내용없음8
내용없음9
내용없음10
      RESUME(CV)
Main

CV

Australia

Austria

Canada

CHILE

CZECH

England

FILAND

FRANCE

Germany

GREECE

INDIA

IRELAND

Japan

Malaysia

Newzealand

NORWAY

Portugal

QATAR MIDDLE EAST

Russia

SINGARPORE

Slovenia

South Africa

SPAIN

SWEDEN

Switzerland

Thailand

USA

Vietnam

QATAR



 sm207
영문(Japan)

 

ki sang son, construction site , Tokyo, June 1989, JAPAN,

 

kisnag son, civil engineering, CHIBA university, June 1995, CHIBA, JAPAN  


ki sang son, costruction safety training centre, 7th June 1994, CHIBA , JAPAN  
ki  sang SON,  in  building  construction,    22nd  Oct  1997,   Tokyo,  JAPAN
 
working platform with railing, 22nd Oct 1997,tokyo, Japan
 
ceiling work on platform, 22nd Oct 1997, tokyo,JAPAN  
subway construction, 20th OCt 1997, Tokyo, JAPAN
 
pneumatic room, 20th Oct 1997, Tokyo, Japan  
ki sang son, 10 asian delegates, 20th Oct 1997, tokyo, JAPAN  
Kiang SON, and MR  ISHIDO,  MAY,  1994, tokyo,JAPAN
 
seeside, 1st Aug 1996, CHIBA, JAPAN  
mR suiji ishido, A FRIEND OF MINE , KI SANG son, on 19th Dec 2008, TOKYO, JAPAN  
21st  Dec  2008,  taken  by with   ki  sang SON'S   IDEAS, TOKYO, Japan

















ISIS 2004, Tokyo , Sept 2004 BR>



Toshil KUROKI ,Dean of engineering school, KIFU university, 12th Dec2003



officerofficer, dept of general affairs, KIFU univ, 13th Dec 2003



presentation of a paper , prof Ki Sang SON, engineerinng school, 12th Dec 2006


CD listening roon , Library, KIFU univ 13th Dec 2003.





 An Analysis of Safety Control Effectiveness


SON, Ki Sang

Department of Safety Engineering, Seoul National University of Technology, 172 Gongleung-Dong, Nowon-Gu, Seoul, 139-703 Korea


Abstract

The cost of injuries and accidents to an organization is very important in establishing how much it should spend on safety control. Despite the usefulness of information about the cost of a companys accidents, it is not customary accounting practice to make these data available. Of the two kinds of costs incurred by a company through occupational injuries and accidents, direct costs and indirect costs ; the direct costs are much easier to estimate. However, the uninsured costs are usually more critical and should be estimated by each company. The authors investigate a general model to estimate the above costs and hence to establish efficient safety control. One construction company has been pilot for this study. By analyzing actual company data for three years, it is found that the efficient safety control cost should be 1.2-1.3% of total contract costs.

Keywords: Safety control effectiveness; Accident; Safety control costs

1. Introduction

Safety management expenditure has been invested very differently in different fields of business despite the fact that in Korea there of Government guidance to suggest how to determine Standard Safety Management Cost for different classes of construction work [1]. While these classes are useful for planning more safety control measures, it is considered by the government that for giving greater flexibility, and having contractors self safety management conditions, different degrees of safety management expenditure might be available. For example it is considered by the Government that concentrated safety investment should be given in the following critical work areas; ()foundations; () grading and backfilling; () reinforced concrete construction; () steel construction; and () water proofing. The expenditure on safety management for each of these areas might depend on the work process rate and other factors depending on the likelihood of accident occurrence.

In order to determine the most appropriate level of safety management investment a new practically oriented method of estimating direct costs, general insurance costs and compensation, and various indirect costs such as due to work stoppages, time taken to reach compromises, legal costs, cleaning of debris after an accident, and the costs associated with demoralization of the work force should be considered. An area of particular difficulty is the estimation of the indirect costs associate with the particular structural accident. Unfortunately it is difficult to determine these costs as usually no records are kept.

