Rework Causation that Undermines Safety Performance

during Production in Construction

Jeffrey Boon Hui Yap, Ph.D., P.Eng. 1; Jia Rou Chong 2;
Martin Skitmore, Ph.D. 3; and Wah Peng Lee, Ph.D., P.Eng. 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Rework is positively linked with increased safety risks. As a precursor to decreased rework and enhanced safety performance, this
study appraised the correlative causes of rework and safety incidents. To do this, 20 rework causes that undermine safety performance were
first identified through the literature review. Using a survey questionnaire involving Malaysian construction professionals (owners, consul-
tants, and contractors), the causes were prioritized based on frequency, severity, and importance indices. The five leading rework-safety
causes were ranked as follows: poor coordination, insufficient communication, poor subcontractor management, improper supervision
and inspection, and poor site management. Spearman’s rank correlation tests revealed a significant agreement between the respondent groups.
An exploratory factor analysis identified the five major underlying causal dimensions of rework and safety incidents to relate to the substandard
management of equipment and machinery, poor project management practices, inherent dangerous, dirty, and difficult (3D) characteristics,
improper production planning and work pressure, and inadequate personnel competency and knowledge. This paper bridges the identified
knowledge gap concerning the dimensionality of rework and accident causation in construction, and the findings provide guidance for devising
preventive measures for simultaneously addressing rework and safety problems. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001902. © 2020
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Rework; Safety; Causes; Construction; Project management; Factor analysis.

Introduction linear relationship between safety disconnect and quality perfor-

Rework is a significant risk in construction. However, many firms
choose to ignore this reputation-damaging practice (Love et al.
2016a), which has adverse repercussions on outcomes in terms of
schedule (Hwang and Yang 2014), cost (Love and Sing 2013),
quality (Arain and Low 2006), productivity (Arashpour et al.
2014), and even safety incidents (Pereira et al. 2020). Rework sim-
ply means “to revise or work again” (Love and Smith 2018, p. 2),
which can result in inefficiency and disruption. Construction re-
work is often referred to as a wasteful and nonvalue-adding activity
in correcting errors, fixing defects, attending to variations in scope,
and other nonconformances (Love et al. 2016a). For that reason,
rework often involves dismantling tasks, tighter timelines, and hap-
hazard work processes (Wanberg et al. 2013).
Despite worker safety having been inexplicably overlooked
in supply chain performance, Das et al. (2008) found a significant
1
Assistant Professor, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and
Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kajang 43000, Malaysia
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4332-0031.
Email: bhyap@utar.edu.my
2
Graduate, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Uni-
versiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kajang 43000, Malaysia. Email:
jrjang9611@gmail.com
3
Professor, School of Built Environment, Queensland Univ. of Technol-
ogy, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001
-7135-1201. Email: rm.skitmore@qut.edu.au
4
Assistant Professor, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and
Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kajang 43000, Malaysia.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9177-5415. Email: leewp@utar.edu.my
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 12, 2020; approved
on April 29, 2020; published online on June 26, 2020. Discussion period
open until November 26, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
mance. This finding is consistent with Love et al.’s (2015) argument
that safety incidents and rework nonconformances should not be
considered in isolation. According to Mitropoulos et al. (2009),
errors during task execution not only result in rework but also task
uncertainties and disruptions from an out-of-sequence workflow.
They further explain that more uncertainty in work situations
may increase the likelihood of accidents while at the same time
undermining productivity. This is further echoed by Perlman et al.
(2014) in observing that construction workers often function in
unplanned conditions, which increases human errors and their ex-
posure to hazards. In another study investigating design change-
induced rework using a systemic approach, Yap et al. (2019b)
observe that productivity loss from reworking is due to the dis-
rupted rhythm of work, lower worker morale, and fatigue when a
completed portion of work necessitates undoing and reinstatement.
Using an ecological momentary assessment, Menches and Chen
(2013) report that work interruptions compromise productivity
as a result of their negative emotional effects (such as a greater an-
noyance and reduced motivation) on construction workers. Accord-
ing to Pereira et al. (2018), demotivated workers tend to misbehave,
disobey safety rules, and consequently neglect hazards, all of which
are indicators of unsafe behaviors. To this end, Han et al. (2014)
conclude that rework and schedule delays are critical managerial
components affecting the occurrence of accidents.
Wanberg et al.’s (2013) analysis of 32 U.S. building projects
indicates there are significant causal relationships between rework
and safety incidents. Following a detailed literature review of 49
quality- and safety-related research articles, Loushine et al. (2006)
observed similarities between construction safety and quality man-
agement processes. As Love et al. (2018, p. 353) highlight, “if
rework can be reduced, then significant improvements in safety
performance can be achieved.” With this in mind, the root causes
of rework that contribute to an increase in safety incidents need to

© ASCE 04020106-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106

 be identified before they can be sensibly managed. However, there
is still no consensus concerning how the precursors of rework can
undermine safety performance onsite. It appears that several ad-
vancements in knowledge are needed to enable the construction
fraternity to understand the association between rework and acci-
dent causation better. Given the limited studies linking rework to
safety performance (Love et al. 2018b; Wanberg et al. 2013), it is
still unclear what the best set of causative factors is for both rework
and safety aspects. Except for a few studies that affirm a positive
association between rework and safety incidents (e.g., Love et al.
2016c, 2018b; Pereira et al. 2018, 2020), most previous research
has considered the phenomenon of rework (e.g., Emuze et al.
2014; Safapour and Kermanshachi 2019; Yap et al. 2017) and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
safety management (Lessing et al. 2017; Mohammadi et al.
2018; Yap and Lee 2019) separately. Notably, little attempt has
been made to explore the underlying dimensions of the combined
rework-safety causes in construction, which has increased the dif-
ficulties for managers in containing rework to enhance construction
site safety. As highlighted by Love et al. (2018a), rework remains a
“known-unknown,” with a high degree of uncertainty of how it af-
fects project performance, particularly safety incidents. Therefore, it
is necessary to develop a general concept of how rework causation
can undermine safety performance on site and to uncover the under-
lying factor structure of rework-safety causes. Therefore, this study
aims to contribute to filling these substantial gaps by identifying the
relevant rework-safety causes and understanding the underlying
dimensions involved.
Background
Rework Causation in Construction
Given its criticality to project performance, rework has been widely
studied by construction management researchers. For example,
Love and Smith’s (2018) systematic review of the construction re-
work literature identifies the rework costs in 17 selected studies as
ranging from under 1% to over 20% of the contract price. Oyewobi
et al. (2016) find the major rework causes in Nigeria to be defects,
inadequate training, quality issues, incorrect interpretation of owner
needs, and changes initiated by the contractor, all of which are
linked to substandard project management practices and an adver-
sarial working culture. In Sweden, Josephson et al. (2002) cluster
rework causes into owner, design, materials, machines, workman-
ship, and production management, finding that erroneous workman-
ship, faulty design, and lack of coordination contribute the most to
rework costs at 13.0%, 8.1%, and 7.28%, respectively. In Singapore,
Hwang and Yang (2014) report rework arising from design-induced
changes, inadequate coordination between designers, and poor on-
site management to be the primary reasons for schedule growth;
while in neighboring Malaysia, Yap et al. (2017) find the causes
of rework in building projects to be mostly related to an adversarial
working culture and technical ineptness in field construction meth-
ods. Love and Smith’s (2018) literature review also notes that hav-
ing to perform additional tasks (rework) decreases worker morale,
increases workplace stress, and even causes absenteeism, which
ultimately lowers productivity. In this connection, Love et al.’s
(2018c) Australian study finds that the lack of motivation and
concentration during reworking increases the probability of human
errors.
Accident Causation in Construction
Poor site-safety management is one of the pressing construction
industry problems in the developing world (Yap et al. 2019a).
© ASCE 04020106-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106
For example, Chong and Low (2014) find the main causes of
construction accidents in Malaysia to involve falling, machinery
and equipment errors, and collisions with machinery—the statistics
revealing an accident rate of approximately one incident per project.
Construction is considered one of the least safe occupational sectors
in most countries (e.g., Mohammadi et al. 2018; Yap and Lee 2019),
and rework makes an intrinsic contribution (Love et al. 2016a) with
the double-handling of materials and tasks involved, for instance,
increasing exposure to safety risks. In investigating accident precur-
sors, Pereira et al.’s (2018) Canadian study found change orders that
are highly correlated to rework can significantly induce changes in
work plans and sequences, demotivate workers, and obscure safety
hazards. They also report the incident precursors relating to rework
as workers’ failures to identify hazards, inadequate communication,
low worker skill level, inadequate use of tools, and workers’ unfa-
miliarity with the work environment. Hon et al.’s 2010 Hong Kong
study finds that reworking imposes additional workload and sched-
ule pressures in requiring managers and workers to hurry to finish
the work and underestimates potential risks when carrying out re-
peating tasks. Most notably, Emuze et al.’s (2014) South African
study finds that frequent rework leads to physical and mental fa-
tigue, which are also significant risk factors for occupational injuries
to frontline construction workers (Cheah 2007; Mohammadi et al.
2018). Swaen et al.’s (2003) analysis of data for 7,051 Netherlands
workers from 45 different organizations finds a strong positive link
between fatigue and occupational accidents across a wide range of
industries, including construction; and Zhang et al.’s (2015) study
of 606 US construction workers concludes that fatigue can result
in impaired physical or cognitive functions that adversely affect a
worker’s ability to make good decisions.
Consolidation of Rework and Accident Causation
Despite the large body of prior research on rework and accident
causation in the context of construction, most studies have inves-
tigated the phenomenon singly. Hitherto, the gaps in knowledge are
that there have been few attempts to understand how rework causes
also affect safety incidents, and the extent to which these causes
jeopardize safety outcomes is unknown. For that reason, the prepa-
ration of a list of comprehensive rework-safety causes was a critical
first step for the success of this study. Given this current theoretical
gap in the literature, a two-stage approach was adopted to identify
the reasons for rework that also affect safety outcomes. A system-
atic background review was first conducted to explore the pertinent
rework causes that may potentially pose safety risks.
A list of the rework causes identified in this way is summarized
in Table 1, showing the most commonly cited rework causes to be
poor coordination, time constraints, and lack of experience and
knowledge. Based on the list in Table 1, a second round of a de-
tailed synthesis of safety research was then undertaken to establish
how much these rework causes also conjointly compromise safety
performance (Table 2). This shows that construction safety risks are
highly attributable to a lack of experience and knowledge, a lack of
maintenances to equipment and tools, and unskilled worker and
lower-skilled labor, whereas poor coordination, time constraints,
poor workload planning, high staff turnover rate, and poor infor-
mation flow contributed the least.
Research Design and Methodology
A cross-sectional survey design is adopted that supports the posi-
tivist paradigm, using the deductive approach to observe phenom-
ena empirically and then explain with a logical statistical analysis
(Creswell 2014). In addition, questionnaire surveys are economical
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Summary of rework causes

