Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Accident precursors and near misses on construction sites: An investigative tool

to derive information from accident databases
Weiwei Wu a,*, Alistair G.F. Gibb b, Qiming Li a
a
Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
b
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Safety problems on construction sites seem to be largely unresolved as the fatality and injury records in
Received 9 April 2009 construction continue to plague the industry across the world. The lack of an effective system to interrupt
Received in revised form 20 February 2010 and prevent the precursors and contributory factors on construction sites is argued to be the critical de-
Accepted 6 April 2010
ciency of extant research and practice. This paper covers research to develop a systematic mechanism to
interrupt and prevent precursors and immediate factors (PaIFs) on construction sites. First, the impor-
tance of precursors and near misses to further improve safety margins are emphasized. Furthermore, a
Keywords:
systematic model of improving safety on construction sites is presented to consummate and perfect
Precursors
Immediate factors
extant safety-improving systems on construction sites by reinforcing and accentuating the real-time
Real-time tracking of precursors and immediate factors. The real-time tracking sub-system is argued to be an effec-
Near miss tive measure to interrupt and prevent PaIFs. Eventually, an investigative model of PaIFs on construction
sites is proposed, indicating how to seek PaIFs from historical accident records and how to obtain near
misses and mitigating measures from reported events. Results indicate that model of PaIFs is effective
and able to acquire as much information as possible about precursors and near misses and thus, in part,
overcome the deciency of lacking sufcient and adequate historical accident records. This study pro-
poses a feasible approach to facilitate acquiring more useful information from historical records of acci-
dents in order to improve safety on construction sites and serve as a foundation for further study by
drawing researchers attention to precursors and near misses.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and literature review
Safety risks on construction sites have always been accorded
great attention by researchers and practitioners. Nevertheless,
safety problems seem to be largely unresolved as the fatality and
injury records in construction continue to plague the industry
across the world (Hinze and Bren, 1996; Abdelhamid and Everett,
2000; Fang et al., 2004; Carter and Smith, 2006; Aneziris et al.,
2008).
From an integral perspective of accidents, some existing stud-
ies have been carried out to identify and analyze the causes of
safety hazards and risks, in order to prevent fatal and injury
accidents on construction sites. Accident Causation Models and
Human Error Theories were the main categories, such as the
Domino Theory (Heinrich, 1959) and Reasons model of human
error (Reason, 1990). A detailed literature review has been con-
ducted by Abdelhamid and Everett (2000) about this issue. What
is more, Sawacha et al. (1999) analyzed the factors inuencing
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 025 83792527; fax: +86 025 83793251.
E-mail address: wwwhyh2000@163.com (W. Wu).
safety on construction sites including historical, economic,
psychological, technical, procedural, organizational and environ-
mental issues. Abdelhamid and Everett (2000) thought that con-
struction accident investigations had missed important steps to
identify the root causes of accidents and presented an accident
root causes tracing model. Suraji et al. (2001) proposed a
conceptual but practical model of accident causation for the con-
struction industry, which included management and organiza-
tional aspects of accident causation. Fang et al. (2004) found
that safety management performance on site was closely related
to organizational factors, economic factors, and factors related to
the relationship between management and labor on site. Teo
et al. (2005) pointed that site accidents were more likely to hap-
pen when there were inadequate company policies, unsafe prac-
tices, poor attitudes of construction personnel, poor management
commitment and insufcient safety knowledge and training of
workers. A model based on an ergonomics systems approach
indicated the manner in which originating managerial, design
and cultural factors shaped the circumstances found in the work
place, giving rise to the acts and conditions which, in turn, led to
accidents (Haslam et al., 2005).