The level of safety management investment for each type of work must be subject to review and clarification to ascertain its cost effectiveness. Accordingly, it is appropriate that a detailed model be established for the optimum level of safety management investment. Such a model is possibly best set within the overall financial objectives of a particular enterprise. It need not relate, necessarily, to underlying engineering notions of structural safety. The present study focuses on the experiences of the SI Construction Company over a period of three years [2].

From the analysis of the data available, it is possible to deduce a criterion for the optimal expenditure on safety management. The whole treatment takes account of events and accidents only during construction. The results are compared with other empirical and numerical values.


 

2. Model for estimating safety control costs

2.1 Theory of safety control costs

Fig. 1 depicts a well-known relation between safety performance and total costs [3]. The higher the design, implementation and construction safety levels to be achieved, the lower will be the overall expected costs, because of the smaller probability of accident. However, to achieve these higher levels of safety will require extra costs, costs which normally have to be borne by the contractor. Hence, it pays the contractor to ascertain the minimal overall expected total costs [4].



 

Some limits can be set to the curves in Fig. 1. Thus, it is clear that under a perfect state of safety, there will be no accidents and hence no costs associated with them. Conversely, to achieve a perfect state of safety implies that the costs are infinite. An achievable state of safety will lie somewhere between these two extremes (5). By adding the expected accident or damage costs and countermeasure control costs, the total expected costs curve for the structure could be obtained.

Fig. 1 Cost of safety


 

Evidently this curve has a minimum point T(n) for the total cost where the derivative of the total expected cost is zero. The total expected cost can be divided into two categories: () direct; and () indirect. The direct costs will include property damage, costs of injury and the costs involved in taking care of the dead.

The indirect costs are more difficult to determine. They relate primarily to loss of individual productivity, the loss of system productivity, and the unpredictable costs of insurance and litigation. It is often the case in practice that the indirect costs exceed the direct costs.

 Direct countermeasure costs will include design changes principally for safety, provision of safety personnel, installation and management of safety systems, safety education, and training programs. The indirect countermeasure costs also may be restrictions on system operation.


 

2.2 Modeling for reasonable safety control cost

The minimum total expected costs of damage and accident prevention will be considered the criterion for setting optimal safety levels.

Fig. 2 depicts the annual total expected cost T(n). This is the total costs in year n as a function of year n:

T(n) = H(n) + G(n)                 (1)

Where H(n), is the annual cost of accidents, and G(n) is the annual countermeasure (or control) cost. R* depicts the minimum cost point.

Fig. 2 Total expected cost curve


 

G(n) in Fig. 2 can be represented as a function of the total contract amount and the investment cost as follows:

G(n) = P(n)[1 + R(n)]                        (2)

Where G(n) is the countermeasure costs invested for industrial accident prevention in year n, R(n) the (countermeasure costs/total contract amount) of S construction company in year n, P(n) the total contract amount of S construction of R(n). Also let P(n) be taken as a constant amount in each year n.

The function H(n) can be obtained from statistical data for the accident rate, the direct costs of damage and loss per worker, and the number of workers per accident, as follows:

H(n) = DC + IC                               (3)

Where DC is the expected direct cost, IC the expected indirect cost. The direct cost can be given as:

DC = N(a) ´ dc                               (4)

Where N(a) is the total number of workers involved in accidents in year n, dc the direct cost of damage and loss pre worker and a the accident rate.

The total number of workers involved in accidents can be represented as a function of the accident rate as follows;

N(a) = a ´ regular time workers              (5)

Where a = (the number of  accident workers/number of workers) ´ 100 and where the number of regular time workers can be obtained from the total costs of the project, being the proportion of labor for the project divided by the unit labor wage rates and the number of working days.