Previous rework studies

© ASCE
Hwang Love
and Love Hwang Love and Yap Josephson Ye Eze and Lopez
Yang and Li et al. et al. Edwards et al. et al. Palaneeswaran et al. Rounce Palaneeswaran Idiake et al.
No. Causes of reworks (2014) (2000) (2009) (2000) (2004) (2017) (2002) et al. (2014) (2015) (1998) et al. (2008) (2018) (2010) Frequency
1 Poor coordination x — — x — x x x x x x x — 9
2 Poor site management x — — — x x — x — — x x x 7
3 Poor site and working condition — x — — — — — — x — — x — 3
4 Faulty construction method — x x — — x — x x — — — — 5
5 Time constraints — — — x x x — x x — x x x 8
6 Improper supervision and — — — — x x — — x — x — — 4
inspection
7 Poor subcontractor management x — — — x x — — x — x — — 5
8 Insufficient communication — — — — — — — x x — x x x 5
9 Low education level of worker — — — — — x — — x — — — — 2
10 Lack of experience and x — — — x x — x x x x x — 8
knowledge
11 Unskilled worker and lower- — — — — — x — — x — x x — 4
skilled labor
12 Poor workload planning — — — — x — — x — — x x — 4
13 High staff turnover rate — — — — — — — x — — x x — 3
14 Excessive overtime — — — — — — — — — — — x — 1
15 Poor information flow — — — — x — x x — — — — — 3
16 Improper handling of machinery — — — — — x x x — — — — — 3
and equipment

04020106-3
17 Lack of maintenance to — — — — — — x — — — — — — 1
equipment and tools
18 Poor standard of machinery and — — — — — x x — x — — — — 3
equipment
19 Improper planning of resources — — — — x — — x — — x — — 3
20 Lack of event documentation — — — — x — — — — — — — — 1

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106

Note: x = causes considered.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2. Summary of construction accidents causes

Previous safety studies

© ASCE
Lee Al-Kaabi Aksorn Chen Abdelhamid
Causes of and Tam Agyekum Wong and and Zhao and Golizadeh Chau Zhang and Chen Cheng
construction Lim et al. et al. et al. Mohammadi Hadipriono Priyadarshani Hadikusumo et al. Wu et al. et al. Irumba et al. Everett et al. et al.
Ref. accidents (2017) (2004) (2018) (2009) et al. (2018) (2003) et al. (2013) (2008) (2018) (2010) (2018) (2004) (2014) (2019) (2000) (2018) (2010a) Frequency
1 Poor coordination — — — — — — — — — x — — — — — — — 1
2 Poor site x — — — x x — — — x — x x — — — — 6
management
3 Poor site and — — — — x x — — — — x — — — x — — 4
working condition
4 Faulty construction x — — — — — — — — — x — — — — — — 2
method
5 Time constraints — — — — x — — — — — — — — — — — — 1
6 Improper — — — x x — x x x — x — — x — x — 8
supervision and
inspection
7 Poor subcontractor — — x x x — — — — x x — — x — — x 7
management
8 Insufficient x — x — x — x x x x x — — — — — — 8
communication
9 Low education level x x — — x — x — x x — — — x — — — 7
of worker
10 Lack of experience x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17
and knowledge
11 Unskilled worker — x — — x x x — x x x x — x — x — 10

04020106-4
and lower-skilled
labor
12 Poor workload — — — — x — — — — — — — — — — — — 1
planning
13 High staff turnover — — — — x — — — — — — — — — — — — 1
rate

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106

14 Excessive overtime — x — — x — — — — — — — x — — — x 4
15 Poor information — x — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1
flow
16 Improper handling x — — — — — — — — — — — — — — x — 2
of machinery and
equipment
17 Lack of maintenance — — x x x x x x x — x — x — x x — 11
to equipment and
tools
18 Poor standard of x x — — — — — — — x x — — — x — x 6
machinery and
equipment
19 Improper planning — — — — x x x — — — — — — — — — — 3
of resources
20 Lack of event — — x — x x x — — — — — — x — — — 5
documentation

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

 and practical for a large sample (Ling and Khoo 2016). Moreover, Table 3. Demographic profile of respondents
such surveys have also been widely used to rank relevant variables Frequency Percentage
in construction management studies (e.g., Bagaya and Song 2016; Parameter Category (N ¼ 157) (%)
El-Razek et al. 2008; Ye et al. 2015).
Designation Owner 25 15.9
The survey data were analyzed using frequency, severity, and Consultant 18 11.5
importance indices, considering the views of owners, consultants, Contractor 114 72.6
and contractors. Agreement on the ranking of the importance of the
rework-safety causes between every two groups of parties was also Working 0–5 57 36.3
tested. An exploratory factor analysis was then applied to cluster experience 6–10 40 25.5
11–15 22 14.0
significantly correlated causes into much fewer underlying factors
>16 38 24.2
for appropriate interpretation.
Academic Postgraduate degree 25 15.9
qualification (Ph.D., master)
Questionnaire Design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bachelor’s degree 114 72.6

