Application of a Fuzzy AHP model for

behavior based Safety Management on a

Construction Project
By
Muhammad Daniyal (CE-82/15-16, Evening)
Azeem-ul-Qadr Zehravi (CE-97/15-16, Evening)

A term paper submitted in the

fulfillment of the course requirement of
CE 590Advanced Topics in Project Management
for the degree of
Masters in Engineering Management
Specialization in
Construction Management

Dated: October 10, 2016

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

KARACHI, PAKISTAN

Page 1 of 23
 PROPOSED INDEX
ABSTRACT

The Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) conditions of Pakistani

construction industry below par with the standards implemented by the
counterparts in western world but, this scenario is rapidly changing due
to the introduction of mega projects, well-educated management and
funding agencies along with allocation of separate budgets for EHS in
projects of repute.

The activities of construction industry have complex structure and

involve many variables which influence their completion in a safe
manner. These factors could not be studied individually and a
comprehensive multi-dimensional approach is required in order to
consider them simultaneously so as to arrive at a realistic proposition.

In this study a fuzzy AHP approach to determine the level of faulty

behavior risk (FBR) in work systems developed by Metinet. al 2006 is
applied on a real construction project. As a result FBR levels were
identified for two activities and based on these FBR levels, suggestions
regarding improvements of selected work activities are made.

The selected project comprised of civil works of an Industrial Complex

with 0.56 million sq.ft. total construction area. A dedicated EHS team
from contractors side implement EHS policy and systems on site which
is monitored by the EHS team of PMC. The EHS records of the project
for the period of 6 months were studied in detail and as a result two
work activities (Fixing of Scaffolding and Reinforcement binding of
Slabs and Beams) were identified for the implementation of Fuzzy AHP
Model.

4 Factors and 16 Sub-Factors in the work-activities were identified and

AHP model was formed by using them, local weights of Factors and
Sub-Factors were calculated by forming pair wise comparison matrices
and assigning importance based on the linguistic scales for relative
importance as proposed by Kahraman et al. 04 and performing
Chang's Extent Analysis Method.

Global weights of Sub-Factors were calculated by multiplying local

weight of Sub-Factor to the local weight of its parent Factor and FBR
values of both Work Activities were measured using the proposed
model and linguistic variables as proposed by Chang 96.

FBR value of Work Activity 1 was found out to be 0.54 and FBR value of
Work Activity 2 was found out to be 0.52 which lies in between the
lower limit and upper limit (i.e. 0.40 and 0.60 respectively as

Page 2 of 23
considered by researchers and EHS team) and therefore require
corrective actions.

While analyzing the calculations in detail, it was observed that there

were 3 common Sub-Factors in both the activities which were
increasing the FBR values. These three Sub-Factors are Long Work
Hours, Inadequate Supervision and Non-Compliance of EHS Guidelines.
Beside these three factors, there was one another factor (Improper
Access and Egress) only in Work Activity 1 which was causing increase
in the FBR value.

As a part of this study, researchers suggested following steps to be

undertaken in order to bring the FBR values under lower limits.

1. The Contractor should review the schedule and re-align the work
activities in order to control long working hours. If that is not
possible then assign the workforce in shifts so that divide the work
load and provide adequate resting period to the workforce.
2. The number of supervisory staff for both technical and EHS teams
should be increased.
3. A system should be devised in order to held individual worker
responsible of his acts and non-compliance of EHS guidelines. In
researchers opinion this system could work by increasing the level
of training and rewarding those who follow EHS guidelines while
punishing those who dont.
4. Access to high height areas for Scaffolding Workers should be
improved and Scaffolding Plans should be re-visited by technical
team by getting recommendations from EHS team in order to
provide better access and egress options.

For future, it is recommended that a follow up study should be done

and revised FBR values after the improvements should be calculated so
as to ascertain that those are below the lower limit.

