See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222693856

Utilizing data envelopment analysis to

benchmark safety performance of construction
contractors
ARTICLE in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT JANUARY 2010
Impact Factor: 1.53 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.04.002

CITATIONS

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

31

1,043

180

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Shaher Rababeh

Khaled Hesham Hyari

Hashemite University

Hashemite University

21 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

23 PUBLICATIONS 109 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Shaher Rababeh

Retrieved on: 09 September 2015

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 6167

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Utilizing data envelopment analysis to benchmark safety

performance of construction contractors
Mohammad S. El-Mashaleh a,*, Shaher M. Rababeh b, Khalied H. Hyari a
b

a
Department of Civil Engineering, The Hashemite University, P.O. Box 150459, Zarqa 13115, Jordan
Department of Architectural Engineering, The Hashemite University, P.O. Box 150459, Zarqa 13115, Jordan

Received 20 August 2008; received in revised form 9 April 2009; accepted 14 April 2009

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to utilize data envelopment analysis (DEA) to benchmark safety performance of construction contractors. DEA has been recognized as a robust tool that is used for evaluating the performance of business organizations. The proposed
approach is deployed based on empirical data collected from 45 construction contractors. On a scale of 01.0, DEA analysis assesses
the relative eciency of every contractor relative to the rest of the contractors in terms of safety performance. For inecient contractors,
DEA analysis provides quantitative guidance on how to become ecient.
2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Organization resources; Safety and health; Benchmarking; Performance measurement; Data envelopment analysis

1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to utilize data envelopment
analysis (DEA) to benchmark safety performance of construction contractors. DEA has been recognized as a
robust tool that is used for evaluating the performance of
organizations such as business rms, hospitals, government
agencies, educational institutions, etc. DEA is welldeployed in other industries. DEA is a nonparametric linear programming approach that produces a single measure
of eciency for each unit relative to its peers. It enables
rms to assess their relative eciency compared to other
rms in the industry.
Construction literature includes several methods for
assessing safety performance of construction contractors.
Two of the most commonly used ones are OSHA recordable incidence rates and experience modication rating

Corresponding author. Tel.: +962 5 390 3333x4829; fax: +962 5 382

6348.
E-mail address: mashaleh@hu.edu.jo (M.S. El-Mashaleh).
0263-7863/$36.00 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.04.002

(EMR) [27,28]. OSHA recordable incidence rates are based

on the US Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970),
which requires employers to record and report accident
information. Incidents are recorded and a formula is used
to compute the incidence rates.
EMR, on the other hand, is established by independent
rating bureaus. It dictates the contractors premium of the
workers compensation insurance. EMR formula is criticized for its complexity and because of the existence of different versions in practice [19]. It is also argued that EMR
is sensitive to company size [12,23,33].
Ng et al. [31] develop a safety performance evaluation
(SPE) framework for evaluating contractors safety performance. The model includes a range of organization-related
and project-related SPE factors. Based on a survey, the
authors assign weights to the dierent SPE factors to calculate a weighted average safety performance score for each
contractor. Generally, it is well-accepted that weighted
average scores have an inherent weakness due to the biases
introduced in the development of the weights and the
additive assumptions utilized in the computations of the
weighted score average.

62

M.S. El-Mashaleh et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 6167

Teo and Ling [37] develop a model to measure the eectiveness of safety management systems (SMS) of construction sites. The authors utilize surveys and experts
interviews and workshops to collect the important factors
aecting safety. The analytic hierarchy process and factor
analysis are used to identify the most crucial factors and
attributes aecting safety. Using the model, a construction
safety index can be calculated. The authors indicate that
the limitations of their model include the small number
of experts and respondents involved in the study. The
importance weights and attributes are developed within
the context of Singapore. Another limitation is that their
model includes 590 attributes that must be evaluated on
the site.
Despite the limitations associated with some of the
existing methods, they are useful measures of construction safety performance. However, new methods are still
needed as they oer new insights to both researchers
and practitioners. A point of departure for the DEA
approach compared to existing methods is that DEA
relates resources expended on a certain performance to
the level of success for that particular performance.
Under existing methods, two contractors that suer the
same numbers and types of accidents are considered of
identical performance. This is clearly not the case if one
contractor is expending more resources (i.e., money,
etc.) on safety than the other contractor. It makes more
sense to consider the contractor that commits fewer
resources to arrive at a certain safety performance as a
better performer.
The rest of the paper unfolds as follows: data envelopment analysis, data collection, results and analysis, future
extension of the research, and conclusions.

