1.

1 Thesis:
The application of the builders SHA plan in a complex construction site; Making
SHA - work organic and relevant for the average worker.

Before we can discuss the thesis we have to define some key elements, which play a
significant importance to this thesis. Below I have tried to define four elements,
which I feel play an important role.
They are:
1. What makes a construction site complex?
2. What is Complexity
3. Arbeidsmilj loven, Byggherreforskriften, og SHA
This thesis is written from the perspective of the builder, and the challenges that might
occur as a builder. In this case Ive chosen a specific build, as my case.

1.1.1 What makes a construction site complex?

A larger project, e.g. Prosjekt nytt stfoldsykehus. Which at the moment of
construction start was the largest land based project in all of Norway. Pn will serve
as the construction site this thesis is based upon.
A complex construction will normally involve several different types of
companies. Where the workload will be divided between may different players in a
multileveled pyramid shaped organizational structure. Each players individual work
duration will vary, and most likely there will be introduced new players and others
will leave.
Analysis of data gathered in similar cases shows that a lack of stability and
temporary employments runs rampant through complex constructions( Nykamp, etal,
p 8). Dividing the project between several different sub enterprises, and the use of
temporary employees gives the project economical and risk handling advantages.
Economically since it allows for easier scaling of the project organization, and the
legal responsibility for risk management is divided among many players through
standardized contract systems. The negatives with a system like that are the negative
effects it has on Safety, health, and work environment.(SHA). Complex projects
challenges SHA work since the opportunities for learning and developing a safety
culture are severely hindered.

1.1.2 Complexity in projects.

At large constructions sites it is reasonable to say that SHA work will always be a
complex process. As I mentioned earlier in a complex project there will be multiple
players , and each of these players will have their own SHA plan and internal SHA
systems of various quality. In a construction you need to connect all of these
individual systems and plans so that they cooperate, and it needs to be done over a
short time period. Long value chains and significant amount of sub contractors will
most likely make this an arduous task. (Dubois & Gadde, 2002).
In a complex construction there are several different crafts involved, and when
operations have to be done simultaneously or in a certain order. There will be a
conflict of interest. Who is responsible for what? Should electricians care about what
the plumbers are doing? Should a scaffold worker be conscious of what the guys
digging ditches are doing? Even between workers of the same craft may have
different SHA procedures and systems? Should Craftsman A from company 1 care
about what craftsman B from company 2 is doing? It reasonable to think that a lot
operations depend on each other, but certainly there at operations that do not depend
on each other. Then there are scenarios where it is hard to see what operations affect
each other, and what the effect is.
Complexity in a project is not solely defined by the sheer amount of elements
and interactions. It is also defined by the uncertainties, and unpredictable reactions
that interactions might or might not have.
Complexity must not be confused with complicated. A complicated project can be
large, and several different players with different interactions. A complex project will
also be riddled with unclear and unpredictable connections/interactions on top of the
characteristics of a complicated project.
In complex work situation accidents are often easily explained as human
error. Holden (2009) argues that the cause is often so vague and hard to trace that
human error is left as the easiest and most observable cause. As a response to the
accident, new technical solutions are implemented to further remove the human factor
from causing potential accident. Holden (2009) argues that perhaps it would be more
beneficial to analyse the system and how it produces risks. Charles Perrow states in
his book Normal accidents(1984) that the introduction of new, and more technical
solutions may add to the complexity of a project, increasing the possibility that new
accidents occur.
Complexity in a project increases, or may increase if:
There are many different and cooperative
Long value chains
Complicated contract and delegation of responsibilities
Long lasting, intricate and unclear

There is a close relationship between complexity and risk. When temporarity

increases complexity then it is not too farfetched that it may also be a risk-increasing
factor. Temporary employees will increase challenges in implanting a continuous and
well working SHA system.
A complex system might have a simple executive structure. Which means that
from administrative point of view the system is easily explained. This mostly
encompasses economical and legal formalities as in which enterprise is responsible
for what. This fosters perception that economical and legal risks are better managed
on paper/administrative then in actuality/practically at the construction site.
Another side of the abundant use of temporary employees makes it
challenging to have continuous and improving safety culture and continuously
improving its SHA plan while this may not seem like a problem for project
management. Since in their eyes risk management is about controlling legal and
economical risks, they will not have detailed insight in what is actually happening at
the construction site.
SHA systems today are mostly used as a management tool based on written
routines. (Nielsen, 2000) How does one translate the formal written SHA system to a
practical and organic system ?