Diploma certificate 16 10.2
Following a comprehensive review of construction rework and High school 2 1.3
safety literature, the survey questionnaire was designed to contain
three parts. Part I required respondents to provide their background Type of project Buildings (residential, 100 63.7
information. In Parts II and III, respondents rated the 20 rework involved commercial, industrial)
causes identified in the literature according to their frequency of Civil and infrastructure 57 36.3
occurrence and level of severity in terms of safety incidents, respec-
tively. For each cause, the respondents were requested to answer,
according to their own experience, the question What is the fre- The frequency index (FI), which expresses the frequency of
quency of occurrence for these rework causes? on a five-point occurrence of causes inducing rework, is computed
Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Respondents were
also asked to indicate their answer to What is the degree of severity X
5
ai ni
of this rework cause on safety performance? on another five-point FI ¼ ð1Þ
1
5N
Likert scale from 1 (not severe) to 5 (extremely severe). These scales
are consistent with previous studies examining the criticality of
where a = weighting given to each response (ranging from 1 for
factors affecting construction performance (e.g., Bagaya and Song
never to 5 for always); n = frequency of responses; and N = total
2016; Yap et al. 2019a).
number of responses.
Next, the severity index (SI) asserts the severity of causes under-
Data Collection mining the safety performance as appraised by the respondents, and
is computed
The respondents are comprised of construction practitioners from
owner, consultant, and contractor organizations based in Malaysia. X
5
bi ni
This diversity of respondents was chosen to maximize the quality SI ¼ ð2Þ
1
5N
of information in which diverse perspectives in construction set-
tings are represented. The respondents were sampled using con- where b = weighting given to each response (ranging from 1 for not
venience and snowball techniques. A total of 440 e-survey forms severe to 5 for extremely severe); n = frequency of responses; and
were distributed by emails and the LinkedIn platform to ensure the N = total number of responses.
questionnaire reached a large number of organizations. Follow-up Finally, the importance index (IMP.I) of each cause was calcu-
reminders for nonrespondents were also issued to improve the re- lated as a function of both the frequency and severity indices
sponse rate. Over a period of 5 weeks, 157 (35.7%) valid responses
were received—a response rate above the 30% regarded as accept- IMP:I: ¼ F:I: × S:I: ð3Þ
able for a reliable statistical analysis (Ye et al. 2015) and above the
free parameter ratio needed to yield reliable solutions (Ye et al. The rationale for computing the importance index is that the
2015). criticality of a rework-safety cause is the resultant of the combined
Table 3 summarizes the respondents’ demographic profiles, with effect of the frequency of a cause-inducing rework and the severity
25 (15.9%) owners, 18 (11.5%) consultants, and 114 (72.6%) con- of a cause-undermining safety performance.
tractors. Nearly 40% had more than 10 years of working experience
in the construction industry, while the majority (88.5%) held a
Frequency of Causes Inducing Rework
bachelor’s, or higher, degree. Over 60% of the respondents were
involved in building-related projects as compared to civil and infra- Ranked in ascending order, Table 4 presents the frequency indices
structure works (36.3%). of the 20 causes and their rankings according to owners, consul-
tants, and contractors. Overall, FI ranges from 0.555 to 0.738. From
the owners’ perspective, the five most frequent causes were poor
Analysis and Ranking of Rework-Safety Causes coordination (FI ¼ 0.776), poor subcontractor management (FI ¼
0.760), insufficient communication (FI ¼ 0.728), improper super-
A Cronbach’s coefficient alpha value of 0.918 was obtained for vision and inspection (FI ¼ 0.728), and poor site management
both the frequency and severity measures, which is above the 0.70 (FI ¼ 0.728). The equivalent for consultants were poor site man-
needed to establish good internal consistency (Hair et al. 2010). agement (FI ¼ 0.789), poor coordination (FI ¼ 0.778), insufficient
The survey data were further processed using the following statis- communication (FI ¼ 0.733), lack of experience and knowledge
tical techniques and indices adapted from Bagaya and Song (2016) (FI ¼ 0.722), and poor workload planning (FI ¼ 0.711). For
and Yap et al. (2019a). contractors, it was insufficient communication (FI ¼ 0.732), poor

© ASCE 04020106-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106

 Table 4. Frequency index and ranking for causes
Consultant Contractor
Overall (N ¼ 157) Owner (N ¼ 25) (N ¼ 25) (N ¼ 114)
Causes of reworks and construction accidents FI Rank FI Rank FI Rank FI Rank
Poor coordination 0.738 1 0.776 1 0.778 2 0.723 2
Insufficient communication 0.731 2 0.728 3 0.733 3 0.732 1
Poor subcontractor management 0.707 3 0.760 2 0.689 8 0.698 4
Improper supervision and inspection 0.704 4 0.728 3 0.689 8 0.702 3
Poor site management 0.697 5 0.728 3 0.789 1 0.675 5
Poor information flow 0.674 6 0.688 6 0.678 10 0.670 6
Lack of experience and knowledge 0.668 7 0.672 8 0.722 4 0.658 8
Unskilled worker and lower skilled labor 0.661 8 0.680 7 0.667 11 0.656 9
Time constraints 0.656 9 0.584 17 0.700 6 0.665 7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Poor workload planning 0.652 10 0.624 14 0.711 5 0.649 11

Low education level of worker 0.651 11 0.664 9 0.633 13 0.651 10
Erroneous construction method and poor design of 0.645 12 0.664 9 0.700 6 0.632 13
the construction method statement
Improper planning of resources 0.641 13 0.656 11 0.633 13 0.639 12
Poor site and working condition 0.636 14 0.648 12 0.667 11 0.628 14
Lack of event documentation l,0.613 15 0.640 13 0.589 20 0.611 15
High staff turnover rate 0.600 16 0.584 17 0.633 13 0.598 16
Improper handling of machinery and equipment 0.594 17 0.608 15 0.611 16 0.591 17
Lack of maintenance to equipment and tools 0.580 18 0.608 15 0.600 17 0.570 19
Excessive overtime 0.577 19 0.528 20 0.600 17 0.584 18
Poor standard of machinery and equipment 0.555 20 0.568 19 0.600 17 0.546 20

coordination (FI ¼ 0.723), improper supervision and inspection
(FI ¼ 0.702), poor subcontractor management (FI ¼ 0.698), and
poor site management (FI ¼ 0.675).
Severity of Causes Undermining Safety Performance
The severity indices are shown in Table 5. Overall, SI ranges from
0.594 to 0.739. According to the owners, the five most severe
causes relate to poor site and working conditions (SI ¼ 0.776), er-
roneous construction methods and poor design of the construction
method statement (SI ¼ 0.768), poor site management (SI ¼
0.760), insufficient communication (SI ¼ 0.736), and poor coor-
dination (SI ¼ 0.728). For consultants, these are a lack of experi-
ence and knowledge (SI ¼ 0.789), insufficient communication
(SI ¼ 0.778), poor site management (SI ¼ 0.778), poor site and
working conditions (SI ¼ 0.767), improper handling of machinery
and equipment (SI ¼ 0.767), poor standard of machinery and equip-
ment (SI ¼ 0.767), and poor information flow (SI ¼ 0.767). For
contractors, these are improper handling of machinery and equip-
ment (SI ¼ 0.728), poor site and working conditions (SI ¼ 0.726),

Table 5. Severity index and ranking for causes

Overall Consultant Contractor
(N ¼ 157) Owner (N ¼ 25) (N ¼ 25) (N ¼ 114)
Causes of reworks and construction accidents SI Rank SI Rank SI Rank SI Rank
Poor site and working condition 0.739 1 0.776 1 0.767 4 0.726 2
Improper handling of machinery and equipment 0.724 2 0.672 11 0.767 4 0.728 1
Insufficient communication 0.721 3 0.736 4 0.778 2 0.709 5
Lack of experience and knowledge 0.716 4 0.688 8 0.789 1 0.711 3
Improper supervision and inspection 0.715 5 0.720 6 0.733 8 0.711 3
Poor site management 0.708 6 0.760 3 0.778 2 0.686 9
Erroneous construction method and poor design of 0.707 7 0.768 2 0.733 8 0.689 8
the construction method statement
Lack of maintenance to equipment and tools 0.698 8 0.672 11 0.700 12 0.704 6
Poor standard of machinery and equipment 0.696 9 0.664 14 0.767 4 0.691 7
Unskilled worker and lower skilled labor 0.685 10 0.680 9 0.700 12 0.684 11
Poor subcontractor management 0.683 11 0.656 16 0.700 12 0.686 9
Poor coordination 0.680 12 0.728 5 0.733 8 0.661 17
Improper planning of resources 0.676 13 0.696 7 0.700 12 0.668 15
Poor information flow 0.675 14 0.672 11 0.767 4 0.670 13
Time constraints 0.673 15 0.624 17 0.689 16 0.681 12
Low education level of worker 0.671 16 0.664 14 0.711 11 0.667 16
Poor workload planning 0.662 17 0.608 18 0.689 16 0.670 13
Lack of event documentation 0.642 18 0.680 9 0.678 18 0.628 19
Excessive overtime 0.628 19 0.536 20 0.622 19 0.649 18
High staff turnover rate 0.594 20 0.584 19 0.589 20 0.596 20

© ASCE 04020106-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106

 Table 6. Importance index and ranking for causes
Overall Consultant Contractor
(N ¼ 157) Owner (N ¼ 25) (N ¼ 25) (N ¼ 114)
Causes of reworks and construction accidents IMP.I Rank IMP.I Rank IMP.I Rank IMP.I Rank
Insufficient communication 0.528 1 0.536 3 0.571 2 0.519 1
Improper supervision and inspection 0.504 2 0.525 4 0.506 8 0.500 2
Poor coordination 0.502 3 0.565 1 0.571 2 0.478 4
Poor site management 0.494 4 0.554 2 0.614 1 0.464 6
Poor subcontractor management 0.483 5 0.499 7 0.483 10 0.479 3
Lack of experience and knowledge 0.479 6 0.463 8 0.570 4 0.468 5
Poor site and working condition 0.471 7 0.503 6 0.512 7 0.456 7
Erroneous construction method and poor design of 0.457 8 0.510 5 0.514 6 0.436 11
the construction method statement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Poor information flow 0.455 9 0.463 8 0.521 5 0.449 9