Page 3 of 23
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION. 5
2. SCOPE.. 5
3. OBJECTIVES... 5
4. BACKGROUND.. 5
4.1. CONSTRUCTION SECTOR OF PAKISTAN
6
4.2. EHS SCENARIO IN PAKISTAN 6
4.3. SAFETY MANAGEMENT 8
5. FUZZY ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS.. 8
6. FUZZY LINGUISTIC SCALE.. 9
7. PROPOSED FUZZY AHP MODEL. 10
8. APPLICATION OF FUZZY AHP MODEL. 10
9. ANALYSIS OF FBR VALUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 16
10. CONCLUSION..
17
REFERENCES... 18

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Employed Distribution by Major Industry Division
Table 2: Occupational Injuries/Diseases Distribution of Employed
Person by Major Industry Division

Table 3: Linguistic Scale for difficulty and importance

Table 4: Linguistic values and mean of fuzzy numbers
Table 5: Record of KPIs
Table 6: Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of Factors

Table 7: Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of

Organizational Sub-Factors
Table 8: Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of Individual
Sub-Factors
Table 9: Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of Task Related
Sub-Factors

Page 4 of 23
Table 10: Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of
Environmental Sub-Factors
Table 11: Calculated global weights of Sub-Factors
Table 12: FBR Values of two work activities with the proposed Fuzzy AHP
Model 16

Figure 1: Linguistic Scale for relative importance Kahraman et al. 04 9

Figure 2: Linguistic Scale for relative importance - Chang 96 9
Figure 3: Average Manpower at site between January15 and June15 11
Figure 4: AHP Model for determining FBR 13

1. INTRODUCTION

The safety of an ordinary construction worker is not considered on an

absolute prime by majority of construction contractors in Pakistan. For
several decades, Pakistani construction workers have been struggling
to attain their basic right of health and safety on job and many of them
lost their lives or sustained serious injuries due to unsafe conditions
which could have been avoided by implementing basic safe work
practices.

However, this scenario is rapidly changing. With the introduction of

mega projects, well-educated management and funding agencies along
with allocation of separate budgets for EHS in projects of repute, the
EHS conditions are deemed to be improved in the industry.

The essence of safe working lies with the behavior of construction

workers in light of working culture, by constant training and provision
of proper personal and site safety equipment to the workforce which
should be well suited to the working conditions.

Measurement of work safety conditions require holistic approach and in

this study, the work safety issue is studied through the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) approach allowing multi-criteria and
simultaneous evaluation using fuzzy numbers, as the exact
measurement of different nonphysical variable affecting the safety
management is quite limited therefore the real issues can be
represented in a better way by using fuzzy numbers. For this purpose,

Page 5 of 23
 a fuzzy AHP approach to determine the level of faulty behavior risk
(FBR) in work systems developed by Metinet. al 2006 in their paper
titled "Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for
behavior-based safety management" is applied on a real construction
project. As a result FBR levels are identified for two activities and based
on these FBR levels, suggestions regarding state of selected work
systems are made.

2. SCOPE

The scope of this term paper is limited to implementation of Fuzzy AHP

model for behavior based safety management on selected two
activities of a Construction Project.

3. OBJECTIVES

The objective of this term paper is to assess the Faulty Behavior Risk
Levels of selected activities and propose improvement in the work
process if required in order reduce the FBR levels.

4. BACKGROUND

4.1. CONSTRUCTION SECTOR OF PAKISTAN

By construction we mean realizing a structure in physical form utilizing

materials with the help of machinery and manpower (Hassan, 2012).
Generally the construction sector can be divided in to two categories,
first is the residential construction (Housing) which involves individual
private housing and the second is commercial construction which
comprises of commercial plazas, industries, housing schemes etc.

In Pakistan mostly traditional approach of Design-Bid-Build system is

adopted for private commercial projects. The design being done by
architects/engineers and construction handled by Contractors with
Project Managers managing the complete project some of the times.

The housing and construction sector provides substantial employment

opportunities as it contributes through a higher multiplier effect with a
host of beneficial forward and backward linkage in the economy. The
sector through linkages affects about 40 building material industries,

Page 6 of 23
 support investment and growth climate and helps reduce poverty by
generating income opportunities for poor household (Raza, 2008).

According to the Labor Force Survey 2013-14 by Pakistan Bureau of

Statistics, Construction Sector employs 4.1 million of total 56.25 million
work force in the country.