Since the accident rate decreases as the investment rate increases it is possible to develop a correlation between them. This can be done by regressing the accident rate a on the investment rate R as follows:

a = f(R)                                           (6)

For simplicity the indirect costs can be assumed to be b ´ the direct costs of damage and loss. This allows the maximum loss cost H(n) to be represented as:

H(n) = (1 + b) ´{N(a) ´ dc}                       (7)

It has been suggested that the indirect losses might be up to four times the direct costs(6) but in practice it seems extremely difficult to estimate this ratio.

Once the above expressions have been obtained it is possible to select R* as the reasonable investment and safety control rate.


Table 1. Collection of direct of loss(1 US$ = 800 won, unit 1000won)


 

Item

10.01.1992-12.31.1992

01.01.1992-12.31.1992

01.01.1992-12.31.1992

01.01.1992-12.31.1992

Total

Total amount paid of industrial

accident insurance

85,903,710

270,444,000

211,029,520

150,183,500

717,560,730


3. Case study for analyzing effect of safety management

3.1 Direct and indirect costs of damage and loss

 In order to illustrate the above concept a pilot study was conducted for the SI Construction Company. Three years of statistical data were used. For these years the direct costs of loss and damage for the company amounted to total 717,560,720(US$896,950). The indirect costs amounted to ,097,314,000 won (US$ 11,371,642). Thus, the ratio of direct to indirect costs is 1:1.5.

The statistical data for the Company indicated that the direct costs constitute mainly the industrial accident insurance costs. In addition, it is clear that the indirect costs are considerably less than has been suggested in the literature.

It is likely that the difference may depend on the Company operating practices, including their safety management processes, but also on costs related to death and injury applicable to a particular country (Tables 1 and 2).


3.2 Reasonability review of current safety control cost

The data for the SI Construction Company shows that for the eleven years between 1985 and 1995 the accident rate has decreased steadily and was inversely proportional to the amount invested in safety control (see Fig. 3 and Table 3) (7). It should be noted that the 1988 Government decreed Safety Control Cost Recommendations (1) were easily met in most subsequent years. It is also clear that there is an apparent limit to the reduction in accident rates that can be achieved.



 

Table 2. Collection of indirect cost of loss(1 US$ = 800 won, unit 1000won)


 

Item

10.01.1992-12.31.1992

01.01.1992-12.31.1992

01.01.1992-12.31.1992

01.01.1992-12.31.1992

Total

Compensation including judged amount

108,000

218,524

57,000

44,190

427,714

Liquidated damage

-

-

94,500

-

94,500

Cost of litigation

7,000

25,000

11,000

8,000

51,000

The third party compensation

-

11,000

15,000

4,000

30,000

Labor cost due to accident investigation

15,000

26,500

18,400

16,250

76,150

Loss of work productivity due to work stoppage

19,000

31,800

84,200

5,500

140,500

Loss of equipment stoppage

-

-

60,000

-

60,000

Property damage

-

7,000

35,000

4,500

46,500

Loss of machine equipment and tools

12,000

1,950

148,000

9,000

170,950

Total

161,000

321,774

523,100

91,440

1,097,314


3.3 Comparison with national figures

The above results may be used with to estimate the effect of safety management for the particular case of the SI construction company, used here as a bench mark.

The following were used in the analysis:


Total Contract Amount this is the domestic Government contract amount for all construction, increased by 5% per annum to allow for inflation during the year.

Number of Accident Workers obtained from data collected by the Korean Department of Labor[1].

These include deaths.

Direct Cost of Loss as for the SI Construction Company, the direct costs were taken as the industrial accident insurance costs for each year increased by 5% per annum to allow for inflation during the year.

Fig. 3 Interrelation curve concerning Table 3

Indirect costs based on data obtained for the SI Construction Company, this was taken as 50% greater than the direct costs (see above).

Amount of Loss Per Accident Worker this was taken as the total amount of loss divided by the number of accident workers. The definition of Accident workers is given above.