Unskilled worker and lower skilled labor 0.453 10 0.463 8 0.467 13 0.449 9
Time constraints 0.442 11 0.365 18 0.483 10 0.453 8
Low education level of worker 0.437 12 0.441 12 0.451 15 0.435 12
Improper planning of resources 0.434 13 0.457 11 0.444 16 0.427 15
Poor workload planning 0.432 14 0.380 16 0.490 9 0.435 12
Improper handling of machinery and equipment 0.431 15 0.409 14 0.469 12 0.431 14
Lack of maintenance to equipment and tools 0.405 16 0.409 14 0.420 17 0.402 16
Lack of event documentation 0.394 17 0.436 13 0.400 18 0.384 17
Poor standard of machinery and equipment 0.387 18 0.378 17 0.461 14 0.378 19
Excessive overtime 0.363 19 0.284 20 0.374 19 0.380 18
High staff turnover rate 0.357 20 0.342 19 0.373 20 0.357 20

lack of experience and knowledge (SI ¼ 0.711), improper supervi-
sion and inspection (SI ¼ 0.711), and insufficient communica-
tion (SI ¼ 0.709).
Importance of Rework-Safety Causes
Table 6 shows the importance indices and rankings of rework-
safety causes for owners, consultants, and contractors. The findings
reveal no significant differences in the rankings compared to pre-
vious reported indices (FI and SI). Overall, the IMP.I ranges from
0.357 to 0.528.
Insufficient communication is ranked highest (IMP:I ¼ 0.528)
and is therefore considered an extremely influential variable con-
tributing to rework and safety risks at construction sites. This cause
is ranked in second and third place for FI and SI, respectively. The
consultants (IMP:I ¼ 0.571) perceive this cause to be more impor-
tant than the owners (IMP:I ¼ 0.536) and contractors (IMP:I ¼
0.519). This is unsurprising, as communication is one of the most
frequently studied success factors for rework and accident preven-
tion in the research literature (Loushine et al. 2006; Love et al.
2016a). Poor and untimely communication often results in obsolete
and wrong information, which further exacerbates the need for
rework (Love et al. 2014). For Malaysian construction sites, com-
munication problems between foreign workers who cannot speak
the local language is a stern barrier for safety education and train-
ing (Yap and Lee 2019). Increased communication and the effec-
tive sharing of knowledge within related parties tend to engender
collaborative teamwork (Love et al. 2018b), which in turn en-
hances both the productivity and safety of construction operations
(Mitropoulos and Cupido 2009). Most notably, the safety climate
influences the perceived risk and is significantly determined by
communications and discussions over safety (Patel and Jha 2015).
In this vein, Kath et al.’s (2010) study of 548 US railway workers
reports a statistically significant positive association between the
workers’ safety behavior and open communication with their super-
visors over safety issues. Drawing on the social exchange theory,
Mullen et al.’s (2017) Canadian study observes that worker safety
compliance, participation, and attitudes are positively and signifi-
cantly linked with such safety-relevant communications as feed-
back of unsafe behaviors in the workplace and safe-work method
statements.
Improper supervision and inspection is second in the overall
ranking (IMP:I ¼ 0.504). The lack of supervision by supervisory
personnel results in workers adopting risky behavior and taking
short cuts that result in rework and safety issues (Love et al. 2018b).
Investigating a $375 million AUD water infrastructure project in
Victoria, Australia, Love et al. (2016a) find site supervision to
be one of the primary contributors to rework. Similar observations
are reported in China (Ye et al. 2015), Malaysia (Yap et al. 2017),
and Uganda (Kakitahi et al. 2016). Some studies investigating
construction safety issues also find a significant link between su-
pervisory problems and raising safety concerns (Hon et al. 2010;
Mohammadi et al. 2018). Supervisor activities are associated with
injury risk at the workplace (Yanar et al. 2019). To improve produc-
tion safety management and the supervisory system, Zhao et al.
(2018) propose a framework considering environment, equipment,
human, management, and technical factors.
Poor coordination is ranked as the third most critical cause of
rework and safety risks (IMP:I ¼ 0.502). Project coordination is
closely tied to project communications management, involving ac-
tivities of planning, organizing, and directing the resources, equip-
ment, meetings, and information. Coordination-related issues, such
as between the professional consultants, between owner and consul-
tants, and between owner and end-user, are pertinent rework causes
(Yap et al. 2017). Given the dynamic environment of construction
sites, safety coordination is a very complex process (Kartam et al.
2000). In this context, careful safety planning, preparation, co-
ordination, and control is recommended to be practiced from the
early stages and periodic reviews conducted as the work progresses
(Kartam et al. 2000). Any disruption to operations due to rework
makes safety compliance difficult to attain. For example, Wanberg
et al. (2013) assert that a worker’s ability to recognize hazards is
impaired when the work environment is altered. Unplanned inter-
ruptions to regular workflow tend to generate a higher rate of human

© ASCE 04020106-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106

 errors connected to rapid momentary decisions and actions and are
the leading causes of construction accidents (Menches and Chen
2013; Perlman et al. 2014).
Poor site management is ranked in fourth place (IMP:I ¼
0.494). The effect of this on rework and safety performance is evi-
dent (Mohammadi et al. 2018; Ye et al. 2015). The predicaments
relating to poor site management are the following: errors during
setting-out the building plan on ground; attrition and reallocation of
personnel to other projects; failure to provide adequate protection
for materials and completed works; limited or no supervision;
and damage due to carelessness, lack of skills, and poor materials
handling and storage (Hwang and Yang 2014; Love et al. 2004).
Reckless operations create a turbulent and unsafe working en-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
vironment (Tam et al. 2004). Cheah’s (2007) principal components
analysis of safety factors on Singaporean sites reveals that the lack
of integration of safety considerations during construction activities
can significantly affect safety standards—manifested in almost 30%
of the variance explained.
Poor subcontractor management is ranked fifth (IMP:I ¼
0.483). The performance of the main contractor depends very much
on the overall planning, coordination, and control of subcontractors,
specialist contractors, and suppliers (Love et al. 2004). The low skill
level of subcontractors also contributes to rework and safety inci-
dents (Mohammadi et al. 2018; Yap et al. 2017). The extensive use
of subcontractors, combined with their poor selection and control,
complicate safety communications and the allocation of safety ac-
countabilities and responsibilities (Kartam et al. 2000). In China,
given the different levels of subcontractor expertise and knowledge,
it is difficult to have effective communication, resulting in regular
rework (Ye et al. 2015). A subcontractor integrity system, regular
coordination meetings, and the onsite cross-checking of subcontrac-
tors are suggested to provide an effective means of minimizing
rework (Ye et al. 2015).
Homogeneity of Ranking Between Parties
Spearman’s rank-order correlation is a nonparametric measure of the
strength and direction of ranking between two respondent groups
on an ordinal scale (Bagaya and Song 2016; El-Razek et al. 2008).
Table 7 provides the results of this analysis, showing that there is a
very good agreement between the three parties in ranking these
causes in terms of frequency, severity, and importance—the average
positive agreement for frequency and severity being 78.5% and
61.4%, respectively. With respect to the importance index, the high-
est degree of agreement appears between consultant and contractor
(approximately 83%) while the lowest is between owner and con-
sultant (about 79%). This consensus between each group of parties
further establishes the reliability of the results.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
One function of the factor analysis is to reduce many variables to a
lesser number of underlying factors that are being measured by the
variables (Hair et al. 2010). This summarization and data reduction
approach has been widely used in previous construction and safety
Table 7. Spearman’s rank correlation for causes
FI SI
Respondent groups rs p rs p rs
Owner—consultant 0.677 0.01 0.656 0.01 0.792
Owner—contractor 0.866 0.01 0.469 0.05 0.806
Consultant—contractor 0.811 0.01 0.716 0.01 0.829
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106
management studies to capture the multivariate relationships ex-
isting between variables and to investigate the cluster of relation-
ships involved (e.g. Kim and Nguyen 2018; Yap and Lee 2019;
Ye et al. 2015).
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling ade-
quacy for the 20 variables is 0.873, which passes the suggested
threshold of 0.50 (Hair et al. 2010) and indicates that the hypoth-
esized variables in the questionnaire have enough factors in
common to allow a factor analysis (Zhao et al. 2018). Bartlett’s test
of sphericity is 1612.140 (p ¼ 0.000), indicating the presence of
correlations between variables and that the overall correlation ma-
trix is thus not an identity matrix (Zhao et al. 2018). These tests
affirm that a factor analysis is appropriate for factor extraction.
Subjecting the 20 causes to a factor analysis with a principal
component analysis and varimax rotation produces a five-factor sol-
ution with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 68.0% of the total
variance—exceeding the 60% required for adequate construct val-
idity (Hair et al. 2010). As all 20 variables attain factor loadings
exceeding 0.50, there is therefore no need to delete any variable
from the analysis, and the variables are considered significant in
contributing to the interpretation of the principal factors (Kim and
Nguyen 2018). In Table 8, with a Cronbach’s alpha greater than
0.70, all of the factors have a high reliability (Hair et al. 2010).
Discussion of the Factor Analysis Results
Factor 1: Substandard Management of
Equipment and Machinery
This first factor has the largest total variance of 17.03%, explaining
the five most important causes with regard to handling machinery
and work equipment, all with a factor loading exceeding 0.600. The
construction sector in the developing world relies heavily on labor-
intensive construction methods, with a low level of diffusion of
such innovative technologies as industrialization and prefabrication
(Yap et al. 2019a). The contractor’s poor materials, machinery, and
equipment management is a major source of rework (Ye et al. 2015)
as well as an important causal factor of construction accidents
(Gibb et al. 2005). For example, the common problems with ma-
chines triggering rework are frequent breakdowns, failure to work
satisfactorily, their incorrect use, and being delivered with defects
(Josephson et al. 2002). Love et al.’s (2018c) analysis of 218
Australian projects between 2006 and 2015 found that equipment
handling errors or violations contributed 2.3% to nonconformance
(NCR) costs. Workers are exposed to hazards when safety equip-
ment is not provided, when using defective tools, or when working
with inappropriate equipment for the task (Durdyev et al. 2017;
Mitropoulos et al. 2005). Against this background, Gibb et al.
(2005) have suggested construction companies should not only be
interested in the lowest price as the only criteria for their selection
of tools and equipment. To avoid rework, Famiyeh et al. (2017)
have underscored the necessity for contractors to use the most
appropriate construction methods and machinery, equipment, and
tools on the site.
Factor 2: Poor Project Management Practice
This factor accounts for the second-largest variation of 15.38% and
IMP.I contains five causes that explain the criticality of paying sufficient
p
attention to the planning, monitoring, and control of work. The fac-
tor is created by poor subcontractor management, insufficient com-
0.01 munication, improper supervision and inspection, poor workload
0.01 planning, and poor information flow, with factor loadings ranging
0.01
from 0.596 to 0.721. Poor integration and the lack of timely and
04020106-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 8. Factor profile
Factor Variance Cronbach
Details of the factors and causes loading explained (%) α
Factor 1: Substandard management of equipment and machinery — 17.026 0.875
Lack of maintenance to equipment and tools 0.803 — —
Poor standard of machinery and equipment 0.764 — —
Lack of event documentation 0.705 — —
Improper handling of machinery and equipment 0.702 — —
Improper planning of resources 0.628 — —
Factor 2: Poor project management practice — 15.376 0.809
Poor subcontractor management 0.721 — —
Insufficient communication 0.685 — —
Improper supervision and inspection 0.636 — —
Poor workload planning 0.619 — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Poor information flow 0.596 — —