0925-7535/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.04.009
846 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
Most recently, attentions have been paid on cognitive engineer-
ing approach, which concerns the characteristics of the work
system that inuence the decisions, behaviors, and the possibility
of errors and failures (Mitropoulos and Cupido, 2009). Saurin
et al. (2008) conducted an analysis of construction safety best prac-
tices from the perspective of cognitive systems engineering.
Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009) synthesized a new model for con-
struction safety based on the cognitive perspective and then pre-
sented an exploratory case study.
Additionally, studies were also conducted at a microcosmic le-
vel to concentrate on the causes of specic safety hazards. Acci-
dents of falling from height on construction sites have
consistently been identied as of major importance, e.g. Chi et al.
(2005) and Aneziris et al. (2008). Saurin and Guimaraes (2008)
conducted ergonomic assessment of suspended scaffolds. Hinze
and Bren (1996) analyzed hazards with fatalities and injuries due
to contact with power cables based on data from OSHA. Chi et al.
(2008) also conducted an in-depth accident analysis of electrical
fatalities in the construction industry. Beavers et al. (2009) ana-
lyzed the steel erection fatalities in the Construction Industry.
Shapira and Simcha (2009) investigated the factors affecting safety
on Construction Sites with tower cranes using AHP-based weight-
ing method. Further insights were gained on the root causes of the
struck-by injuries and prevention against such kind of accidents
(Hinze et al., 2005).
From the life-cycle perspective, many researchers emphasized
the importance of designing for safety issues at an early stage
(Kartam, 1997; Gibb, 2000; Gambatese, 2000; Baxendale and Jones,
2000; Elbeltagi et al., 2004; Weinstein et al., 2005; Gambatese
et al., 2005, 2008). Furthermore, there have been studies consider-
ing safety attitude, safety culture and safety climate (Mohamed,
2002; Toole, 2002; Haupt, 2003; Fung et al., 2005, 2006; Chinda
and Mohamed, 2008). Hopkins (2006) also indicated that unsafe
behavior was often merely the last link in a causal chain and not
necessarily the most effective link to focus on.
Simultaneously, accident investigation methods and near
misses on construction sites are attached importance to lately. A
new method for accident investigations was presented based on
the concept of safety function (Harms-Ringdahl, 2009). Katsakiori
et al. (2009) developed an evaluation of accident investigation
methods in terms of their alignment with accident causation mod-
els. Cambraia et al. (2010) conducted a case study in the construc-
tion industry concerning identication, analysis and dissemination
of information on near misses. Wu et al. (2010) analyzed and ver-
ied the autonomous information requirement of near miss and
investigated the feasibility and performance of using a Zigbee RFID
sensor network to full these requirements.
It should be acknowledged that progress is being made in some
areas. However, with such a lot of investigation and analysis on
causal factors, researchers and practitioners can not help to won-
der why accidents still continue to emerge from time to time? Even
worse, accidents in similar situations were taking place repeatedly
at intervals (Chi et al., 2005; Aneziris et al., 2008). What are the
deciencies and insufciencies of the direction of extant research
and practice?
Leveson (2004) argued that new approaches were needed and
that the changes were stretching the limits of current accident
models and safety engineering techniques. Similarly, Hovden
et al. (2009) also discussed whether there was a need for new the-
ories, models and approaches to occupational accident prevention
and pointed out that theories, models and approaches to high-risk
complex socio-technical systems had the potential of enriching
occupational safety management activities.
A schematic model of improving safety on construction sites in
practice is summarized in Fig. 1. Indeed, safety on construction
sites should be greatly improved if all the issues mentioned in
the previous literature review could be fundamentally solved.
Nevertheless, it is the inevitability of the time lag between the
preliminary recognition and the intrinsic solution of those root
causal factors due to key constraint conditions that makes safety
management on construction sites shoulder heavy responsibilities
in the long term. These key conditions include the economic issues
of safety (Fang et al., 2004; Suraji et al., 2001), the designers
awareness of safety (Haslam et al., 2005; Gibb et al., 2006; Suraji
et al., 2001), improvement of safety polices (Chinda and Mohamed,
2008; Sawacha et al., 1999; Teo et al., 2005), human errors (Chi
et al., 2005; Gibb et al., 2006; Reason, 1990; Toole, 2002) and so
on. More practically, there is also a time lag between the improving
measures and the checking of safety hazards (or near miss report-
ing). Consequently, the deciency and insufciency of extant re-
search and practice lie in such time lags, in which a number of
immediate factors may have the opportunity to result in an acci-
dent through this period irrespective of whether the causing fac-
tors are ever identied or not.
However, extant safety-improving systems do not possess an
effective mechanism to interrupt or prevent the immediate factors
to avoid the up-coming accidents. An example illustration could be
an involved person (IP) who trod on a half-brick and turned his an-
kle. Then in the investigation, he added that he was on a site sim-
ilar to this and the same thing had happened (HSE, 2003). These
seemingly innocuous accidents are not very likely to be taken seri-
ously. However, had there been an unprotected inspection cham-
ber in the vicinity then the worker could well have fallen down
the hole and suffered a serious injury or even fatality. In other
words, current safety management system on construction sites
is not able to deal with immediate factors whether the causing fac-
tors are ever identied or not. There is a need to identify precursors
and immediate factors (PaIFs) even amongst the seemingly minor
incidents.
The development of a systematic mechanism to interrupt and
prevent PaIFs on construction sites is similar to removing the dom-
ino of immediate cause just before an accident (Bird, 1974) and
interrupting the trajectory of accident opportunity at the nal hole
of immediate circumstance plate1 (Reason, 1990). But the signi-
cance and importance of improving safety by the focus of immediate
factors is not widely accepted yet. A potential future use of this ap-
proach could be that a prediction is made just before an accidents
occurrence and an early warning signal is sent to the person who
would be probably involved in that up-coming accident. How crucial
would that be as a precious life could be saved? Obviously, the ques-
tion on the feasibility of making such a real-time prediction of safety
risks on construction sites arises.
This research aims at developing a systematic mechanism to
interrupt and prevent PaIFs on construction sites. Firstly, the
importance of precursors and near misses to further improve
safety margins are emphasized. Furthermore, a systematic model
of improving safety on construction sites is brought forward to
consummate and perfect extant safety-improving systems on con-
struction sites by reinforcing and accentuating the real-time track-
ing of precursors and immediate factors. At the same time, the
real-time tracking sub-system is argued to be an effective measure
to interrupt and prevent precursor and immediate factors of acci-
dents. Finally, an investigative model of PaIFs on construction sites
is proposed, indicating how to seek precursors and immediate fac-
tors from historical accident records and how to obtain near miss
1
It is important to note here that the authors are not suggesting that a
concentration on the more distal contributory factors such as design or pre-
construction planning are not relevant and would not have any affect rather, that
this work is concentrating on learning from the immediate accident circumstances as
predictors of future accidents.
 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
Historical records of
accidents
Research
Practice
On-going
project
Database;
Fig. 1. A schematic model of improving safety on construction sites in practice.
and mitigating measures from reported events. A real accident and
a playback of reported events on construction sites are selected to
illustrate how the model of PaIFs can be used to further investigate
accidents and reported abnormal events. This study would provide
a feasible approach to facilitate acquiring more useful information
from historical records of accidents in order to improve safety on
construction sites and serve as a foundation for further study by
drawing researchers attention to precursors and near misses on
construction sites.
2. Understanding precursor and near miss on construction sites
2.1. The importance of precursor and near miss to further improve
safety margins
A recent study by the US National Academy of Sciences, which
brought together experts on risk, engineers, practitioners, and pol-
icy makers from different industries, focused on the signals, condi-
tions, events and sequences that preceded and led up to accidents.
This study found that many organizations had attempted to devel-
op programs to identify and benet from accident precursors
(Phimister et al., 2004). Grabowski et al. (2007) also echoed that
recognizing alerts and signals before an accident clearly offers the
potential of improving safety. A broad denition of a precursor
was the conditions, events, and sequences that preceded and led
up to an accident (Phimister et al., 2004). Similarly, Suraji et al.
(2001) explained this concept as an undesired event, which was
an unwanted incident immediately preceding and leading to an
847
Research on safety issues
on construction sites
* Hazards on construction sites
* Casual factors of accidents
* Preventive measures to avoid future accidents
* Checklist of hazards * Near miss reporting
Analysis of near miss
Regular inspection of
hazard checklist
* Causing factors
Corresponding preventive measures
* Improvement of Safety
Action; Outcome; Sequence;
accident that did, or could have, caused injury to construction per-
sonnel or the general public, or damage to property or the environ-
ment. Seeking precursors including from historical accident records
is an important way because history is a vast early warning system
and provides a rich set of precursors (Phimister et al., 2004).
Undoubtedly, immediate factors are important exacerbating fac-
tors of accidents on construction sites. An updated domino se-
quence (Bird, 1974) led to the comprehension of immediate cause
before an accident. Fang et al. (2004) found that immediate factors
were caused by unsafe conditions and unsafe actions. The Lough-
boroughs ConCA accident causality model (Gibb et al., 2006) recog-
nized that immediate accident circumstances were failures in the
interaction between the work team, workplace, equipment and
materials. Also, their ConCA/Reason model concluded that immedi-
ate circumstance was the eventual plate and the site team, who
were largely responsible for the immediate circumstances, needed
to concentrate on reducing their own holes failures or errors.
Considering the problem of sparse data of accident, an alterna-
tive method is the near miss reporting system on construction sites,
which addresses near miss events with a much wider range of
severities. Near miss was dened as an event in which no damage
or injuries occurred but, under slightly different circumstances,
could have resulted in harm (Phimister et al., 2004). Moreover, it
has been widely accepted that accidents are just the tip of an ice-
berg. Heinrich (1959) pointed out that it was estimated that
90.9% of all accidents produced no injuries, while 8.8% resulted in
minor injuries and 0.3% caused major injuries. Similar conclusion
