achieving change using the supply chain model in construction - … · 2019-12-05 ·...

Health and Safety Executive

Achieving change using the supply chain model in construction

Prepared by the Institute for Employment Studies for the Health and Safety Executive 2011

RR843 Research Report



Sally Wilson BSc, PhD Claire Tyers BSc, MSc Institute for Employment Studies Sovereign House Church Street Brighton BN1 1UJ

Since the 1990s, the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Construction Division has been working in partnership with industry to bring about better risk management within construction. One aspect of this work is the supply chain model, which attempts to take a cohesive approach by drawing together stakeholders from across the construction industry to develop solutions together. To date, seven different strands of work, each targeting a different process or health risk, have been initiated or completed. This report presents the findings of a qualitative evaluation that was carried out to address the effectiveness of this approach. It considers:

n the conditions that determine success of this type of initiative and barriers to success; n the relative effectiveness of each work strand in bringing about desired changes in practice; and n the transferability of the supply chain approach and its various sub-processes to other risk areas.

The report also documents the processes and activities involved in the various work strands, their outputs and corresponding timeframes.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE Books

© Crown copyright 2011

First published 2011

You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to [email protected].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the support received from the Health Risks Management Unit within HSE’s Construction Sector for this project involving a range of HSE staff over the period of the evaluation. Those offering support have included: Nick Patience, Ian Strudley, Sue Parkyn and Simon Armitage. In addition, we would like to thank the inspectors in the Construction Division and the stakeholders, employers and workers who gave up their time to participate in the research. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of other research staff working on the evaluation including: Joy Oakley, Freddie Sumption, Jenny Savage, Harriet Fearn, Maria Sigala, Daniel Pearmain, Rebecca Willison and Siobhán O’Regan. Further thanks are due to James Walker-Hebborn and Richard James, who helped in the production of this report and the administration of the project. Additionally, the input of Jo Regan in conducting interviews was vital.

ii

CONTENTS

Executive Summary v

1 Evaluation Approach 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Description of work strands 2 1.3 Management of work strands 3 1.4 Evaluation aims and objectives 3 1.5 Evaluation phase one 4 1.6 Evaluation phase two 5 1.7 Limitations of the evaluation 6

2 Delivery 8

2.1 Comments on chapter format and content 9 2.2 Manual handling of kerbs 9 2.3 Hand-arm vibration from portable tools 10 2.4 Manual handling of paving 12 2.5 Reducing respirable crystalline silica (RCS) exposure during

kerb, paving and block cutting 12 2.6 Reducing handling of heavy blocks (masonry units) 13 2.7 Preventing musculoskeletal risk in handling panel products/

plasterboard 14 2.8 The use of lifting aids for drainage products 14

3 Success Factors and Barriers to Success in the Supply Chain Process 16

3.1 Management approach 17 3.2 Approach to stakeholder working 18 3.3 Requirements of strand co-ordinators 20 3.4 Providing adequate support 21 3.5 Contextual factors 24 3.6 Composition of stakeholder group 25 3.7 Views on the supply chain approach 27

4 Impact on the Supply Chain 29

4.1 Chapter format and content 30 4.2 Manual handling of kerbs 30 4.3 Hand-arm vibration (HAV) from portable tools 31 4.4 Reducing RCS exposure during kerb, paving and block cutting 33 4.5 Other supply chain areas 34

5 Impact on Site 37

5.1 Comments on chapter format and content 37 5.2 Manual handling of kerbs 38 5.3 Hand-arm vibration (HAV) from portable tools 39 5.4 Reducing RCS exposure during kerb, paving and block cutting 41 5.5 Other supply chain areas 43

iii

6 Conclusions 45

6.1 Defining and measuring success 46 6.2 Approach to project management 46 6.3 Stakeholder engagement 47 6.4 The co-ordinator role 47 6.5 Selection of risk areas 47

7 Principles for Success of Future Supply Chain Work 49

7.1 Select the risk area tackled with care 49 7.2 Formalise the project management process 50 7.3 Equip the project manager with the right tools 51 7.4 Engage stakeholders strategically 51 7.5 Adopt an authentic partnership approach 52 7.6 Secure a range of outputs to reinforce key messages 52

Appendix 1: Details of All Supply Chain Work Strands 53

Appendix 2: Details of Progress and Achievements of Furthest Developed Work Strands 57

Appendix 3: Details of Construction Industry Stakeholders Involved in the Evaluation 61

Appendix 4: Details of Sites Visited and Role of Interviewees 62

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has been working in partnership with the construction industry since the 1990s to bring about improvements in risk management by developing solutions together. One aspect of this is an initiative called the supply chain model, which attempts to take a cohesive approach by drawing together stakeholders from across the construction industry, such as suppliers, contractors, clients (from both the public and private sectors) and designers/architects. In 2009 HSE commissioned the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to undertake a qualitative evaluation of the supply chain initiative and its component work strands. This report presents the evaluation’s findings.

THE SUPPLY CHAIN INITIATIVE

The seven work strands included within the supply chain initiative were:

■ Reducing manual handling of heavy kerbs: this work strand aimed to increase the use of lifting equipment on road building, road repair and hard landscaping sites, and substitute concrete kerbs with kerbs made from lighter materials, produced in smaller units.

■ Hand-arm vibration (HAV): the broad aims of this work strand in the period the evaluation covered centred on establishing an HAV database and HAV management system for industry-wide use.

■ Reducing manual handling of heavy paving: this (ongoing) work aims to reduce the incidence of manual handling of paving materials by moving from a situation where the majority of (heavy) paving materials are laid by hand to one where mechanical laying is the industry norm.

■ Reducing handling of heavy blocks (masonry units): this (ongoing) work aims to identify practicable interventions and lead on their implementation to reduce or eliminate the risk of musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) caused by the repetitive use of heavy masonry units.

■ Reducing handling of panel products (eg plasterboard): this (ongoing) work aims to encourage the use of mechanical lifting aids in the handling of panel products.

■ Reducing respirable crystalline silica (RCS) exposure during kerb, paving and block cutting: this (now complete) work aimed to increase good practice within kerb, paving and block cutting by establishing an agreed control hierarchy and providing clear guidelines specifying when water suppression and respiratory protective equipment must be used.

■ Use of lifting aids for heavy drainage products: this (incomplete) work strand aimed to promote the use of lifting aids in construction, for heavy drainage products (ie gully pots, manhole covers and frames) or heavy lintels.

v

THIS EVALUATION

This evaluation had four aims:

1. Comprehensively document the processes and activities, the corresponding timeframes, and the key people involved in each initiative.

2. Consider the conditions that determine the success of an initiative, and identify the barriers to success.

3. Assess the relative effectiveness of each initiative in bringing about the desired changes in practice in its targeted work area, and the uptake of key messages.

4. Assess the transferability of the supply chain approach, and its various sub-processes to other risk areas within the construction sector.

Data were collected from a range of sources to allow these aims to be met. The main evaluation components were:

■ a review of all management information held by HSE on the activities and progress of the seven work strands, including access to written and web-based resources

■ interviews with ten strand co-ordinators within HSE and six other key HSE staff

■ interviews with 27 stakeholders who had been involved in one of the seven strands

■ a focus group with nine HSE inspectors new to the job who were recently working in industry

■ ten visits to construction sites using processes or materials involving risks targeted by the supply chain initiative, each visit including interviews with managers and workers present on site

■ twenty-five interviews with stakeholders who had no formal involvement in any of the supply chain work strands.

Records of some elements of the work were missing, and the recall of individual project co-ordinators could be limited, particularly when the strand had not been active for some time. Despite this, it was still possible to determine the main actions and progress made by each of the individual strands.

Isolating the impact of the initiative from other influences on health and safety practice was also difficult and largely beyond the scope of this qualitative evaluation. The information provided on the impact of the initiative is therefore best viewed as an overview of advancements made by the industry, due to the work of the supply chain initiative and other factors in the areas involved.

PROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY EACH STRAND

All but one of the seven work strands was led by an operational inspector (the other was managed by a scientist from the Occupational Hygiene Unit). Each involved a range of stakeholders from across the industry, and two of the work strands had developed a web community for stakeholders to share information and engage in debate. All the strands had some form of working group or forum to bring together the different stakeholders face to face, but details of these meetings were often limited, although it was clear that some strands were more successful in achieving regular meetings than others.

vi

The information available for four of the strands was more comprehensive than for the others, reflecting the fact that these appear to have made the most progress. The remainder had encountered a range of difficulties that had led to them stalling. Common problems included the inspectors not being able to find adequate time and support to run the strands effectively, and difficulties maintaining stakeholder engagement or achieving consensus amongst stakeholders.

Examples of outcomes of the four most developed strands include:

■ the publication of guidance and information documentation for use by the industry (eg on handling paving flags and pre-cast concrete)

■ production of a database of information (eg vibration data from manufacturers of vibrating machinery)

■ preparation of packs for use by HSE inspectors

■ development of training packages (eg HAV-themed training packages for operators, supervisors and counter staff, and toolbox talks on RCS in concrete and stone dust)

■ production of leaflets and/or DVDs to demonstrate good practice (eg ‘Time to Clear the Air: Paving the way for healthier work’ campaign).

SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO SUCCESS

Factors related to successful initiatives included:

■ having good project management procedures in place, and having clear goals against which progress could be measured – this also helped to keep stakeholders engaged

■ getting the right stakeholders together to represent as many aspects of the supply chain in question as possible

■ the co-ordinator working in partnership with all stakeholders (rather than as an enforcer), being seen as independent, taking on board a variety of views and enabling the group to reach agreement on the way forward

■ strand co-ordinators having sufficient, and appropriate, resources to allow them to manage the work effectively

■ equipping strand co-ordinators with the skills they need to do the job (eg good communication and project management skills, and sufficient industry knowledge to be credible to stakeholders)

■ ensuring that where the strand co-ordinator changes midway through the operation of a strand that an adequate handover between the incoming and outgoing manager takes place.

CHANGES TO WORK PRACTICE

Isolating the direct impact of HSE’s work from other influences was not possible in most cases, however, stakeholders and workers/managers on the sites visited were able to highlight how practice in the industry had changed in areas where the supply chain work had been active. Awareness of HSE campaigns on the handling of kerbs, reducing HAV risks, and RCS in concrete and stone dust, however, was high.

vii

Kerb handling practices were felt to have improved significantly during the last five years. So too had knowledge of HAV risks and related work practices as well as risks and control measures related to silica. Manual handling procedures were also felt to have improved. There was some concern, however, that smaller contractors may be some way behind in terms of making changes. There was little evidence that architects are on board with the designing out risks agenda, although most designers did appear to now view this as part of their role.

Some examples of specific improvements mentioned by stakeholders include:

■ more widespread use of mechanical lifting equipment

■ substitution of concrete kerbs with plastic kerb products

■ better access to information on vibration levels and more attention given to these in the selection of equipment

■ use of cutting equipment fitted with water suppression and dust extractors to reduce RCS exposure

■ use of smaller, pre-cast blocks with lifting handles, and inclusion of lighter materials and smaller elements by designers.

Observations on site suggested that awareness of the risks of RCS exposure, manual handling and HAV was widespread amongst both workers and management, with safe practices not only encouraged but also enforced. However, the sites visited by the evaluation team tended to be larger, well-run sites which may not be indicative of wider practice.

TRANSFERABILITY OF THE APPROACH

In determining whether the supply chain approach should be used in other industries or in relation to other risks, there are a number of considerations. Amongst both stakeholders and HSE staff, however, there was a general consensus that, in principle, there was no reason why it could not have wider applications.

Factors to consider are:

■ It is likely to be a lengthy and complex process to achieve change, as this is the nature of working through a supply chain. The situation should therefore be amenable to an extensive period of work with the stakeholders.

■ The added value of the approach appears to be greater in relation to health issues rather than safety. This is because it allows complex problems to be tackled that inspectors could find difficult to deal with during routine inspection.

■ The use of targeted enforcement to back up the work of the stakeholder groups was seen to be beneficial, so it is worth considering whether the industry or risk area makes it possible to link in with inspections in this way.

■ Well-networked industries where stakeholders have real influence on each other and have frequent interactions with one another are likely to be most amenable to the supply chain approach.

■ Physical meetings between stakeholders are necessary to give the strand a feeling of cohesiveness; the supply chain work is therefore most likely to be successful where a significant proportion of the supply chain is present within the UK. Similarly, it is likely to work best when most stakeholders are influenced by HSE (ie are not based in another country and subject to different legislation).

viii

CONCLUSIONS

For supply chain work to be successful it needs to be adequately resourced and well managed. Strand co-ordinators need to be given sufficient allocation of work time, and supported by their manager and other HSE technical and administrative staff (as required) to ensure their commitment to the project. In addition, some training in how best to engage stakeholders and in project management skills should be considered for HSE staff taking on a co-ordinating role.

In order to monitor and demonstrate progress, supply chain work (like most interventions) needs to have clear objectives that are measurable and achievable. In addition, strand co-ordinators need to be able (and encouraged) to take a flexible and pragmatic approach to goal setting. It may be necessary to up- or down-scale the reach of the work depending on how things work in practice. What is important is that the reasons for changes to the original objectives are recorded and shared so that learning can be maximised.

Better general recording, preferably to some form of relatively standardised format, would allow a better assessment of the progress and achievements of individual strands and the supply chain work as a whole.

The make-up of the stakeholder group for each strand needs to be given careful consideration. A great deal has been learnt about what makes an effective group and a balance needs to be achieved between full representation of the supply chain and the inclusion of influential members of it. Communication with any group should be seen as professional, focused and fair in order to encourage active participation by its members.

The supply chain approach, in principle, could be applied to a wide range of risks and work if implemented in different industries. However, there are a number of factors that appear to facilitate the most progress. A well-networked industry, for example, where stakeholders are able to exert influence directly on each other and which allows for physical meetings to take place, would seem to be an important component of the initiative’s success within construction. Also important is the ability for intervention to take place in the design or planning stage of work, so that risks can be factored out as far as possible before workers can be exposed to harm. It remains to be seen whether without these factors the approach could still be successful.

ix

1 EVALUATION APPROACH

Chapter Summary

Since the 1990s, the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Construction Division has been working in partnership with industry to bring about better risk management within construction. This report is an evaluation of some of that work, known as the supply chain model. Seven different strands of work have been considered, each targeting a different process or health risk.

The evaluation was asked to document the activities of the seven strands of work and consider the factors affecting their success, as well as determine the effectiveness of each initiative in achieving changes to work practices and the uptake of key messages. The transferability of the approach to other areas was also considered.

The main methods used in the evaluation were:

■ consultation with HSE staff, particularly those responsible for taking forward the different strands

■ discussions with stakeholders from across the industry, some of whom had been involved in the supply chain work

■ visits to ongoing work sites using processes or equipment targeted by one of the strands, during which interviews with workers and managers were conducted.

In 2009 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) commissioned the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to undertake a qualitative evaluation of the supply chain initiative and its component work strands. The process was devised and developed by the Construction Sector Occupational Health Unit within HSE, which manages the initiative. The initiative aims to work with key industry stakeholders to find practical ways to reduce specific occupational health risks, to publicise these solutions and to ensure they are implemented by the industry.

The evaluation was based on a specification provided by HSE and examines each of the work strands that have followed this model. It aims to identify which elements of the initiative worked best in particular circumstances, and what the barriers to success have been, thereby allowing an assessment of the potential transferability of this approach to other areas of HSE work. The findings presented in this report apply to elements of the initiative that were carried out in the period 2006–2009, although it should be noted that some work strands continued to be delivered throughout the evaluation process and reporting period.

1.1 BACKGROUND

In the 1990s, HSE’s Construction Division began a programme of work that sought to bring about improvements in risk management within construction by developing solutions in partnership with all relevant elements of the industry supply chain. Early work with industry stakeholders was instrumental in achieving the elimination of 50kg bags from construction sites and the reduction in specification and use of heavy blocks.

1

The various strands of work under review aimed to build upon these earlier successes. The first theme to be strategically addressed using the supply chain approach was ‘manual handling of kerbs’. Each subsequent work strand drew on the ‘kerbs’ model to a varying extent, depending on the personal approach of individual co-ordinators and the nature of the risk area. The intervention aimed to take a cohesive approach to risk management by engaging stakeholders throughout the industry supply chain. This requires the development of close partnerships with suppliers, public and private sector clients, designers, contractors and the construction workforce to agree reasonably practicable solutions. HSE has also been working in partnership with local authorities and other government departments in their roles as enforcers and as construction clients. The intention is that the process of consultation maximises the potential to develop effective methods of risk control in the construction sector. This in turn facilitates compliance and reinforces key messages about risk management.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF WORK STRANDS

The body of work under review in this report comprises seven separate strands of work, all focusing on processes that contribute to days lost from ill-health in construction. Each work strand has a different remit, and can be viewed as a self-contained project, with its own project manager and (differing levels of) resource allocation. The work strands are all at different stages of progress; some have yet to engage a full set of stakeholders while others are at or near completion. These are listed below, approximately in the order of initiation, together with their aims (where stated) as set out by HSE’s Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC) in 2008.1

1. Reducing manual handling of heavy kerbs: this work strand aimed to increase use of lifting equipment on road building, road repair and hard landscaping sites, and to substitute concrete kerbs with kerbs made from lighter materials, produced in smaller units.

2. Hand-arm vibration (HAV): the broad aims of this work strand in the period the evaluation covered centred on establishing an HAV database and HAV management system for industry-wide use.