2. Data envelopment analysis (DEA)

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) was initiated by
Charnes et al. [35]. Since that time, many studies across
dierent disciplines have utilized DEA [11]. In the construction domain, only few studies made use of DEA. ElMashaleh et al. [17] propose the DEA methodology to
measure and compare subcontractors productivity at the
rm-level. El-Mashaleh [14] and El-Mashaleh et al.
[15,16] deploy DEA to evaluate the rm-level performance
of construction contractors. Vinter et al. [39] compare project eciency in a multi-project environment based on
DEA. McCabe et al. [29] utilize DEA to prequalify contractors. Pilateris and McCabe [32] evaluate contractors
nancial performance based on DEA.
El-Mashaleh [14] and El-Mashaleh et al. [18] makes use
of DEA to quantify the impact of information technology
on contractors performance. Chiang et al. [8] combine
DEA to the IO tables to examine repercussions of consumptions placed on the construction sector. Cheng et al.
[6] propose a DEA approach for credit scoring to evaluate
borrowers with respect to certain types of projects.

DEA is concerned with evaluations of performance of

organizations (i.e., business rms, hospitals, government
agencies, universities, etc.), where the presence of multiple input, multiple output makes comparison dicult.
In DEA, the organization under study is called a decision making unit (DMU). A DMU is regarded as the
entity responsible for converting inputs (i.e., resources,
money, etc.) into outputs (i.e., sales, prots, certain performance measures, etc.) and whose performance is to be
evaluated. In this study, a DMU refers to a construction
contractor.
DEA utilizes mathematical linear programming to
determine which of the set of DMUs under study form
an envelopment surface. This envelopment surface is
referred to as the ecient frontier. DEA provides a comprehensive analysis of relative eciency for multiple
input-multiple output situations by evaluating each DMU
and measuring its performance relative to this envelopment
surface. Units that lie on (determine) the surface is deemed
ecient in DEA terminology. Units that do not lie on the
surface are termed inecient and the analysis provides a
measure of their relative eciency.
Cooper et al. [11] and Coelli et al. [9] argue that DEA
has gained its popularity from three inherent powerful features. First, its capability to incorporate multiple inputs
and multiple outputs as a result of the use of linear programming. Linear programming can handle large numbers
of variables and relations (constraints). Second, DEA has
no priori assumptions. There is no need to assign weights
to the dierent inputs and outputs. The weights are derived
directly from the data relaxing the user from arbitrary subjective weighting. DEA provides a set of weights, which
optimize a units performance subject to the weights not
leading to any other unit violating the bounds of the frontier. Third, the measurement units of the dierent inputs
and outputs need not be congruent. Some may involve
number of persons, or areas of oor space, money
expended, etc.
2.1. CharnesCooperRhodes (CCR) DEA model
This study makes use of the CharnesCooperRhodes
(CCR) model of DEA to benchmark safety performance
of construction contractors. The mathematical form is
shown below (Eqs. (1),(2),(3),(4),(5). Interested readers
may refer to Cooper et al. [11] for details.
s
X
ur y r0
1
max h0
subject to

r1
m
X
i1
s
X
r1

i 1; . . . ; m;
ur ; vi P 0

vi xi0 1
ur y rj 

m
X

2
vi xij 6 1

i1

j 1; . . . ; n;