was echoed by some research (Bird and Germain, 1996; Morrison,
2004). In construction industry, the modied statistical triangle of
848 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
accident causation describes the same process from near miss to
fatal accidents and it was argued that hazard identication levels
were far from being ideal (Carter and Smith, 2006). Undoubtedly,
analysis of near misses has the potential to be a great supplement
to the precursor data set, especially where the concentration is on
the high potential incidents.
2.2. Denition of some concepts
In this study, the general denition of precursor, immediate fac-
tor and near miss have been used (Phimister et al., 2004; HSE,
2003; Wu et al., 2010):
 The precursor is dened as the signs that always seem to pre-
cede the accidents caused by this kind of safety hazard on con-
struction sites. Immediate factors are dened as the failure in
the interaction between the work team, workplace, equipment
and materials, which are important exacerbating factors of acci-
dents on construction sites. A near miss is dened as an event in
which no damages or injuries actually occurred but, under
slightly different circumstances, could have resulted in harm.
As Cambraia et al. (2010) pointed out that the denitions of
near miss were far from being precise (Cambraia et al., 2010). Also,
in order to convenient for further understanding of the subsequent
model and based on the objective of this research, there are some
complementarities to comprehend these concepts in this paper:
 When adopting a broad denition of precursor, it is not difcult
to nd that near miss is an important kind of precursor (Jones
et al., 1999; Phimister et al., 2004). However, some organiza-
tions have chosen to limit the use of the term precursors to
near miss that exceed a specied level of severity (Phimister
et al., 2004). Likewise, according to the objective of this
research, precursors in this paper are also conned to the events
that exceed a specied level of severity, which means that pre-
cursors appeared and occurred at least once in previous acci-
dents. That is, analysis of historical records normally gives
birth to precursors.
Tracking List
Precursors and
Immediate Factors
Real-time Tracking
Routine Continuous
Historical On Going
Records Project Improving
Near Miss Reporting
Precursors and Othe r
Causing Factors
Near Miss
Database; Action; Outcome;
Fig. 2. Systematic model of improving safety on construction sites.
 Immediate factors are important exacerbating factors of acci-
dents on construction sites. Differences between precursors
and immediate factors lie in the difculty for performing pre-
ventive actions due to time constraint. Immediate factors
always have tight period allowed for taking actions. Thus, pre-
cursors rather than immediate factors are the focus of real-time
tracking. Also, precursors consist not only in the factors of
worker, environment, equipment and material respectively,
but also in their mutual interactions (Wu et al., 2010).
 It should be pointed out that near miss is identied in a much
wider range of severities and may include all defects and abnor-
mal events. Furthermore, investigation on near miss events that
have the possibility to lead to accidents can also bring extra and
supplementary precursors.
 Precursor and near miss provide insight into accidents that
could happen and have the great signicance to further improve
safety margins. All the known precursors will be stored in the
database of PaIFs. And unknown precursors, which are reported
rstly as a near miss and then be conrmed as a new near miss,
will be added into the database of near miss and simultaneously
added into the database of PaIFs.
2.3. Systematic model of improving safety on construction sites
Cooper (1998) pointed out that the tracking of safety hazards
was essential to predict safety while the prevailing safety methods
typically did not do this. Also, extant precision in the prediction of
safety risks on construction sites was inadequate and far from
being satisfactory. At the same time, surveillance and reporting
systems were indicated as alternative methods of monitoring
known accident precursors and discovering new ones (Phimister
et al., 2004). Facing the deciency and insufciency of extant re-
search and practice analyzed at the beginning of this paper, a sys-
tematic model of improving safety on construction sites is brought
forward in Fig. 2. The main purpose of developing this model is to
consummate and perfect extant safety-improving system on con-
struction sites by reinforcing and accentuating the real-time track-
ing of precursors and immediate factors. Consequently, this
N
Y
Dangerous? Early Warning
Improvement or
Routine Checking
Prevention
Known Y
Precursor ?
N
N
Accident yet?
Sequence; Judgement; Data;
 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
improved system is divided into three sub-systems of real-time
tracking, routine continuous improving and near miss reporting.
The real-time tracking sub-system targets the precursors and
immediate factors on construction sites. It begins with a database
of precursors and immediate factors that are established based on
the analysis of historical records of accidents. As far as a specic
hazard is concerned, a tracking list of corresponding precursors
and immediate factors is an outcome of the database. Then, with
the progress of an on-going project, these precursors and immedi-
ate factors are tracking in pre-designed ways and the safety risks
are calculated. The concept is that, if it exceeds the alert threshold,
an early warning signal is then sent to the person who will be in-
volved in that up-coming accident and corresponding measures
are taken to improve safety on construction sites.
The routine continuous improving sub-system is a common
practice to improve safety at present. Based on the outcomes of
investigation on historical accidents, a routine checking list of haz-
ards is used to inspect whether specic hazard is controlled prop-
erly at regular intervals. Improvement and prevention will be
adopted according to the inspecting results.
The near miss reporting sub-system would also be designed for
regularly improving safety on construction sites. The original near
miss database consists of precursors from historical accident re-
cords. All defects and abnormal events that have the potential to
lead to an accident can be reported through this sub-system. Thus,
this sub-system is an effective way to supplement and increase
rare precursors that are subject to the lack of accident records. If
a reported event is the same or similar to a known precursor, then
corresponding measures will be taken to improve safety. If it is not
a known precursor but has the potential to lead to an accident, it
will be treated as a new near miss. Further analysis will be con-
ducted and preventive measures should be adopted to relieve
safety risks. Simultaneously, the information will be added into
the database of precursors and immediate factors and database
of near miss.
The real-time tracking sub-system is argued to be an effective
measure to interrupt and prevent accidents based on the informa-
tion of precursors and immediate factors. Indeed, it turns out to be
challenging to design and operate a real-time tracking sub-system
based on precursors and immediate factors. In order to make the
early warning come true, the real-time tracking sub-system should
be able to identify, detect, lter and evaluate precursors when they
occur and implement instant measures to interrupt and prevent
the up-coming accident. It should be acknowledged that it is dif-
cult to create such a program with all of these features. Neverthe-
less, to consider how it can be done and whether extant systems
can be improved is of great importance.
3. Seeking precursors/near miss and immediate factors
3.1. What prevents a precursor/near miss from becoming an accident?
An accident is a highly consequential adverse event (Heinrich,
1959; Bird, 1974; Gibb et al., 2006). Phimister et al. (2004) argued
that when something less than an accident occurs then this was
due to one of three reasons: (1) an exacerbating factor was miss-
ing; (2) a mitigating factor was effective; or (3) both. Adapting
their achievement slightly to express these ideas on construction
sites as equations, we have:
fAccidentg fPrecursor=Near missg
fExacerbating Factorsg 1 It is important to note here that how to obtain near miss and mitigating
Eq. (1) says that, if the next occurrence of the precursor/near miss
includes specic immediate factors, an accident will result.
849
fAccidentg fPrecursor=Near missg
 fMitigating Factorsg 2
Eq. (2) says that, if the next occurrence of the precursor/near miss
does not include important interruption, prevention or mitigating
measures, a consequential event will result.
fAccidentg fPrecursor=Near missg
fExacerbating Factorsg
 fMitigating Factorsg 3
Eq. (3) combines the thoughts of Eqs. (1) and (2).
fAccidentgn1 fAccidentgn fNothingg fTimeg
 fMitigating Factorsg 4
Eq. (4) says that, if corresponding measures are not adopted,
similar consequential accidents will result in the future. Also, it
can be inferred that an accident is sometimes a precursor to an-
other accident too.
3.2. An investigative model of PaIFs on construction sites
The database of PaIFs is the foundation and starting point of the
real-time tracking sub-system. Therefore, it is signicant and ur-
gent to seek PaIFs from historical accident records. At the same
time, the near miss reporting sub-system is an important way to
supplement and increase precursors and an effective way to im-
prove safety on construction sites. How to get precursors and mit-
igating measures from near miss reporting sub-system is also an
essential element to actualize the real-time tracking system.
Based on the description of the equations, an investigative mod-
el of PaIFs on construction sites is composed. The main objective of
developing PaIFs is to seek precursors and immediate factors from
historical accident records and how to obtain near miss and miti-
gating measures2 from reported events, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
As far as a specic hazard is concerned, historical accident re-
cords are investigated by dividing into precursors and immediate
factors. The immediate accident circumstance of work team, work-
place, equipment and materials in Loughboroughs ConCA accident
causality model (Gibb et al., 2006) are used in the rst instance to
categorize immediate factors. Precursors are then inferred and de-
duced from historical accident information. Also, as sometimes an
accident can be a precursor too, it is possible to get four, or even
more, possible precursors from a particular accident record as
shown in Fig. 3. Consequently, the database of specic hazards
precursors and immediate factors is established and by repeating
the work to other hazards, all hazards databases are set up too.
In turn, initializing a near miss database is founded in terms of
the database of precursors and immediate factors from historical
accident records. In an on-going project, when defects and abnor-
mal events are reported through the reporting system, comparison
and contrast will be conducted between the reported event and the
near miss database to check whether it is a known near miss or
similar to a known near miss. If the judgement is Yes, a corre-
sponding preventive measure will be proposed to improve safety,
which is the normal approach of a routing continuous improving
sub-system. If No, another analysis and judgment will be made
on whether it has the potential to lead to an accident. If it has such
a probability to cause an accident, this reported event will be
2
measures belongs to the sub-system of near miss reporting and thus it is outside the
major focus of this paper. However, in order to illustrate a whole application of PaICFs
model, explanation and corresponding case in the following part named playback
scenario is also briey described.
850 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858