Table 1
Employed Distribution by Major Industry Division

2013-2014 Rank
Major Industry Division
Total Male Fe-Male
Total 100 100 100
Agriculture/Forestry/hunting & Fishing 43.5 34.2 74.0 1
Manufacturing 14.2 14.7 12.3 3
Construction 7.3 9.5 0.3 5
Wholesale & Retail Trade 14.6 18.5 1.6 2
Transport/Storage & Communication 5.5 7.1 0.2 6
Community/Social & Personal Service 13.1 13.7 11.5 4
Others 1.8 2.3 0.1 7
*Others (includes mining & quarrying, electricity, gas & water, financing, insurance, real
estate &business services and extraterritorial organizations and bodies), Source Labor
Force Survey 2013-14 by Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

4.2. EHS SCENARIO IN PAKISTAN

Construction in developing countries, such as Pakistan and India, is

more labor intensive than that in the developed areas of the globe,
involving 2.5-10 times as many workers per activity (Farooqi et al,
2008) and the trade is ranked third among the most hazardous
industries in Pakistan with high injuries, occupational diseases and
fatality rates (SciInt, 2014).

The advancement in technology had adversely affected the

construction safety of developing countries. (Hafeez et al, 2015). If we
look in to the data of Labor Force Survey 2013-14 by Pakistan Bureau
of Statistics, Construction Industry ranked 5 th in the number of
employees but ranked 3rd in most injury prone industry with alarmingly
high injury rate i.e. 14.1% of total workforce of 2.41 million, which
reported some kind of injury at work. That means approximately 1 in
12 employed person is prone to injuries/diseases in construction
industry.

Table 2
Occupational Injuries/Diseases Distribution of Employed Person by Major
Industry Division

Page 7 of 23
 2013-2014 Rank
Major Industry Division
Total Male Fe-Male
Total 100 100 100
Agriculture/Forestry/hunting & Fishing 51.2 46.5 86.4 1
Mining & Quarrying 0.3 0.3 - -
Manufacturing 14.2 14.9 9.2 2
Electricity, Gas & Water 0.3 0.4 - -
Construction 14.1 15.9 0.6 3
Wholesale & Retail Trade 8.6 9.5 1.1 4
Transport/Storage & Communication 7.5 8.4 0.2 5
Financial, Insurance, Real Estate and
0.1 0.1 - -
Business Services
Community/Social & Personal Service 3.7 4.0 2.5 6
Currently, there is no independent regulation for occupational health
and safety in Pakistan, The clause 7 of Labor Policy of 2010 dictates
that:
The Labor Laws are quite complex, over-lapping, anomalous, and at
times render the subject matter difficult to understand, besides
creating confusion for those who deal with them. Further, the penalties
prescribed for offences and non-compliance is very low, since some of
these laws were framed during pre-independence period.
The Labor Laws are consolidated and rationalized into five core laws,
via;
i) Laws relating to industrial relations.
ii) Laws relating to employment and service conditions.
iii) Laws relating to occupational safety and health.
iv) Laws relating to human resource development.
v) Laws relating to labor welfare and social security.
Further, under clause 25 (Construction Labor) it is mentioned that since
the construction sector is witnessing rapid expansion, health, safety
and occupational hazards in this industry are likely to pose new
challenges and problems. Therefore to guard the employed in this vital
sector of the economy, the Government shall enact suitable legislation
to ensure health and safety of construction workers and clause 31
(Health and Safety) substantiate the setup of A Tripartite Council on
Health and Safety in order to identify health and safety hazards for
workers of all economic sectors and to make recommendations for
safety measures on a continuous basis. This proposal is yet to be
realized.
In the absence of measures as mentioned above the main law, which
governs these issues, is Chapter 3 of Factories Act, 1934 and The
Hazardous Occupations Rules, 1963 under the authority of Factories
Act. These rules specify some hazardous occupations and authorize the
Chief Inspector of Factories to declare any other process as hazardous.

Page 8 of 23
 The major provisions in this act relates to operational hazards in
manufacturing and mining industry which are not specifically tailored
to construction industry.

4.3. SAFETY MANAGEMENT

Different organizations have different system and policies to manage

safety of its workforce and these systems or policies are influenced
heavily by the nature of activities in which that organization is involved
with. With regards to Construction Industry, the activities which are
part of this trade have complex structure and involve many variables
which influence their completion in a safe manner.

These individual variables can be categorized as Organizational,

Individual, and Environmental etc. and act simultaneously to alter the
safety parameters. Therefore these factors could not be studied
individually and a comprehensive multi-dimensional approach is
required in order to consider all these factors simultaneously so as to
arrive at a realistic proposition.