3. Reducing manual handling of heavy paving: this (ongoing) work aims to reduce the incidence of manual handling of paving materials by moving from a situation where the majority of (heavy) paving materials are laid by hand to one where mechanical laying is the industry norm.

4. Reducing handling of heavy blocks (masonry units): this (ongoing) work aims to identify practicable interventions and lead on their implementation to reduce or eliminate the risk of musculoskeletal injury caused by the repetitive use of heavy masonry units.

5. Reducing handling of panel products (eg plasterboard): this (ongoing) work aims to encourage the use of mechanical lifting aids in the handling of panel products.

6. Reducing respirable crystalline silica (RCS) exposure during kerb, paving and block cutting: this (now complete) work aimed to increase good practice within kerb, paving and block cutting by establishing an agreed control hierarchy including providing clear

www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/coniac/271108/m3-2008-6.pdf

2

1

guidelines specifying when water suppression and respiratory protective equipment must be used. Cutting stone or concrete building products such as kerb, paving and blocks can produce dust containing RCS. Breathing in RCS can lead to lung cancer, silicosis and other respiratory diseases.

7. Use of lifting aids for heavy drainage products: this (incomplete) work strand aimed to promote the use of lifting aids in construction, for heavy drainage products (ie gully pots, manhole covers and frames) or heavy lintels.

1.3 MANAGEMENT OF WORK STRANDS

During the period covered by this evaluation each work strand was run by one or more co-ordinators. These included sector staff, operational inspectors, staff from the Occupational Hygiene Unit working for the Disease Reduction Programme, and policy staff from the Manual Handling Programme. In the main, these roles were originally allocated to operational inspectors (to co-ordinate on a national basis from within various HSE regional offices across the UK). In some of these cases the inspector concerned took sole responsibility for co-ordinating a work strand over a prolonged period; in others, responsibility was shared or passed on from inspector to inspector in quick succession.

Several strands have been characterised by a ‘stop-start’ progression due to being managed by a series of co-ordinators: sometimes responsibility was handed on before an individual inspector was able to make any significant progress with their respective strand of work (this issue will be discussed in more depth in subsequent chapters). Most of these strands are now being co-ordinated centrally, from within the Construction Sector’s Health Risk Management Unit. In contrast, the ‘working with silica’ strand was co-ordinated through the Disease Reduction Programme from the start, where it remained until its completion.

1.4 EVALUATION AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The overarching aim of this evaluation was to capture the success factors and identify the potential barriers to success within each of the initiatives so far. The intention has been to inform work within HSE’s Construction Division as well as allow learning points to be available to a wider audience.

The research aimed to:

1. Comprehensively document the processes and activities, the corresponding timeframes, and the key people involved in each initiative.

2. Consider the conditions that determine the success of an initiative, and identify the barriers to success.

3. Assess the relative effectiveness of each initiative in bringing about the desired changes in practice in its targeted work area, and the uptake of key messages.

4. Assess the transferability of the supply chain approach, and its various sub-processes to other risk areas within the construction sector.

The evaluation considered progress made by the initiative up to and including that made in spring 2009.

3

1.5 EVALUATION PHASE ONE

This phase of the evaluation work focused primarily (but not exclusively) on delivery. The first phase of the work therefore consisted of interviews with the co-ordinators of each individual strand and stakeholders who had been involved. This phase was instrumental in gaining a full understanding of the objectives of each of the work strands, the manner in which they were delivered, and the factors that had contributed to their success or otherwise. Available management data allowed further understanding of the delivery process and the role of key stakeholders.

1.5.1 Interviews with strand co-ordinators and key HSE staff

The first phase of data collection involved in-depth interviews with past and present strand co-ordinators (mainly operational inspectors) and other HSE staff working within the Construction Sector’s Occupational Health Unit. Policy staff involved in the delivery of HSE’s Manual Handling and Disease Reduction Programmes along with the co-ordinator from the Occupational Hygiene Unit were also interviewed, bringing the total number of interviews to 15 (including 12 face-to-face and three telephone interviews).

These were critical in elucidating the competencies and resources required to successfully engage stakeholders and also in gaining an understanding of the technical elements of the respective strands and the challenges specific to each. The interviews were also used to identify what existing background data are available and provide insights into the types of questions that needed to be addressed in the remaining research phases. Interview guides were designed in consultation with HSE.

1.5.2 Analysis of management information

Relevant management information (eg minutes from stakeholder meetings, HSE web-based sources, HSE registered files) was collated and analysed to gain a more comprehensive picture of some of the processes underlying strand delivery. The quality and amount of information for each strand varied considerably depending on (i) the extent of its progress, and (ii) how recently the strand was initiated and completed. Record-keeping tended to have been completed in a more systematic manner for more recent strands. Where possible, co-ordinators who were interviewed forwarded supplementary information to be considered in the evaluation.

1.5.3 Interviews with ‘involved’ stakeholders

Interviews with ‘involved’ stakeholders (ie supply chain representatives who were actively involved in the intervention) were carried out early on in the evaluation. Names and contact details were obtained through available management information and via strand co-ordinators. This information varied in terms of quantity and quality according to the specific work strand they were involved in, and the time that had elapsed since their involvement (NB this could be up to five/six years ago). Therefore the composition of the sample was somewhat limited by the information available to the evaluation and by the individual recall of those involved. Also, only a proportion of those contacted were willing/able to participate in the evaluation, and some had left their previous role and/or were not traceable.

The latter part of this round of interviews focused on the more developed/complex work strands to enable further understanding of their progress, including any specific issues facilitating or inhibiting progress.

4

Twenty-seven interviews were conducted over the telephone with this group. Appendix 3 tabulates the types of stakeholders interviewed in full. Interview guides were designed in consultation with HSE.

1.6 EVALUATION PHASE TWO

This phase of the evaluation focused on establishing the effectiveness of the supply chain initiative. It involved gaining the views of representatives of the construction chain who had not worked directly with HSE on the initiative, and visiting ongoing construction sites to investigate whether there was any change to work practices or management behaviours associated with the supply chain work apparent today.

1.6.1 Focus group with HSE inspectors

Our discussions with HSE established that it was important for this evaluation to include the views of operational inspectors in the sector, given their active role in enforcing the areas of central interest to the supply chain initiative. At HSE’s suggestion, a focus group was assembled with six inspectors who had recently been recruited to the Construction Division, all of whom had a background of working within the construction industry.

This allowed some assessment of perceptions of the effectiveness and impact of the various work strands within the sector as well as reactions to the supply chain approach. As trainee inspectors, with prior health and safety-related roles, this sample represented views of those with a history of being highly engaged within the sector. It is important to note that this part of the evaluation did not enable the evaluation to learn about their experiences of inspectors with an established history of enforcing in these areas. However, the operational inspectors who were interviewed as work strand co-ordinators were, in the main, able to provide this.

1.6.2 Site visits

Visits to construction sites were conducted to investigate the impact of the various work strand initiatives on the ground. Following discussions with HSE it was decided that these visits should be principally aimed at investigating worker awareness and behaviour in relation to kerb laying and kerb cutting. Public highway and sites where hard landscaping activities took place were therefore felt to be the most appropriate targets for investigation. An assumption was made that portable vibrating tools would be in use on these sites and behaviour and awareness of HAV issues was covered during all visits. A decision was made not to explore issues covered by other work stands in depth, although workers were asked about their awareness of these issues where time allowed during the visits that did take place.

The site visits also provided an opportunity to identify key players in the supply chain (not identified during interviews with stakeholders participating in the first phase of the evaluation). The site visits therefore provided a means of accessing parts of the industry which had not been actively involved in the initiative.

The process of site selection took account of a number of factors. Most visits were arranged via contacts provided by HSE. These comprised a mix of representatives from major contractors and local authorities (LAs). Details regarding the nature of sites visited and the roles of those interviewed are included in Appendix Tables A4.1 and A4.2.

The visits involved IES field-workers spending a day on site during which they were able to interview workers during their breaks or before/after their shifts. A typical site visit involved an interview with a site manager and, where possible, any other workers in key roles with

5

responsibilities for health and safety. In addition, up to five other staff were interviewed; the main contact for each site was asked to assemble a sample of workers who broadly reflected the composition of the workforce on that site. These generally included direct employees of the principal contractor, workers working for smaller subcontractors, and self-employed subcontractors. A total of 49 individuals were interviewed across 10 sites.

Plans were put in place to ensure that IES researchers could access an office or somewhere similarly safe and (relatively) quiet to interview workers. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn by researchers as advised by the main contact.

Interviews with the site manager would tend towards 45–60 minutes, whereas employee interviews would tend to be shorter (approximately 30–45 minutes). Incentives in the form of high street vouchers were offered to all workers and managers. To assist exploration of supply chain relationships and impacts at each intervention point, managers at each of the sites were asked to provide details of their client(s), architects, building designers, suppliers of equipment or materials and any other relevant actors involved in the work taking place on their site. These could be followed up later by the research team.

1.6.3 Interviews with ‘uninvolved’ supply chain stakeholders

In order to gauge penetration of the supply chain initiative outside the population directly involved in HSE consultation, professionals and industry representatives from various groups of stakeholders were interviewed, including equipment suppliers, hire outlets, architects and designers.

These were identified principally through contacts who had been instrumental in setting up site visits (see above) and via ‘snowballing’, ie referrals from above. Some personal and professional contacts of IES staff were also contacted in order to include architects in the sample. A total of 25 ‘uninvolved’ stakeholders were interviewed, all via telephone (see Appendix 3 for details).

1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION

A number of limitations applied to this evaluation, many attributable to the time interval between the delivery of some of the work strands and the initiation of the evaluation itself. Some management information had not been retained and several interviewees were unable to recall details such as names of key stakeholders or details underlying various decision-making processes during the time they had been involved in the initiative. Some accounts of strands provided by former/current co-ordinators were significantly fragmented due to responsibility for managing work strands changing hands mid-way through delivery (stalling may also have occurred as a result of changing operational priorities in frontline work). Also, the technical and political content of interviews with HSE staff was high and it was apparent that gaining an understanding of all of the complexities that arose during delivery (particularly the HAV strand) of the work programme went beyond the scope of the evaluation.

Other difficulties were present in relation to sampling and recruitment. Although the evaluation was successful in accessing the view of a large number of stakeholders who had been involved in the intervention, this was inevitably constrained by the difficulty in locating those who had moved on since their involvement. Also, there was inevitably some degree of selection bias: comments made during the recruitment process suggested that stakeholders positively disposed towards the process appeared more willing to contribute their views to the evaluation. There is a risk that this may have prevented identification of all the barriers to

6

working with certain types of stakeholders. Similarly, the ‘uninvolved’ industry stakeholders who participated in phase two of the study were, on the whole, highly engaged with health and safety and possibly not representative of the wider stakeholder community as a whole.

A high degree of selection bias was also evident when arranging site visits. There were many refusals (mostly on the basis of time/work demands) and contractors who were willing to host evaluation staff had the opportunity to select a site and put forward workers for interview. There was also a risk of social desirability bias1 amongst respondents when speaking about their attitudes/behaviours (although this risk is common to most studies involving fieldwork). Random unannounced visits (akin to those carried out by HSE inspectors) would clearly have allowed a less biased view of industry practice, but were not possible for the research team.

Another significant limitation to the findings reported here is the difficulty of isolating impact, ie it is difficult to attribute some positive changes in the industry directly to the supply chain initiative with certainty. This initiative did not operate in isolation from other work (by both HSE and other bodies/employers) to improve health and standards within the construction industry. Therefore, to suggest that all identified changes are as a result of this strand of HSE work could be misleading. The changes identified (and discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report) should therefore be taken as general feedback on the progress of the sector. Some of this change may be attributable to this specific intervention. This issue is discussed further in subsequent chapters.

Social desirability bias occurs when an interviewee provides a response because they believe it is what the interviewer wants to hear, or which paints them in a positive light. It may not therefore represent their true position on a particular issue.

7

1

2 DELIVERY

Chapter Summary

Staff changes and a lack of systematic record-keeping meant that fully documenting the activities of some work strands was difficult. There was therefore some reliance on the recall of strand managers, which could be incomplete, particularly for some of the older streams. Information tended to be richer if there had been an HSE web community and a single manager of the strand (rather than responsibility having transferred across numerous managers).

The seven strands considered were:

1. Manual handling of kerbs: the aim was to reduce the need for the manual handling of heavy kerbs by focusing on increased use of lifting equipment and the production of smaller units. This was considered an effective application of the supply chain approach.

2. Hand-arm vibration from portable tools: this strand attempted to develop an HAV measurement system for industry-wide use. A series of working group meetings were held.

3. Manual handing of paving: this aimed to reduce the incidence of manual handling of heavy paving materials through increased use of mechanical equipment. Little progress was made.

4. Reducing RCS exposure during kerb, paving and block cutting: this was felt to be a successful strand that used a more formalised project management approach. It aimed to increase good practice in kerb, paving and block cutting, including establishing guidelines for use of water suppression and respiratory equipment.

5. Reducing handling of heavy blocks: this strand has a long history and it has focused on improving guidance and good practice documentation, using a web community and regular meetings of stakeholders.

6. Preventing musculoskeletal risk in handling panel products/plasterboard: the aim was to encourage use of mechanical lifting aids. Only limited progress was made.

7. Use of lifting aids for drainage products: limited progress was made on this work, which aimed to improve use of lifting aids in the use of gully pots, manhole covers/frames and heavy lintels.

This chapter specifically addresses objective (1) of the evaluation, in that it aims to document the processes and activities involved in the supply chain initiative, and the outputs it delivered, over the timeframe covered by the evaluation.

8

2.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER FORMAT AND CONTENT

This chapter summarises delivery over the course of each work strand as comprehensively as possible, based on the information available to the evaluation. This information has been derived from the accounts of HSE personnel involved and the available management information. For some older work strands there was limited or no documentation available to allow its progress to be tracked.

In order to aid comparison of the various strands, detailed data regarding objectives, inputs, milestones and outputs is summarised in Appendix 1. More in-depth information in relation to the three work strands that were judged to have progressed furthest is presented in Appendix 2. Contextual aspects of delivery such as management history and progress are discussed in more depth in the text under the various strand headings in this chapter.

The amount of information available for each strand, and the nature of this information, varied significantly and this is reflected in the depth of information presented in this report on each. The quality and quantity of data available for some strands was also limited by:

■ the presence of a related HSE web community: where these existed, they could provide a rich source of information about the progress of a particular strand or risk area

■ the transfer of management responsibilities across several co-ordinators: those interviewed as current or previous co-ordinators were generally able to provide better quality information when they had seen a piece of work through from start to finish

■ the recall of the stream co-ordinators, which for those who completed the work a number of years ago was understandably more limited than those running more recent strands.

Due to these limitations, it should be noted that a long list of outputs is not necessarily synonymous of more effective delivery or more substantive outcomes for a particular strand.

The information presented here is not intended to reflect the respective work volume generated by each strand, nor to provide any judgement on the degree of effort and expertise expended on achieving its aims. It merely sets out what is known about the progress of each strand.

2.2 MANUAL HANDLING OF KERBS

Among HSE personnel working within the Construction Sector, there was a view that this strand of work provided an example of an effective application of the supply chain approach and a basis for extending the approach to other work areas. As the first work strand of the intervention, the details of various processes involved were less accessible (both in terms of interviewer recall and supporting documentation) than those of more recent strands.

2.2.1 Management history and approach

From the perspective of inspectors, the use of kerbs in construction work is an area where regulation is difficult: in the past the laying of kerbs was always done manually and kerb layers tend to do a lot of small roadside repair jobs away from large building sites. The supply chain approach was seen as an opportunity to remove or reduce the risks of manual handling at source. The strand explored a variety of options for reducing the need for manual handling of heavy kerbs and principally focusing on increased use of lifting equipment and production and use of smaller units. Options for substituting concrete kerbs with kerbs made from lighter materials were also explored.

9

Responsibility for co-ordinating this strand initially rested with an inspector who engaged a range of stakeholders and organised an initial stakeholder forum, followed by a second, more inclusive forum and a series of working group meetings. Following promotion of that individual, responsibility for taking the strand forward was temporarily shifted to other inspectors, before finally being handed over to be managed with the Construction Sector’s Occupational Health Unit.

2.2.2 Summary of progress

There was no formal project plan for this initiative at the outset, and it was described as having ‘evolved’. The work built on existing good relationships between HSE and relevant industry stakeholders, so many key players were already ‘on board’ from the outset.

‘There wasn’t really a plan as such because it was ahead of the supply chain initiative and it was just the next incremental step. In the end we did then develop it into a project with the inevitable conclusion that we produce some guidance and try and make a step change within the industry.’

(Co-ordinator, HSE)

The work was progressed through the so-called ‘Kerbs Forum’, which was reported to have over 80 members, including kerb manufacturers, contractors and local authorities. In December 2003 the Kerbs Forum agreed transitional timeframes during which the change from manual to mechanically assisted kerb handling would take place (after which HSE would step up its enforcement stance on this issue). HSE’s Local Authority Unit (LAU) was instrumental in engaging local authorities through intermediaries from the Local Government Association. A number of face-to-face meetings were held with individual LA representatives in order to allay concerns about HSE’s new enforcement stance.