Table 1
{Precursor4} Possible immediate factors, shaping factors and originating factors (adapted from the
work of Gibb et al. in 2006).
{Precursor3}+{Equipment and Materials}
Immediate factors Shaping factors Originating factors

{Precursor2}+{Workplace} Work team Worker factors First level

Actions Attitudes, Client requirement
{Precursor1}+{Work team} motivations
Behavior Knowledge, skill Economic climate
Capabilities Supervision Construction education
+ Communication Health and fatigue Second level
{Precursor(s)} {Immediate Factor(s)}
Workplace Site factors Permanent work design
Layout Site constrains Project management
Space Work scheduling Construction processes
Historical Records Specific Lighting Housekeeping Safety culture
Hazard PaIFs Noise Equipment and Risk management
of Accidents
material factors
Hot, cold, wet Design
Local Hazard Specication
Reported Defects Equipment and Supply and
Near Miss materials availability
and Off-normal
Events Suitability
Usability
Condition
Known Nearmiss? Y Preventive
Similar to Known
Near miss? Measures

N
Table 2
N Y New Near
Possible to Lead to Identied key immediate factors of the accident.
an accident? Miss
Immediate factors Possible precursors
Workplace (major factors) Interaction of work team and
{Near miss} - {Mitigating Factor(s)} equipment and materials
(1) There were two boards missing (1) Working close to an area of
on the scaffold. scaffold where there are missing
{Near miss1}-{Mitigating Factors Shaping Factor(s)} boards or voids.
Mitigating Work team (2) Holding something and walking
{Near miss2}-{Mitigating Factors Originating Factor(s)} Factors (or stepping) backwards without
looking.
(1) IP knew two boards were missing (3) A worker removes a scaffold
Database; Action; Outcome; Judgement;
but took no action to rectify the board or plank and no one recties
Sequence; Data; situation. the void immediately.
(2) IP walked backwards without (4) Working without sufcient
Fig. 3. An investigative model of PaIFs on construction sites. seeing the void. operational fall protection.
Interaction of workplace and
equipment and materials
(1) Some boards are missing from the
treated as a new near miss. Moreover, this new near miss is further scaffold.
analyzed to obtain the mitigating factors in terms of shaping fac-
tors and original factors (Gibb et al., 2006). At the same time, it
is also possible to get two or even more than two new near miss
events that are sequentially added into the initializing near miss {Possible Precursors}
database. Meanwhile, the database of precursors and immediate
factors is updated according to the updated near miss database.
In this way, the function of near miss databases supplementing
and increasing precursors that are subject to the lack of accident {Work team} {Workplace}
{Possible
records is realized. Precursors}

3.3. Examples {Possible Precursors} {Possible Precursors}

To illustrate how PaIFs may be used to further investigate acci-

dents and reported abnormal events, a real accident and a playback
reported events on construction sites are selected from HSE report
of Causal Factors in Construction Accidents prepared by Loughbor-
ough University and UMIST (HSE, 2003). The direction of possible
immediate factors, shaping factors and originating factors are
adapted from the work of Gibb et al. (2006) in Table 1.
3.3.1. Case study
The IP was erecting a pre-assembled timber roof-truss. He
walked backwards along the working platform of the scaffold. At
some point he stepped into a void in the platform created by two
missing scaffold battens. Unknown persons had removed these.
{Equipment and
Materials}
Fig. 4. The origination of precursors on construction sites.
The IP knew they were missing and perceived this as hazardous
but took no action to rectify it. The IP fell through the void injuring
his ribs. The key aspects of this accident have been identied as
column one of Table 2 shows.
Sequentially, PaIFs is used to seek and infer possible precursors
of this hazard. Fig. 4 indicates the logistic route to investigate such
precursors.
 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
First of all, one major reason was there were two boards miss-
ing on the scaffold, which belonged to Workplace. Then, against
this immediate factor, corresponding precursor should be an inter-
action between Work team and Equipment and Materials, that is
Working close to an area of scaffold where there are missing
boards or voids. Other possible precursors against this factor are
Holding something and walking (or stepping) backwards without
looking, A worker removes a scaffold board or plank and no one
recties the void immediately and Working without sufcient
operational fall protection. Similarly, another reason was IP knew
the boards were missing but took no action to rectify it, which be-
longed to Work team. Then, possible precursors should be an
interaction between Workplace and Equipment and Materials,
which is Some boards are missing from the scaffold. At the same
time, the interaction between Work team, Workplace and
Equipment and materials should be considered too. These possi-
ble precursors have the great opportunity to lead to similar acci-
dents in the future. From the results of this example, it is easy to
nd that there are some similarities of precursors and immediate
factors using this method. Thus, ve possible precursors are shown
in Table 2. Considering the further wide application of such infor-
mation, this accident can be expressed in the form of an equation
as following:
fAccidentg
fSome boards are missing from the scaffoldg
fHolding something and walking
or stepping backwards without looking:g
fA worker removes a scaffold board or plank
and no one rectifies the void immediately:g
fWorking close to an area of scaffold where
there are missing boards or voids:g
fWorking without sufficient operational fall protection:g
Indeed, behavior and action similar to any of these precursors
and immediate factors do not result in accidents every time be-
cause this accident is just the tip of the iceberg. But if we can track
these precursors and take interrupt measures to avoid these pre-
cursors, similar accidents will have slim chance to occur in the fu-
ture. Moreover, up to four or even more possible precursors can be
inferred and obtained from one historical accident record, which
indicates that the investigative model of PaIFs in part overcome
the deciency of lacking sufcient and adequate historical accident
records.
3.3.2. Playback scenario3
Based on the previously mentioned accident a playback sce-
nario is designed to illustrate how to conduct the near miss inves-
tigation through model of PaIFs.
A worker reported an abnormal event. He said one colleague of-
ten walked backwards on scaffold without looking around and
nearly fell down that afternoon.
After receiving the report, the investigator would rst search
the keywords walk backwards and scaffold in the near miss data-
base that are established based on the precursor and immediate
factor database.4 Then it is easy to judge that this reported event
3
Because it is outside the major focus of this paper, it is just briey described.
4
The authors are not suggesting that searching the database (or add the new near
miss to the database) has the priority to xing the problem. Actually, if the safety
professionals are well trained, which is generally required and necessary, the action of
conrming whether it is a known precursor and what are the measures should take
no more than one minute. It is just a detailed explanation of procedures. Fixing the
problem always has the priority.
851
Table 3
Identication of near miss and mitigating factors.
Shaping factors and originating Possible mitigating factors
factors of known or similar to known
precursor
Shaping factors Against shaping factors
(1) Lack of training to IP to increase (1) A special workshop or training to
safety awareness workers about possible accidents of
walking backwards without looking
around rstly
(2) Lack of routine supervision to (2) Immediate supervision to check
check boards on scaffold the boards on scaffold
Originating factors Against originating factors
(1) Lack of risk management (1) Suggest a method of risk
management against the walking
backwards on scaffold without
looking around
(2) Lack of a consideration of the (2) Design considerations to reduce
working space work at height
is similar to a known precursor investigated before. If any mitigating
measures are not taken, the colleague may be involved in similar
accidents in the future. So this reported event is conrmed as a
known near miss. Mitigating factors are analyzed and adopted as
shown in Table 3.
Of course, if it not conrmed as a known or similar to a known
precursor, further analysis will check whether it has the potential
to cause an accident. If the answer is Yes, the reported event will
be conrmed as a new near miss and added to the database of near
miss and, in turn, added to the database of PaIFs.
4. Case studies and questionnaires
4.1. Results of case studies
Fall from height is a leading cause of fatalities on construction
sites. Furthermore, ndings of Chi et al. (2005) indicated that fall
from scaffold and staging accounted for more than 30% of fatalities,
which made it the leading composition of fall-from-height acci-
dents in Taiwan. Thus, accidents of fall from scaffold are chosen
in this research to illustrate the application of PaIFs because of
their severity and catholicity.
The cases used in this research come from the US Department
of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). They
have been compiled in a Microsoft Access database form. This
database contains more than 14,000 injury and fatality incidents
in US from 1990 to 2008. What really counts is the fact that
every case comprises a situational abstract and detailed descrip-
tion of the accident, potentially providing valuable information
about the precursors that seem always precede a specic safety
hazard.
First of all, a query of cause = fall from scaffold was conducted.
Then, the results were randomly divided into groups each contain-
ing 10 cases. Afterwards, the PaIFs method was used to analyze the
precursors of each case, group by group until no new precursor
could be obtained in the next group. In total, ve groups of 50
fall-from-scaffold cases were investigated. The investigation
stopped because only one new precursor was obtained in the
fourth group and no new precursor was obtained from the entire
fth group. The precursors and their frequency of these 50 cases
of fall from scaffold are shown in Table 4.
It is obvious that the ve top frequent precursors in these 50
cases are: Working without sufcient operational fall protection;
Working on a scaffold with no guard railings; Stepping from scaf-
fold onto the building or structure (or visa vessa); Holding some-
thing and walking (or stepping) backwards without looking and
852 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858

