negative impacts
resulting from other
design decisions
Develop a strategy that
facilitates flexible and
pragmatic adjustments,
changes and prioritising to
suit according to
circumstance
Adopt the use of a self-
reflective journal; highlight
successes and failings
Seek to improve
opportunities for
collaboration with
constructors; bridge gap
between design and
construction
Identify their motivator for
considering H&S; only form
fill if it provides value
Improve and develop their
capabilities for tackling
H&S in their designs
Take responsibility for the
safety and health of those
affected by their designs; it
is not just the responsibility
of H&S experts
Accept responsibility for the
safety and health of those
affected by their designs; it is
not just the responsibility of
H&S experts
By accepting responsibility,
they will begin to see the
relevance of the role to
tackling H&S in their
designs and start to view
H&S from a different
perspective
Table III.
Managing tendencies
56
ECAM
23,1

References
Association For Project Safety (APS) (2012), “Construction industry guidance on CDM – designers
(homepage of Association for Project Safety (APS))”, available at: www.aps.org.uk/risk_
management.html (accessed 6 June).
Behm, M. (2008), “Construction sector”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 175-178.
British Standards Institute (BSI) (2008), Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.
Guidelines for the Implementation of OHSAS 180001: 2007, BSI, London.
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1988), “An ethnographic perspective on engineering design”, Design Studies,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 159-168.
Cameron, I. and Hare, B. (2008), “Planning tools for integrating health and safety in construction”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 899-909.
Casakin, H. and Kreitler, S. (2010), “Motivation for creativity in architectural design and
engineering design students: implications for design education”, International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 477-493.
Chan, E.H.W. (2002), “Educating the 21st century construction professionals”, Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 44-51.
Choudhry, R.M., Lingard, H. and Blismas, N. (2009), “Designing for safety: perspectives from
European Union, United Kingdom, Australia and United States pertaining to safety and
health in construction”, in Lingard, H., Cooke, T., Turner, M. and Gourlay, M. (Eds), CIB
W099 Conference 2009 – Working Together: Planning, Designing and Building a Health
and Safe Industry, 21-23 October, RMIT University, p. 12.
CIRIA and Loughborough University (2011), “Preventing catastrophic events in construction”,
RR834 research report, HSE Books, London.
Cross, N. (1990), “The nature and nurture of the design ability”, Design Studies, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 127-140.
European Agency For Safety and Health at Work (2010), Mainstreaming Occupational Safety and
Health into University Education, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Fadier, E. and De la garza, C. (2006), “Safety design: towards a new philosophy”, Safety Science,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 55-73.
Gambatese, J., Gibb, A., Bust, P. and Behm, M. (2009), “Industry’s perspective of design for safety
regulations”, in Lingard, H., Cooke, T., Turner, M. and Gourlay, M. (Eds), CIB W099
Conference 2009 - Working Together: Planning, Designing and Building a Healthy and Safe
Industry, 21-23 October, RMIT University, p. 11.
Gambatese, J.A. (2000), “Safety in a designer’s hands”, Civil Engineering, Vol. 70 No. 6, pp. 56-59.
Glaser, B.G. (1998), Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (2005), The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical Coding, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.
Granath, J.Å. (1991), Architecture, Technology and Human Factors: Design in a Socio-Technical
Context, Chalmers University of Technology, Industrial Architecture and Planning, Göteborg.
Hale, A., Kirwan, B. and Kjellén, U. (2007), “Safe by design: where are we now?”, Safety Science,
Vol. 45 Nos 1-2, pp. 305-327.
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007), Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd ed., Taylor &
Francis, New York, NY.
Hecker, S., Gambatese, J. and Weinstein, M. (2005), “Designing for worker safety”, Professional
Safety, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 32-44.
57
Perception
of health
and safety