This strand is viewed as having made a significant impact on work practices, through the new guidance that was produced as well as its engagement with stakeholders to secure commitment to HSE’s enforcement drive on kerbs. HSE have stated an intention within the Occupational Health Unit to review and consolidate the progress of this strand in the coming months. It is anticipated that planned work on the ‘manual handling of paving’ strand will provide an opportunity to reinforce the messages of the ‘manual handling of kerbs’ work, given the similarity of the main stakeholders.

2.3 HAND-ARM VIBRATION FROM PORTABLE TOOLS

The main activities of this strand centred on the objective of developing an HAV measurement system that was acceptable on an industry-wide basis. The stakeholder work that this evaluation applies to took place between November 2005 and November 2007, before the work with the supply chain ‘stalled’.

Only a limited amount of management information was accessible in relation to this particular work strand, and it was not structured in a way that enabled progress to be tracked systematically. The information presented in this report, therefore, has largely relied on the basis of interviews with involved HSE staff and, where available, paperwork containing notes of working group meetings and a limited amount of archived information on HSE HAV web resource.

10


Specialists within the Construction Sector had been working with industry stakeholders on HAV issues for a number of years, and this work strand built upon established relationships and a good understanding of the supply chain. This strand of work was initially co-ordinated by operational inspectors, with support from HSE technical specialists. The work strand was handed over to be managed by staff within the Construction Sector’s Occupational Health Unit in 2008, at which time there was a consensus that the project had ‘stalled’.


The main activities during that period centred on the objective of developing an HAV measurement system that was acceptable on an industry-wide basis. There was concern that duty holders were basing their risk assessments on vibration data that was not seen as credible, both within HSE and externally. In particular, there was concern that the vibration information provided with handheld tools did not accurately reflect the vibration level workers were exposed to when working with them on site.

‘We wanted provision of vibrations measurement that was indicative of use, so [when] manufacturers gave out information on a tool it could be used in a sensible risk assessment … to give an idea of how long you could safely use it for.’

‘The problem is the European/British Standards numbers declaring the vibration of the equipment didn’t tell you what it was like on the site, somebody holding it, cutting concrete, was different from it being suspended on wires, cutting a high density block’.

(Supply chain strand co-ordinator, HSE)

According to available management data a series of working group meetings were held following an initial stakeholder forum in Birmingham in 2005. Paperwork made available to the evaluation indicates that 12 meetings were held, but that activities stopped towards the end of 2007. According to HSE staff involved in this work, negotiations with stakeholders broke down due to various commercial tensions and, while the HAV programme of work continued within the sector, the supply chain work lost momentum. There was also a feeling among some sector staff (in hindsight) that the particular objective addressed by this supply chain strand was not suited to the process.

Despite these issues, commitment was obtained from a number of key stakeholders to a range of actions and measures to address HAV-related issues (see Appendix 2). A range of outputs were documented including production of an initial database comprising vibration data from three manufacturers, preparation of an HAV pack for inspectors, and revision to relevant HSE guidance.

‘In some ways you can say that we didn’t achieve what we wanted to achieve but in other ways we did because now there is an HAV management system … and now there is a database where you can go and check the tools: it’s free to everybody.’


Since being handed over to the Construction Sector’s Occupational Health Unit the HAV supply chain work has been revived and also re-profiled.

11

2.4 MANUAL HANDLING OF PAVING

The strand was primarily concerned with reducing the incidence of manual handling of heavy paving materials through the increased usage of mechanical handling equipment and use of lighter substitutes/form of materials.


The decision to apply a supply chain approach to this work stemmed from the progress that had been made with the kerbs work, which was thought to be amongst a similar stakeholder group. No management information was available in relation to this work strand so the information presented here is drawn from interviews with staff that were involved in its delivery of the work at that time.


No significant progress was made on this strand by the inspectors who initially took responsibility for co-ordinating it, apparently due to competing work commitments and/or staff moving to another post. It was noted that some of the major stakeholders in this area had produced their own guidance based on the kerbs guidance and it would have been relatively simple to have persuaded them to develop this for paving slabs. However, the momentum was felt to have been lost due to the loss of the co-ordinator.

‘The next stage would have been relatively straightforward: we could have written the guidance note for the handling of [paving] slabs within eight months of finishing it because there was almost a template in place.’

(Work strand co-ordinator, HSE)

The work was more recently picked up by an HSE staff member based within HSE’s Policy Group (Health & Work Division) and relaunched. An initial stakeholder forum and subsequent working group meeting have been held.

2.5 REDUCING RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA (RCS) EXPOSURE DURING KERB, PAVING AND BLOCK CUTTING

Within HSE this work strand was generally regarded as a successful example of delivery of the supply chain model. It was comprehensively documented throughout, and rather than reproduce this information, references are provided to (currently live) HSE documents. As with the other strands, more information is provided in Appendices 1 and 2. The work strand ran to 2009 and aimed to increase good practice within kerb, paving and block cutting by establishing an agreed control hierarchy including specifying clear guidelines for use of water suppression and respiratory protective equipment.


The work strand was run within the Occupational Hygiene Unit as part of HSE’s Disease Reduction Programme (DRP). This arrangement enabled the DRP to fulfil some of its aims in relation to reducing occupational exposure to RCS under the banner of the Construction Sector’s supply chain initiative.

In comparison with earlier supply chain work a more formalised project management approach was adopted for this work strand. Comprehensive management information was made

12

available to the evaluation in terms of paperwork (which covered the main planning stages) and via HSE web community that was set up as part of this work. In-depth documentation of the main activities of this strand can be accessed via this resource, so (rather than reproduce this information in full) the following section provides a broad overview.


Specific stages in the planning process could be identified from the management information that was provided to the evaluation (mainly the identification and engagement of influential players within the relevant supply chain). A formal approach that involved stakeholder analysis and stakeholder mapping was undertaken, which was informed by both internal (HSE) and external (industry) consultation. A process of stakeholder engagement then proceeded, through face-to-face meetings with key individuals and PowerPoint presentations. A formal communication plan was also developed. The merits of formalising these processes are discussed in some depth in Chapter 5. An HSE web community was set up to enable consultation and communication with industry stakeholders. The website provides links to documents that set out the project’s objectives in detail and its various terms of reference.1

Alongside a main working group, four subgroups were formed. These included stakeholders with relevant interests and responsibilities in the areas of training, tool and equipment supply, design (ie designing out the risk), and alternative products (ie non-silica, low silica and pre-cut products). A programme of working group meetings and subgroup meetings extended from June 2007 until March 2009.2

This work strand delivered a comprehensive set of outputs, mostly notably the DVD produced for the ‘Time to Clear the Air’ campaign showing a worker demonstrating good practice with accompanying publicity material. New guidance for cutting paving was produced and approval for plastic kerbs was gained from the Highways Authorities Product Approval Scheme (HAPAS). A stakeholder questionnaire was produced and distributed as a means of gauging impact of the initiative; results of this were recently published on the web community pages. Other outputs are summarised in full in Appendix 2. An enforcement initiative addressing this area was launched in February 2009, marking the end of the delivery phase of this strand.

2.6 REDUCING HANDLING OF HEAVY BLOCKS (MASONRY UNITS)

The supply chain approach to this area has a long history within the sector, although a precise timeline cannot be determined since no management information was available for the years prior to 2008. The information presented here in relation to that period is principally drawn from interviews with long-standing staff within HSE’s Construction Sector who were involved with, or who oversaw delivery of, the work at that time. More comprehensive management information was available in relation to the years 2008–2009, mainly via HSE’s relevant web community site.3

1 http://webcommunities.hse.gov.uk/inovem/inovem.ti/kerbcutting.community/view?objectId=61392 2 http://webcommunities.hse.gov.uk/inovem/inovem.ti/kerbcutting.community/view?objectId=61392 3 http://webcommunities.hse.gov.uk/inovem/inovem.ti/heavymasonryunits

13

2.6.1 Management history

The ‘heavy blocks’ programme of work was originally co-ordinated by an inspector, who moved to another area of enforcement before reaching the stage of organising a stakeholder event. The overall aim of this work strand was to identify safer ways of working with block materials. One specific deliverable was to produce a new construction information sheet on masonry blocks: pre-existing guidance was regarded as ‘unworkable’ by the industry, as it depended on two-person handling of blocks that weigh more than 20kg, which workers did not adhere to.

The work has since been re-profiled and is currently managed within the Construction Sector by a new co-ordinator. It now centres on ‘masonry units’ and it is felt that this new focus better reflects the range of products that require manual handling on construction sites. There has also been recognition that the role of designers and smaller contractors need to be more explicitly addressed than they were in the work’s early phase.


A launch event was held for this strand in January 2008 and was well attended. A working group was subsequently formed and four meetings are documented to have taken place since then. A web community was set up that has recently been made publicly accessible. This has been used as a means of testing out drafts of new documents, such as the redrafted industry guidance on using heavy masonry units (Construction Information Sheet no. 37) and a good practice guide for designers.

2.7 PREVENTING MUSCULOSKELETAL RISK IN HANDLING PANEL PRODUCTS/PLASTERBOARD

The general aim of this strand was to encourage the use of mechanical lifting aids in the handling of panel products (such as plasterboard).

An operational inspector carried out some early research to identify stakeholders for this strand, such as working with the Federation of Plastering and Dry-walling Contractors (FPDC). Discussions with British Gypsum contributed to the production of a light narrow board that presented less manual handling risks than more unwieldy, existing products. The inspector, however, felt that he needed greater industry contacts and more time outside his existing duties to really take this strand forward. Panel products and plasterboard are very common products and, as a result, the potential scope of this strand is very broad, which is felt to be a potential threat to its possible success. Commercial concerns from some stakeholders were also viewed as a potential threat to this strand. An additional issue is that new risk control measures can, on occasions, present similar handling dangers.

A new inspector has recently picked up this strand and completed the process of identifying stakeholders. A stakeholder forum was held with around 60 attendees in March 2009. The strand is therefore still in the very early stages and it was considered inappropriate to involve its stakeholders in the evaluation as a result.

2.8 THE USE OF LIFTING AIDS FOR DRAINAGE PRODUCTS

This work strand was directed at the use of lifting aids in construction in relation to heavy drainage products (ie gully pots, manhole covers and frames) or heavy lintels.

Limited progress was made on this particular work strand and no formal records were available detailing its activities during the period this evaluation covers. The findings

14

presented here and in Appendix 1 are principally based on interviews with HSE personnel and recent internal HSE communications about the future of this work strand.


A series of inspectors were involved in the co-ordination of this work, some of whom moved on to new responsibilities before any substantial progress could be achieved. The strand stalled for an undocumented period until a member of HSE’s Policy Group, based in the Health & Work Division, took over this project at the beginning of 2009.


One of the strand’s early co-ordinators identified a specific group of stakeholders, the Fabricated Access Covers Trade Association (FACTA), and organised an initial meeting in December 2007. No documentation of the objectives or outcomes of this meeting was available. Subsequently, the project changed its focus from that of initial installation of heavy ironworks (and ensuring such items are designed/constructed to support mechanical handling) to a much broader one concerned with the manual handling of drainage covers. There was also increasing recognition that work on drainage covers has implications for activities extending beyond construction and into utilities support and maintenance.

‘The work started out with a slightly different focus … very much on the weight of covers and frames and their installation. We’ve decided the focus should be more on day-to-day management and subsequent maintenance … we were more concerned about the bloke from the Council, the bloke from the water board coming along and having to lift drainage covers to gain access.’


15

3 SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO SUCCESS IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN PROCESS

Chapter Summary

Through the operation of the various strands, it is possible to identify a range of factors that inhibit or promote the success of a supply chain approach. These include:

■ having a good management plan, including clear, measurable and achievable goals that are reviewed to determine ongoing progress

■ ensuring that the stakeholders are strategically selected to represent the audience for the work strand, but also to include individuals with influence with that audience

■ committing to ongoing stakeholder engagement, which could be difficult to sustain over a long period of time

■ running any stakeholder events/meetings in a professional and focused manner

■ selecting strand co-ordinators with the right mix of communication skills and industry knowledge, and providing them with adequate resources (including technical, administrative support and assistance with communications as necessary) to run the strand well

■ prioritising adequate handovers between strand managers so that learning isn’t lost

■ ensure that HSE clearly outlines, and adapts to, their role as partner, rather than regulator during its interactions with stakeholders.

The overall view of those involved in the supply chain initiative was that it could be a very successful way of achieving change, but that it can be a labour-intensive and complex process. It is also important to implement the supply chain approach where it is appropriate to the risk area being tackled. Some topics were felt to be more suitable for a supply chain approach than others.

This chapter considers the conditions that determine the success of an initiative, and identifies barriers to success. In doing so it addresses objective (2) of the evaluation. It draws principally on interviews with co-ordinators of the various work strands, managers and other key HSE personnel and, to a lesser extent, the views of non-HSE professionals involved in the supply chain work as industry stakeholders.

In the main, this chapter addresses perceived success, since on the whole it is too early to determine whether individual work strands have impacted on final outcome measures (eg incidence of various health conditions amongst construction workers). It is also difficult to determine the level of success these strands have attained in terms of changed working practices (note that ‘impacts’ reported in following chapters are based on a small number of reports, and also improvements may not be attributable to the supply chain intervention). This chapter therefore focuses on subjective perceptions of whether a strand of work had

16

been well run or effective in engaging the stakeholders included in this analysis. Reflections from former strand managers about what could have been done better are also included.

Where barriers are highlighted, these are not necessarily factors that caused a given work strand to fail. The intention of this chapter is to show potential threats to progress, ie learning points for consideration when designing future supply chain work.

Similarly, factors associated with success may not necessarily have been key to success in a particular work strand. Some activities/sources of support were suggested by former co-ordinators of supply chain work as factors that would have helped them progress their work strand, had they been known or made available from the outset.

3.1 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

There were a number of components to the successful co-ordination of a work strand. There were mixed views regarding the degree of formal project management that was necessary, but a general consensus on the activities that proved most effective. These centred on planning, stakeholder engagement, and reviewing progress.

3.1.1 Planning

There was agreement that the objectives for each work strand had to be clear, measurable and achievable. Given the long latencies frequently associated with conditions such as silicosis (as well as lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)), HAV-related disorders and MSDs, it was acknowledged that it was more realistic to look at leading indicators (eg evidence that less manual handling was occurring on sites) than final outcome measures (eg reduction incidence of MSDs in construction workers).

‘We have this concept of developing leading indicators, which is critical for this sort of issue which is long latency disease. We won’t have evidence of accidents or injuries or deaths. We’ve got nothing like that at all.’

(Policy staff, HSE)

There was a view within HSE that, in order to evaluate progress properly, indicators need to be readily observable and cost-effective to determine. It was important to have realistic definitions of success to maintain momentum and engage and retain stakeholder interest in the work. A lack of clear achievable objectives could lead to a loss of focus. The latter was associated with individual campaigns drifting. So, for example, people would come to meetings not having done what they said they would at the previous meeting.

‘A lot of time gets wasted in these circumstances, people get annoyed and support falls away from the initiative.’

(Supply chain stakeholder, manufacturing)

Similar problems could occur if a remit was too narrow. If there was just one objective the success of the whole campaign could be put in jeopardy if negotiation in relation to that particular objective stalled.

Among those who had co-ordinated work strands, it was seen as important for a communications and publicity strategy to be explicitly included in objectives. One risk of an initiative not being backed by communications was that the issue being addressed (and proposed solutions) would not receive attention beyond those attending stakeholder meetings.

17

3.1.2 Reviewing progress

Policy staff saw the exercise of assessing and reviewing progress as essential for determining whether co-ordinators were unable to make progress. Several contributors felt it was better for HSE to ‘cut their losses’ as soon as possible if a supply chain approach did not appear to be addressing a particular issue, and consider alternative ways of moving the issue forward.

‘You have to recognise that actually not all of these things are going to work and if it, you, we fail, well we’ve had a go, but I don’t think we should be afraid to fail and if it didn’t work it didn’t work and you have to try another strategy.’


Formal project planning was felt to have facilitated the review process, enabling progress to be determined against stated milestones and deadlines. In some cases, this would arguably have allowed earlier identification of situations where co-ordinators were struggling to progress their supply chain work. It was, however, often felt that adequate planning and monitoring was difficult for inspectors to achieve, given the need to juggle their responsibilities for managing the supply chain work with their other responsibilities.

3.2 APPROACH TO STAKEHOLDER WORKING

The relationship that was developed between HSE and individual stakeholders was a core element of the supply chain intervention. The quality of these relationships was somewhat dependent on a degree of fostering and nurturing, and also on successfully conveying that HSE was focused and committed to the work. There was also recognition that the level of stakeholder commitment required could be quite high and there was concern that certain stakeholders could have been put off by this.

3.2.1 Stakeholder identification and engagement

Getting the right people around the table was viewed as critical to the success of this approach, as was a rich understanding of the work strand’s target audience. A strategic approach to stakeholder identification was seen as preferable to the more convenient option of recruiting easy-to-reach contacts already known to the project manager. The former approach served to protect against key stakeholders being approached too late as an afterthought, or missed out altogether. It also guarded against the situation of encouraging anyone who was interested to become involved and dealing with an overwhelming response.

Stakeholder analysis and stakeholder mapping allowed systematic assessment of the degree of influence and interest of various elements of the supply chain and was instrumental in planning the stakeholder engagement phase. For example, stakeholders who were thought to be ‘high influence, low interest’ were particularly important to prioritise in the engagement process, while those judged as ‘low influence, high interest’ usually required minimal engagement. In-house expertise within HSE was seen as a valuable resource when identifying stakeholders and when making judgements about their degree of influence in the supply chain.