Table 4 Working close to an area of scaffold where there are missing

Precursors of fall from scaffold in 50 cases. boards or voids. Nevertheless, considering the empirical propor-
Precursors Code Freq. tion of 300-1 between near miss and real accidents (Heinrich,
Working close to an area of scaffold where there are FS1 6 1959; Bird and Germain, 1996; Morrison, 2004), it should be no-
missing boards or voids ticed that other relatively rare precursors are also of great impor-
Holding something and walking (or stepping) backwards FS2 7 tance to improve safety on construction sites.
without looking
A worker removes a scaffold board or plank and no one FS3 2
recties the void immediately
4.2. Commonness versus otherness
Some boards are missing from the scaffold FS4 2
Working without sufcient operational fall protection FS5 49
Working on a scaffold in or after a rainy weather FS6 2 Can these precursors that are obtained based on the data from
Working on a scaffold with poor lighting FS7 1 US Department of OSHA be appropriate for improving safety in
Working on a scaffold with no guard railings FS8 16 the UK and other countries? To respond to this question, two sim-
Doing tasks on a scaffold that involve dynamic forces FS9 1
ilar but entirely different pairs of cases were employed to compare
(e.g. cleaning out concrete pump pipes)
Leaning back onto the guardrails FS10 1 their precursors. UK cases are from HSE report of Causal Factors in
Stepping from scaffold onto the building or structure (or FS11 10 Construction Accidents, and US cases are from US Department of
visa vessa) OSHA. Details of both pairs of accidents and the corresponding pre-
Set up/remove/move the scaffold or planks in an FS12 4 cursors are shown in Table 5. The analysis is also based on the PaIFs
incorrect procedure
Use an unchecked scaffold. FS13 1
method.
Stand too close to an end of planks that are not fully FS14 2 Indeed, although a variety of indices are being used to depict
restrained and examine the impact of injuries, there is a huge range of inci-
Lose balance on the scaffold FS15 3 dence rates, varying from country to country and the characteris-
Try to climb off the scaffold not using the ladder FS16 2
tics of each countrys construction industry differ. In the
Worker on the scaffold has a heart disease FS17 1
Unhooking from one area lifeline without securing to the FS18 2 meantime, as far as the root causes are concerned, these two pairs
new area lifeline of accidents also differ in surrounding environments, work in pro-
Using a standard ladder in conjunction with a mobile FS19 4 cess, materials used and scaffold erected because of the level of
tower scaffold construction technology, type of production, safety management
Lift arm of the hoist (material/personal) is not tied down FS20 1
when repairing the hoist
practices and so on. Otherness is more evident than commonness
when concerning the level of root causes of accidents in different

Table 5
Two compared pairs of cases in UK and US and their precursors.

UK cases
Case UK-1 description:
The IP was putting a roof-truss rafter up. He walked backwards along the
working platform of the scaffold. At some point he stepped into a void in
the platform created by two missing scaffold battens. Unknown persons
had removed these. The IP knew they were missing and perceived this as
hazardous but took no action to rectify it. The IP fell through the void
injuring his ribs.
Precursors of case UK-1:
(1) Work close to the area of scaffold with missing boards or voids.
(2) Hold something and walk (or step) backwards without seeing the void.
(3) One worker removes the board or plank and no one recties the void
immediately.
(4) Some boards are missing.
Case UK-2 description:
Concrete-pump pipes were being blown through (a wet foam is place inside
the pipe and with pressurized air propelled to other end) at the end of
the workday. The accident report states that an operative was standing
over the pipe (at the exit end) and that with the force of propulsion at
the last of the concrete and wet ball came through, this throw him
backwards (onto a column). He tried to hold the pipes back down
because he knew the pressure was coming and the pressure of it would
have meant a third person. He sustained a groin and back injury and was
off sick for a week.
Precursors of case UK-2:
(1) Hold concrete pipe without any safeguard and xation to its beginning
and completing inertia.
US cases
Case US-1 description:
On June 26, 2001 at approximately 1:30 pm, employee fell through an
opening that was between the oor and scaffold that he was working from,
employee fell approximately 55 feet to the ground below. The employee
was in the process of installing aluminum siding on a sports facility, along
with three other employees working from a hydraulic tower scaffold. At the
time of the accident, the employee was in the process of carrying back some
working materials to load onto the scaffold. The employee went to step
back onto a 2 in. and 12 in. wood plank the crew was using as a walkway
from the building to the scaffold. The wood plank had been removed and
employee fell through the opening where the 2 in. and 12 in. wood plank
was previously located. Employee fell approximately 55 feet to the ground
sustaining fatal injuries.
Precursors of case US-1:
(1) Work close to the area of scaffold with missing boards or voids.
(2) Hold something and walk (or step) backwards without seeing the void.
(3) One worker removes the board or plank and no one recties the void
immediately.
(4) Some boards are missing.
Case US-2 description:
On 02 April 2007, at approximately 02:30 p.m., at 8076 Big Cottonwood
Way, in Brighton, Utah, an employee was standing on a scaffold. The
platform of the scaffold. The platform of the scaffold was located 25 feet
above a wooden deck. He was holding a two and one half inch rubber hose.
They were attempting to pour a concrete wall. The hose had plugged and
they were attempting to clear the hose. They had placed a sponge rubber
plug in the hose and were forcing it through the hose with compressed air.
As the sponge cleared the end of the hose, the hose jerked and knocked the
employee from the scaffold. The employee was wearing no fall protection.
The scaffold appeared to consist of two 2 and 8 planks, with no guard
railings. The employee suffered fatal head trauma when he struck the deck.
Precursors of case US-2:
(1) Hold concrete rubber hose (pipe) without any safeguard and xation to
its beginning and completing inertia.
(2) Work without sufcient or operational fall protection.
(3) Work on the scaffold with no guard railings.
 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858 853

countries. However, when it comes to precursors, which are more
macroscopic than root cause level, they are almost the same. In the
second case occurred in UK (in Table 5), the precursors would be
also the same as the second case occurred in US only if the work
in process was on a scaffold. Hence, it is argued that commonness
is more apparent than otherness when investigating accidents at a
precursor level.
4.3. Results of questionnaires
Questionnaires were sent to the safety manager/advisor of 241
construction companies in UK by email. The objective of the
questionnaires was to elementarily examine the results of precur-
sors that were derived from the proposed PaIFs model as well as
its usefulness and validity. There were four parts of the question-
naire consisting of introduction, questionnaire, some questions
about you and contacting information. The questionnaire is
attached in Appendix A. The part of introduction gave the back-
ground and a brief introduction to this research and the purpose
of this questionnaire. Items in the part of questionnaire included
20 possible precursors that were derived from the previously pro-
posed PaIFs model and other four questions that related to the
usefulness and validity of that proposed model. The purpose of
some questions about you was to gather some information about
the participators identities. Contacting information involved
some ways to return their questionnaires back.
In total, 43 questionnaires (18%) were returned (39 by email
and 4 by mail). 41 (95%) of them were safety managers/advisors,
and 2 had previously been a safety manager. 35 (81%) have been
working on construction sites in UK for more than 11 years, while
5 (11.63) between 6 and 10 years and 3 (7%) between 2 and
5 years. 29 (67%) of them had a university degree, compared to
16 (33%) with a Further Education qualication (B.Tec, HND, etc).
The results of descriptive statistical analysis on 20 items are
also listed in Table 6.
The results of four other questions that are related to the useful-
ness and validity of the proposed model are shown in Table 7.
Results of the questionnaire, from Tables 6 and 7, indicate that
absolutely most of the responders have given positive evaluation
to the precursors, which are derived from the previously proposed
PaIFs model, and to the usefulness and validity of the proposed
model.
4.4. Measurement of agreement among responders
The measurement of agreement among these responders was
performed in order to get a better and more rational understanding
of questionnaire results. Further analysis of the results was also
conducted to evaluate whether the results were due in part or en-
tirely to chance.
The kappa statistic is a widely used chance-corrected measure
to evaluate agreement among responders (Vries et al., 2008; Viera

Table 6
Results of questionnaire.