HSE & Construction Skills (2007), The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations
2007 – Industry Guidance for Designers, Construction Skills, Norfolk, VA.
HSE (2011), “Construction (homepage of Health and Safety Executive)”, available at:
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/index.htm (accessed 7 October).
HSE (2012), “Statistics (homepage of Health and Safety Executive)”, available at: www.hse.gov.
uk/statistics/industry/construction/index.htm (accessed 11 December).
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) (2010), A Review of, and Commentary on, the Legal
Requirement to Exercise a Duty ‘So Far As is Reasonably Practicable’ with Specific Regard to
Designers in the Construction Industry, ICE, London.
International Organization for Standardization (2000), Quality Management Systems:
Requirements, BS EN ISO 9001:2000, BSI, London.
Lawson, B. (2006), How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, 4th ed., Architectural
Press, Hungary.
Lingard, H., Blismas, N., Cooke, T. and Cooper, H. (2009), “The model client framework”,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 131-140.
Martínez Aires, M.D., Rubio Gámez, M.C. and Gibb, A. (2010), “Prevention through design: the
effect of European Directives on construction workplace accidents”, Safety Science, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 248-258.
Reason, P. (Ed.) (1994), Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Schön, D.A. (1982), The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Schön, D.A. (1988), “Designing: rules, types and words”, Design Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 181-190.
The Institution of Engineering and Technology (2012), “Academics (homepage of The IET),
available at: www.theiet.org/academics/accreditation/ (accessed 7 December).
The Royal Institution of British Architects (2007), Outline Plan of Work 2007, RIBA Publications
Ltd, London.
Toole, T.M. (2005), “Increasing engineers’ role in construction safety: opportunities and barriers”,
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 131 No. 3,
pp. 199-207.
University of Sheffield (2012), “Healthy design, creative safety”, RR925 research report, HSE
Books, London.
Weinstein, M., Gambatese, J. and Hecker, S. (2005), “Can design improve construction safety?:
Assessing the impact of a collaborative safety-in-design process”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 10, pp. 1125-1134.
Workcover (2001), “Last update, CHAIR safety in design tool (homepage of WorkCover NSW)”,
available at: www.workcover.nsw.gov.au (accessed 9 September 2010).
Working Well Together (WWT) (2012), “Awareness seminar for designers and architects.
‘Safer by Design – Achieving Excellence’ (homepage of HSE)”, available at: http://wwt.uk.
com/Resources/r/s/b/West%20Sussex%20DAD%20Flyer.pdf (accessed 19 April).
About the authors
Dr Susan Morrow Graduated from the Glasgow Caledonian University with a Masters Degree in
Construction Management (specialising in Project Management) in 1996. Susan has over 12 years
commercial and project management experience in the industry working for client and
contracting organisations and private practice in Hong Kong and in the UK. Susan has project
management experience on a variety of projects from commercial, residential, education and
healthcare, with values ranging from £500k to £82 M. Susan completed her PhD – “Balancing a
Safer and Healthier Frame to Designing: A Grounded Theory” in 2012 and is currently
58
ECAM
23,1

undertaking further research work with the University in the area of health and safety. Dr Susan
Morrow is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: susan.morrow@virgin.net
Dr Billy Hare Graduated from the Glasgow Caledonian University with First Class Honours
in Construction Management. After a few years experience in contracting he was appointed
to a full-time research position, undertaking work on several HSE, construction skills and
IOSH funded research projects with Iain Cameron. Billy is currently a Senior Research Fellow
and also lectures part time within the school, covering construction management and health and
safety topics. In addition to this he also represents the university on the CIOB Health & Safety
Advisory Committee.
Professor Iain Cameron is a “Chartered Builder” and “Chartered Safety Practitioner”. He has
both construction site management and academic experience which spans over the last 20 years.
Iain was awarded his Doctorate Degree for research into “The Measurement and the Improvement
of Management Safety in Construction”. He is a Past Chairman of the Institution of Occupational
Safety and Health’s (IOSH) Specialist Interest Group on “Safety Sciences”. He is currently the
Vice-Dean of the School of Engineering and Built Environment at the Glasgow Caledonian
University. Iain has headed research for HSE, construction skills and IOSH investigating health
and safety issues amounting to £700,000 over the last ten years.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
59
Perception
of health
and safety

ECAM-01-2013-0009

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ECAM-01-2013-0009

Similar to ECAM-01-2013-0009 (20)

ECAM-01-2013-0009