Development and validation of disability management indicators for the construction industry

Abstract

Purpose Support at the organizational and managerial levels defines the degree to which construction workplaces can accommodate disabled and injured workers. There is little empirical evidence about the indicators and practices that can be used by construction organizations to evaluate disability management (DM). This paper aims to develop and validate key indicators and practices of disability/injury management within construction. Design/methodology/approach To achieve this, the research used a two-phase sequential exploratory review of literature, followed by a quantitative phase, using analytic hierarchy process. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) involved recruiting eight health and safety and DM experts to conduct pairwise comparisons of these indicators. Findings The results found return-to-work and disability and injury management practices to be the most important indicators and physical accessibility and claims management practices to be the least important. Practical implications The development of these indicators should help construction organizations develop DM programs that better meet their needs, and benchmark and improve related performance. Social implications The results could also be useful for all stakeholders in general and decision makers in particular involved within construction. Originality/value Such prioritization helps organizations to prioritize their DM practices thereby optimizing performance.

Construction disability management maturity model: case study within the Manitoban construction industry

“…A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify the indicators and practices of the CDM3. The detailed methodology and ranking of these indicators are available in Quaigrain and Issa (2018). CDM3 incorporates twelve indicators divided into two different categories based on their level of implementation and applicability: organisational-and individual-level indicators.…”

“…Aminbakhsh et al, 2013), and technology, equipment, and material selection (e.g. Lin et al, 2008;Quaigrain and Issa, 2018). The AHP uses the geometric means of individual respondents, thus reducing the inconsistency of expert judgements and bias in the decision-making process.…”

“…The fundamental scale has been demonstrated to capture individual preferences with respect to quantitative and qualitative attributes similarly to or better than other scales (Saaty, 1987). It derives scales of values from pairwise comparisons in conjunction with ratings, making it suitable for multi-objective, multi-criterion, and multi-actor decisions (Aminbakhsh et al, 2013;Quaigrain and Issa, 2018).…”

“…These experts included project managers, case management/RTW specialists, safety managers, researchers, and directors of construction companies. More information about these experts is available in Quaigrain and Issa (2018). The AHP was conducted separately by each expert, with individual meetings scheduled with each of them (Quaigrain and Issa, 2018).…”

“…More information about these experts is available in Quaigrain and Issa (2018). The AHP was conducted separately by each expert, with individual meetings scheduled with each of them (Quaigrain and Issa, 2018). Each expert was asked to conduct pairwise comparisons of the twelve indicators using the nine-point fundamental scale developed by Saaty (1987).…”