For some work strands an understanding of the key stakeholders and their views was already in place, due to the job role of the co-ordinator. Where relationships had already been established with key stakeholders, formal planning was viewed as less necessary.

‘We were very fortunate in the fact that you’re pushing against a relatively open door, but we had to jemmy that door open in the first place, and it was the enabling

18

work that we did that did the trick on this one … we identified who our allies were going to be at an earlier stage.’


It was seen as particularly important to concentrate efforts on engaging stakeholders who were a major influence in the industry but with apparently low interest. This could be a major challenge and was described as ‘winning the battle of hearts and minds’. Good engagement skills were viewed as central to securing stakeholder commitment in these circumstances. This required gaining an understanding of an individual’s role, and the kinds of arguments that would encourage them to participate (ie that it was important and might possibly benefit their own agenda in some way).

‘The OGC [Office of Government Commerce] were looking for the public sector to be exemplars in the way they dealt with certain things and it included health and safety. So I was able to use that angle with [a public sector organisation] to build their interest – if they came on board with this they would be demonstrating how they would be exemplars for the OGC process.’


‘I invited one alternative product manufacturer to be on the working group. I thought it was important for them to be there and I think that prompted representatives of [other product manufacturers] to be part of it, basically to protect their corner of the market.’


The necessity of establishing a rapport with the different stakeholders was emphasised, but was regarded as a divergence from the traditional HSE regulatory approach. It was therefore felt to require a communication style that some inspectors (used to relating to employers as dutyholders) were not used to using. Engagement training was viewed as helpful but, at the time of the evaluation, strand managers working outside the Disease Reduction Programme had not had access to this.

3.2.2 Sustaining engagement

In principle, stakeholders had no objection to the time they had committed to attending stakeholder events, particularly when they felt the whole exercise had been worthwhile. It was felt to be important that HSE was clear about the extent of the commitment required from the outset so that stakeholders could plan the supply chain work into their schedule. In practice this varied from strand to strand and was dependent on the nature of involvement (eg attendance at initial stakeholder event or regular committee meetings). A total of 12–15 days’ commitment over the duration of the work programme was cited by one stakeholder working on the ‘reducing RCS exposure’ project, although many had difficulty, retrospectively, estimating their input in terms of days.

Among stakeholders, an ability to chair meetings effectively was viewed as important in retaining the interest of stakeholders. Meetings needed to be focused and make the best use of everyone’s time, especially when, in most cases, attendees had travelled a significant distance to attend. It was also considered important to convey a certain impression of professionalism to stakeholders. If meetings appeared poorly organised this could be off-putting and jeopardise sustained engagement. Drifting off the agenda was viewed very negatively, as were meetings that appeared disorganised and poorly planned. It was seen as very important to use meetings to obtain consensus about the way forward and make real progress (ie to avoid them becoming a place to ‘chew the fat’). The need to agree resolutions and action points prior to the end of every meeting was highlighted as an important goal.

19

‘I think the meetings were well structured, they were targeted. I’ve been to a few things with HSE in the past and they tend to ramble a little bit. This working group is most definitely focused. It had one thing to concentrate on and it dealt with it and it’s seen that through to a conclusion … they’ve taken people’s comments on board.’

(Stakeholder, local authority)

Stakeholders particularly valued fairness of approach, and felt it was important for HSE to treat all contributions with respect. A recurring theme was the importance of HSE seeking to draw on the expertise of all stakeholders and not being seen to push a fixed agenda of their own. Key to the approach was the idea that ‘you don’t tell, you ask’. It was seen as important to gauge whether stakeholders shared the same sense of the problem (ie the risk in question) as HSE, and to identify what they saw as the main issues and whether they were solvable.

‘There was no forcing. It was very much “what are your ideas, let’s talk them through: what do you do, how do you do it, how can we improve on it” … it was very much “you’re the people who know, how can we move it forward?”’

(Stakeholder, major contractor)

In some cases resources had not been made available to cover the expense of providing refreshments for meetings. This was considered an important oversight, and that stakeholders’ commitment needed to be recognised and rewarded with at least a basic level of provision.

3.3 REQUIREMENTS OF STRAND CO-ORDINATORS

As might be expected for any complex, sustained intervention, the skills, knowledge and background of the lead HSE staff had some bearing on its success. In the absence of formal training (in most cases) strand co-ordinators were reliant upon their existing skills base and prior experience.

3.3.1 Knowledge base and background of strand co-ordinators

An in-depth understanding of the area of risk and knowledge of the industry was viewed as essential. Opinions were divided as to whether a history of working within the construction sector was needed. Although technical expertise was widely regarded as important, it was felt that this could be learned and that, in any case, the career path of many professionals within HSE typically involved acquiring knowledge about new areas within a relatively short period of time.

‘You need to have somebody with considerable experience and expertise in the field of construction, with a good working knowledge of how products are actually used. If you are coming at it from an angle whereby you haven’t got that credibility of experience you can be bluffed or you cannot fully understand the arguments.’


Similarly, there were mixed opinions regarding the most suitable professional background for this role. Many inspectors felt they were at an advantage as they already had good networks of contacts and, through their enforcement role, credibility with industrial stakeholders. It was also felt that inspectors already had a good grasp of softer issues such as attitudes and culture within the industry.

‘Persuasion is the key element of what you do on a day-to-day basis. That is the transferable skill straight into something like the supply chain initiative. You’re trying to identify what the issues are, where you want them to be and what the

20

barriers are preventing A from getting to B, persuading people to accept stuff they might not otherwise like to do.’


On the other hand, there was strong evidence from accounts of those involved in the ‘reducing RCS exposure’ project that being an inspector was not a prerequisite for strand management, and providing that appropriate support, training and resources were provided to co-ordinators, this work could be run extremely successfully by HSE staff from a range of backgrounds. It was evident from the accounts of co-ordinators in different roles that those without an enforcement background were more than capable of gaining credibility with industrial stakeholders. It was also acknowledged that staff members in non-operational roles would benefit from being more able to ring-fence the time needed for supply chain work. However, given the right circumstances and support from managers it was felt that inspectors should be able to take on the role.

Senior staff within HSE acknowledged that there was a risk that co-ordinators with an inspector background would fall back on their position as enforcer to persuade stakeholders to get involved in the initiative. There was also a risk that stakeholders would not engage as partners with an inspector who adopted a position of regulator, and that HSE would be perceived as pushing their agenda rather than looking towards stakeholders themselves for solutions. Policy staff felt that it was important to make the process clear to inspectors and support them in gaining the skills to take the desired approach.

3.3.2 Interpersonal skills of strand manager

A range of interpersonal skills were associated with the effective delivery of supply chain work strands. These primarily centred on communication skills believed to facilitate stakeholder engagement. Listening skills were cited by several stakeholders who felt that this was particularly important when stakeholder views differed from HSE’s traditional or preferred approach to a safety issue. This was also felt to be important when a minority, but potentially important, view was in danger of being ‘shouted down’.

An ‘ability to steer and guide the group without imposing their own views too forcefully’ was suggested as key to maintaining the integrity of the consultation process. Opinions were divided as to whether these abilities could be learned or whether they were restricted to certain personality types or a particular kind of professional background (eg an inspector or someone with a policy, scientific or project management background). Being diplomatic and patient were also seen as important, particularly when negotiations were in danger of breaking down or when dealing with ‘difficult’ stakeholders.

‘It takes patience … you have to build relationships with these people.’ (Supply chain strand co-ordinator, HSE)

A degree of persistence was also viewed as necessary given the fact that key stakeholders tended to be senior within their organisation/profession and, hence, hard to pin down. ‘Chasing’ busy individuals was seen as a task that not all individuals within HSE would feel comfortable doing. Good organisational skills were also considered essential, especially if the supply chain work was only one component of the strand manager’s wider role.

3.4 PROVIDING ADEQUATE SUPPORT

Adequate support prior to the launch of each initiative in the form of training/and or briefing was also highly valued. As already stated, the provision of training in engagement skills

21

equipped those who had access to it with the specific capabilities in relation to getting, and keeping, stakeholders on board.

3.4.1 Administrative and management support

The allocation of sufficient resources to the strand, particularly in terms of how many hours a strand co-ordinator could allocate to the role, was regarded as particularly important. A significant amount of sustained effort was required to engage stakeholders, particularly ‘high influence, low interest’ contacts, where face-to-face meetings and preparation (or ‘doing your homework’) were seen as necessary.

The time that co-ordinators were able to commit to the work ranged from one day per fortnight, to taking up the majority of the working week. There appeared to be a clear positive relationship between the resources available for an initiative and the extent to which its desired objectives were met. The job of co-ordinating the work was inevitably typified by periods of high activity, interspersed with slower periods, during which other limited duties could be completed. It was recognised that some ‘stalling’ in the work was inherent in the consultation process. Inspectors who had co-ordinated strands but had not had sufficient time to fully attend to the supply chain work often made only relatively slow progress. This in turn impacted negatively on the momentum of the strand in question and also the consistency of attendance by stakeholders at meetings. It was also difficult to ensure continuity within a strand when stakeholders were replaced by stand-ins or a successor, which was often the case when initiatives ran over several years.

The administrative load was regarded as high for all work strands, given the requirements to:

■ agree dates for events and organise location, agenda and list of attendees

■ chair and minute meetings

■ ensure that various parties carried out agreed actions

■ respond to industry/media enquiries

■ oversee consultation exercises

■ work on development of guidance and other outputs.

It was common for former strand co-ordinators to report not having access to the administrative support they needed and thus having to complete even relatively low-level administrative tasks themselves, which was felt to be very time consuming.

There was a general consensus among former and current strand co-ordinators that it was difficult to maintain the momentum of supply chain work when faced with conflicting priorities. There was also a risk of slippage if strand co-ordinators were pulled in too many directions. Inspectors were conscious to make sure that their other work did not suffer and that they were seen to be ‘pulling their weight’ within their team on core tasks. The need for a supportive line manager was highlighted as an important factor for the strand co-ordinators.

The issue of the geographical distance between an inspector managing the work and central HSE management was seen as a potential barrier to progress. There was also a feeling that it was hard to secure involvement of national representatives when not based in an accessible region of the UK.

22

‘The reality is that what you get is an inspector working in the geographical area, trying to have a national impact and that’s actually quite a challenge particularly if the key players aren’t in your region.’


3.4.2 Other specialist support

In order to be most effective it was felt that the supply chain work needed to be complemented, as far as possible, by other HSE capabilities such as communications and technical support. This required co-ordination and planning so that the co-ordinator had other HSE services at their disposal. The importance of using enforcement work to reinforce the supply chain initiatives was widely acknowledged.

‘To have the regulatory effort for people to realise that this is serious, you have to have your analysis, scientific resource, support to make sure you’re clear about what the problem is and how you solve it.’

(Policy staff, HSE)

The support of an enforcement drive was seen as a key factor in the success of a supply chain strand. There was recognition that regulatory resources were always going to be limited, but that they did complement and reinforce the supply chain work in an important way when it was possible to co-ordinate the two. It was also noted that inspection activity provided an added opportunity for inspectors to feed back to other parts of HSE how successful the initiative had been on the ground.

‘To some extent that’s why the other supply chain initiatives haven’t taken off is because I don’t actually think the rest of the field inspectors are actually trying to go out there challenging people in these areas.’


Various publicity campaigns (principally targeted at on-site workers) were also very helpful in engaging and retaining stakeholder commitment. Simple messages about risk were effective in reaching stakeholders who might not have a technical background, but nonetheless were highly influential within a given supply chain. Particular images about the health risks associated with inhaling dust containing RCS for example, were effective in communicating with stakeholders who might lack hands-on knowledge of the industry.

‘You’ve got the penny sitting there in this little bit of dust that says you’ve only got to breathe that in, you know, and it doesn’t take long.’1


3.4.3 Handover of the co-ordinator role

This arguably represented the largest threat to progress, especially with early work strands, where responsibility had been passed around to multiple inspectors successively. Although people leaving posts was unavoidable, it was felt that a more effective handover process could have mitigated the effects of this transfer of responsibilities. There also tended to be less continuity within strands when they had extended over a period of several years.

1 As depicted in HSE’s ‘Time to Clear the Air’ leaflet: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc830.pdf

23

‘I expect we’re all going to say we started off quite keen and it all went away. I don’t know what happened after I left the project. That was another point: how are you going to manage it when people move on?’


Many of those involved with the work felt that this presented an argument for designated individuals within HSE to be tasked with co-ordinating the work full- or at least part-time. This would reduce the risk of them moving on before it was completed and also enable them to manage and document the work in a way that would facilitate handover to someone new. It was noted that it was hard for a new co-ordinator to re-establish working relationships and contacts that had been built on an established rapport with the original co-ordinator.

‘You need to realise that these things aren’t a quick win, they’re a relatively slow win … you’re in it for the long haul and if it gets passed from pillar to post you’re going to lose it.’


3.5 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

Other factors were seen as relevant to the progress of work strands, related to the wider health and safety/economic context.

3.5.1 Baseline level of practice

Former co-ordinators of more successful strands acknowledged that it was easier to make an impact in some areas than others. For example, when the ‘manual handling of kerbs’ strand was launched in 2005 there had been significant scope for progress due to widespread poor practice. Later work strands dealing with manual handling risks were arguably launched in the context of greater awareness of manual handling issues, especially among local authorities (ie there was therefore, arguably, less ‘distance to travel’ on these issues). Also, where there was a finite number of suppliers of a given material or piece of equipment it was easier to capture stakeholders with maximum influence, and so was more likely to succeed.

‘I think the kerbs initiative had an advantage in that it hadn’t had a lot of work done on it previously and it was a relatively coherent and tight industry.’

(Supply chain strand manager, HSE)

3.5.2 Complexity of risk area

Several senior HSE personnel regarded the supply chain approach as particularly suited to developing an enforcement line for risks where industry could agree on what constituted good practice. Campaigns with a focus on health (as was the case for the work strands addressed in this evaluation) were seen as particularly complex, especially MSDs. It could be difficult for an inspector to determine the degree to which an observed working practice was harmful to health when the main health risk stemmed from cumulative exposure to that risk. The decision to take enforcement action in these circumstances was not regarded as black and white compared, for example, with a scenario where a clear safety risk was visible (eg working at height without adequate protection).

‘We’re all very confident when someone’s up at 80 feet that there’s a risk they’re going to fall, but the semantics of trying to serve improvement notices in relation to health risks, particularly where we haven’t got the clarity of support, means that we can’t take a robust enforcement line …. Now if you look at things like the panel

24

products issues or some of the other issues we’re not 100 per cent convinced that we’d get specialist group or medical commitment and opinion robust enough to let us serve notices.’


Where the risk was to long-term health, it was therefore felt to be ultimately more productive to address risks at supply chain level within the construction industry. Thus, health risks could be prevented or controlled at source. This also allowed in-depth exploration of alternative ways of working that had more potential impact than doing the same thing on a site-by-site basis.

However, even when taking a supply chain approach, gaining a consensus on how to move forward inevitably presented more difficulty in some risk areas than others. In these circumstances it was felt to be particularly important to review progress regularly and, if necessary, review the strand’s objectives.

3.5.3 Complexity of the supply chain

If a supply chain has too many components, particularly when they are affiliated to different intermediaries, it can be very difficult to secure engagement from all of them. Even when this is possible it then becomes even more challenging to achieve consensus. The handheld tools trade proved difficult in this respect: it was very challenging to ensure all parties were represented adequately and that all views were taken into account. This was contrasted with an industry such as kerbs (with reference to the ‘manual handling of kerbs’ strand) where the supply chain was more contained.

‘With kerbs, there was one kerb and one industry, whereas with this it was several hundred different types of machines and with hundreds of different manufacturers with hundreds of different uses. It wasn’t as straightforward.’


The more complex the supply chain, the more difficult it was for the HSE inspector (or other member of staff) to get to grips with the commercial conflicts that could arise. Similarly, the practical difficulties that could impede implementing solutions could be complex. It was therefore considered critical to gain an understanding of these factors, as they could be a potential barrier to the progress of a work strand, and influence the motivation of stakeholders.

3.6 COMPOSITION OF STAKEHOLDER GROUP

Getting the composition of stakeholder forums and subsequent committee meetings right was seen as difficult to achieve. It was important that all relevant parties were engaged. Without representation of major players there was a risk that the output of the work would lack credibility and that the take-up of agreed solutions would be low amongst the wider industry. It was also felt to be important to target the right individual within an organisation and also to be judicious in the selection of intermediary organisations for inclusion in group working.

3.6.1 Breadth of engaged supply chain

There was general agreement that some strands had followed a more narrow definition of the supply chain than others. In early strands there could be a tendency to overlook some components of the supply chain, particularly those who were hard to engage or not known to HSE. More recent strands tended to use a broader definition of supply chain. For example,

25

the need to involve or engage with designers was recognised at the beginning of ‘handling heavy masonry’ work strand, once the sector was in a position to learn from previous supply chain work.

‘There is a tendency for us to identify with those with high levels of interest regardless of the level of influence they’ve got and certainly on the regulatory side, a tendency to go to the usual suspects.’

(Policy staff, HSE)

There was a view that it could be difficult to target local authorities effectively. It was clearly impractical to invite them all, but unsatisfactory to involve one or two who may not be representative of the rest. The best solution was to aim for suitable representation from intermediary organisations, but this had not been achieved for all work strands.