r 1; . . . ; s

4
5

M.S. El-Mashaleh et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 6167

Where:
h0 the measure of eciency for DMU0 (the DMU under
evaluation), which is a member of the set j = 1, . . ., n
DMUs
ur the output weight. It is determined by the solution of
the model and is assigned to the observed rth output
vi the input weight. It is determined by the solution of
the model and is assigned to the observed ith input
yr0 the known amount of the rth output produced by
DMU0
xi0 the known amount of the ith input used by DMU0
yrj the known amount of the rth output produced by
DMUj
xij the known amount of the ith input used by DMUj
The objective function is to maximize the eciency of
DMU0 (the DMU under evaluation). This is done by maximizing the sum of its outputs (Eq. (1)), while forcing the
sum of its inputs to be equal to 1.0 (Eq. (2)). Eq. (3) means
that the eciency of all DMUs is 61.0. This implies that all
DMUs are either on the ecient frontier or below it, and
that the eciency scores range between 0 and 1.0.
Briey stated, the CCR model of DEA will be used to
benchmark safety performance of construction contractors. The model yields eciency scores that range between
0 and 1.0. A contractor is considered ecient if it has an
eciency score of 1.0. This means that this contractor is
on the ecient frontier. Compared to the rest of contractors, this particular contractor eectively converts its
inputs into outputs.
2.2. Inputs and outputs selection
As mentioned earlier, DEA considers a DMU as the
entity responsible for converting inputs (i.e., resources,
money, etc.) into outputs (i.e., sales, prots, certain performance measures, etc.). In the context of construction safety
performance, Fig. 1 shows the related input and outputs. In
terms of input, safety performance of a construction contractor is impacted by the contractors expenses on safety
as a percentage of total revenues. These expenses include
contractors annual cost of safety programs and salaries
of safety personnel.
As for the outputs, a contractors safety performance is
measured by the numbers of the dierent types of accidents
that are suered by that construction contractor. Since this
study is implemented in the Jordanian construction indus-

Inputs

Expenses on safety as a % of
total revenues

63

try, the Jordanian Social Security Organization (SSO) classication of accidents is adopted. According to SSO, work
accidents are classied into 5 types as follows:
 Type 1: accidents that do not cause any disability and do
not involve any lost work days.
 Type 2: accidents that do not cause any disability but
involve lost work days.
 Type 3: accidents that cause temporary disability.
 Type 4: accidents that cause permanent partial disability.
 Type 5: accidents that cause permanent full disability or
fatality.
Since the numbers of accidents are unfavorable, the
reciprocals of the numbers of the dierent types of accidents that are dened by SSO are used as outputs.
3. Data collection
Potential participants in the study were selected at random from member lists of the Jordanian Contractors Association. These potential participants were assured that their
identities and their companies identities will be kept condential. Additionally, the researchers pointed out that the
responses will be coded and kept separate from the names
of the participants and their companies names. It was
explained that when the study is completed and the data
is analyzed, the codes will be destroyed. Potential participants were informed that the results of the research study
will be published, but the identities of the participants
and their companies names will not be used. It was
emphasized that the anticipated benet for respondents
participation is benchmarking their rms safety performance compared to other rms in the construction industry. Potential participants were oered to receive a free
hard copy of the research report after it has been published
if they choose so.
Seventy contractors, out of 164 contractors that were
contacted for potential participation, agreed to participate
in the research project. However, only 45 contractors supplied the required data to be included in the DEA model.
For a particular scal year, contractors were asked to
report the following:
 Expenses on safety as a% of total revenues.
 Number of the 5 types of accidents (as classied by SSO)
that are suered by the contractor.

DMU

Outputs

Construction
contractor

1/Number of Type 1 accidents

1/Number of Type 2 accidents
1/Number of Type 3 accidents
1/Number of Type 4 accidents
1/Number of Type 5 accidents

Fig. 1. Input and outputs of a construction contractor safety performance.

64

M.S. El-Mashaleh et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 6167

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the collected data.

Expenses on safety as a% of total revenues

Number of Type 1 accidents
Number of Type 2 accidents
Number of Type 3 accidents
Number of Type 4 accidents
Number of Type 5 accidents