Factor 3: Inherent dangerous, dirty, and difficult (3D) characteristics — 13.075 0.796
Poor site and working condition 0.767 — —
Poor site management 0.752 — —
Poor coordination 0.673 — —
Erroneous construction method and poor design of the construction method statement 0.672 — —
Factor 4: Improper production planning and work pressure — 11.863 0.799
High staff turnover rate 0.805 — —
Excessive overtime 0.778 — —
Time constraints 0.751 — —
Factor 5: Inadequate personnel competency and knowledge — 10.706 0.846
Low education level of worker 0.829 — —
Unskilled worker and lower skilled labor 0.772 — —
Lack of experience and knowledge 0.637 — —
Cumulative variance explained — 68.046 0.918
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.873 — —
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. χ2 1,612.140 — —
df 190 — —
Sig. 0.000 — —
Note: Only loadings of 0.5 or above are shown. Extraction method = principal component analysis; rotation method = varimax with Kaiser normalization.
Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

effective communication are leading drivers of a project (Arain and
Pheng 2006) and failure (El-Razek et al. 2008). Arain and Pheng
(2006) have emphasized that contractors are unable to acquire the
required data when communication breakdown prevails, resulting
in the project not meeting its intended objectives. Working on ob-
solete information has such adverse effects on projects as rework,
schedule delays, and quality degradation. Moreover, the many
layers of subcontracting make the coordination process complex
yet challenging (Ye et al. 2015); it can contribute as much as
34% of NCRs (Love et al. 2018c). Addressing managerial short-
comings and the adoption of best construction practices can help
reduce the cost of manageable and controllable rework (Safapour
and Kermanshachi 2019). Therefore, in this respect, the influence
of managerial support of the workers as well as project safety is of
vital importance (Mohammadi et al. 2018; Zhao et al. 2018).
Factor 3: Inherent Dangerous, Dirty, and
Difficult (3D) Characteristics
This factor comprises four causes relating to health, safety, and envi-
ronmental (HSE) aspects of working on construction sites. Poor site
and working condition (with a factor loading ¼ 0.767) not only
hurts worker productivity but also morale and satisfaction (Love and
Smith 2018; Mitropoulos et al. 2005). Unsafe working conditions,
such as an untidy site, hazardous tasks, and an unfavorable working
environment, are the most common causes of injuries on construc-
tion sites (Durdyev et al. 2017). Consequently, the criticality of
the next cause, poor site management (with a factor loading ¼
0.752), becomes important in the context of rework and the cause
of accidents on projects (Love et al. 2018b; Ye et al. 2015). The
remaining two causes under this component, namely, poor coor-
dination and erroneous construction method and poor design of
the construction method statement, influence construction workflow
and site safety procedures. Task unpredictability generates unex-
pected hazardous situations, which therefore increases the likelihood
of accidents due to unplanned exposures and errors (Mitropoulos
et al. 2005). As highlighted by Love et al. (2018c), quality and safety
are at stake when subcontractors use unapproved materials or incor-
rect methodology. Cheng et al.’s (2010b) analysis of 1347 Taiwan
accidents found major unsafe site conditions to be (1) the failure to
use a work platform when working at heights (24%), (2) the use of
hazardous methods (16%), and (3) failing to inspect the surrounding
environment before commencing work (12%).
Factor 4: Improper Production Planning and
Work Pressure
Factor 4 comprises four causes with a total variance of 11.86%,
emphasizing the criticality of operational planning for construction
projects. High staff turnover rate (factor loading ¼ 0.805) is a
morale problem. This may stem from overworked workers who
have experienced increased workloads and responsibility due to
the lack of an active or trained workforce (Love et al. 2018a).
Hanna et al.’s (2004) sensitivity analysis of the effect of proj-
ect changes for electrical and mechanical construction in the US
found that labor turnover and absenteeism contribute to productiv-
ity loss. The next cause, excessive overtime, has a high correlation
with time constraints. Undue rework with a tight deadline can
demotivate workers to follow safety rules (Pereira et al. 2018), and
people break rules to make work more efficient (Love et al. 2016b).

© ASCE 04020106-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106

 Table 9. Comparison with previous studies
Current study
F1: Substandard F2: Poor F4: Improper F5: Inadequate
management of project F3: production personnel
Research equipment and management Inherent 3D planning and competency
domain Country Author machinery practice characteristic work pressure and knowledge
Rework Malaysia (Yap et al. 2017) x x x — —
Rework China (Ye et al. 2015) x — x — —
Rework Sweden (Josephson et al. 2002) x x — — —
Rework Canada (Fayek et al. 2004) x x — — x
Rework Hong Kong (Palaneeswaran et al. 2008) — x x x x
Rework Nigeria (Oyewobi et al. 2016) — x x x x
Rework Nigeria (Eze and Idiake 2018) — x x x x
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rework Palestine (Enshassi et al. 2017) — x — x x

Rework Australia (Love et al. 2002) x x x — x
Rework Australia (Love et al. 2009) — x x x —
Subtotal for rework domain 5 9 7 5 6
Safety Middle East (Mohammadi et al. 2018) x — x x x
Safety China (Li et al. 2018) — — x x x
Safety China (Tam et al. 2004) x — — x x
Safety China (Zhao et al. 2018) — — — — x
Safety Thailand (Aksorn and Hadikusumo 2008) — x — — —
Safety Spain (Carrillo-Castrillo et al. 2017) — — x — —
Safety Korea (Lee and Lim 2017) x x x — x
Subtotal for safety domain 3 2 4 3 5
Overall 8 11 11 8 11
Note: x = considered by researcher.