‘There are 270-odd LAs in the UK, you’re not going to get them all … they wouldn’t all want to come, and you’re not going to go and engage with them all separately. We only had one bloke at the first forum who was not in any way representing LAs and he hadn’t really turned up to represent them.’


For several strands, some stakeholders noted the absence of representatives of SMEs. It was seen as a major challenge getting buy-in in this group, especially smaller ‘white van man’ employers, who don’t work for any of the main contractors. Small companies working solely with domestic customers were seen as particularly hard to reach, and this was a concern of stakeholders as well as HSE staff.

‘It would have been nice to have seen someone from those or representing those but that’s always going to be difficult, because if there’s only two or three of them they can’t afford to give the time up, but if there’s an association or an affiliation of small businesses, something like that, someone that would represent those might have been useful.’


Although there was no evidence of partisanship within any of the strands, any perception of bias on the part of stakeholders was detrimental to project progress. In some cases there was a view that this perception could be addressed by getting better SME representation and recognition that there needed to be a balance in the perception of fairness.

3.6.2 Targeting individuals

Getting the right people around the table was seen as not just a question of getting the right organisations, it is also important to get the right person within the organisation. The right person needed to be someone with the right expertise. Individuals from intermediary bodies needed to be targeted carefully as they might not have sufficient coverage, and the reliance on one representative to disseminate information amongst the whole industry could limit the impact of the work. It was also noted, however, that there is sometimes no choice but to use stakeholders of this type.

‘When you’re talking about stakeholder engagement, you’re trying to get people who can influence. They’ve got to have an interest in the target audience. If it’s only of interest in five per cent of their target audience they’re not going to bother.’

(Policy staff, HSE)

There was a perceived risk that the same individuals could end up participating in different strands resulting in fatigue. It was felt that this was a risk for the ‘manual handling of

26

paving’ work strand as it involved overlapping stakeholders from the ‘manual handling of kerbs’ initiative. There was a feeling that the clients would be similar and the representatives of these organisations were likely to be the same.

‘If you wanted participation from [public sector organisation] it would be dumped on me, and I mean that in the nicest way, and from local authorities, well you might have two or three again, people who represent the whole authorities. So you could end up with the same sort of people to a lesser or greater degree involved all the time, but no, as a concept I think it’s excellent.’

(Stakeholder, public sector organisation)

3.7 VIEWS ON THE SUPPLY CHAIN APPROACH

The supply chain initiative itself was also discussed and confirmation given that the approach could be very successful. If the various stages were followed through with an acceptable level of competency, and the right stakeholders were engaged, then there was huge potential for change. There was fundamental support for this approach from within the senior levels of HSE and a belief in its efficacy.

‘Through your stakeholders the reach is very wide and potentially, although it depends on the circumstance, the impact is enormous.’

(Policy staff, HSE)

Stakeholders were also positive about this as a way of working. Many viewed the supply chain approach as an essential method in securing change within the construction industry, especially given inevitable resource constraints on active enforcement. The opportunity to work in partnership with HSE was seen as a key element, as was the willingness of HSE to diverge from a standard regulatory approach.

‘The essence of it is that they’ve really enjoyed working as part of the team because that’s true stakeholder engagement. They likened other stakeholder engagements as “this is the problem, that’s the solution, you’ve got six months to put it right”.’

(Policy staff, HSE)

Another advantage of the supply chain approach was that it provided an opportunity for stakeholders to address each other directly so it was not necessary for HSE to ‘push’ health messages on its own. This enabled industry representatives to highlight the business benefits of addressing health risks and provided anecdotal evidence with regard to desired outcomes where HSE lacked hard data. For example, a contractor who routinely used lifting equipment for heavy kerbs was able to point out the benefits of this in terms of the retention of older workers.

‘They can say this is in areas the way forward, us as a company we’re signed up to this, we’ve seen the advantages, we’ve got people who are in their 60s laying kerbs, whereas you’ve got people knackered at 42.’


On a more cautionary note, there was also acknowledgement that the supply chain approach could be a labour-intensive, complex process and HSE had perhaps in the past been too quick to assume that because the approach had worked well in one context it would be successful in another.

‘The approach to heavy blocks was, “well, we seem to have solved the kerbs one, we can just take this model and plug heavy blocks into it, how hard can it be?”’

(Strand co-ordinator, HSE)

27

An important general point for the whole initiative was the distinction between the HSE co-ordinator adopting the position of partner or that of regulator. The former relationship was seen as necessary for true engagement. There was a view that there could be a tendency for HSE personnel to assume that holding a meeting with stakeholders amounted to taking a supply chain approach, without considering the position that they were operating from.

‘There is nothing wrong with that, but people mistake it for stakeholder engagement because they’re bringing people together.’

(Policy staff, HSE)

28

4 IMPACT ON THE SUPPLY CHAIN

Chapter Summary

The impact of the supply chain work on the industry was assessed by a range of stakeholders (56 were interviewed as part of this evaluation), around half of whom had been involved in one (or more) of the strands. It is not possible to isolate which changes are due to the supply chain work and which due to other factors. For most areas it is likely to be a combination of influences that have encouraged change. With this in mind, stakeholders provided a range of views on the progress made in improving standards in the areas targeted by the supply chain initiative.

■ The practices involved in the handling of kerbs were felt to have improved significantly over the past five years, with more widespread use of mechanical lifting and the substitution of concrete kerbs with plastic kerb products (although smaller contractors were felt to need more encouragement to operate better practice). Awareness of the HSE campaign in this area was high.

■ There was felt to be increasing knowledge of HAV risks within the industry and work practices were felt to have improved, with better access to information on vibration levels available and greater attention given to these in the selection of equipment. Again, there was felt to be a divide between larger and smaller contractors in terms of good practice, with some smaller companies felt to lack the resources to purchase/hire newer equipment with lower vibration levels. Awareness of HSE work on these risks was high.

■ The risks of RCS exposure from stone and concrete dust exposure were well understood and awareness of HSE’s work in this area was high (demonstrated, for example, by widespread recognition of the ‘Clear the Air’ campaign). Suppliers had taken on board recommendations to stock cutting equipment fitted with water suppression and dust extractors, and the process of cutting without water suppression was felt to have become less common. Plastic kerb trials had been well received and designers viewed reducing exposure to RCS from stone and concrete dust to be a standard consideration. Architects, however, were felt to lack awareness of these issues.

■ There was a general trend towards less manual handling, with use of smaller blocks and pre-cast blocks with lifting handles. HSE work in this area was seen to be a primary cause of change. Designers tended to look to use smaller elements and lighter materials, and it had become more common to make changes to client specifications to enable safer material selection to take place. Architects did not tend to view the safety of construction practices as part of their role.

29

This chapter presents findings from interviews conducted with individuals in job roles and professions targeted by the construction supply chain intervention. In line with objective (3) of the evaluation it describes awareness of key messages within particular stakeholding groups and views on progress (ie actual changes in practice) made with regard to the supply risk areas targeted by the intervention.

4.1 CHAPTER FORMAT AND CONTENT

The views presented in this chapter originate from two broad groups of participants interviewed during phase one and two of the evaluation respectively, namely: (i) stakeholders identified as having been ‘involved’ in the initiative, and (ii) ‘uninvolved’ members of the construction supply chain recruited to the study at a later stage, mainly in connection with site visits. In practice, the distinction between the two groups was not as well-defined as expected and there were significant ‘within-group’ variability regarding level of involvement and familiarity with the intervention. In some cases, the contribution of individuals in the former group had been minimal; while some individuals in the latter group worked for companies who had been involved in some aspect of the initiative and were well-informed of its aims.

Both groups were able to comment on changes they had seen with respect to the work areas addressed by the supply chain intervention and the (potential) role of their profession. Perhaps not surprisingly given the breadth and diversity of roles within the industry supply chain, these participants presented a wide array of sometimes conflicting viewpoints. In order to reflect the unique perspectives of individual stakeholders, a number of case studies are presented within the main text.

The remainder of the chapter is structured by work strand area. Views are presented first on the work strands that successfully engaged a range of stakeholders (ie ‘manual handling of kerbs’, ‘reducing RCS exposure’ and ‘hand-arm vibration’) and the work activities they addressed. It is important to note that not all participants attributed the changes they had seen in these areas to the supply chain intervention, although in some cases those closely involved with the initiative were able to make a direct link between the activities they had been involved in and subsequent positive changes.

The final section deals with points made in relation to the less well-progressed work strands (all of these dealt with various aspects of manual handling). At the time of the evaluation, few stakeholders could be traced in relation to these strands, as lists of relevant contacts were either out of date or unavailable; and in some cases stakeholders had not been successfully engaged. There was also very limited awareness of these strands of work among the wider stakeholder community; beyond that, HSE had changed their guidelines in relation to the manual handling of blocks. Therefore, this section also draws out views on the supply chain approach and its effectiveness in relation to MSD risks more generally.


This initiative took place a number of years ago, and it was possible to locate only a limited number of stakeholders who had been directly involved. Nevertheless, across the wider stakeholder community, there was general agreement that practices involved in the handling of kerbs had improved significantly over the past five years. Mechanical lifting of kerbs was seen as much more widespread than was the case five or so years ago, as was the substitution of plastic kerb products.

There was also widespread awareness of the initiative itself and its accompanying enforcement drive. Hire shops reported increased demand for all types of lifting equipment

30

from smaller contractors. This appeared to be both customer and supplier driven. For example, one hire company would routinely send one of their representatives to visit sites and advise the principal contractor on the most suitable equipment for the job.

However, other stakeholders with a commercial interest in the area were less positive and felt that the issue was no longer a priority for HSE, having been ‘dropped’ in favour of other issues such as vibration, dust control and working at height. One stakeholder saw this as a causative factor in a downturn in business (see case study 1), while another saw this as a reason for lifting equipment lying idle on sites.

‘HSE had gone so far and demanded these bits of equipment to be used and that equipment had been brought in and then it was sitting idle in yards because no one was actually using the equipment … HSE had kind of gone so far then walked away.’

(Stakeholder, trade association)

It also became evident that the relationship between equipment hire, sales and actual use within the industry was not straightforward. One supplier had observed a recent trend for customers delaying investment in new lifting equipment, evidenced by an increased demand for spare and component parts to prolong the life of existing equipment. He was therefore only benefiting in a limited way from increased use on site.

Case study 1: Apparent downturn in demand for lifting equipment

The director of a small lifting equipment supplier reported that his business had grown very quickly five years ago when HSE ran a campaign on the manual handling of kerbs. The campaign at the time was viewed as ‘very stringent’ and resulted in a lot of prohibition notices, and consequently a jump in demand for vacuum lifting equipment. However, in the last two to three years, his business had declined considerably resulting in a reduction in the company’s workforce. Although major hire chains were actively promoting the type of lifting equipment he supplied, business was less brisk than it had been. This trend pre-dated the recession and the manufacturer thought the downturn in business was mainly attributable to a lessening threat of enforcement on this issue.

It was felt there was still some way to go in encouraging smaller contractors to mechanise kerb lifting. There was, however, a view that a major strength of the supply chain approach was its focus on ‘designing out’ risks at source (eg by limiting the size/weight of materials). This was seen as the most effective approach to overcoming the difficulties of changing the working behaviours of small kerb laying firms.

4.3 HAND-ARM VIBRATION (HAV) FROM PORTABLE TOOLS

Most participants felt that the risks posed by HAV were well understood across many elements of the supply chain. Amongst those who had not contributed to the supply chain work directly there was high awareness of HSE’s campaigns in relation to this area, although not of the supply chain intervention specifically. Among stakeholders who had attended supply chain events there was some regret that its outcomes had not been proportionate to the time they felt they had invested in the HAV measurement system.

There was a view that awareness of HAV risks was increasing, and that work practices were improving across the construction industry, although smaller and self-employed contractors were still exhibiting high-risk behaviours. Independent health and safety specialists

31

confirmed that major contractors were more aware of the risks of HAV than they had been in the past and were more inclined to seek expert advice on tools and follow recommendations. Stakeholders in the manufacturing industry viewed that there was increasing pressure on them to produce safer, better-quality tools in order to keep up with their competitors: the need to respond to this issue was seen as a commercial as well as a health and safety issue.

Those working in tool hire and sales reported that it had recently become easier for them to access information about vibration levels produced in the tools they stocked. Previously, exposure levels for some tools would only have been available on request, whereas now equipment brochures contain information about vibration levels and limits as standard. Others within the trade also confirmed that major manufacturers are responding to users’ concerns and producing new tools that operate within lower vibration limits.

Most contractors were viewed as responsible, and customers frequently requested tools with lower vibration levels. Some larger companies were described as particularly ‘demanding’ in this respect. For example, one had started asking a hire company to tag up all the equipment they hired with specific information on its vibration levels.

It was felt that even medium-sized companies had started to become more aware; however, there was concern that some workers still ignored the risk or wrongly assumed PPE would protect them, particularly sole traders and ‘DIY-ers’.

‘They might go and buy some anti-vibration gloves just to put their mind at rest and to feel that they are doing something, but they’re not too concerned really.’

(Hire shop manager)

Some suppliers had responded to their concern about the issue by stocking only tools that carried less risk and provided advice to all clients about safe tool use (see case study 2).

Case study 2: Supplier concern about HAV risk

One tool hire company that had participated in the HAV supply chain intervention commented that manufacturers’ data supplied with tools is often based on an ideal-world scenario rather than real-world use, which results in an underestimate of the vibration levels. Instead they use data supplied by a private laboratory (another HAV stakeholder), which recalculates the level of the tools they sell using ‘real-life’ scenarios. Occasionally the discrepancy between the data from the manufacturer and those calculated by the lab was significant. For one particular tool the difference was so large they approached the manufacturer, but this claim was disputed. This eventually resulted in the company deciding to no longer stock the company’s products.

One supplier had noticed a change in hire patterns; for example, with a particular type of anti-vibration breaker becoming more popular, as well as a particular type of cut-off saw. Another observed that ‘the old guys are disappearing’, and that, with that, demand for particular types of old-fashioned tools with higher vibration levels was also becoming less common.

Resources were viewed by those in the tools trade as the main barrier to the universal take-up of safer handheld tools. Old-style ground breakers were still reported as being in use, for example, even though they had been superseded by models with much lower vibration levels. Suppliers felt that smaller companies were unlikely to be able to cover the costs of replacing old tools, even when they were exposing workers to unnecessarily high vibration levels when, in all other ways, the tools were fully operational.

32

4.4 REDUCING RCS EXPOSURE DURING KERB, PAVING AND BLOCK CUTTING

The risks of RCS exposure were well understood by almost all of the industry representatives who contributed to this aspect of the evaluation. There was also widespread awareness of HSE’s efforts to increase the profile of this issue and promote safer ways of working when cutting kerbs. Only one supplier – the manager of a branch of a national tool and plant supply company – had not heard of HSE’s ‘Time to Clear the Air’ campaign (although he was aware of the risks posed by exposure to RCS). Suppliers reported buying up stock of cutting equipment fitted with water suppression and dust extractors some time ago in anticipation of increased demand amongst contractors generated by HSE campaigns. Equipment suppliers and those working at hire shops considered that it was important for this issue to be discussed at the point of hire or purchase. Those working in the tools trade felt that HSE’s dust control campaign had already made a significant impact. One hire shop manager who had not noticed any changes in customer behaviour suggested that this may have been because contractors had purchased their own dust suppression equipment.

Other industry stakeholders noted the practice of hiring cutters with water suppression was felt to have become more common. Stakeholders who had been involved in the RCS exposure work strand were emphatic that the supply chain work had made a difference in this respect.

‘If you were hiring a cutter, you’d hire a disc cutter and then you had to hire the water suppression kit as well … they’ve changed that now.’

(Stakeholder, local authority representative)

There were also high levels of awareness amongst engineers participating in the evaluation of the issues raised by cutting kerbs; and the various options available to them to limit exposure to RCS. Where plastic kerbs had been trialled there was a positive view regarding their utility, although some clients could still require convincing that they represented an acceptable alternative to concrete. Other options to reduce the risks to workers included using longer runs of materials, and the use of bonding materials during street repairs. Both of these reduced the level of cutting that was needed to be carried out on site. However, it was noted that the latter options also lessened exposure to HAV and manual handling, as well as limiting dust production.

Similarly, designers tended to view ways of reducing exposure to RCS to be a standard consideration in the course of their job. The specification of particular block sizes was commonly used to limit cutting on site and they viewed risk management as an important aspect of their job.

‘I can’t tell him not to cut a particular block – but I can work on the risks before it gets to him, I’ll have already made an assessment.’

(Designer, major contractor)

Architects, in contrast, were felt to lack awareness of these issues (see case study 3). There was a general view, across research participants, that this stemmed from their professional training failing to cover these issues and that this was compounded by a lack of direct contact/observation of work practices on site.

33

Case study 3: Architect with limited awareness of supply chain issues

An architect who contributed to the evaluation (as a professional not involved in any of the supply chain initiatives) completed her training in 2005 and had qualified to RIBA Part II. Her work centred on the development of public spaces and involved consulting with various UK road authorities and local councils on necessary adjustments to road width and lowering kerbs. She was not aware of any of HSE’s supply chain initiatives and had little knowledge about their respective risk areas.

She felt that architects can be ‘brushed to one side’ on projects and that the key players were usually the client and the contractor. The architect can end up with a negotiator role ‘in the middle’. Therefore, their potential to make a difference to the use of one set of processes or materials over another was limited. She also felt, speaking personally, that she did not have the technical knowledge to get involved with these issues.