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

0.0768
1.76
1.84
1.18
1.22
1.22

0.0989
1.33
1.35
0.53
0.6
0.56

0.01
1
1
1
1
1

0.5
6
6
3
4
3

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the collected

data.
4. Results and analysis
The DEA-Solver software of Cooper et al. [11] is used to
run the CCR model. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive
statistics of the results. Out of 45 contractors, only 8 are
ecient in their safety performance. The maximum eciency score is 1.0, while the minimum eciency score is
0.02. The eciency scores average is 0.32. This means that
the input for an average unit could be reduced by 68%.
Table 3 shows the eciency scores and the ranks of the
45 contractors. The results show how each contractor performed in comparison with the rest of the contractors. The
following 8 contractors are deemed ecient and are considered to have superior safety performance: E, CC, RR, SS,
TT, ZZ, AAA, and CCC. These ecient contractors have
an eciency score = 1.0. They are on the ecient frontier.
Compared to the rest of the contractors, these 8 contractors are more ecient in converting the money they spent
on safety into less number of accidents.
Table 3 shows that the eciency scores went down from
1.0 for ecient contractors to 0.59 (Contractor PP) then to
0.5 (Contractor J and Contractor OO). We need to note
here that the eciency values are valid within this particular group of contractors. The eciency scores will vary
depending on the contractors that are included in the analysis. As mentioned before, the best performers create an
envelopment surface and every DMUs performance is
measured against this envelopment surface. As such, the
gaps in scores depend on the specic performance numbers
for the DMU in question. To explain the gaps in eciency
scores, assume that we added a new contractor that has
better performance than Contractor G (eciency
score = 0.59), but yet is not as ecient as the industry leaders. So, in this case, the eciency score of this added new
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for DEA results.
Total number of DMUs
Number of ecient DMUs
Number of inecient DMUs
Scores average
Scores standard deviation
Maximum score
Minimum score

45
8
37
0.32
0.34
1.0
0.02

Table 3
Eciency scores and ranks of construction contractors.
No.

DMU

Score

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

A
E
G
H
I
J
K
M
N
O
P
S
U
V
W
X
CC
DD
EE
FF
GG
HH
JJ
LL
NN
OO
PP
QQ
RR
SS
TT
UU
VV
YY
ZZ
AAA
CCC
FFF
HHH
III
JJJ
LLL
OOO
PPP
RRR

0.20
1.00
0.20
0.20
0.11
0.50
0.05
0.20
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.13
0.29
0.20
0.10
0.08
1.00
0.33
0.33
0.17
0.20
0.17
0.13
0.14
0.1
0.5
0.59
0.25
1
1
1
0.09
0.08
0.17
1
1
1
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.1
0.11
0.11
0.17
0.2

16
1
16
16
30
10
42
16
38
33
41
28
14
16
33
38
1
12
12
23
16
23
28
27
33
10
9
15
1
1
1
37
38
23
1
1
1
44
43
44
33
30
30
23
16

contractor will fall within the following range: 0.59 < eciency score < 1.0.
Table 4 compares averages of the input and outputs
between ecient and inecient contractors. Note that

M.S. El-Mashaleh et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 6167

Table 4
Comparison of input and outputs averages between ecient and inecient
contractors.

Expenses on safety as a percentage of

total revenues
Number of Type 1 accidents
Number of Type 2 accidents
Number of Type 3 accidents
Number of Type 4 accidents
Number of Type 5 accidents

Ecient
contractors

Inecient
contractors

0.01

0.09

1
1
1
1.2
1

1.85
1.95
1.2
1.23
1.25

ecient contractors spent less than their inecient counterparts on safety as a percentage of total revenues. The average for the rst group is 0.01, while that average for the
second group is 0.09. Similarly, ecient contractors suffered less number of accidents compared to the inecient
contractors.
A major motivation behind measuring performance is to
identify opportunities for possible eciency improvements
by looking at the dierences between ecient rms and
inecient ones. To realize their potentials, the inecient
contractors need to compare themselves with the best practice contractors that make-up the ecient frontier. DEA
analysis provides quantitative guidance for inecient contractors to be recognized as ecient frontier contractors.
As an example, lets take Contractor G with eciency
score = 0.2. Table 5 shows both current and projected values of the input and outputs of Contractor G. To be recognized on the ecient frontier, Contractor G needs to
reduce its input and three of its outputs. In particular,
expenses on safety have to be reduced from 0.05 to 0.01.
Additionally, number of Type 1, Type 2, and Type 5 accidents need to be reduced to 1 down from their current
values.
Note that the above recommendation to decrease
expenses on safety for contractor G should be considered
from a performance point of view. As demonstrated in
the analysis, superior safety performance contractors spent,
on average, 0.01% of their total revenues on safety. Contractor G spent 0.05% of its total revenues on safety, while
suering higher number of accidents compared to superior
safety performance contractors. The recommendation to
reduce expenses on safety is an indication that Contractor
G is not eectively converting its committed resources (i.e.,
Table 5
Contractor G with eciency score = 0.2.
Input and outputs
Expenses on safety
revenues
Number of Type 1
Number of Type 2
Number of Type 3
Number of Type 4
Number of Type 5