Workers need to be physically and mentally alert to work safely,
and long work hours and extended (and irregular) shifts may lead
to fatigue along with physical and mental stress, resulting in an
impaired performance (Cheng et al. 2010b; Love and Smith 2018),
particularly when confronted with schedule pressure (Pereira et al.
2018). In this vein, Dembe et al.’s (2005) analysis of a total of 110
and 236 US job records, encompassing 89 and 729 person-years of
accumulated working time in 1987 and 2000, found that overtime
working was associated with a 61% higher injury hazard rate com-
pared to jobs without overtime—highlighting that working ex-
tended shifts may also involve prolonged exposure to potential
work injury hazards.
Factor 5: Inadequate Personnel Competency
and Knowledge
Low education level of worker (factor loading ¼ 0.829), unskilled
worker and lower skilled labor (factor loading ¼ 0.772), and lack
of experience and knowledge (factor loading ¼ 0.637) create this
fifth factor, with a total variance of 10.71%, explaining the signifi-
cance of skilled and experienced construction professionals and
workers to rework and safety management. Human resource man-
agement (HRM) functions are challenging in this sector, which
depends mostly on a migrant, casual, and transient blue-collar
workforce (Srour et al. 2017). Language and literacy barriers may
affect the quality of work performed by migrant workers, as they
may not understand the work instructions given (Yap et al. 2019a).
In addition, workers who are not properly trained or did not under-
stand their safety training due to a language barrier may unknow-
ingly make costly mistakes (Yap and Lee 2019). The lack of safety
knowledge and motivation by managers and workers relate to a
limited view of accident causality and learning (Mitropoulos et al.
2005). Personnel competency factors, such as knowledge, experi-
ence, training and education, learning, skills, and hazard awareness,
can significantly influence rework and safety incidents (Choudhry
et al. 2009; Love et al. 2018b; Winge and Albrechtsen 2018).
For example, Oyewobi et al.’s (2016) Nigerian study revealed that
inexperienced and poor skill development undermine construction
processes and contribute to the occurrence of rework. In another
study, Fang et al. (2006) found a strong correlation between com-
petence and accident frequency in Hong Kong.
Comparison with Previous Studies
As the literature consulted has not considered the underlying dimen-
sions of common rework and safety causes, this study employed a
triangulation approach to achieving cross-validation (Gibson and
Whittington 2010). Table 9 consolidates previous findings from
both rework and safety domains. All these studies have been pub-
lished since 2000. Although the studies may differ in their ap-
proaches, they provide a useful window in understanding the
latent factors triggering rework and safety incidents.
A close examination of Table 9 reveals that the global construc-
tion industry predominantly suffers from rework attributable to
poor project management practices, followed by inherent 3D char-
acteristics and inadequate personnel competency and knowledge.
On the other hand, inadequate personnel competency, knowledge,
and inherent 3D characteristics are also reported to undermine con-
struction safety performance significantly. Although the present
research is based in Malaysia, a developing economy, this compar-
ative analysis further corroborates that the five uncovered underly-
ing factors can fittingly reflect the rework and accident causation
in the global construction industry. Construction managers can use
these results to plan preventive actions to minimize rework and
safety problems.
Concluding Remarks
The current study contributes to the knowledge of rework and
safety management in construction projects. Despite a plethora of
rework and safety studies, little is known of the causes common to
both rework and safety incidents. Moreover, the key dimensions of
these reciprocated causes in the context of developing countries