Number of Accident Workers this was estimated as the target contract amount divided by the contract amount per accident worker.

Estimated Loss this was estimated from a number of accident workers multiplied by the loss amount per accident worker.

Loss Prevention Efficiency Rate(%) this was taken as the total loss amount divided by the total contract amount multiplied by 100.


Table 3. Interrelationship between safety control costs and accidents, 1985-1995




 

Kind

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95


The number of injured workers Accident rate(%)

113

54

94


50

50

47

64

73

37

9

15

Safety control cost/ Total project amount(%)

4.99

2.80

5.42

2.94

3.31

1.62

1.41

1.48

1.22

0.35

0.40

Cost of safety control

(hundred millions won)

0.62

0.53

0.47

2.38

2.52

6.16

10.8

19.65

16.64

17.15

27.44

Total selling amount

(hundred millions won)

600

510

460

450

400

770

1200

2047

1293

1244

2033

 




 

Fig. 4 Target accident rate


 

Fig. 4 shows the analysis and calculation procedure. Table 4 gives the historical calculations for 1993 1995 and the predicted results for 1996.

 It is seen that the predicted loss prevention efficiency rate is 1.72% on the total contract amount (or project cost) for 1996. This gives an indication of the savings predicted to be made due to losses associated with accidents.


Table 4. Yearly safety control effect and estimated effect for 1996(1 US$ = 800 won, unit: (hundred million ) (5%rising rate in prices and 5% wages increasing rate are applied for estimating the effect for the coming year, Item :Government statistics, Item : estimated, Item : accidents occurred actually, Item : effect obtained, =

Kind

 

Total amount of each item

Number of injured people

Project amount/

person

Direct loss cost

Indirect loss cost

Total loss cost

Estimated cost/accident

work

Efficiency

93


436,265

26,129

16.96

3,355.00

5,032.50

8,387.50

0.3210

1.92


1,293

77

16.96

9.89

14.83

24.72


1.92


1,293

37

34.946

4.76

7.14

11.90

 

0.92


 

40

18.25

5.13

7.69

12.82

 

1.00

94


499,000

24,271

20.55

3,7472.30

5,613.45

9,355.75

0.3855

1.86


1,244

60

20.55

9.25

13.87

23.12


1.86


1,244

9

138.22

1.38

2.07

3.45


0.28


 

51

117.67

7.87

11.80

19.67

 

1.58

95


630,000

22,542

27.95

4.335.96

6,503.94

10,839.90

0.4809

1.73


2,033

73

27.95

14.04

21.06

35.10

 

1.73


2,033

15

135.53

2.89

4.33

7.23

 

0.36


 

58

107.58

11.15

16.72

27.87

 

1.37

96


661,500

22,542

29.345

4,552.76

6,829.14

11,381.90

0.5049

1.72


3,115

106

29.4

21.41

32.11

53.52

 

1.72


3,115

11

291.7

2.22

3.33

5.55

 

0.18


 

95

262.3

19.19

28.78

47.97

 

1.54


 

    Table 5. Effect in 1996 of no accidents in year 1995


Kind

Damage preventive effect from safety control (%)

Deduction rate of insurance (%)

Total rate (%)

Project cost

Profit

1.73

17.3

0.32

3.20

2.05

20.5


Kind

Damage preventive effect from safety control (%)

Deduction rate of insurance (%)

Total rate (%)

Project cost

Profit

1.73

17.3

0.32

3.20

2.05

20.5


Table 6 Effect in 1996 of no accidents rate of 0.2%

Kind

Damage preventive effect from safety control (%)

Deduction rate of insurance (%)

Total rate (%)

Project cost

Profit

1.54

15.4

0.24

2.40

1.78

17.8


Table 7 Statistical analysis (regression analysis-exponential model: Y = exp (a+bX))

Dependent variable: a-ratio

Independent variable: R

Parameter

Estimate

Standard error


T value

Prob. level

Intercept

Slope

Analysis of variance Source




Sum of squares




Df




Mean square

8.05045

-6.60614


F-Ratio

.00002

.00010


Prob. Level

Model

Error

Total(Corr.)