Current
values

Projected
values

as a percentage of total

0.05

0.01

accidents
accidents
accidents
accidents
accidents

6
6
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
1

65

money) into lower number of accidents. Contractor G

should spend less on safety and yet enjoy fewer numbers
of accidents. Clearly, a decision to commit fewer resources
to safety requires substantial consideration by the organization. Having an informed result regarding its expenses
on safety, the organization needs to examine the specics
of its safety expenses (i.e., training, salaries, etc.) and identify cost minimization opportunities without negatively
impacting safety performance of the organization.
5. Future extension of the research
The next step for the research team is to attempt to associate variability in safety performance with certain explanatory variables. Safety research within the construction
domain identies several factors that drive safety performance. Table 6 lists these factors and summarizes key
statements made by previous research. The research team
plans to broaden the size and scope of data collection to
statistically test 8 research hypotheses that are shown in
Table 7. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), for example, will
examine the existence (or non-existence) of statistical signicance dierences between ecient and inecient contractors regarding the 8 factors that drive safety
performance.
6. Conclusions
This paper contributes a DEA approach for benchmarking safety performance of construction contractors. A
point of departure for the DEA approach compared to
existing methods is the inputoutput framework. Compared to each other, DEA measures the eciency of construction contractors in utilizing their expenses on safety
to minimize the number of suered accidents. Therefore,
the DEA approach relates resources expended on safety
to safety performance.
DEA analysis scores safety performance of construction
contractors on a scale of 01.0. The analysis identies contractors E, CC, RR, SS, TT, ZZ, AAA, and CCC as ecient frontier contractors. Compared to the rest of the
contractors, these eight contractors are the industry leaders
in safety performance. They serve as the benchmark for
the industry and can be utilized as role models to which
inecient contractors may adjust their practices in order
to become ecient.
An excellent utilization for the results of this study is
programs like the US Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award [35] and the UK Department of Trade and Industry
Business-to-Business Exchange Program [30]. These programs aim at improving the performance of particular
industries. For example, the UK Department of Trade
and Industry Business-to-Business Exchange Program
oers visits to UK best practicing organizations in manufacturing and service industries. The goal of these visits is
to transfer best practices across interested organizations
for the purpose of improving their performance.

66

M.S. El-Mashaleh et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 6167

Table 6
Factors that drive safety performance.
Number

Factor

Research

Key statements

Organizational
safety policy

Sawacha et al. [34]

Organizational safety policy is the most inuential factor that drives safety
performance in the construction industry
Written safety policies are essential to construction safety
Study participants recommend a safety system of checks and balances to
improve safety performance
Better safety performance involves the development of more detailed written
safety programs

Wong et al. [40]

Hinze and Wilson [25]
Jaselisks et al. [27]
2

Safety training

Construction Industry Institute (CII) [10]

Hinze and Wilson [25]
Huang and Hinze [26]

Safety training is one of ve high-impact zero accident techniques

Worker training is vital to improved safety performance
The lack of safety training is often a contributing factor to many falls

Safety meetings

Jaselisks et al. [27]

To improve safety performance at the project level, the authors recommend

increasing the number of formal safety meetings with supervisors

Safety equipment

Toole [38]

Some construction accidents result because safety equipment necessary to

perform the job safely is not present at the location of the work
Both active measures (those that prevent workers from falling, for example,
guardrails) and passive measures (those that protect workers after falling,
for example, safety nets) are useful in reducing fall injuries
Falls are associated with lack of complying scaolds, unguarded openings,
inappropriate protections, removal of protections, and improper use of
personal protective equipment (PPE)

Duncan and Bennett [13]

Chi et al. [7]

Safety
inspections

Wong et al. [40]

Jaselisks et al. [27]
Hinze and Wilson [25]