© ASCE 04020106-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106

 remain a known-unknown. The study’s assessment of how rework
causes can adversely influence safety performance is new to con-
struction production planning and control.
Following a two-stage literature review, 20 pertinent rework-
safety causes were identified, which were then used to develop the
survey questionnaire as the data collection instrument to discover
the frequency and severity of each cause. The importance index,
which is calculated as the product of both frequency and severity
indices, is then used to rank the causes according to the cognizance
of owners, consultants, and contractors. In the overall context, the
study reveals the five most influential rework-safety causes to be
insufficient communication, improper supervision and inspection,
poor coordination, poor site management, and poor subcontractor
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
management. Spearman rank-order correlation tests affirm the re-
spondent groups’ homogeneity of the ranking of the causes and
further corroborate the relevance of these causes between construc-
tion professionals from disparate project backgrounds.
Next, an exploratory factor analysis is used to reduce the sur-
veyed rework-safety causes to a factor structure consisting of the
five underlying factors of substandard management of equipment
and machinery, poor project management practice, inherent 3D
characteristics, improper production planning and work pressure,
and inadequate personnel competency and knowledge. The mani-
fested principal factors largely explain both rework and accident
causation in construction projects.
The research has significant implications for current managerial
practice in highlighting several issues in need of immediate atten-
tion. A factor analysis not only extracted and interpreted these
principal factors but also created corresponding indicators (factor
scales) to measure their influences, which can be used to develop a
comprehensive indicator or index system to evaluate rework and
safety management performance. Given the positive association be-
tween rework and safety incidents, the identified rework-safety
causes also have significant practical and training implications for
the construction industry. Construction managers and workers need
to be cognizant and aware of the precursors of rework that also
influence safety incidents, as ignorance and oversight of the critical
issues will likely trigger accidents. The underlying factors uncov-
ered in this study can be integrated into the training curricula of key
construction professionals and workers. In this respect, the study
moves rework and accident causation from a known-unknown to
a known-known position, with the potential to eventually contrib-
ute to a win-win situation of minimizing rework while improving
safety performance.
A limitation of the study is that the data collected solely by the
field survey may result in common method biases that are generally
associated with surveys. Nonetheless, this is substantiated by trian-
gulating the findings with the research literature in both rework and
safety domains for theoretical validation. The use of a five-point
Likert scale for rating the causes may not be completely reliable,
as different respondents may perceive the scale differently when
they attach their personal interpretation of the different scale points.
While this quantitative data provides statistical support, it does not
allow respondents to be probed for their rich experiences gained
in dealing with rework and safety incidents. An interpretative
approach using in-depth interviews could be further employed to
collect the opinions from construction managers, site operatives,
and workers to learn about matters that cannot be observed, as well
as to validate the statistical results. In addition, the evaluation of the
net-effects of causes over outcomes are assumed to be linear and
independent, but this may not well model the complex nature of
construction projects. Further research is also needed to devise
effective accident prevention strategies built upon a comprehensive
zero-rework management process toward improving the safety
© ASCE 04020106-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106
performance of the construction industry in developing countries
such as Malaysia and beyond.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during the study are included in
the published paper. Information about the Journal’s data-sharing
policy can be found at http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0001263.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
Research Fund (UTARRF) (Project No. IPSR/RMC/UTARRF/
2019-C2/J01).
References
Abdelhamid, T. S., and J. G. Everett. 2000. “Identifying root causes of con-
struction accidents.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 126 (1): 52–60. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:1(52).
Agyekum, K., B. Simons, and S. Y. Botchway. 2018. “Factors influencing
the performance of safety programmes in the Ghanaian construction
industry.” Acta Structilia 25 (2): 39–68. https://doi.org/10.18820
/24150487/as25i2.2.
Aksorn, T., and B. H. W. Hadikusumo. 2008. “Critical success factors influ-
encing safety program performance in Thai construction projects.” Saf.
Sci. 46 (4): 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.006.
Al-Kaabi, N., and F. C. Hadipriono. 2003. “Construction safety perfor-
mance in the United Arab Emirates.” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 20 (3):
197–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1028660031000081536.
Arain, F. M., and S. P. Low. 2006. “Developers’ views of potential causes of
variation orders for institutional buildings in Singapore.” Archit. Sci.
Rev. 49 (1): 59–74. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2006.4908.
Arashpour, M., R. Wakefield, N. Blismas, and E. W. M. Lee. 2014. “Analy-
sis of disruptions caused by construction field rework on productivity in
residential projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (2): 4013053. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000804.
Bagaya, O., and J. Song. 2016. “Empirical study of factors influenc-
ing schedule delays of public construction projects in Burkina Faso.”
J. Manage. Eng. 32 (5): 05016014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000443.
Carrillo-Castrillo, J. A., A. F. Trillo-Cabello, and J. C. Rubio-Romero.
2017. “Construction accidents: identification of the main associations
between causes, mechanisms and stages of the construction process.”
Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 23 (2): 240–250.
Chau, N., G. C. Gauchard, C. Siegfried, L. Benamghar, J. L. Dangelzer, M.
Français, R. Jacquin, A. Sourdot, P. P. Perrin, and J. M. Mur. 2004.
“Relationships of job, age, and life conditions with the causes and
severity of occupational injuries in construction workers.” Int. Arch.
Occup. Environ. Health 77 (1): 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420
-003-0460-7.
Cheah, C. Y. J. 2007. “Construction safety and health factors at the industry
level: The case of Singapore.” J. Constr. Dev. Countries 12 (2): 81–99.
Chen, W. T., C. W. Wang, P. C. Liao, and M. Hew. 2018. “Scenario analysis
of fatal construction accidents: A Taiwanese perspective.” Int. J. Organ.
Innovation 10 (4): 271–285.
Chen, Z., and Y. Wu. 2010. “Explaining the causes of construction acci-
dents and recommended solutions.” In Proc., 2010 Int. Conf. on
Management and Service Science. New York: IEEE.
Cheng, C. W., S. S. Leu, C. C. Lin, and C. Fan. 2010a. “Characteristic
analysis of occupational accidents at small construction enterprises.”
Saf. Sci. 48 (6): 698–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.02.001.
Cheng, C. W., C. C. Lin, and S. Sen Leu. 2010b. “Use of association rules
to explore cause-effect relationships in occupational accidents in the
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Taiwan construction industry.” Saf. Sci. 48 (4): 436–444. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.005.
Chong, H. Y., and T. S. Low. 2014. “Accidents in Malaysian construction
industry: Statistical data and court cases.” Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon.
20 (3): 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2014.11077064.
Choudhry, R. M., D. Fang, and H. Lingard. 2009. “Measuring safety
climate of a construction company.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (9):
890–899. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000063.
Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Das, A., M. Pagell, M. Behm, and A. Veltri. 2008. “Toward a theory of
the linkages between safety and quality.” J. Oper. Manage. 26 (4):
521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.06.005.
Dembe, A. E., J. B. Erickson, R. G. Delbos, and S. M. Banks. 2005. “The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
impact of overtime and long work hours on occupational injuries and
illnesses: New evidence from the United States.” Occup. Environ. Med.
62 (9): 588–597. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2004.016667.
Durdyev, S., S. Mohamed, M. L. Lay, and S. Ismail. 2017. “Key factors
affecting construction safety performance in developing countries:
Evidence from Cambodia.” Constr. Econ. Build. 17 (4): 48–65. https://
doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v17i4.5596.
El-Razek, M. E. A., H. A. Bassioni, and A. M. Mobarak. 2008. “Causes of
delay in large building construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
134 (11): 831–841. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)
134:11(831).
Emuze, F., J. Smallwood, and S. Han. 2014. “Factors contributing to
non-value adding activities in South African construction.” J. Eng.
Des. Technol. 12 (2): 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2011
-0048.
Enshassi, A., M. Sundermeier, and M. A. Zeiter. 2017. “Factors contrib-
uting to rework and their impact on construction projects performance.”
Int. J. Sustainable Constr. Eng. Technol. 8 (1): 12–33.
Eze, E. C., and J. E. Idiake. 2018. “Analysis of cost of rework on time and
cost performance of building construction projects in Abuja, Nigeria.”
Int. J. Built Environ. Sustainability 5 (1): 56–67. https://doi.org/10
.11113/ijbes.v5.n1.246.
Famiyeh, S., C. T. Amoatey, E. Adaku, and C. S. Agbenohevi. 2017.
“Major causes of construction time and cost overruns: A case of
selected educational sector projects in Ghana.” J. Eng. Des. Technol.
15 (2): 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-11-2015-0075.
Fang, D., Y. Chen, and L. Wong. 2006. “Safety climate in construction in-
dustry: A case study in Hong Kong.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (6):
573–584. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:6(573).
Fayek, A. R., M. Dissanayake, and O. Campero. 2004. “Developing a stan-
dard methodology for measuring and classifying construction field
rework.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 31 (6): 1077–1089.
Gibb, A., S. Hide, R. Haslam, D. Gyi, T. Pavitt, S. Atkinson, and R. Duff.
2005. “Construction tools and equipment–—Their influence on acci-
dent causality.” J. Eng. Des. Technol. 3 (1): 12–23. https://doi.org/10
.1108/17260530510815303.
Gibson, Jr., G. E., and D. A. Whittington. 2010. “Charrettes as a method
for engaging industry in best practices research.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 136 (1): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000079.
Golizadeh, H., C. K. H. Hon, R. Drogemuller, and M. Reza Hosseini. 2018.
“Digital engineering potential in addressing causes of construction ac-
cidents.” Autom. Constr. 95 (Sep): 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.autcon.2018.08.013.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Han, S., F. Saba, S. Lee, Y. Mohamed, and F. Peña-Mora. 2014. “Toward
an understanding of the impact of production pressure on safety per-
formance in construction operations.” Accid. Anal. Prev. 68 (Jul):
106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.10.007.
Hanna, A. S., R. Camlic, P. A. Peterson, and M.-J. Lee. 2004. “Cumulative
effect of project changes for electrical and mechanical construction.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130 (6): 762–771. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:6(762).
Hon, C. K. H., A. P. C. Chan, and F. K. W. Wong. 2010. “An analysis for
the causes of accidents of repair, maintenance, alteration and addition
© ASCE 04020106-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106
works in Hong Kong.” Saf. Sci. 48 (7): 894–901. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ssci.2010.03.013.
Hwang, B.-G., S. Thomas, C. Haas, and C. Caldas. 2009. “Measuring the
impact of rework on construction cost performance.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 135 (3): 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2009)135:3(187).
Hwang, B.-G., and S. Yang. 2014. “Rework and schedule performance:
A profile of incidence, impact, causes and solutions.” Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manage. 21 (2): 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10
-2012-0101.
Irumba, R. 2014. “Spatial analysis of construction accidents in Kampala,
Uganda.” Saf. Sci. 64 (Apr): 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci
.2013.11.024.
Josephson, P.-E., B. Larsson, and H. Li. 2002. “Illustrative benchmarking
rework and rework costs in Swedish construction industry.” J. Manage.
Eng. 18 (2): 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)
18:2(76).
Kakitahi, J. M., H. M. Alinaitwe, A. Landin, and S. J. Mone. 2016. “Impact
of construction-related rework on selected Ugandan public projects.”