5. FUZZY ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as introduced by Saaty T.L in his
paper Decision Making with Analytical Hierarchy Process in 2008
defines the process of determining the relative importance indices of
different factors for a problem which require multi criteria decision
making. In this method, a linguistic scale of numbers is defined which
indicates the relative importance of one factor over the other. This
method facilitates the judgment of qualitative criteria in terms of
quantitative criteria in a pair wise comparison matrix and allows the
decision maker to compare two alternatives at a time limiting the
influence of other factors on the decision.
One drawback of this method as highlighted in several studies is that it
is unable to adequately handle the inherent uncertainty and
imprecision associated with the mapping of the decision makers
perception to crisp values (Matein et al, 2006). In real life scenarios, a
decision maker is unable to assign crisp numerical values to his
judgment as he is more confident in giving judgments in intervals
rather than in absolute numeric values. In order to address this issue of
uncertainty, the proposed model utilizes Fuzzy Set Theory along with
AHP so that to enable the effects of ambiguity in the calculations of our
model and Extent Analysis Method for Fuzzy AHP models as introduced
by Chang in his paper Application of Extent Analysis Method on fuzzy
AHP 95, will be used for calculating weighs for factors and sub factors
through pair wise comparison of triangular fuzzy numbers. Further,
triangular fuzzy numbers are also used for pair wise comparison
matrices.

Page 9 of 23
6. FUZZY LINGUISTIC SCALE
The fuzzy linguistic scale as proposed by Kahraman et al. 04 regarding
relative importance which is utilized in this study for measuring relative
weights Factors is as follows:
Figure 1
Linguistic Scale for relative importance Kahraman et al. 04

Table 3
Linguistic Scale for difficulty and importance

Linguistic Scale for Linguistic Scale for Triangular Triangular

difficulty difficulty fuzzy scale fuzzy
reciprocal
scale
Just Equal Just Equal (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
Equally difficult (ED) Equally important (EI) (1/2,1,3/2) (2/3,1,2)
Weakly more difficult Weakly more important
(1,3/2,2) (1/2,2/3,1)
(WMD) (WMI)
Strongly more difficult Strongly more
(3/2,2,5/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3)
(SMD) important (SMI)
Very strongly more Very strongly more
(2,5/2,3) (1/3,2/5,1/2)
difficult (VSMD) important (VSMI)
Absolutely more difficult Absolutely more
(5/2,3,7/2) (2/7,1/3,2/5)
(AMD) important (AMI)

The membership functions fuzzy linguistic variables as proposed by Chang

96 which is utilized in this study for measuring the importance of Sub-
Factors are shown in figure 2 and their average values are shown in table
4.

Page 10 of 23
 Figure 2
Linguistic Scale for relative importance - Chang 96

Table 4
Linguistic values and mean of fuzzy numbers

Linguistic Values The mean of fuzzy

numbers
Very high (VH) 1
High (H) 0.75
Medium (M) 0.5
Low (L) 0.25
Very low (VL) 0

7. PROPOSED FUZZY AHP MODEL

The proposed fuzzy AHP model for determining the FBR levels of work
activities is described in the following steps:
1st Step: Identify Factors and Sub-Factors to be used in model
2nd Step: Structure the AHP Model such that Objective are in first level,
Factors are in second level and sub-Factors are in third level.
3rd Step: Determine the local weights of Factors and Sub-Factors by
using pair wise comparison matrices as per the scale given in
figure 1 and table 2.
4th Step: Calculate global weights of Sub-Factors by multiplying local
weight of the Sub-Factor with local weight of Factor to which it
belongs.
5th Step: Measure the average values of linguistic variables for Sub-
Factors using scales given in figure 2 and table 4.
6th Step: Calculate the FBR values of work activities by multiplying
global Sub-Factor weights and average values of linguistic
variables. Compare these FBR values with pre-determined
upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) values. Depending on
the comparison result following decisions are made:

Page 11 of 23
 a. If FBR UB Then, stop the activity, devise
8. new approach and recalculate
FBR.

b. If LB FBR < UB Then , take correcting

precautions and recalculate FBR

c. If FBR < LB Activity can be performed safely

APPLICATION OF PROPOSED MODEL
The proposed model for calculating FBR values was applied on a
construction project in Karachi, Pakistan. The selected project
comprised of civil works of an Industrial Complex with 0.56 million sq.ft.
total construction area. The civil contractor involved on site was
supervised by a project management consultant (PMC) who is hired by
the client to manage overall aspects of project.
A dedicated EHS team from contractors side implement EHS policy and
systems on site which is monitored by the EHS team of PMC, who then
report clients EHS department. High importance was given to the EHS
from the project award stage and separate cost head was kept in the
tender for implementation and maintenance of EHS standards as per
policy provided by client.
The EHS records of the project were gathered from PMCs EHS team for
the period of 6 months starting from January15 till June15. The
average manpower of contractor deputed at site and key performance
indicators during that period is mentioned below in figure 3 and table 6
respectively.
Figure 3
Average Manpower at site between January15 and June15