Safety performance is aected by monitoring of safety compliance

It is recommended to increase site safety inspections
More jobsite visits are needed to improve safety performance

Safety incentives
and penalties

CII [10]

Safety incentives are among the top ve high-impact zero accident

techniques
There is a need to increase nes to workers with poor safety performance
Safety incentives should be utilized to improve safety performance

Jaselisks et al. [27]

Tam and Fung [36]
7

Workers
attitude towards
safety

Abdelahamid and Everett [1], Aksorn and

Hadikusumo [2], Hinze [21], Toole [38]

Workers attitude towards safety is one of the root causes of accidents

Labor turnover
rates

Harper and Koehn [20], Hinze and

Gambatese [24]
Hinze [22]

Higher turnover rates are associated with higher injury rates

Table 7
Future research hypotheses.
Number

Hypothesis

Safety performance and organizational safety policy are

positively correlated
Safety performance and safety training are positively correlated
Safety performance and safety meetings are positively
correlated
Safety performance and safety equipment are positively
correlated
Safety performance and safety inspections are positively
correlated
Safety performance and safety incentives and penalties are
positively correlated
Safety performance and workers attitude towards safety are
positively correlated
Safety performance and low labor turn over rates are positively
correlated

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Therefore, the deployment of the DEA methodology

makes it possible for programs like the ones described
above to utilize the results and target industry leaders in

New hires are more subjected to accidents

order to publicize their strategies and procedures for the

benet of the whole industry.
The Jordanian construction industry currently lacks any
readily available safety performance measure to assess
safety performance of construction contractors. To judge
safety performance, the industry currently relies on the segregated reported numbers of the dierent types of accidents. As such, the DEA approach is well suited to ll
this gap and assesses contractors safety performance.
The DEA approach presented in this paper can be utilized by a particular contractor to gauge its own safety performance over time. With data available for several
numbers of years, every year might be considered as a single DMU. By conducting such analysis a contractor would
be able to quantitatively determine whether or not the
safety performance of the rm is getting better over time.
Additionally, the proposed methodology is deployable
at the project level. Every project is regarded as a single
DMU and projects as a result are benchmarked against
each other. Consequently, contractors will be able to identify their best performing projects and to isolate internal
factors that contributed to better performance.

M.S. El-Mashaleh et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 6167

Even though the development in this paper is based on

data collected from the Jordanian construction industry,
the methodology would suggest a much broader geographical applicability on evaluating safety performance for construction projects internationally as well as other projects
in other disciplines like manufacturing projects.
The next step for the research team is to attempt to associate variability in safety performance with certain explanatory variables (i.e., organizational safety policy, safety
training, safety equipment, etc.). Clearly, to test such
hypotheses, both a larger sample size and a larger scope
of data collection are required.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge two anonymous referrers for
their constructive comments that signicantly improved
the nal presentation of the paper.
References
[1] Abdelahamid T, Everett J. Identifying root causes of construction
accidents. J Constr Eng Manag 2000;126(1):5260.
[2] Aksorn T, Hadikusumo B. Critical success factors inuencing safety
program performance in Thai construction projects. Saf Sci
2008;46:70927.
[3] Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E. Measuring the eciency of
decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 1978;2(6):42944.
[4] Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E. Short communication: measuring
the eciency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 1979;3:339.
[5] Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E. Evaluating program and managerial eciency: an application of data envelopment analysis to
program follow through. Manag Sci 1981;27:66897.
[6] Cheng E, Chaing Y, Tang B. Alternative approach to credit scoring
by DEA: evaluating borrowers with respect to PFI projects. Build
Environ 2007;42:175260.
[7] Chi C, Chang T, Ting H. Accident patterns and prevention measures
for fatal occupational falls in the construction industry. Appl Ergon
2005;36:391400.
[8] Chiang Y, Cheng E, Tang B. Examining repercussions of consumptions and inputs placed on the construction sector by use of IO
tables and DEA. Build Environ 2006;41:111.
[9] Coelli T, Rao D, Battese G. An introduction to eciency and
productivity analysis. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 1998.
[10] Construction Industry Institute (CII). Zero accident techniques.
Source document 86. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute;
1993.
[11] Cooper W, Seiford L, Tone K. Data envelopment analysis: a
comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEAsolver software. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000.
[12] De la Garza M, Hancher D, Decker L. Analysis of safety indicators in
construction. J Constr Eng Manag 1998;124(4):3124.
[13] Duncan C, Bennett R. Fall protection and debris containment during
construction. In: Chang LM, editor. Preparing for construction in the
21st century. New York: ASCE; 1991. p. 97102.
[14] El-Mashaleh M. Firm performance and information technology
utilization in the construction industry: an empirical study. Ph.D.
dissertation. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida; 2003.