J. Eng. Des. Technol. 14 (2): 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT
-02-2014-0006.
Kartam, N. A., I. Flood, and P. Koushki. 2000. “Construction safety in
Kuwait: Issues, procedures, problems, and recommendations.” Saf. Sci.
36 (3): 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00041-2.
Kath, L. M., K. M. Marks, and J. Ranney. 2010. “Safety climate dimensions,
leader-member exchange, and organizational support as predictors of
upward safety communication in a sample of rail industry workers.”
Saf. Sci. 48 (5): 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.01.016.
Kim, S.-Y., and V. T. Nguyen. 2018. “A structural model for the impact
of supply chain relationship traits on project performance in construc-
tion.” Prod. Plann. Control 29 (2): 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09537287.2017.1398846.
Lee, J., and M. Lim. 2017. “Analysis on the degree of risk according to the
causes of accidents in construction projects in Korea.” Int. J. Appl. Eng.
Res. 12 (11): 2821–2831.
Lessing, B., D. Thurnell, and S. Durdyev. 2017. “Main factors causing
delays in large construction projects: Evidence from New Zealand.”
J. Manage. Econ. Ind. Organ. 1 (2): 63–82. https://doi.org/10.31039
/jomeino.2017.1.2.5.
Li, Y., Y. Ning, and W. T. Chen. 2018. “Critical success factors for safety
management of high-rise building construction projects in China.” Adv.
Civ. Eng. 2018: 1516354.
Ling, F. Y. Y., and W. W. Khoo. 2016. “Improving relationships in proj-
ect teams in Malaysia.” Built Environ. Project Asset Manage. 6 (3):
284–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-04-2015-0014.
Lopez, R., P. E. D. Love, D. J. Edwards, and P. R. Davis. 2010. “Design
error classification, causation, and prevention in construction engineer-
ing.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 24 (4): 399–408. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000116.
Loushine, T. W., P. L. T. Hoonakker, P. Carayon, and M. J. Smith.
2006. “Quality and safety management in construction.” Total Qual.
Manage. Bus. Excellence 17 (9): 1171–1212. https://doi.org/10.1080
/14783360600750469.
Love, P. E. D., F. Ackermann, B. Carey, J. Morrison, M. Ward, and A. Park.
2016a. “Praxis of rework mitigation in construction.” J. Manage.
Eng. 32 (5): 05016010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000442.
Love, P. E. D., and D. J. Edwards. 2004. “Forensic project manage-
ment: The underlying causes of rework in construction projects.”
Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 21 (3): 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10286600412331295955.
Love, P. E. D., D. J. Edwards, Z. Irani, and N. Forcada. 2014. “The latent
causes of rework in floating production storage and offloading proj-
ects.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 20 (3): 315–329. https://doi.org/10.3846
/13923730.2013.802725.
Love, P. E. D., D. J. Edwards, and J. Smith. 2016b. “Rework causation:
Emergent theoretical insights and implications for research.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 142 (6): 04016010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001114.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Love, P. E. D., D. J. Edwards, J. Smith, and D. H. T. Walker. 2009.
“Divergence or congruence? A path model of rework for building
and civil engineering projects.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 23 (6):
480–488. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000054.
Love, P. E. D., Z. Irani, and D. J. Edwards. 2004. “A rework reduction
model for construction projects.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 51 (4):
426–440. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2004.835092.
Love, P. E. D., and H. Li. 2000. “Quantifying the causes and costs of re-
work in construction.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 18 (4): 479–490. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01446190050024897.
Love, P. E. D., H. Li, P. E. D. Love, and H. Li. 2000. “Quantifying the
causes and costs of rework in construction.” Constr. Manage. Econ.
18 (4): 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190050024897.
Love, P. E. D., and C.-P. Sing. 2013. “Determining the probability distri-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bution of rework costs in construction and engineering projects.” Struct.
Infrastruct. Eng. 9 (11): 1136–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479
.2012.667420.
Love, P. E. D., and J. Smith. 2018. “Unpacking the ambiguity of rework in
construction: Making sense of the literature.” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst.
35 (1–4): 180–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2019.1577396.
Love, P. E. D., J. Smith, F. Ackermann, Z. Irani, and P. Teo. 2018a.
“The costs of rework: Insights from construction and opportunities
for learning.” Prod. Plann. 29 (13): 1082–1095. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09537287.2018.1513177.
Love, P. E. D., P. Teo, F. Ackermann, J. Smith, J. Alexander, E.
Palaneeswaran, and J. Morrison. 2018b. “Reduce rework, improve
safety: An empirical inquiry into the precursors to error in construc-
tion.” Prod. Plann. Control 29 (5): 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09537287.2018.1424961.
Love, P. E. D., P. Teo, B. Carey, C. Sing, and F. Ackermann. 2015. “The
symbiotic nature of safety and quality in construction: Incidents and
rework non-conformances.” Saf. Sci. 79 (Nov): 55–62. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.05.009.
Love, P. E. D., P. Teo, and J. Morrison. 2018c. “Revisiting quality failure
costs in construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (2): 05017020.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001427.
Love, P. E. D., P. Teo, J. Morrison, and M. Grove. 2016c. “Quality and
safety in construction: Creating a no-harm environment.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 142 (Feb): 05016006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0001133.
Menches, C. L., and J. Chen. 2013. “Using ecological momentary assess-
ment to understand a construction worker’s daily disruptions and deci-
sions.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 31 (2): 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01446193.2012.717707.
Mitropoulos, P., T. S. Abdelhamid, and G. A. Howell. 2005. “Systems
model of construction accident causation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
131 (7): 816–825. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)
131:7(816).
Mitropoulos, P., G. Cupido, and M. Namboodiri. 2009. “Cognitive approach
to construction safety: Task demand-capability model.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 135 (9): 881–889. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000060.
Mitropoulos, P. T., and G. Cupido. 2009. “The role of production and team-
work practices in construction safety: A cognitive model and an empir-
ical case study.” J. Saf. Res. 40 (4): 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jsr.2009.05.002.
Mohammadi, A., M. Tavakolan, and Y. Khosravi. 2018. “Factors influenc-
ing safety performance on construction projects: A review.” Saf. Sci.
109 (Nov): 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.017.
Mullen, J., E. K. Kelloway, and M. Teed. 2017. “Employer safety obliga-
tions, transformational leadership and their interactive effects on em-
ployee safety performance.” Saf. Sci. 91 (Jan): 405–412.
Oyewobi, L. O., O. Abiola-Falemu, and O. T. Ibironke. 2016. “The impact
of rework and organisational culture on project delivery.” J. Eng. Des.
Technol. 14 (2): 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-05-2013-0038.
Palaneeswaran, E., P. E. D. Love, M. M. Kumaraswamy, and T. S. T.
Ng. 2008. “Mapping rework causes and effects using artificial neural
networks.” Build. Res. Inf. 36 (5): 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09613210802128269.
© ASCE 04020106-13
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106
Palaneeswaran, E., P. E. D. Love, M. M. Kumaraswamy, and T. S. T. Ng.
2014. “Causal ascription of rework in building and civil engineering
projects: A multivariate exploration.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage.
21 (1): 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2010-0029.
Patel, D. A., and K. N. Jha. 2015. “Neural network approach for safety
climate prediction.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (6): 05014027. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000348.
Pereira, E., S. Ahn, S. Han, and S. Abourizk. 2018. “Identification and as-
sociation of high-priority safety management system factors and acci-
dent precursors for proactive safety assessment and control.” J. Manage.
Eng. 34 (1): 04017041. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000562.
Pereira, E., S. Ahn, S. Han, and S. Abourizk. 2020. “Finding causal paths
between safety management system factors and accident precursors.”
J. Manage. Eng. 36 (2): 04019049. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000738.
Perlman, A., R. Sacks, and R. Barak. 2014. “Hazard recognition and risk
perception in construction.” Saf. Sci. 64 (Apr): 22–31. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.019.
Priyadarshani, K., G. Karunasena, and S. Jayasuriya. 2013. “Construction
safety assessment framework for developing countries: A case study of
Sri Lanka.” J. Constr. Dev. Countries 18 (1): 33–51.
Rounce, G. 1998. “Quality, waste and cost considerations in architectural
building design management.” Int. J. Project Manage. 16 (2): 123–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(97)00042-2.
Safapour, E., and S. Kermanshachi. 2019. “Identifying early indicators of
manageable rework causes and selecting mitigating best practices for
construction.” J. Manage. Eng. 35 (2): 04018060. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000669.
Srour, F. J., I. Srour, and M. G. Lattouf. 2017. “A survey of absenteeism on
construction sites.” Int. J. Manpower 38 (4): 533–547. https://doi.org/10
.1108/IJM-08-2015-0135.
Swaen, G. M. H., L. G. P. M. Van Amelsvoort, U. Bültmann, and I. J. Kant.
2003. “Fatigue as a risk factor for being injured in an occupational ac-
cident: Results from the Maastricht Cohort Study.” Supplement, Occup.
Environ. Med. 60 (S1): 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1
.i88.
Tam, C. M., S. X. Zeng, and Z. M. Deng. 2004. “Identifying elements
of poor construction safety management in China.” Saf. Sci. 42 (7):
569–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2003.09.001.
Wanberg, J., C. Harper, M. R. Hallowell, and S. Rajendran. 2013.
“Relationship between construction safety and quality performance.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (10): 04013003. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000732.
Winge, S., and E. Albrechtsen. 2018. “Accident types and barrier failures in
the construction industry.” Saf. Sci. 105 (Feb): 158–166. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.006.
Wong, F. K. W., A. P. C. Chan, M. C. H. Yam, E. Y. S. Wong, K. T. C. Tse,
K. K. C. Yip, and E. Cheung. 2009. “Findings from a research study of
construction safety in Hong Kong: Accidents related to fall of person
from height.” J. Eng. Des. Technol. 7 (2): 130–142. https://doi.org/10
.1108/17260530910974952.
Yanar, B., M. Lay, and P. M. Smith. 2019. “The interplay between super-
visor safety support and occupational health and safety vulnerability on
work injury.” Saf. Health Work 10 (2): 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.shaw.2018.11.001.
Yap, J. B. H., I. N. Chow, and K. Shavarebi. 2019a. “Criticality of construc-
tion industry problems in developing countries: Analyzing Malaysian
projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 35 (5): 04019020. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000709.
Yap, J. B. H., and W. K. Lee. 2019. “Analysing the underlying factors
affecting safety performance in building construction.” Prod. Plann.
Control (Nov): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1695292.
Yap, J. B. H., P. L. Low, and C. Wang. 2017. “Rework in Malaysian build-
ing construction: Impacts, causes and potential solutions.” J. Eng. Des.
Technol. 15 (5): 591–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-01-2017-0002.
Yap, J. B. H., M. Skitmore, J. Gray, and K. Shavarebi. 2019b. “Systemic
view to understanding design change causation and exploitation of
communications and knowledge.” Project Manage. J. 50 (3): 288–305.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819829641.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Ye, G., Z. Jin, B. Xia, and M. Skitmore. 2015. “Analyzing causes for
reworks in construction projects in China.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (6):
04014097. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000347.
Zhang, J., W. Zhang, P. Xu, and N. Chen. 2019. “Applicability of
accident analysis methods to Chinese construction accidents.”
J. Saf. Res. 68 (Feb): 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2018.11
.006.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University Chennai on 09/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zhang, M., L. A. Murphy, D. Fang, and A. J. Caban-Martinez. 2015.
“Influence of fatigue on construction workers’ physical and cognitive
function.” Occup. Med. 65 (3): 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1093
/occmed/kqu215.
Zhao, T., S. E. Kazemi, W. Liu, and M. Zhang. 2018. “The last mile: Safety
management implementation in construction sites.” Adv. Civ. Eng.
2018: 4901707. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4901707.

© ASCE 04020106-14 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(9): 04020106