6.840041

1.4106079

8.2506488

1

9

10

6.840041

.1567342

43.64102

.00010

Correlation coefficient = -0.910511

Stnd. Error of est. = 0.395897

R-squared = 82.90 percent


Table 8 93 year calculated result (1 US$ = 800 won, unit: a hundred millions won)

Investment rate

Accident rate

Direct cost

Indirect cost

Cost of damage

Cost of control

Total cost

Cost difference

0.0050

0.0060

0.0070

0.0080

0.0090

0.0100

0.0110

0.0120

0.0130

0.0140

0.0150

0.0160

0.0170

0.0180

0.0190

0.0200

0.02564

0.02171

0.01839

0.01557

0.01319

0.01117

0.00946

0.00801

0.00679

0.00575

0.00487

0.00412

0.00349

0.00296

0.00251

0.00212

9.6681

8.1884

6.9351

5.8737

4.9747

4.2133

3.5684

3.0223

2.5597

2.1679

1.8361

1.5551

1.3171

1.1155

0.9448

0.8002

14.5022

12.2826

10.4027

8.8105

7.4620

6.3199

5.3526

4.5334

3.8395

3.2519

2.7542

2.3326

1.9756

1.6732

1.4171

1.2002

24.1703

20.4709

17.3378

14.6841

12.4367

10.5332

8.9210

7.5556

6.3992

5.4198

4.5903

3.8877

3.2927

2.7887

2.3619

2.004

6.4650

7.7580

9.0510

10.3440

11.6370

12.9300

14.2230

15.5160

16.8090

18.1020

19.3950

20.6880

21.9810

23.2740

24.5670

25.8600

30.6353

28.2289

26.3888

25.0281

24.0737

23.4632

23.1440

23.0716

23.2082

23.5218

23.9853

24.5757

25.2737

26.0627

26.9289

27.8604


2.4064

1.8402

1.3606

0.9545

0.6105

0.3192

0.0724

-0.1366

-0.3136

-0.4635

-0.5904

-0.6980

-7890

-0.8662

-0.9315

Table 9 94 year calculated (1 US$ = 800 won, unit: a hundred millions won)

Investment rate

Accident rate

Direct cost

Indirect cost

Cost of damage

Cost of control

Total cost

Cost difference

0.0050

0.0060

0.0070

0.0080

0.0090

0.0100

0.0110

0.0120

0.0130

0.0140

0.0150

0.0160

0.0170

0.0180

0.0190

0.0200

0.02577

0.02183

0.01848

0.01566

0.01326

0.01123

0.00951

0.00806

0.00682

0.00578

0.00489

0.00414

0.00351

0.00297

0.00252

0.00213

10.0599

8.5202

7.2161

6.1117

5.1762

4.3840

3.7130

3.1447

2.6634

2.2558

1.9105

1.6181

1.3704

1.1607

0.9830

0.8326

15.0898

12.7802

10.8242

9.1675

7.7644

6.5760

5.5695

4.7171

3.9951

3.3836

2.8657

2.4271

2.0556

1.7410

1.4746

1.2489

25.1497

21.3004

18.0403

15.2791

12.9406

10.9600

9.2825

7.8618

6.6585

5.6394

4.7762

4.0452

3.4261

2.9017

2.4576

2.0814

6.2200

7.4640

8.7080

9.9520

11.1960

12.4400

13.6840

14.9280

16.1720

17.4160

18.6600

19.9040

21.1480

22.3920

23.6360

24.8800

31.3697

28.7644

26.7483

25.2311

24.1366

23.4000

22.9665

22.7898

22.8305

23.0554

23.4362

23.9492

24.5741

25.2937

26.0936

26.9614

-

2.6053

2.0161

1.5171

1.0945

0.7366

0.4335

0.1767

-0.0407

-0.2249

-0.3809

-0.5130

-0.6249

-0.7196

-0.7999

-0.8679


Table 9 95 year calculated (1 US$ = 800 won, unit: a hundred millions won)