VS (%) SS (%) LS (%) NS (%) Positive evaluation (%) Negative evaluation (%)
FS1 97.7 0 0 2.3 97.7 2.3
FS2 58.1 37.2 2.3 2.3 95.4 4.7
FS3 86.1 11.6 0 2.3 97.7 2.3
FS4 95.4 2.3 0 2.3 97.7 2.3
FS5 76.7 11.6 4.7 7.0 88.4 11.6
FS6 14.0 44.2 34.9 7.0 58.1 41.9
FS7 34.9 32.6 30.2 2.3 67.4 32.6
FS8 97.7 0 0 2.3 97.7 2.3
FS9 34.9 51.2 14.0 0 86.1 14.0
FS10 23.3 46.5 18.6 11.6 69.8 30.2
FS11 30.2 32.6 30.2 7.0 62.8 37.2
FS12 72.1 25.6 0 2.3 97.7 2.3
FS13 55.8 41.9 2.3 0 97.7 2.3
FS14 60.5 34.9 2.3 2.3 95.4 4.7
FS15 25.6 27.9 41.9 4.7 53.5 46.5
FS16 81.4 14.0 2.3 2.3 95.4 4.7
FS17 4.7 46.5 41.9 7.0 51.2 48.8
FS18 62.8 20.9 9.3 7.0 83.7 16.3
FS19 39.5 51.2 7.0 2.3 90.7 9.3
FS20 48.8 37.2 11.6 2.3 86.1 14.0

Note: (1) VS = very signicant; SS = some signicance; LS = little signicance; NS = no signicance; (2) positive = VS + SS; negative = LS + NS.

Table 7
Results of four other questions.