67

[15] El-Mashaleh M, Minchin R, OBrien W. Benchmarking construction

rm performance. In: Proceedings of the 11th joint CIB international
symposium, 1316 June, Helsinki, Finland; 2005. p. 37689.
[16] El-Mashaleh M, Minchin R, OBrien W. Management of construction rm performance using benchmarking. J Manag Eng
2007;23(1):107.
[17] El-Mashaleh M, OBrien W, London K. An envelopment methodology to measure and compare subcontractor productivity at the rm
level. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, 68 August, 2001. Singapore:
National University of Singapore; 2001. p. 17.
[18] El-Mashaleh M, OBrien W, Minchin R. Firm performance and
information technology utilization in the construction industry. J
Constr Eng Manag 2006;132(5):499507.
[19] Everett J, Thompson W. Experience modication rating for workers
compensation insurance. J Constr Eng Manag 1995;121(1):6679.
[20] Harper R, Koehn E. Managing industrial construction safety in
southeast Texas. J Constr Eng Manag 1998;124(6):4527.
[21] Hinze J. Human aspects of construction safety. J Constr Div
1981;107(1):6172.
[22] Hinze J. Construction safety. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1997.
[23] Hinze J, Bren D, Piepho N. Experience modication rating as a
measure of safety performance. J Constr Eng Manag
1995;121(4):4558.
[24] Hinze J, Gambatese J. Factors that inuence safety performance of
specialty contractors. J Constr Eng Manag 2003;129(12):15964.
[25] Hinze J, Wilson G. Moving toward a zero injury objective. J Constr
Eng Manag 1999;126(5):399403.
[26] Huang X, Hinze J. Analysis of construction worker fall accidents. J
Constr Eng Manag 2003;129(3):26271.
[27] Jaselisks E, Anderson S, Russell J. Strategies for achieving excellence
in construction safety performance. J Constr Eng Manag
1996;121(1):6170.
[28] Levitt R, Samelson N. Construction safety performance. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 1987.
[29] McCabe B, Tran V, Ramani J. Construction prequalication using
data envelopment analysis. Can J Civil Eng 2005;32:18393.
[30] McGeorge D, Palmer A. Construction management: new directions.
Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; 1997.
[31] Ng S, Cheng K, Skitmore R. A framework for evaluating the safety
performance of construction contractors. Build Environ
2005;40:134755.
[32] Pilateris P, McCabe B. Contractor nancial evaluation model
(CFEM). Can J Civil Eng 2003;30(3):48799.
[33] Samelson N, Levitt R. Owners guidelines for selecting safe contractors. J Constr Div 1982;108(4):61723.
[34] Sawacha E, Naoum S, Fong D. Factors aecting performance on
construction sites. Int J Proj Manag 1999;17(5):30915.
[35] Spendolini M. The benchmarking book. AMACOM: American
Management Association; 1992.
[36] Tam C, Fung I. Eectiveness of safety management strategies on
safety performance in Hong Kong. Constr Manag Econ
1998;16(1):4955.
[37] Teo E, Ling F. Developing a model to measure the eectiveness of
safety management systems of construction site. Build Environ
2006;41:158692.
[38] Toole M. Construction site safety roles. J Constr Eng Manag
2002;128(3):20310.
[39] Vinter G, Rozenes S, Spragget S. Using data envelop analysis to
compare project eciency in a multi-project environment. Int J Proj
Manag 2006;24:3239.
[40] Wong K, Chan P, Lo K. Factors aecting the safety performance of
contractors and construction sites. In: Proceedings of the second
international conference of CIB working commission W99, Honolulu,
Hawaii; 1999.