Investment rate

Accident rate

Direct cost

Indirect cost

Cost of damage

Cost of control

Total cost

Cost difference

0.0050

0.0060

0.0070

0.0080

0.0090

0.0100

0.0110

0.0120

0.0130

0.0140

0.0150

0.0160

0.0170

0.0180

0.0190

0.0200

0.02564

0.02171

0.01839

0.01557

0.01319

0.01117

0.00946

0.00801

0.00679

0.00575

0.00487

0.00412

0.00349

0.00296

0.00251

0.00212

18.0776

15.3108

12.9674

10.9827

9.3017

7.8780

6.6723

5.6511

4.7861

4.0536

3.4332

2.9077

2.4627

2.0857

1.7665

1.4961

27.1164

22.9661

19.4511

16.4740

13.9526

11.8171

10.0084

8.4766

7.1792

6.0804

5.1498

4.3616

3.6940

3.1286

2.6498

2.2442

45.1940

38.2769

32.484

27.4566

23.2543

19.6951

16.6807

14.1276

11.9653

10.1340

8.5829

7.2693

6.1567

5.2144

4.4163

3.7404

10.1650

12.1980

14.2310

16.2640

18.2970

20.3300

22.3630

24.3960

26.4290

28.4620

30.4950

32.5280

34.5610

36.5940

38.6270

40.6600

55.3590

50.4749

46.6494

43.7206

41.5513

40.0251

39.0437

38.5236

38.3943

38.5960

39.0779

39.7973

40.7177

41.8084

43.0433

44.4004

-

4.8842

3.8255

2.9288

2.1694

1.5262

0.9814

0.5201

0.1293

-0.2017

-0.4819

-0.7193

-0.9204

-1.0907

-1.2349

-1.3571


3.4 Insurance rate analysis

 A further effect of improving safety is the lowering of insurance premiums. This will now be analyzed for the situation pertaining in Korea. The Korean government has classified construction work into five (5) types of work(1). Of these, category A: General Construction will be considered. Three years of records were used for analysis of actual amounts of insurance premiums paid by companies. By government decree, premiums are discounted for a food record in industrial accident prevention. The maximum discount is 40% but typically, it is much less. The cost of labor as a proportion of total project cost is set by government (for insurance purposes). For the present analysis this is taken as 29%. Finally, the basic insurance rate as a proportion of the project labor cost is set by government from time to time. For the present it will be taken as 2.8%.

It follows that the maximum insurance cost exemption for a company receiving 40% discount is = labor cost rate ´ insurance rate ´ (maximum) discount rate = 29% ´ 2.8% ´ 40% = 0.32% of the total contract cost. This is the amount awarded as the maximum bonus for a good safety record. For the case of the SI Construction Co. it is estimated that the maximum discount for 1966 for the whole year will be 30%, so that it follows directly that the maximum discount will be 0.24% of the total project cost.

 Thus the effect of the SI Construction company having a good record in industrial safety for the year 1995 has two effects: a saving in direct and indirect costs and a saving in insurance costs the following year. These effects are summarized in Table 5, assuming, as is typical for Korean construction companies, that the profit margin is around 10%.

 It is clear that the savings in this ideal case are potentially very considerable. This is increasingly being recognized but typically, they are not being achieved. One of the reasons for this is that the factors, which can bring about a lower accident rate are not sufficiently well understood. It is also one reason why increased safety management activities are becoming less effective. Since the effects sketched above are unlikely to be achieved in practice, consider now what would happen if the trend in Fig. 3 is continued into 1996. This would suggest that the accident rate could be reduced to 0.2%. In this case it may be shown that the expected cost reduction effect is equivalent to US$ 3.115 billon ´ 1.78% = US$ 5.54 million. Typically, for the SI Construction Company and its subcontractors, this will amount to US$ 0.8 Million and US$ 4.7 million, respectively. The estimated effects for the company for 1996 are summarized in Table 6. Although the savings are not as great as the previous (ideal) example with zero accident rate in 1995, the savings are still very considerable both for the main contractor and the subcontractors.