Also, among the largely positive accounts in regard to ‘designing out’ this risk area, there were reports from contractor representatives that suggested that on some occasions this issue was not addressed until a project reached the construction stage. If a particular design required a lot of cutting, some contractors would go direct to the manufacturer and ask them to supply the required blocks at the bespoke size. It was noted that this feedback process would tend to circumvent architects (as it occurred much further down the supply chain) and suggested that it may contribute to an apparent lack of awareness of this issue within the profession.

4.5 OTHER SUPPLY CHAIN AREAS

Several respondents commenting on the ‘manual handling of kerbs’ initiative reported that they had observed a trend towards less manual handling within the construction industry more widely. Suppliers of building materials had observed a dramatic change within their particular sector. According to one participating stakeholder, 95 per cent of blocks produced were now below 20kg. It was also reported that it was now more common to see pre-cast blocks with lifting handles. These changes were perceived as primarily HSE-driven, although outside those who had attended stakeholder meetings, the supply chain aspect of HSE’s work in this area was not widely known.

There was a view that designers had become more aware of the hazards related to manual handling over recent years and had changed the materials they specified accordingly. Suppliers of building materials felt that architects were already making designs based on smaller units, although they were not able to attribute this to a specific intervention, HSE or otherwise.

Designers reported a general trend towards the use of smaller elements and lighter materials to reduce the risks presented by (sometimes unavoidable) manual handling. According to health and safety professionals, it was becoming more common for designers to make changes to a client’s initial specification in order to comply with manual handling guidelines. Designers themselves also felt this was the case, although their ability to influence the materials and processes used on site was felt to depend on the specificity of the project brief they were given (see case study 4).

34

Case study 4: Job specification results in manual handling hazard

A health and safety consultant reported that manual handling of blocks over the weight of 20kg was very common. In one example of a recent project with a major contractor, the blocks being handled were 28kg and were also heavier when wet. When he had asked what the contractors planned to do about this he was told that they couldn’t do anything; these were the only blocks that they could use. In practice the consultant knew that there were alternatives that could have been specified in the design but that the appropriate knowledge was clearly not available earlier in the planning process.

Failures within the supply chain could still introduce unnecessary risk. On some occasions inadequate or inaccurate planning could lead to contractors adopting less than ideal work practices because of difficulties in accessing lifting equipment or additional resources (see case study 5).

Case study 5: Failures within the supply chain resulting in unsafe working practices

A contracts manager working for a major contractor reported that he might ask for a method statement on how a job should be approached, but where there were budget restrictions sometimes it was not an option to price the job as a two-man lift as it would be too expensive. Once the build had started the main contractors might feel it was too late to go back and change designs and specifications. Sometimes this situation might be resolved with a practical ‘semi-solution’, such as allowing the men to lay the blocks in a two-hour stint and then rotating to a different type of work, if available, after their stint. This was seen as less than ideal, but was at least a practical solution that removed some of the risk – it was clearly unacceptable to allow someone to lay blocks like that all day, but a two-hour stint was more acceptable.

Not all stakeholders were positive about architects and designers (see case study 3. There was a view that there was a ‘stubborn minority’ of architects and designers who were still overlooking manual handling issues and, also, that the introduction of the Construction (Design and Management) (CDM) regulations had not had an impact on this.

‘Architects do not consider how the workforce will get an object from A to B on site … there is a lack of consideration … if they had to lift the stuff they’d think about it.’

(Buyer, major contractor)

This perception was in part confirmed by architects themselves who did not view limiting unsafe construction practices as part of their remit and had not, in any case, received appropriate training in how best to do this. Within the architecture profession, the use of lighter and/or smaller materials was not seen as a central consideration, but it was emphasised that plans tend to offer a range of options for materials and construction processes. Some architects felt that these decisions were best left to the contractor and client to decide upon.

35

Case study 6: Example of buyer operating as supply chain ‘gatekeeper’

A buyer working for a major contractor would always look at the materials requirements with an eye on manual handling guidelines. With blocks over 100mm thick, the company policy is to use a medium or lightweight substitute for concrete. They also limit handling over 20kg. In some cases he would go back to the client and make them aware that their requests exceed the health and safety limits and request re-specification.

A key element in the supply chain appeared to be buyers who, on occasion, would perform the role of ‘gatekeeper’ (see case study 6). Their position allowed them to intervene before committing to the use of particular materials. In the event of a client insisting on a particular material or size, buyers would tend to find a way of working around this by, for example, specifying in the contract that certain units required a two-man lift.

Tool hire shops reported that it was unusual for customers to request advice on manual handling limits unless they were actually hiring lifting equipment. There was a feeling customers had already decided what they were going to do before entering the shop. A trade union representative confirmed the difficulties in changing behaviours and attitudes in regard to manual handling.

‘Like any other occupation there is a resistance to change and an acceptance that a bad back goes with the job. They’re very resilient, construction workers, and they can come up with ingenious ideas. Pavers that are replacing flags … they’ve got all sorts of ingenious devices that they’ve developed over the years instead of using proper lifting aids.’

(Stakeholder, construction trade union)

When talking to professionals working for major contractors, it was apparent that large employers were adapting some of HSE’s campaigns and approaches to suit their own requirements. One major contractor had adopted a ‘supply chain’ approach themselves: running quarterly health and safety briefings for employees at various levels within the company (see case study 7). These briefings would take place on site and are similar to the format used during toolbox talks but aimed at managers and directors.

Case study 7: ‘Supply chain’ approach adopted by major contractor

A designer working for a major building contractor felt that the company itself had a big influence on the ground and generally ‘had the right approach’. He could not name any recent HSE campaigns but talked more about a company initiative that had been running for around a year, where employees at all levels as well as regular subcontractors were given a workshop to increase the knowledge of potential risks at all stages of their own supply chain.

36

5 IMPACT ON SITE

Chapter Summary

During visits to ten work sites (where some of the practices/materials targeted by the supply chain initiative were in use), workers and managers were asked to reflect on workplace practice. It should be noted that the sites were generally managed by larger contractors. Experiences of working for/with smaller employers had often been less positive.

The main findings were that:

■ Lifting aids were generally present and used on the sites, and their use enforced by managers and senior staff. Risks had been designed out in many cases, through the use of lifting equipment or the specification of lighter materials. Workers had observed major changes in relation to kerb handling.

■ Workers tended to be well informed of risks associated with vibrating power tools and the use of control measures (eg taking breaks, following machinery instructions and using tools with rubber casing). Some vibration meters had been purchased, but had received a mixed reception (problems included them falling off tools or being seen as inaccurate). Recording duration of use of vibrating equipment was strictly enforced to protect the company from litigation as well as protecting workers. Better information when hiring tools would be welcomed.

■ Control measures to reduce exposure to RCS had been adopted on all the sites visited (eg water jet attachments for dust suppression, use of eye and face masks), and cutting on site eliminated altogether where possible. Awareness of the health risks of silica appeared well known and training frequently provided on the issue. Managers also felt that the hierarchy of control measures was now embedded in practice, and that correct procedures had become ‘second nature’. Some activities, however, were felt to make use of water suppression impractical and there had been some functional problems with the equipment (eg jets ‘blocking up’).

In line with objective (3) of the evaluation, this chapter looks at the uptake of the key messages that the various supply chain campaigns sought to promote. It focuses on the views and experiences of workers and their managers on construction sites, and the changes they have observed in the various risk areas where the approach was applied. In doing so, the chapter provides some indication of the impact of the supply chain approach on relevant workplace practices and behaviours.

5.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER FORMAT AND CONTENT

The sites visited during the evaluation represent a cross-section of construction projects involving work processes tackled by the sector’s supply chain work. These do not constitute by any means a ‘random’ sample of sites/building projects and the views expressed in this chapter should not be seen as representative of workers on sites across the UK as a whole.

37

The data presented here are applicable to a relatively limited number of workers, reflecting their own behaviours and attitudes, and behaviours they have witnessed on sites they have personally worked on. Nevertheless, many of these workers had a broad range of experience and were familiar with most of the risks addressed by HSE’s supply chain work. Therefore, it is likely the results reported here are indicative of behaviour more generally and they arguably serve to provide a ‘snapshot’ of current practice, particularly within the context of some of the larger construction employers.

This chapter (like Chapter 4) is structured by work strand area, and focuses on the work areas viewed within HSE as having made the most progress. Therefore, the ‘handling heavy kerbs’ and ‘working with silica’ risk areas are covered in some depth, as is work on HAV. There was a feeling within the industry that, despite the difficulties encountered in moving the HAV work strand forward, HSE had achieved some success in improving workplace practice in this area. It was not felt that the other work strands had progressed sufficiently to influence behaviour on the ground, but workers were nonetheless asked about MSD risk in relation to lifting heavy blocks (masonry), paving, panel products and drainage products where there was an opportunity to do so. Views on these other risk areas are brought together in a separate section. This allows better presentation of relevant data since many workers discussed MSDs as a generic topic when discussing the latter products. These views could be helpful in planning future supply chain initiatives or resurrecting previous strands of work.

There are a number of caveats to the data presented here. As is the case with many health and safety interventions, it is difficult to isolate impact to a particular intervention or agent since a variety of factors is potentially at play when improvements are observed. The supply chain work aimed to make changes ‘early’ in the supply chain (as opposed to approaching issues at employee or site level); worker awareness of HSE’s supply chain approach was generally low (or non-existent). Employees questioned as part of this component of the evaluation were not usually in a position to attribute changes to a specific initiative, HSE or otherwise. Site managers, on the other hand, and other senior personnel present were better placed to comment on supply chain influences on practice, so this issue was explored with these individuals, where available.

A description of the nature of sites visited and the role of workers contributing to the study is provided in Appendix 4.


The ‘manual handling of kerbs’ supply chain work aimed to make mechanical handling of kerb products the industry norm, and among staff interviewed in HSE’s Construction Sector there was a view that the stakeholder work conducted for this strand (and its accompanying enforcement drive) had been successful in prompting a reduction in manual handling of heavy kerb units and increased use of lighter units. The site visit element of this evaluation was viewed as an opportunity to independently verify (as far as the current methodology would allow) if this was indeed the case.

In accordance with the view of the general situation among sector staff, there was widespread presence (and use) of lifting aids on all of the sites visited, and on some sites manual handling was not allowed. This appeared to be enforced rigorously by site managers and other senior staff who were well informed of the risks to musculoskeletal health and the measures that could be taken to control these risks.

38

‘Well, our men in particular, they won’t lift the kerbs up; they will get the equipment that is necessary and use it. The health risks of it … you have only got to lift it wrong and you have hurt yourself permanently so they don’t want to do that themselves so we wouldn’t make them do it.’

(Site engineer, principal contractor)

In many cases the necessity to lift heavy kerbstones had been designed out before the project reached the construction stage, through planned use of lifting equipment or specification of lighter materials. Among site managers, the requirement to specify mechanical lifting when tendering for a job was seen as a major driver for change. This requirement was reported with regard to all (large-scale) local authority projects.

Workers generally agreed that there had been big changes in industry in relation to kerbs. This view was apparent even among workers who had been working in the industry for a relatively short time.

‘Well, it’s all mechanical methods now: the law’s changed on what you can lift. Ten years ago you could lift whatever you liked, but now you can only lift safely, I mean 20 kilos. Like a kerb itself is 60 kilos, one concrete kerb which I used to lay.’

(Construction worker, subcontractor)

There was a widespread awareness of the MSD risks associated with handling heavy kerbs among workers accustomed to carrying out highways or hard landscaping work. Many had come into contact with older construction workers with ‘bad backs’ and welcomed the increased use of lifting equipment. Interestingly, only a handful of workers had experience of using plastic kerbs and those who had were not convinced they were an adequate replacement.

A more negative picture emerged when subcontractors drew upon their experiences of working for other employers on different sites, particularly those where they were not accountable to a major contractor. There were several reports of kerbs being laid by hand, particularly on small roadside repairs. The difficulties of enforcing health and safety in these circumstances were raised; kerb layers who carried out jobs of this type were regarded as somewhat ‘nomadic’ in nature and likely to evade any enforcement action (by the time an inspector could make a return visit to check recommendations had been implemented, they would have moved on).

There were also accounts of lifting equipment sitting on the edges of sites unused while workers laid kerbs by hand. Whilst workers did not elaborate on the reasons for this, it seems likely this resulted from ‘wanting to get on with the job’ and/or lack of supervision. These workers were, on the whole, sceptical that these scenarios would ever be addressed satisfactorily by HSE and somewhat resigned to the lack of protection they received when working for smaller employers.

5.3 HAND-ARM VIBRATION (HAV) FROM PORTABLE TOOLS

HAV specialists within the Construction Sector were optimistic that worker awareness of the risks of vibrating tools would have improved in recent years, and that better risk control measures would be in place. Given the breadth of the programme of work the sector has conducted with regard to HAV risks (the supply chain work being just one element of this), it was apparent from the outset that it would not be possible to determine the impact of the supply chain work in this area. Nevertheless, the views of workers were considered to be of interest to the evaluation because of their potential bearing on future work in this area.

39

Workers were, on the whole, well informed of the risks associated with vibrating power tools. Those working for subcontractors as well as principal contractors had received training on the health risks of vibrating tools and had been informed of the main symptoms of HAV disorders. There was also awareness of the importance of control measures, such as taking breaks to minimise duration of exposure, following the instructions supplied with machinery, and using tools with rubber casing. Some workers also viewed ‘anti-vibration’ gloves as an effective control measure, despite these not being endorsed as such by HSE. On the whole, workers reported working within HSE guidelines.

‘When we’re working on the roads and it’s hard concrete we use a machine to break it up. Sometimes we will use a jackhammer as well. When we use the jackhammer, we do about 15 minutes and then we change. My colleague will do 15 minutes. We don’t use more than 15 minutes then we hang.’

(Construction worker, principal contractor)

Vibration meters had been purchased by some employers as a means of providing direct feedback to workers about cumulative exposure, although these had received a mixed reception as they tended to fall off some tools and were not regarded as fit for purpose. A number of workers were concerned that these were not calibrated correctly and/or produced unreliable readings.

‘The meter is fragile and they are liable to drop off jackhammers. Sometimes they provide a ‘safe’ reading when that is clearly not the case.’


Overall, there was evidence of a high level of compliance on sites visited, and the requirement to record the duration of use of vibrating equipment (on timesheets, registers etc.) was strictly enforced. From the perspective of site managers this was seen as a means of protecting the company from litigation as well as protecting workers.

‘All our sites run it … it’s a massive stipulation and if someone comes back to us saying they’ve got white finger and we were working for you last year and we used this tool for an hour, we can go back in our register and say, well no, you didn’t actually you only used it for 10 minutes which is legally fine. So if somebody comes back to us with a claim, that’s why we use them.’

(Site manager, principal contractor)

Within some employers, workers were having an annual hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) check as part of health surveillance. Among workers who had access to this, occupational health professionals were seen as key sources of information about this risk area.

There were several reports that the standards of HAV risk management on evaluation sites was not typical of the industry as a whole, especially among employees working for subcontractors. Consistent with views outlined in Chapter 4, there was a perception that awareness of the risks associated with use of vibrating tools varied with the size of the employer, with larger companies being more aware than smaller ones. Site managers noted that it could be difficult to ensure that subcontractors on site (who did not do this habitually) were monitoring tool use.

Several workers who had previously worked on smaller jobs pointed out that it was not always practical to restrict usage to levels specified in HSE guidance, particularly in two- or three-man teams where the job would not get done unless they spent a significant amount of the day on drills or breakers. Thus more supply chain effort could usefully be deployed on lower vibration tools. A small minority of workers no longer worked with power tools

40

because they had developed symptoms, although they felt they were a ‘dying breed’ because younger workers were ‘more aware of the dangers’. A number of workers knew someone with HAV-related disorder or had experienced symptoms themselves, and this appeared to be an important driver of behaviour.

‘Some days you would go home and you couldn’t even feel your arms.’ (Construction worker, subcontractor)

Some workers and site managers felt that not enough information was provided when they approached hire outlets for tools: some had never been questioned about their intended use of the equipment nor been given any information about the vibration levels of the tools. In general, the suppliers had not discussed potential risks with them. It was felt that the responsibility lay with them as an individual to consult the manual for each tool when it was supplied and that greater responsibility should be shouldered at the supply end.

5.4 REDUCING RCS EXPOSURE DURING KERB, PAVING AND BLOCK CUTTING

Although the ‘reducing RCS exposure’ stakeholder work had been completed only relatively recently (and the subsequent enforcement drive was still in process), HSE personnel with expertise in the area felt that improved risk control measures would be evident on construction sites already and that some changes would be directly attributable to the supply chain intervention.

Consistent with this, the various control measures that could be taken to reduce exposure had been adopted on all of the sites visited. Site rules to address this risk required cutting tools to have water jet attachments for dust suppression, and for this to be coupled with use of eye protection and respiratory protection. Where possible, cutting on site had been eliminated altogether.

‘For block paving and things like that we use a guillotine, so we get away from cutting altogether. We do not do dry cutting of things that may contain silica dust that is our first take … last line of defence is dust masks for the guys to use on site.’

(Site manager, major contractor)

Workers were able to access knowledge through a variety of means, including site inductions, training and toolbox talks (although there was only limited awareness of the actual ‘Clear the Air’ campaign by name), and many were accustomed to receiving updates whenever they started on a new site.