1.1.3 Safety, health & work environment (SHA sikkerhet, helse og

arbeidsmilj):
I have already throughout this text used the term SHA, without giving a real
definition. Earlier it was common to use the term HMS (helse, milj og sikkerhet)
both in law, regulation and in normal conversation. The reason for this change of
wording is that SHA is more precise the HMS, the M(milj) brings association to
environmental issues, while the A (arbeidsmilj) is left out. So its a re-launch to
bring attention to the psychosocial aspect of SHA work. In this thesis we are really
only focusing on the S(Safety/sikkerhet) aspect of things.
1.1.4 Arbeidsmiljloven
SHA work is based on a minimum set of requirements and responsibilities mandated
by law and regulation. In this case AML is the set of laws we have to relate too. AML
is mostly focused on the workers physical and social work conditions.
The formal demand based in AML of establishing a SHA system for your
build does not seem to be based on what actually happens, or the reality that is a
complex construction site. Aml, its tools and the roles that are specified in the
regualtions seem to assume that the employees place of work is a linear and within a
stable structure.
The law states in 4 that:
Physical working environment factors such as factors relating to buildings and
equipment, indoor climate, lighting, noise, radiation, and the like shall be fully
satisfactory with regard to the employees health, environment, safety and
welfare.

The workplace shall be equipped and arranged in such a way as to avoid

adverse physical strain on the employees. Necessary aids shall be made
available to the employees. Arrangements shall be made for variation in the
work and to avoid heavy lifting and monotonous repetitive work. When
machines and other work equipment are being installed and used, care shall
be taken to ensure that employees are not subjected to undesirable strain as a
result of vibration, uncomfortable working positions and the like.

Physical working environment factors such as factors relating to buildings and

equipment, indoor climate, lighting, noise, radiation and the like shall be fully
satisfactory with regard to the employees safety, health, work environment
and welfare.

The design of each employees working situation shall pay regard to the
following:

o a). arrangements shall be made to enable the employees professional

and personal development through his or her work,
 o b). The work shall be organised and arranged with regard for the
individual employees capacity for work, proficiency, age and other
conditions.

o c). Emphasis shall be placed on giving employees the opportunity. For

self-determination, influence and professional responsibility,

o d). Employees shall as far as possible be given the opportunity for

variation and for awareness of the relationships between individual
assignments.

o e). Adequate information and training shall be provided so that

employees are able to perform the work when changes occur that affect
his or her working situation.

The employees and their elected representatives shall be kept continuously

informed of systems used in planning and performing the work They shall be
given the training necessary to enable them to familiarise themselves with
these systems, and they shall take part in designing them.

The working environment in the undertaking shall be fully satisfactory when

the factors in the working environment that may influence the
employeesphysical and mental health and welfare are judged separately and
collectively .The standard of safety,health and working environment shall be
continuously developed and improved in accordance with developments in
society

When planning and arranging the work, emphasis shall be placed on

preventing injuries and diseases. The organisation, arrangement and
management of work, working hours, pay systems, including use of
performance-related pay, technology, etc, shall be arranged in such a way that
the employees are not exposed to adverse physical or mental strain and that
due regard is paid to safety considerations.

Challenges at a constructions site (Prosjekt nytt stfold sykehus /PN)

One challenge that presented itself at PN was that the large players/enterprises were
large organizations with massive resources to handle the legally required and
recommended legislations in an adequate fashion.
Most of the large corporations will have some sort of internal SHA system,
and employees that strictly work with that as their focus. This is most often not the
case with the numerous of the smaller contractors that are hired by the larger groups.
These smaller players e.g. a family company consisting 3-4 family members (who
might subcontract another worker/s) often lack resources to have the proper focus on
SHA work that they should. This is quite unfortunate since PNS experience the
smaller sub contractors would often do the more risk-exposed tasks, like scaffold
building, demolition, and moving heavy objects.
At PN many contractors and individuals where only present for shorter
periods of time or in irregular intervals. This on and off presence (temporarity)
makes SHA work very challenging since continuous communication is essential to
efficient SHA work.
Based on this, PN`s conditions for developing a good, mutual SHA Culture
got off to a bad start right of the bat. Right from the start it became fairly obvious that
each players internal SHA system developed for their employees safety and health
was not adequate. Since many of these players were forced to interact with other
players that had a different SHA system, or maybe didnt even have a SHA system.
This is on top of the constant flow and exchange of players, and temporary
employees.
SHA management also noticed that some of the workers felt pressured to work
harder/faster to maintain project progress or the set timetable. This pressure did not
only come from management but also from colleagues and other skilled workers that
had their own timetables to follow. Most likely the pressure intensifies due to short
construction deadlines, temporary work contracts, and unstable work
fellowship/community. Long distance travelling workers would try and compress 5
days of work to 4 days so they could leave early and such stay with their family.
Another emerging problem in todays and the futures construction site is the
abundance of several different nationalities, and with all the different nationalities
comes potential language and culture differences. A more direct and concrete
situation occurred at PN, some of the workers with less comprehension of the
Norwegian language were not able to comprehend and implement the safety
precautions that were discovered/ recommended by the SJA( safe job analysis).
This led to the usage of extra resources like an interpreter to make sure that
everyone on site were up to speed, and taking the necessary precautions when doing
risk laden tasks. In some cases Safety culture and attitudes towards taking risks were
also different.