 

Table 11 Synthesis result (1 US$ = 800 won, unit: a hundred millions won)

Years

Project

Accident rate (%)

Cost of control

Total cost

Optimal rate (%)

93

94

95

1.293

1.244

2.033

1.22

0.35

0.40

16.84

17.15

27.44

23.0716

22.7898

38.3943

1.2

1.2

1.3

 

4. Cast study for estimating an efficient rate of safety control cost


 

The above has demonstrated the very considerable potential benefits resulting from reduction in accident rate. The question remains as to what might be and optimal safety control cost (or investment) R(n) (see Fig. 2).

Relationship (6) between accident rate (a) and annual safety investment R can be developed by assuming that it has the form a = exp(a +Br). Using the data in Table 3 for the SI Construction Company this curve can be fitted reasonably closely (R-squared = 82.90) with results shown in Table 7.

 Now using the direct and indirect costs shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, for the years 1993-1995 the effect of increasing annual investment in safety control (investment rate) on total cost is shown in Tables 8-10. It is clear that in each case the optimal investment rate R* is around 1.2-1.3%. Table 11 shows the results and the relevant costs.

This theoretical result based on aggregate data is not inconsistent with the observations which can be made for the experience of the SI Construction Company as a hypothetical example. For example, Table 3 shows that the safety investment for 1991 and 1992 was around 0.9% for an accident rate of 1.4%. But the accident rate comes down to an average of 0.66% for the following 3 years when the investment rate is kept at around 1.3%. However, the data does suggest that the safety record does not depend only on financial investment, as indicated by the considerable variations in accident rates with little change in safety investment. Clearly, these matters require further study.

 The above suggests that an optimal level of safety investment is around 1.2-1.3% of the total project cost. This is supported to some extent by actual operational experience.


 

5. Discussion and conclusion


 

Using empirical data and modeling together with reference to practical observations suggests that an optimal level of safety control investment and hence safety management might be in the range of 1.2-1.3% of the total project cost. This rate is applicable to the construction industry generally and may vary somewhat depending on the work being performed. It is clear that more detailed modeling will be required for individual activities and for particularly difficult or dangerous construction activities.

 It was found that for the type of construction companies considered, when insurance effects are also taken into account, it might be more appropriate for individual companies with good safety records to spend rather more on safety management in order to maintain their record.  It is estimated that this should be around 1.7% of the total contract amount or 17.3% of profits for typical profit margins.

Further research is required to study the effect of work type on the above conclusion, on designing systems for better collection and estimation of direct and particularly indirect costs and on the influence of non-financial aspects of safety management.

References


 

[1] Ministry of Labor, Ministry of Labor, R.O.K. 1995. Standard criteria for estimating and using construction safety management cost, Ministry Guidance 95-6, Question and Answer Collections. p .142-72

[2] Korea Construction Association. Contract ability class of architectural and civil, a statistic status of construction companies, 1999.

[3] Melchers RE. Structural reliability analysis and prediction, 2nd ed. Chi Chester, UK: Wiley, 1999

[4] Stranks JW. Dewis M. The cost of accidents, ROSPA health and safety practice, London; Pitman, 1986, p. 111-6

[5] Garibaldi JV. The significance of risk acceptability. In Safety Management, 4th ed. Homewood,IL; Richard Irwin, 1984, p. 218-45.

[6] Roland HE, Moriarty B. System safety engineering and management, New York: Wiley, 1990. p. 319

[7] Korea Industrial Safety Press Co. Ltd. Status of accident occurrence and insurance compensation amount, analysis result for whole industry accident and loss, 165-59-75, 1993.