‘Every time you go to a site to have a site induction where they give you a talk about all the materials you’re using, like granite and sandstone and concrete flags, they all create dust.’


There was also widespread awareness of the health risks of silica. In many cases this was at a basic level (‘it’s bad for your lungs’ or ‘it’s like asbestos’). There was a view that ‘the older the worker, the more concerned he is about it’ because they felt more vulnerable than younger workers. Some workers were aware of former colleagues whose health had suffered as a result of dust exposure.

Without exception, site managers demonstrated a high level of awareness of the health risks associated with exposure to RCS and were able to talk about the issue in a highly informed way. Many were aware of HSE’s ‘Time to Clear the Air: Paving the way for healthier work’ campaign.

41

‘It’s to do with respiratory … it reduces lung capacity … we were told in 2004 there were 500 deaths related to silica dust and it affects between 10 and 20 per cent of the workforce.’

(Site manager, major contractor)

Managers were also well versed in the hierarchy of control measures that could be applied to manage RCS exposure and it was felt that these were now embedded in normal management practice. This represented a significant change from the situation 10 years ago when there was reportedly ‘no awareness’; when workers used to avoid the dust by standing upwind. Even some site managers had not been aware until relatively recently that the dust was more than an inconvenience.

‘I was ignorant of the silicosis thing. I mainly thought that the dust was an inconvenience. All right you take it in and cough and also it’s an inconvenience to the people walking past … I didn’t realise the damage it could do to the lungs and related illness … now there is better understanding.’


Correct procedures had, in some cases, become ‘second nature’ and this was attributed in part to behaviour in other parts of the supply chain; for example, some hire companies now automatically supplied respiratory protective equipment (RPE) with cutting equipment. Sites where local authority builds were taking place were obliged to put measures in place as part of the contract and this was seen as an important driver. Some of the major contractors had banned handheld grinders, although there was a view on some sites that this was ‘over and above what was necessary’.

As with other supply chain risk areas, there was anecdotal evidence of precautions not being taken on smaller or less well-run sites and there were reports of contractors using grinders without RPE or water suppression. Some workers felt that their experience on their current job wasn’t typical of the industry as a whole and that many workers continued to work unprotected from significant amounts of dust. Subcontractors based at one site reported that they had never cut with water before they started on that site. It was felt there was a long way to go to convince the industry as a whole to change. It was felt that workers doing spot repair jobs were particularly vulnerable.

‘You still see it now, workers on the side of the road with dust flying everywhere, all over the pedestrians usually … and the water suppression kit sitting right there by the side of them.’


There were also some practical difficulties associated with using water suppression. Workers reported variable function of the water suppression equipment. On some occasions it was found that they could block, slowing down the time it took to complete the job.

‘Problem is that the water jets block up with grit and you have to keep stopping to fix them. If it’s a windy day it’s easier just to let the dust blow away from you and other workers.’

(Construction worker, major contractor)

Employees observed that guidelines were sometimes applied inconsistently to different groups of workers as the nature of the job would dictate what measures could be practically taken. For example, when a job was being carried out at height (for example, when tiling a roof) a ban on using handheld cutters might not be appropriate. The alternative, climbing up and down the ladder in order to access a fixed cutter, was perceived as presenting a greater

42

risk. There was also an observation that water suppression was not appropriate when working near electrical mains and that in these cases workers had to rely on RPE only.

5.5 OTHER SUPPLY CHAIN AREAS

Construction workers and site managers had noted a general change in attitude to manual handling in relation to many types of products in recent years, some of which had featured in some of the less established supply chain campaigns. Whereas before, workers would lift anything, workers reported that a lot of the main contractors now insisted on the use of mechanical lifting devices for large building units such as drainage fittings and paving slabs, as well as large kerbstones.

‘We’ve got all the methods now on this site as well as nearly all our sites that take out any sort of manual handling at all: it’s all done by machine. So we’ve got kerb lifters, we’ve got flag lifters, we’ve got pallet trucks, we’ve got everything: you name it, we’ve got it.’


Where manual handling was seen as necessary, a range of measures were now in place to manage the level of risk, for example rotating lifting jobs within teams to limit individual exposure. Many workers reported having regular manual handling training and some contractors had developed their own, bespoke guidance. The vigilance of site managers appeared to be an important driver of behaviour and many workers reported that this ensured good practice was adopted most of the time.

‘There are always people of authority wandering round and they are always keeping an eye on you and what you are doing and they say “don’t lift that if it’s a bit heavy mate, go and get the machine to do it” or “go over there and lift that for so-and-so, it’s too heavy for them”. Everyone works together and communicates together, like if the lads are struggling they will come over and ask the machine to come and lift it, that’s what usually happens.’


Site managers stressed the importance of imposing sanctions against workers who did not follow health and safety procedures correctly. Among workers, a high level of supervision was seen as normal when working on a site where a large construction firm operated as principal contractor. It could be problematic to enforce standards across the site, and some site managers were not always able to follow through with their threats to subcontractors as it was not always practical to take them off a job.

The influence of the supply chain was apparent in relation to several types of materials and site managers reported a general move towards using lighter materials and smaller loads where possible; for example, it was noted that bags of cement were now around half the weight they used to be. It had also become more commonplace for blocks to be supplied with information saying how heavy they were. Local authorities were also trying to reduce risk through purchasing behaviour and were considering newer, lighter materials for use in building infrastructure.

‘They’re also trying to rationalise the type of materials we use in road gullies, they’re now leaning towards the use of plastic road gullies.’

(Site manager, local authority employer)

It was noted that subcontractors could not always be relied upon to use lifting equipment provided on site. Also, in some cases the forward planning required for using mechanical lifting was not always possible. Some workers reported lifting heavy paving flags by hand

43

while waiting for the mechanical lifts they had ordered. Also, despite widespread awareness of proper ways of lifting, a ‘stubborn core’ of older workers believed their tried and tested own methods were acceptable.

‘I don’t know who makes this stuff up to be honest. Not everyone’s the same so what’s heavy for one guy might be fine for another.’

(Employee, major contractor)

Although some comments suggested that the traditional ‘macho’ attitude to lifting within the industry was beginning to change, some workers would still insist on lifting heavy items on their own. Site rules specifying that two people should do the lifting were viewed as difficult to enforce and site managers saw a move towards total mechanisation as the most desirable solution in these circumstances.

44

6 CONCLUSIONS

Chapter Summary

In summary, the conclusions of this evaluation are that:

■ Formalised project management arrangements would help to ensure the success of future supply chain initiatives, and staff may need support to implement these.

■ Each strand needs to have carefully considered objectives that are clear and measurable. This will help not only in the management of the strand, but also in evaluation and communication about progress to stakeholders (thus helping to keep them engaged).

■ Better recording of activities and progress would allow a more comprehensive assessment of whether strands, individually or collectively, met their objectives.

■ To maximise the success of the initiatives, project managers need to be adequately trained, supported and resourced. It was difficult for many inspectors to find time to commit to the supply chain work given their other commitments.

■ Project managers need to have sufficient skills, contacts and credibility to draw together a group of stakeholders, manage any conflicts between them and maintain engagement with the initiative over time. They may need some training in this, particularly in moving away from an enforcement/regulatory type of interaction with industry representatives and into consultative work.

■ Careful consideration also needs to be given to the composition of the stakeholder groups and this can only be done in relation to each specific project. It is important to ensure that influential stakeholders are included, but the group must also be seen to fully represent the whole supply chain.

In principle the supply chain approach could be used for any risk area, however, some industries and risks can be dealt with in this way more successfully than others. The approach appears to work best when:

■ There is the opportunity to intervene early in the supply chain, so where there is some form of design or planning stage prior to commencement of work.

■ The industry involved rests on well-established and clear networks where different stakeholders can influence one another.

■ A clear and manageable solution can be found to problems. If the target of the initiative is too broad it will be too difficult to achieve real change.

This chapter brings together the findings from the evaluation as a whole and assesses the implications of these for future HSE initiatives. In line with objective (4) it also assesses the transferability of the supply chain approach to other risk areas within the construction sector.

45

6.1 DEFINING AND MEASURING SUCCESS

A recurring theme for this evaluation was the issue of what success looks like and the importance of establishing this before an intervention is initiated. Ideally, although this is often not the case, interventions should be designed with future evaluation in mind: this requires that some thought is given to the desired outcomes of the initiative and the type of indicators that will show whether or not these outcomes have been achieved.

Indicators of this type were not defined for the majority of the work strands, meaning that in practice it was difficult to categorically state in some cases whether they had been successful or not. Future initiatives could be evaluated more effectively if indicators of success were more clearly defined and easily measurable. In setting objectives for the different strands, it would be preferable for them to be SMART (ie Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound). This would allow better assessment of the success of each of the initiatives against its original objectives. It also ties in with the views of stakeholders who tended to be most engaged when progress within the strand was monitored and achievements could be clearly identified. It is likely that strand co-ordinators would again need some support in realising this.

There is also a clear benefit in ensuring that management information is recorded in a format that allows progress to be assessed in relation to stated deadlines, milestones and deliverables. This is not just for the evaluation purposes, but also to allow smooth transition when a project is handed over to a new member of staff. Specifically in this case it would have been useful to have access to more systematic records on activities and progress. Future support for strand co-ordinators might therefore usefully include an outline of the type and format of data recording that is preferred. This would allow a more standardised, and therefore speedier/easier, assessment of progress across and between strands. In addition, this would make it easier to identify outputs or outcomes from less successful strands that stall. It is therefore important to have a flexible rather than fixed definition of success, and to record why and how the original objectives have been altered. The need for evaluation, however, should not constrain the ability of individual strand co-ordinators to run their strand effectively and to do so in a way that fits the specific risk area or industry concerned.

6.2 APPROACH TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT

As noted above, many aspects of formal project management facilitate future evaluation of that project and also facilitate delivery of the project itself. Early examples of the supply chain work (for understandable reasons) were managed relatively informally; however, this appeared to be a disadvantage, particularly when the responsibility of co-ordinating a project changed hands. There were several examples, especially in the early stages of the initiative, where staff described how they lacked direction and were unsure of how to move the project forward.

A related point is the importance of planning and establishing a timeframe over which the various elements of the supply chain work can be realistically delivered. A potentially useful aspect of the planning process is a risk register (which was used in later work strands) that takes account of possible threats to progress and sets out contingency arrangements should these occur. Several of the themes set out in Chapter 3 could be useful for compiling risk registers for future work, particularly those concerning stakeholder engagement and competing priorities from the co-ordinator’s other commitments.

A detailed project plan also enables a review process to be conducted effectively when a project is felt to be drifting or stalling. It also enables making a better substantiated decision

46

if it is felt that the best thing to do is to curtail a piece of work, and ensures that when a decision is taken to ‘revive’ a piece of work it is a properly informed decision.

It is clear that before this evaluation took place that lessons had already been learned regarding the formality of the approach taken to managing work strands. Therefore it is envisaged that these particular suggestions mainly serve to validate what has already come to be accepted as good practices in managing supply chain work.

6.3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

This element of the work has already been discussed in some depth in this report but it is worth re-emphasising that it is just as important to get the approach to stakeholders right, as it is to approach the right stakeholders. A partnership approach to working with industry was widely viewed within HSE as a core principle of successful supply chain work and this could be compromised if a ‘regulator-dutyholder’ approach guided interactions. It was also seen as important that HSE were not ‘pushing their own agenda’ and that they were seen to take an even-handed approach, particularly where there was disagreement or tension between different stakeholder groups. Formal training in stakeholder engagement was highly valued by HSE staff who had been able to access this in advance of the strand co-ordinator role and could usefully be introduced as a standard part of the support given to HSE staff asked to co-ordinate this type of activity.

6.4 THE CO-ORDINATOR ROLE

Various skills and experience were seen as useful for this role; however, the main criteria co-ordinators perceived as determining their ability to see the process through centred on the support and resources that were made available to them during that time. Highly committed and skilled staff felt unable to sustain progress where there were too many other competing demands on their time, particularly when there was insufficient support provided by their line manager.

While project management skills were emphasised as important, many HSE personnel believed staff from a range of backgrounds could take on this responsibility in principle. It is also important to emphasise that while several strands appeared to ‘drift’ under the management of inspectors, this appeared to be largely a reflection of the lack of time they were able to devote to the co-ordinator role, not any shortcoming in terms of their skills base. Many were successfully able to engage stakeholders on the strength of their credibility and expertise in the industry. In general, stakeholders spoke highly of co-ordinators and cited a range of qualities that they valued including professionalism, fairness of approach and technical acumen.

Some co-ordinators suggested that staff could be allocated either full- or part-time to supply chain initiatives, and that this would ensure that they were given a high priority. It may be worth considering whether this, or some other method, could be adopted to ensure that sufficient time for project managers is built into the overall plan for the project. Given constraints on the time of inspectors, it may be more useful to take a strategic decision about how much time is required for each new strand, rather than leaving this to individual co-ordinators to determine.

6.5 SELECTION OF RISK AREAS

Many of the HSE personnel who were interviewed thought that, in principle, the supply chain approach could be applied to any risk area. However, further reflection suggests that certain features were conducive to making the approach work, not least selecting a risk that

47

could potentially be ‘managed out’ or ‘designed out’ before a construction worker starts the job.

Health issues were seen as suitable areas to benefit from this approach, particularly those resulting from cumulative exposure to an ‘invisible’ risk; operational staff highlighted the fact that it was very difficult to tackle areas such as HAV, manual handling and silica exposure through enforcement.

Where there were difficulties in embedding good practice within certain areas of the industry (such as small employers), the supply chain approach was seen as particularly powerful because of its potential to remove or reduce risks ‘at source’ by means of, for example, a hire outlet eliminating old-style concrete breakers from its stock.

Construction as an industry was seen as a sector that fits particularly well into the supply chain model because of the types of networks that characterise the industry and the high degree of planning that is necessary before a build takes place. There can be a lot of links in a supply chain where there is potential for intervention.

However, consideration should be given to the level of commitment needed to see the engagement process through and the resources needed to sustain momentum. The approach under review is not suitable where a solution is needed quickly, nor in situations where a particular party is going to benefit commercially at the expense of other stakeholders.

48

7 PRINCIPLES FOR SUCCESS OF FUTURE SUPPLY CHAIN WORK

This short chapter brings together some of the findings presented earlier in the report and provides some direct guidance for supply chain work in the future. It is possible to identify a number of broad principles that are likely to contribute to the success of future supply chain work and therefore to be prescriptive about these elements.

Basic principles

1. Select the risk area to be tackled with care. Ensure it is suitable for a supply chain approach by checking with people who really know the area/players/industry covered. Some topics will be better suited to other approaches.

2. Adopt a formal project management process that keeps full and accurate records of all work and contacts undertaken so the approach taken is replicable, easy to monitor and simple to hand over following staff changes.

3. Equip the project manager with the right tools. They will need adequate time, resources and support to be successful.

4. Be strategic with stakeholder engagement. Map out the area to identify relevant stakeholder groups and pursue adequate representation of these groups in the work. Acknowledge, however, the influence that certain key figures may have and capitalise on this where possible, but don’t overuse them or goodwill can be lost.

5. Say partnership and mean partnership. Supply chain work should be about a diverse range of interests coming together to work towards commonly agreed (not imposed) goals.

6. Focus on outputs not just processes. To really change workplace practice, a communication strategy is important. This should be able to reach all elements of the supply chain and reinforce messages over the medium to longer term where possible.

The detail underlying these principles is presented below.

7.1 SELECT THE RISK AREA TACKLED WITH CARE

Not all risk areas are suited to the supply chain approach, so some basic scoping work should take place at the beginning of the initiative before committing resources to a particular area. The considerable knowledge base held by HSE experts (including inspectors, policy personnel and other specialists) is an accessible and useful resource at this stage.

The breadth of a work strand’s remit is a particularly important consideration. If its area of focus is too broad (in terms of the range of work activities/processes addressed), there is risk that a work strand may become unmanageable and key messages for the industry may get ‘lost’. In practice there is a limit on the number of issues that can be given sufficient attention at stakeholder events and meetings. On the other hand, if the remit of a piece of work is too narrow then a potential opportunity to make a difference in closely associated

49

risk areas is ‘lost’, at least until resources can be found to reconvene a similar group of stakeholders for another, later work strand.

Supply chains for particular products differ in complexity and size, and may also involve international players who cannot be represented at UK events. The influence of British and European standards on current product development should be explored and well understood before applying the supply chain approach, as ongoing regulatory changes can limit the potential for intervention.

The supply chain approach can be very effective where an issue is difficult to tackle through enforcement, for example when cumulative exposure or ‘invisible’ health risks are involved. In addition, the approach is particularly helpful where HSE specialists have established that a range of measures could be taken to manage a given risk but are unsure which of these are most acceptable to industry and/or most efficient to adopt. The approach is not suitable where immediate action needs to be taken within the industry, nor in situations where it is obvious from the outset that a particular party is going to benefit commercially.

7.2 FORMALISE THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Supply chain interventions tend to work best when a detailed project plan is formulated with clear objectives that are both measurable and achievable. This should have enough flexibility to accommodate the evolutionary nature of the supply chain approach (ie the fact that some deliverables will be shaped by stakeholder input), whilst defining the timeframe and resource inputs in hard terms.

Project managers should note, however, that it can be difficult to maintain focus when there is a long ‘shopping list’ of desirable outcomes and insufficient time to address all of them satisfactorily. However, it is disingenuous to have only one fixed objective: if progress towards that objective becomes blocked the supply chain process may be vulnerable to stalling completely. A balance needs to be struck between being overambitious and under-imaginative when thinking about potential outcomes.