Q1: If all these precursors were identied and eliminated, what would be the effect on a potential fall from scaffold accident?
Very likely to prevent Likely to prevent May likely Unlikely to prevent
60% 37% 0% 2%
Q2: Will identifying and learning from the causes of previous accidents be likely to prevent future accidents?
Very likely Likely May likely Unlikely
42% 56% 0% 2%
Q3: Would a tool that identied hazardous actions/conditions as precursors to accidents be useful for construction sites?
Very useful Some useful Little useful None useful
47% 51% 2% 0%
Can the UK learn from studying accidents in other countries (e.g. USA)?
Denitely Probably May be Not
30% 44% 23% 2%
854 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
and Garrett, 2005; Gambatese et al., 2008), which is calculated by
subtracting the proportion of the rates that are expected to agree
by chance from the overall agreement and dividing the remainder
by the number of cases on which agreement is not expected to
occur by chance (Kundel and Polansky, 2003; Fleiss et al.,
2003). Basically, there are three cases of kappa: the same pair
of responders per subject, weighed kappa and multiple ratings
per subject with different responders. As the questionnaire has
four categories and 43 raters, it is obvious that it belongs to the
third case. When multiple raters are used, it is common to calcu-
late the values of kappa for pairs of raters and then compute an
average kappa for all possible pairs (Kundel and Polansky, 2003;
Vries et al., 2008). Meanwhile, given the reality that the relative
importance of disagreement between categories is not the same
for adjacent categories as it is for distant categories (Kundel
and Polansky, 2003; Fleiss et al., 2003), weighed kappa is also em-
ployed to allow for differences in the importance of disagree-
ments by assign weights between 1 and 0 to each agreement
pair. The assignment of weights is taken from the suggestion of
Fleiss et al. (2003) and Kundel and Polansky (2003). The hypoth-
esis that the underlying value of weighted kappa is zero is also
tested.
Thus, after calculating the weighed kappa value of all possible
pairs, the proposed average weighed kappa of jave(w) can be
calculated as 0.527. As far as the meaning of a kappa value is
concerned, it can range from 1.00 to +1.00, in which a kappa
below zero means that there is no agreement beyond chance,
and a kappa of 1.00 means that there is perfect agreement (Kun-
del and Polansky, 2003; Gambatese et al., 2008). A kappa value
of 0.527 means moderate agreement.
However, it is important to notice that Feinstein and Cicchetti
(1990) have pointed out that the paradox of high overall agree-
ment and low kappa, and Cicchetti and Feinstein (1990) suggested
that three indices of kappa, positive agreement, and negative
agreement should be included when reporting a kappa. Also, Kun-
del and Polansky (2003) pointed that the choice of intervals was
entirely arbitrary and agreed that it was a useful way of showing
agreement data because this would give an indication of the type
of decision of the type of decision where raters disagreed and
alerted the raters to the possibility of effects caused by prevalence
or prior knowledge. From the questionnaire, it is easy to decide
that the evaluation of very signicant and some signicance tend
to be a positive evaluation, while the selection of little signicance
and no signicance leans to a negative evaluation. From the per-
spective of this idea the judgment matrix of positive evaluation
and negative evaluation can be derived. Then, the positive agree-
ment, pqpos, and negative agreement, pqneg, can be calculated
(Feinstein and Cicchetti, 1990; Cicchetti and Feinstein, 1990;
Kundel and Polansky, 2003). Thus, after calculating the positive
agreement and negative agreement of all possible pairs, the aver-
age positive agreement, pavepos, and average negative agreement,
paveneg, can be calculated. The results are 0.877 (pavepos) and
0.276 (paveneg) respectively.
Therefore, the value of average weighed kappa indicates a mod-
erate degree of agreement beyond chance. In the meantime, by the
magnitude of positive and negative agreement, agreement of posi-
tive evaluation is statistically highly signicant and major dis-
agreement lies in negative evaluation.
5. Discussion
5.1. Meaning for real-time tracking
This paper presents a fairly new generic method for deriving
precursor information from historical accidents. It started with a
detailed literature review. And then a schematic model of improv-
ing safety on construction sites was summarized to analyze the
deciencies and insufciencies of extant research and practice. It
was pointed out that there was a need to identify precursors and
immediate factors even amongst the seemingly minor incidents.
Later, a systematic model of improving safety on construction sites
was brought forward and the real-time tracking sub-system was
argued to be an effective measure to interrupt and prevent acci-
dents. Obviously, the database of PaIFs was the foundation and
starting point of the real-time tracking sub-system. Consequently,
an investigative model of PaIFs on construction sites is composed.
In order to elementarily examine the results of precursors that
were derived from the proposed PaIFs model as well as its useful-
ness and validity, a questionnaire was designed and distributed.
Results of the questionnaire illustrated that absolutely most of
the responders had given positive evaluation. The kappa value of
0.527, average positive agreement of 0.877 and average negative
agreement of 0.276 indicate that agreement between the respond-
ers were not due to chance. These results lay the foundation for fu-
ture research and application by providing the generic method for
deriving precursor information, which is the starting point of acci-
dents real-time tracking. Further, these results serve as a founda-
tion for further study by drawing researchers attention to
precursors and near misses.
5.2. Principal considerations to practical challenges
There are a number of practical challenges to realizing such a
system. This paper is just a starting point for future studies con-
cerning the real-time tracking of accidents based on precursors
and near misses. Principal considerations to practical challenges
are discussed as follows:
What are the possible technological solutions to track near-miss
accidents based on real-time information?
The development of promising information technologies, such
as radio frequency identication (RFID) and wireless sensor net-
works (WSN) has prompted research into their application to
construction. Simultaneously, great efforts have been made to
automate the safety management on construction sites. Navon
and Kolton (2006) conducted researches on how to automate fall
prevention procedures. Furthermore, both autonomous data
requirement analysis of near-miss accidents and technological
solutions to track near-miss accidents based on real-time infor-
mation on construction sites have been investigated by Wu
et al. (2010). Their outcomes (Wu et al., 2010) systematically
analyzed the autonomous data requirement of near-miss acci-
dents based on typical historical accident cases, which generally
consisted of real-time information about location, identity and
environment, and then proposed an autonomous real-time track-
ing system, which employed ultrasonic for outdoor and indoor
real-time location tracking, adopted sensors for environment sur-
veillance, RFID for access control as well as storage of safety
information about workers, equipment and materials, and wire-
less sensor networks for data transmission. All system compo-
nents were integrated into a Zigbee RFID sensor network
architecture that featured a relatively low cost and fast imple-
mentation with a pure wireless network backbone. The imple-
mentation of such system into the scenario of construction site
was also illustrated. That study provided a possible approach
for tracking near-miss accidents based on real-time information
and served as a foundation for further study by drawing
researchers attention to the precursor signals leading to acci-
dents on construction sites.
 What is the alert threshold and how is it established?
 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
Part of the outcomes from the Ph.D. Thesis of Wu (2009),5
named real-time tracking methods of safety hazards and
predictive model of safety risks on construction sites, provided a
possible method to establish the alert threshold. Firstly, a model
of modied accident sequence precursors (MASP) was set up
according to the characteristics of construction sites. That modi-
ed model improved the foundation of traditional event tree. On
the other hand, given the nature of safety management on con-
struction sites, which paid attention to a conditional probability,
that model improved the original arithmetic based on conditional
probability theory. Also, safety risks based on precursors were cal-
culated. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis of different variables in-
volved in MASP was conducted and the order of sensitivity was
listed. In succession, predictive model of safety risks on construc-
tion sites was founded using signal detection theory (SDT). Calcu-
lating methods of early warning threshold were set up and
compared in different criteria. The suitable conditions of different
methods were also discussed and compared. Consequently,
NeymanPearson criterion was decided to be a suitable criterion
for calculating early warning threshold on construction sites at
current stage. Moreover, the distribution forms of safety signals
and danger signals were supposed, and the parameters were esti-
mated and the hypothesis was tested. In the meantime, the meth-
ods of judging sensitivity and risk tendency of early warning
system were also founded using SDT.
 Who is monitoring for early warning signals and how are alerts
communicated and by whom?
According to the technological solutions to track near-miss acci-
dents based on real-time information on construction sites (Wu
et al., 2010), the safety manager on site or relevant safety profes-
sionals could be arranged to monitor precursor signals in the sever
manager room. Alerts could be communicated by wireless sensor
networks and by the safety manager and the involved workers di-
rectly, which would take very ephemeral time.
 Will there always be sufcient time to alert the relevant work-
ers on site?
Cambraia et al. (2010) suggested that the proactive nature of
a near miss was linked to the fact that the items of information
generated allow actions to be performed, which would prevent
injury or damage to property occurring in the future. Also, our
previously proposed PaIFs model differentiated precursors and
immediate factors in the difculty for performing preventive ac-
tions due to time constraint. The PaIFs attached importance to
precursors and near misses that would always have sufcient
time to alert the relevant workers on site. Thus, we argued that
precursors and near missed would provide insight into acci-
dents that could happen and have the great signicance to fur-
ther improve safety margins from the perspective of real-time
tracking.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
Safety problems on construction sites seem to be largely unre-
solved as the fatality and injury records in construction continue
to plague the industry across the world. The lack of an effective
system to interrupt and prevent the precursors and immediate fac-
5
Wu, 2009. Real-time tracking methods of safety hazards and predictive model of
safety risks on construction sites. Ph.D. Thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
855
tors on construction sites is argued to be the critical deciency and
insufciency of extant research and practice.
This paper has developed a systematic mechanism to interrupt
and prevent PaIFs on construction sites. The importance of precur-
sors and near misses to further improve safety margins has been
emphasized. A systematic model of improving safety on construc-
tion sites is being developed, which seeks to improve extant
safety-improving systems on construction sites by reinforcing
and accentuating the real-time tracking of PaIFs. Consequently,
this improved system has been split into three sub-systems of
real-time tracking, routine continuous improving and near miss
reporting. At the same time, the real-time tracking sub-system is
argued to be an effective measure to interrupt and prevent precur-
sor and immediate factors of accidents.
Eventually, facing the urgency and signicance to establish a
precursor and immediate factor database which is the founda-
tion and starting point of the real-time tracking sub-system, an
investigative model of PaIFs on construction sites has been pro-
posed, indicating not only how to seek precursors and immedi-
ate factors from historical accident records but also how to
obtain near miss and mitigating measures from reported events.
A real accident and a playback of reported events on construc-
tion sites were selected to illustrate how PaIFs could be used
to further investigate accidents and reported abnormal events.
Results have indicated that PaIFs were effective and able to ac-
quire as much information about precursors and near miss as
possible because more than one precursor or near miss could
be obtained from a historical accident record or reported event
respectively. Moreover, considering that near miss reporting
sub-system is also a signicant way to supplement and increase
precursors, the investigative model of PaIFs in part overcame the
deciency of lacking sufcient and adequate historical accident
records.
Accidents of fall from scaffold were chosen in this research to
illustrate the application of PaIFs. Questionnaires have also been
conducted to verify the usefulness and validity of the proposed
model. The value of average weighed kappa indicated a moderate
degree of agreement beyond chance. In the meantime, by the mag-
nitude of positive and negative agreement, agreement of positive
evaluation was statistically highly signicant and major disagree-
ment lay in negative evaluation.
With regard to the practice in construction, this study proposes
a feasible approach to facilitate acquiring more useful information
from historical records of accidents and the investigator should
further investigate the accident using PaIFs after a preliminary
accident investigation in order to identify and benet from acci-
dent precursors. Moreover, the systematic model of improving
safety on construction sites would indicate the direction to im-
prove safety margins.
As far as the research is concerned, it would serve as a founda-
tion for further study by drawing researchers attention to precur-
sors, immediate factors and near misses on construction sites. In
order to realize this early warning facility, more challenging re-
search must be conducted, such as on how to investigate quantita-
tive relationships between precursors (near miss) and accidents
based on the established database; how to do the real-time track-
ing based on different precursors and immediate factors on
construction sites; and how to deliver early warning signals to
involved persons.
Acknowledgements
The research work for this paper is funded by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 50878049). Sup-
port from China Scholarship Council, who sponsored the rst
authors secondment at Loughborough University, is gratefully
856 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
acknowledged. The responders of the questionnaires are also
gratefully acknowledged. Appreciation for the support and corpo-
ration of the research is also given to Dr. Lam (associate professor,
department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytech-
nic University, Hong Kong), Dr. Yam (assistant professor, depart-
ment of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University) and Dr. Chew (associate professor, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological Univer-
sity, Singapore).
Appendix A. Preventing falls from scaffold questionnaire
A.1. Introduction
This questionnaire forms part of a joint research project be-
tween Loughborough University, UK and Southeast University,
China.
This research is seeking to develop an approach where the
events that may lead to an accident can be identied ahead of
time, as precursors, such that action could be taken to avoid
the accident. This is similar to a structured method of learning
from near misses.
For this questionnaire we would like you to assume the sce-
nario of operatives working on a scaffold. We would like you to
record your view of the signicance of each of the following ac-
tions, in-actions or conditions in contributing to a fall from
height accident (These have been identied from a study of acci-
dent reports).
All responses to this questionnaire will be treated as strictly
condential and all comments will be anonymous. The data
collected in the study will be used for academic purposes
only.
A.2. Questionnaire
 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858 857