Measuring the impact of health and safety initiatives in terms of health outcomes is notoriously difficult, so where work is focused on the prevention of long-latency conditions, it may be helpful to develop leading indicators of behavioural change. The manager should have some idea of what success will look like as this helps maintain the interest of stakeholders, as well as focusing the project as whole.

Meetings and events need to be chaired efficiently and should aim to deliver concrete action points with realistic deadlines. The project manager should ensure proceedings remain focused and on-topic. A perception of time-wasting can compromise the goodwill of stakeholders and discourage future participation.

All activities, including contact with stakeholders, should be recorded formally in a format that enables uninvolved parties (such as external evaluators) to review the process. A comprehensive and efficient documentation process also enables more effective handover if project management responsibilities change hands due to operational requirements.

It is important for a progress monitoring system to be in place; it is essential to review progress against agreed milestones and deadlines regularly in order to flag up any problems early on. This allows assessment of whether the time and/or resources committed are resulting in sufficient returns. The review process potentially allows objectives to be revised, and if the project manager requires more resources or ring-fenced time this helps to validate their requests.

50

It may be necessary to re-allocate resources to an alternative approach where necessary; the supply chain process is not suited to all topics and it is better to acknowledge this early on in the process than continue to spend resources on an approach that is not working.

7.3 EQUIP THE PROJECT MANAGER WITH THE RIGHT TOOLS

There is no single ‘one-size-fits-all’ model of a project manager for a supply chain initiative. Equipped with the right support and skills, HSE staff (in a number of different roles) are potentially able to deliver outcomes successfully. However, an understanding of the industry and possession of (or ready access to) relevant technical knowledge is essential. As well as equipping the manager to lead the process as independently as possible, an apparently knowledgeable project manager enhances credibility of HSE among stakeholders and encourages stakeholder engagement.

Managers should also have the communication and people management skills to manage any conflicts that may arise and maintain engagement with the initiative over time. Project managers need to steer and guide stakeholders without imposing their own views too forcefully and some staff will need training if they haven’t had previous experience of this type of facilitation role.

To maximise the success of an initiative, project managers need to be adequately supported and resourced. Consideration should be given to the level of commitment needed to see the engagement process through, and to the level of the resources required to sustain momentum. Project managers need to be supported by their managers and it can be helpful (particularly when they have other operational objectives) for project management time to be ring-fenced. Also, provision of administrative support can be helpful in ensuring that skilled operational staff are not spending time ‘chasing’ stakeholders to secure attendance at events.

Where staff are taking over a work strand previously managed by another member of staff, some time should be allowed to enable a smooth handover process. The new manager will require access to relevant management information and is also likely to benefit from a face-to-face handover with the outgoing manager.

7.4 ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS STRATEGICALLY

Careful consideration needs to be given to the composition of the stakeholder groups, and this needs to be done on a project-by-project basis. Stakeholder analysis and stakeholder mapping enable a strategic approach to be taken and can help ensure that key stakeholders are identified and prioritised for involvement. In-house expertise within HSE should be exploited at an early stage, particularly when assessing (as required by stakeholder mapping) the relative degree of influence of various players in the supply chain.

It is important to be aware that those who are hard to reach may be most important to engage and therefore to apportion resources for sufficient contact time. In these cases, building awareness of commercial issues and other individual drivers for involvement can be key to successful engagement.

Stakeholders should ideally represent the entire length of the supply chain (for example, within construction, the input of designers and architects should not be overlooked). Small employers are an important stakeholder group and representation from appropriate intermediary groups should be sought. In circumstances where representation of a stakeholder group is not possible to obtain (eg workers who carry out small domestic construction projects), implications for these groups should nevertheless be considered throughout the supply chain process.

51

From the perspective of stakeholders, it is helpful to flag up the extent of the commitment required from them at the outset. In these circumstances a formal project plan can be informative and persuasive. Other logistical considerations are also relevant in securing engagement and attendance at meetings, such as timing and location. It may be more efficient to organise the stakeholders into small sub-committees with similar interests or specialism than holding an extended series of meetings that everyone is expected to attend.

7.5 ADOPT AN AUTHENTIC PARTNERSHIP APPROACH

An effective supply chain approach involves consulting rather than informing, or ‘asking’ rather than ‘telling’. This should be borne in mind right from the beginning; it is important to gauge whether stakeholders share the same sense of the problem (ie how to control the risk in question) as HSE. Those within the industry should have the opportunity to identify what they see as the main issues and whether they were solvable, and HSE should not be (or be seen to be) pushing a fixed agenda or a premeditated plan.

This approach may be challenging for inspectors who are accustomed to working with industry representatives in a more enforcement-oriented context, underlining the need for training or mentoring for supply chain managers who do not have experience of stakeholder engagement or consultation. Managers need to be able to drive the work forward without losing the support of key stakeholders or compromising HSE’s impartiality. The ability to see a problem from all sides is particularly important where particular stakeholders stand to make or lose money from particular solutions. Commercial considerations will be important in shaping the likely response of stakeholders to suggestions for change.

7.6 SECURE A RANGE OF OUTPUTS TO REINFORCE KEY MESSAGES

Those responsible for managing supply chain work should not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate beneficiary is the employee on the ground, and that efforts should be made to complement the stakeholder work with communications campaigns that deliver key messages directly to this target audience and their management.

There should be recognition that activities agreed by stakeholders to promote good practice (or to reduce hazardous practice) may not be translated into action within the workplace for some time, particularly those where small employers operate. Also, many stakeholders do not have direct contact with workers and may not be well placed to disseminate messages to workers. Therefore, projects should ideally result in a range of outputs to address this including, for example, user-friendly guidance, hard-hitting proportional images and slogans, toolbox talks and poster campaigns.

Where resources allow, a linked enforcement drive can add weight to a campaign by targeting poor practice and stimulating change on the ground. In order to emphasise HSE’s commitment to the issue in question this should be announced via national media and (ideally) timed to coincide with the delivery of key objectives of the work with stakeholders. In some cases this may necessitate provision of training and support materials for inspectors.

52

APPENDIX 1: DETAILS OF ALL SUPPLY CHAIN WORK STRANDS

53

Table A1.1: Work strands

Work strand

Reducing manual handling of heavy kerbs

Hand-arm vibration

Reducing manual handling of heavy paving

Reducing handling of heavy blocks (masonry units)

Reducing handling of panel products

Reducing respirable crystalline silica (RCS ) exposure during kerb, paving and block cutting

Use of lifting aids for heavy drainage products

Availability of management information

Limited Limited Unavailable Limited (for period covered by evaluation)

Unavailable Comprehensive Unavailable

Web community N N N Y N Y N

Background of initial and/or main co-ordinators

Inspector Inspector Inspector, policy Inspector Inspector Policy Inspector

Basic objectives Increase use of lifting Establish an HAV Reduce the incidence Endorse the existing Encourage the use Increase good practice Promote the use of according to 2008 equipment database of of manual handling 20kg limit and of mechanical within kerb, paving lifting aids in CONIAC meeting1

Increase substitution exposure limits for of paving materials produce revised lifting aids in the and block cutting construction, and in of concrete kerbs with kerbs made

handheld vibrating tools

by establishing mechanical laying as

guidance to replace previously withdrawn

handling of panel products (eg

Establish an agreed control hierarchy and

relation to heavy drainage products

from lighter materials Establish an HAV the industry norm guidance plasterboard) clear guidelines for Increase production management use of water and use of smaller units

system for industry-wide use

suppression and respiratory protective equipment (RPE)

Examples of Aggregate Industries Hire Association Aggregate Industries The Concrete Block Federation of Major contractors Fabricated Access stakeholders Major Contractors Europe Manufacturers of Association (CBA) Plastering and Dry- Manufacturers Covers Trade involved Group (MCG)

Construction Federation Kerb product manufacturers Quarry Products Association Civil Engineering

UK hire companies Tools manufacturers Equipment manufacturers British Compressed Air

lifting equipment Plant hire companies Builders Merchants Federation British Precast Concrete Construction Confederation

Builders merchants Materials suppliers Architects

walling Contractors (FPDC) British Gypsum National House Building Council (NHBC) (limited info. available)

Hire companies/ associations LAs Highways Agency Subject experts Training bodies

Association (FACTA) Welding company Drainage products installation contractor

54

Work strand


Hand-arm vibration






Contractors Society Ltd Tool manufacturers see Appendix 2 for Association (CECA) (BCAS) CECA extended list County Surveyor Construction Major contractors Society Confederation Highway Safety House-building Major contractors Operators Group contractors BSI (British LOTAG Term maintenance Standards) UCATT contractors Highways Agency

Federation of Master Builders

Federation of Master Builders

Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) Institute of Highways Incorporation

Hire Association Europe (HEA) Highways Agency Paving experts

Engineers (IHIE) Utility services

Local authorities London Technical Advisors Group (LOTAG)

Details of national December. 2003: November 2005: January 2009: January 2008: March 2009: February 2007: December 2007: stakeholder 1st national forum 1st national 1st national 1st national 1st national 1st national Meeting with event(s) July 2004:

2nd national forum (with increased LA representation)

stakeholder forum Birmingham

stakeholder forum stakeholder forum stakeholder forum stakeholder forum Fabricated Access Covers Trade Association (FACTA) manufacturers (no wider forum held)

55

Work strand


Hand-arm vibration






Details of working group(s)

No details available regarding number/dates of meetings

Feb. 2006 – Nov. 2007: Eleven working group meetings documented

April 2009: Working group met to take discussions forward and develop new guidance

2008: Four meetings held to establish a new 20kg limit for blocks used in construction

2009: Assembly of working group in progress

June 2007 onwards: Programme of working group meetings and sub-group meetings extending until March 2009 (fully documented on HSE website)

Strand did not progress sufficiently

Linked enforcement initiatives

March 2004: Launch of new enforcement strategy

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Feb 2009: Launch of enforcement initiative

Not applicable

Key milestones February 2004: Guidance to industry launched

July 2006: Worker Involvement Launch Event Noise and Vibration Programme Launch Event

N/A N/A May 2008: Ministerial launch of the Kerb Cutting Initiative.

N/A

1 www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/coniac/271108/m3-2008-6.pdf

56

APPENDIX 2: DETAILS OF PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF FURTHEST DEVELOPED WORK STRANDS

57

Table A2.1: Progress and Achievements

Reducing manual handling of heavy kerbs Hand-arm vibration (HAV)

Reducing handling of heavy blocks

Reducing respirable crystalline silica (RCS) exposure during kerb, paving and block cutting

Detailed Substitution of concrete kerbs with kerbs Establish a database of exposure limits Endorse the existing 20kg limit Promote awareness and knowledge of objectives made from lighter materials

Production and use of smaller units Increased use of lifting equipment on road building, road repair and hard landscaping sites

for handheld vibrating tools and produce revised guidance to replace previously withdrawn guidance

RCS risks within the industry Increase the use of control measures associated with specific tasks Improve contractors’ management arrangements for RCS risks Reduce RCS risks through the action of other relevant bodies such as designers or equipment manufacturers/suppliers

Details of web community/relev ant archives

www.hse.gov.uk/PRESS/2005/e05032.htm www.hse.gov.uk/VIBRATION/hav/proje ct-events.htm

www.hse.gov.uk/VIBRATION/hav/arch ives.htm

http://webcommunities.hse.gov.uk/ inovem/inovem.ti/heavymasonryun its/view?objectId=80304

http://webcommunities.hse.gov.uk/ino vem/inovem.ti/kerbcutting.community/ view?objectId=61392

Examples of Major Contractors Group (MCG) Hire Association Europe ‘Blocks’ phase: Major Contractors Group (MCG) stakeholders Construction Federation UK hire companies BSI (British Standards) Builders Merchants Federation engaged

Kerb product manufacturers Quarry Products Association Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA) County Surveyor Society House-building contractors Term maintenance contractors Highways Agency Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) Local Government Employers Association

Tools manufacturers Equipment manufacturers British Compressed Air Society Ltd (BCAS) Construction Confederation Major contractors BSI (British Standards) Federation of Master Builders

Concrete Block Association (CBA) Builders Merchants Federation Major contractors Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Manufacturers of masonry units Construction Trades Union (UCATT)

Additional stakeholders engaged in ‘masonry’ phase: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

Manufacturers of plastic and concrete kerb products Hire companies/associations LAs

APSE –LGE – Local Government Employer Highways Agency National Joint Utilities Group Training bodies Construction Federation SMEs

58




Institute of Highways Incorporation Association of Brickwork CECA, Engineers (IHIE) Contractors Constructing Better Health Local authorities Precast Concrete Paving and Kerb The Precast Concrete Association Paving and Kerb Association* European Power Tool Association

Examples of July 2004: Agreement on compliance July 2006: Noise and Vibration June 2008: Draft Guidance CIS 37 May 2008: ministerial launch of the documented action plan secured at second forum Programme Launch Event ‘Handling or Laying Masonry Kerb Cutting Initiative milestones September 2004: Meeting held with the

Local Authority Employer’s Forum (LAEF) and LOTAG representatives to facilitate local authority co-operation June 2004: LAs told to make transition to mechanically assisted kerb laying January 2005: Deadline for changing practices in relation to spot kerbing or kerb maintenance work

2007: Production of a technical note outlining HSE’s position regarding a pre-existing (non-HSE) HAV database, including evidence for the comparability of real-use data with that provided by manufacturers 2007: Drafting of stickers/tags to inform tool users of exposure limits 2007: Drafting of generic guidance for management of hand-arm vibration risk

Units’ published on web community for comment September: 2008: Draft review of the literature on block and brick laying published on web community

September 2008: meeting to evaluate impact January 2009: ‘Time to Clear the Air: Paving the way for healthier work’ multimedia campaign launched Feb. 2009: Launch of enforcement initiative October 2009: Wrap-up meeting to discuss the end of the project delivery phase and how best practice and uptake

(Date undocumented): Commitment from the Major Contractors Group to a policy of only accepting tools tested to ISO 5349 on their sites

can be further facilitated

Documented Production of construction information Production of an initial database Pre-2008 phase: Time to Clear the Air! leaflet and outputs sheet (CIS) no. 57 ‘Handling kerbs:

Reducing the risks of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)’ Publication of ‘Handling Paving Flags, a Guide to the Handling of Pre-cast Concrete Paving’ by Interpave, the Precast Concrete Paving and Kerb Association

comprising vibration data from three manufacturers Preparation of an HAV pack for inspectors Revisions to HSE leaflet INDG 175 Development of tailored HAV-themed training packages for operators, supervisors and counter staff, led by the Hire Association of Europe (HEA)

Re-draft of relevant HSE Construction Information Sheet Rewrite of relevant elements of British Standards Production of selling guides used by the Builders Merchants Federation Post-2008 phase: Identify interventions for all parts

DVD, which shows a worker demonstrating good practice Pavers' markers (chalk) with a health and safety message distributed Guidance on cutting paving (produced by the Precast Concrete Paving and Kerb Association) (HAPAS) approval for plastic kerbs Toolbox talks on RCS provided by a

59




Provision of HAV database on the of the supply chain that will reduce major tool hire company HEA’s UK website or eliminate musculoskeletal

injuries caused by manual handling of heavy masonry units Identify ways to communicate effectively with relevant stakeholders to raise awareness of risks and solutions and begin to embed good practice in the industry regarding the use of blocks Review and republish HSE’s Construction Information Sheet (CIS) no.37

Pre-cut heavy blocks case study, produced by the Precast Concrete Paving and Kerb Association Individual contractors research report on abrasive grinding wheels Example risk assessment Stakeholder questionnaire

60

APPENDIX 3: DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE EVALUATION

Table A3.1

Number of stakeholders Number of non-involved Work strand involved in work strands stakeholders

National statutory bodies 2 –

Local authorities 4 2

Construction contractors and building trades associations 6 5

Manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and relevant associations 7 6

Hire companies and hire associations 1 3

Trade unions 1 –

Technical experts 3 1

Designers architects and engineers 2 5

Other 1 3

Total 27 25

61

APPENDIX 4: DETAILS OF SITES VISITED AND ROLE OF INTERVIEWEES

Table A4.1: Types of sites visited

Number of sites

Principal contractor Major contractor 7

Local authority 3

Main activity on site of workers interviewed

Hard landscaping

Road maintenance

9

1

Total 10

Table A4.2: Role of employees interviewed

Role on site Number of workers

Site managers 10

Employee working for principal contractors 9

Employee working for subcontractors 26

Self-employed workers 4

Total 49

Published by the Health and Safety Executive 03/11



Since the 1990s, the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Construction Division has been working in partnership with industry to bring about better risk management within construction. One aspect of this work is the supply chain model, which attempts to take a cohesive approach by drawing together stakeholders from across the construction industry to develop solutions together. To date, seven different strands of work, each targeting a different process or health risk, have been initiated or completed.

This report presents the findings of a qualitative evaluation that was carried out to address the effectiveness of this approach. It considers:

n the conditions that determine success of this type of initiative and barriers to success;

n the relative effectiveness of each work strand in bringing about desired changes in practice; and

n the transferability of the supply chain approach and its various sub-processes to other risk areas.

The report also documents the processes and activities involved in the various work strands, their outputs and corresponding timeframes.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

RR843

www.hse.gov.uk

achieving change using the supply chain model in construction - … · 2019-12-05 ·...

Documents