References Baxendale, T., Jones, O., 2000. Construction design and management safety
regulations in practice-progress on implementation. International Journal of
Project Management 18, 3340.
Abdelhamid, T.S., Everett, J.G., 2000. Identifying root causes of construction
Beavers, J.E., Moore, J.R., Schriver, W.R., 2009. Steel erection fatalities in the
accidents. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 126 (1), 5260.
construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Aneziris, O.N., Papazoglou, I.A., Baksteen, H., Mud, M., Ale, B.J., Bellamy, L.J., Hale,
135 (3), 227234.
A.R., Bloemhoff, A., Post, J., Oh, J., 2008. Quantied risk assessment for fall from
Bird, F., 1974. Management Guide to Loss Control. Institute Press, Atlanta.
height. Safety Science 46, 198220.
858 W. Wu et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 845858
Bird, F.E., Germain, G.L., 1996. Practical Loss Control Leadership. Det Norske Verita,
Loganville, GA.
Cambraia, F.B., Saurin, T.A., Formoso, C.T., 2010. Identication, analysis and
dissemination of information on near misses: a case study in the construction
industry. Safety Science 48, 9199.
Carter, G., Smith, S.D., 2006. Safety hazard identication on construction projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 132 (2), 197205.
Chi, C.F., Chang, T.C., Ting, H.I., 2005. Accident patterns and prevention measures for
fatal occupational falls in the construction industry. Applied Ergonomics 36,
391400.
Chi, C.F., Yang, C.C., Chen, Z.L., 2008. In-depth accident analysis of electrical fatalities
in the construction industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.12.003.
Chinda, T., Mohamed, S., 2008. Structural equation model of construction safety
culture. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 15 (2), 114
131.
Cicchetti, D., Feinstein, A., 1990. High agreement but low kappa. II. Resolving the
paradoxes. Journal of Clinic Epidemiology 43, 551558.
Cooper, J., 1998. Portray information about sources of data in probabilistic analyses.
In: Proceedings of the 1998 ASME/JSME Joint Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, vol. 378, pp. 2630.
Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T., Eldosouky, A., 2004. Dynamic layout of construction
temporary facilities considering safety. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 130 (4), 534541.
Fang, D.P., Xie, F., Huang, X.Y., Li, H., 2004. Factor analysis-based studies on
construction workplace safety management in China. International Journal of
Project Management 22, 4349.
Fang, D.P., Chen, Y., Wong, L., 2006. Safety climate in construction industry: a case
study in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 132
(6), 573584.
Feinstein, A., Cicchetti, D., 1990. High agreement but low kappa. I. The problem of
two paradoxes. Journal of Clinic Epidemiology 43, 543549.
Fleiss, J.L., Levin, B., Paik, M.C., 2003. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions,
Third ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fung, I.W.H., Tam, C.M., Tung, K.C.F., Man, A.S.K., 2005. Safety cultural divergences
among management, supervisory and worker groups in Hong Kong
construction industry. International Journal of Project Management 23, 504
512.
Gambatese, J.A., 2000. Safety in a designers hands. Civil Engineering 7, 5659.
Gambatese, J.A., Behm, M., Hinze, J.W., 2005. Viability of designing for construction
worker safety. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (9),
10291036.
Gambatese, J.A., Behm, M., Rajendran, S., 2008. Designs role in construction
accident causality and prevention: perspectives from an expert panel. Safety
Science 46, 675691.
Gibb, A.G.F., 2000. Design for safety and health. In: Proc., ECI/CIB/HSE International
Conference, London, European Construction Institute, Loughborough, UK.
Gibb, A., Haslam, R., Gyi, D., Hide, S., Duff, R., 2006. What causes accidents?
Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers. Civil engineering 159 (2), 46
50.
Grabowski, M., Ayyalasomayajula, P., Merrick, J., Harrald, J.R., Roberts, K., 2007.
Leading indicators of safety in virtual organizations. Safety Science 45, 1013
1043.
Harms-Ringdahl, L., 2009. Analysis of safety functions and barriers in accidents.
Safety Science 47, 353363.
Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S., Duff, A.R., 2005.
Contributing factors in construction accidents. Applied Ergonomics 36, 401
415.
Haupt, T.C., 2003. A study of management attitudes to a performance approach to
construction worker safety. Journal of Construction Research 4 (1), 87100.
Heinrich, H.W., 1959. Industrial Accident Prevention. McGRAW HILL Book
Company.
Hinze, J., Bren, D., 1996. Analysis of fatalities and injuries due to powerline contacts.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 122 (2), 177182.
Hinze, J., Huang, X.Y., Terry, L., 2005. The nature of struck-by accidents. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 131 (2), 262268.
Hopkins, A., 2006. What are we to make of safe behaviour programs? Safety Science
44, 583597.
Hovden, J., Albrechtsen, E., Herrera, I.A., 2009. Is there a need for new theories,
models and approaches to occupational accident prevention? Safety Science,
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.06.002.
Jones, S., Kirchsteiger, C., Bjerke, W., 1999. The importance of near miss reporting to
further improve safety performance. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries 12 (1), 5967.
Kartam, N.A., 1997. Integrating safety and health performance into construction
CPM. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 123 (2), 121125.
Katsakiori, P., Sakellaropoulos, G., Manatakis, E., 2009. Towards an evaluation of
accident investigation methods in terms of their alignment with accident
causation models. Safety Science 47, 10071015.
Kundel, H.L., Polansky, M., 2003. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology
228, 303308.
Leveson, N., 2004. A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety
Science 42, 237270.
Mitropoulos, P.T., Cupido, G., 2009. The role of production and teamwork practices
in construction safety: a cognitive model and an empirical case study. Journal of
Safety Research 40, 265275.
Mohamed, S., 2002. Safety climate in construction site environments. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 128 (5), 375384.
Morrison, L.M., 2004. Best practices in incident investigation in the chemical
process industries with examples from the industry sector and specically from
Nova Chemicals. Journal of Hazardous Materials 111, 161166.
Navon, R., Kolton, O., 2006. Model for automated monitoring of fall hazards in
building construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
132 (7), 733740.
Phimister, J.R., Bier, V.M., Kunreuther, H.C. (Eds.), 2004. Accident Precursor Analysis
and Management: Reducing Technological Risk Through Diligence. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Reason, J.T., 1990. Human Error. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Saurin, T.A., Guimaraes, L.B.D.M., 2008. Ergonomic assessment of suspended
scaffolds. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38, 238246.
Saurin, T.A., Formoso, C.T., Cambraia, F.B., 2008. An analysis of construction safety
best practices from a cognitive systems engineering perspective. Safety Science
47 (8), 10561067.
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S., Fong, D., 1999. Factors affecting safety performance on
construction sites. International Journal of Project Management 17 (5), 309315.
SE, H., 2003. Causal Factors in Construction Factors. HSE book, Norwich, UK.
Shapira, A., Simcha, M., 2009. AHP-Based weighting of factors affecting safety on
construction sites with tower cranes. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 135 (4), 307318.
Suraji, A., Duff, A.R., Peckitt, S.J., 2001. Development of causal model of construction
accident causation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 127
(4), 337344.
Teo, E.A.L., Ling, F.Y.Y., Chong, A.F.W., 2005. Framework for project managers to
manage construction safety. International Journal of Project Management 23,
329341.
Toole, T.M., 2002. Construction site safety roles. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 128 (3), 203210.
Viera, A.J., Garrett, J.M., 2005. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa
statistic. Family Medicine 37 (5), 360363.
Vries, H.D., Elliott, M.N., Kanouse, D.E., Teleki, S.S., 2008. Using pooled kappa to
summarize interrater agreement across many items. Field Methods 20 (3), 272
282.
Weinstein, M., Gambatese, J., Hecker, S., 2005. Can design improve construction
safety? Assessing the impact of a vollaborative dafety-in-fesign process. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (10), 11251134.
Wu, W., Yang, H., Chew, D.A.S., Yang, S., Gibb, A.G.F., Li, Q., 2010. Towards an
autonomous real-time tracking system of near miss accidents on construction
sites. Automation in Construction 19, 134141.