368
344

267

171

68 68

Page 12 of 23
 Table 5
Record of KPIs

Month First Major Safety Work Near Unsafe Total

Aid Injurie Warning Stoppage Misse Conditio
Cases s Notices Notices s n Notices

Jan-15 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
Feb-15 0 0 7 4 8 12 31
Mar-15 15 0 18 12 3 4 52
Apr-15 7 0 2 3 2 0 14
May-15 5 0 6 2 0 1 14
Jun-15 22 0 3 1 0 2 28
Total 101 0 39 23 13 26 202

While discussing with EHS team in detail it was highlighted that

increased number of first-aid cases in the month of March15 and
June15 was due to risks involved in following two major work activities:
Work Activity 1: Fixing of Scaffolding, in this activity there are 2
transportation, 1 storage, 1 process and 1 control
events. The workers pick up the scaffolding pipe from
storage yard and dump then on site from where another
set of workers pick-up the pipe, lift it to the desired level
and install it in the scaffolding system subsequent to
which a supervisor inspects the completed scaffolding
and declare it as fit to use or recommend any
improvement needed.

Page 13 of 23
Work Activity 2: Reinforcement binding of Slabs and Beams, in this
activity there are 3 transportation, 1 storage, 1 process
and 1 inspection event. The workers pick-up the pre-cut
to length re-bars from steel yard and dump them on site
from where another set of worker pick-up the re-bars
and transport it to desired level. The re-bars are then
transported to desired location where they are installed
in place. A supervisor then inspect their adequacy an
placement with respect to drawings and give go-ahead
for pouring of concrete or recommend amendments to
be done.
Therefore, it was jointly decided between researchers and EHS team
member that proposed model will be applied on these two work
activities as follows:
1st Step: In this step Factors and Sub-Factors in the work-activities were
identified jointly by researchers and experts of EHS team. By
analyzing the EHS policy, in contrast with work activities
performed following 16 factors were determined and grouped
in to 4 main categories i.e. Organizational, Individual, Task
Related and Environmental Factors. The Sub-Factors grouped
under these Factors are as follows:
Organizational Factors:

Long Work hours

Inadequate Supervision
Activity Completion Pressure
Improper EHS Guidelines
Individual Factors:

Noncompliance to EHS Guidelines

Lack of Experience
Tendency of Risky Behavior
Stress Levels
Task Related Factors:

Inadequate Tool and Plant (T&P) Handling

Task Repetition
Lack of Task Information
Lack of Training
Environmental Factors:

Improper Access and Egress

Worker Density
Lack of Housekeeping

Page 14 of 23
 Poor Lighting Conditions
2nd Step: In this step AHP model is formed by using Factors and Sub-
Factors identified in first step with the goal of determining
Sub-Factor weights at first level, Factors at second, Sub-
Factors at third, fuzzy scale at fourth and work activities for
which FBR needs to be calculated are situated in fifth level.
The complete AHP model is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4

AHP Model for determining FBR

3rd Step: In this step, local weights of Factors and Sub-Factors are
calculated by forming pair wise comparison matrices and
assigning importance based on fuzzy scale given in figure 1
through analysis by EHS team and researchers. The pair wise
comparison matrix for the factors is given in table 6. The fuzzy
evaluation values are obtained by comparing the pair of factor
against each other by considering the importance of one
factor over other.
Table 6
Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of Factors

Factors OF IF TF EF Weights

Organizational Factors (OF) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (1/2,1,3/2) 0.35

(2/5,1/2,2/3
Individual Factors (IF) ) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) (1/2,1,3/2) 0.25
Task Related Factors (TF) (2/5,1/2,2/3 (2/5,1/2,2/3 (1,1,1) (1,3/2,2) 0.17

Page 15 of 23
 ) )
Environmental Factors (EF) (2/3,1,2) (2/3,1,2) (1/2,2/3,1) (1,1,1) 0.23

The fuzzy values thus obtained are utilized in calculating local

weights as mentioned in table 6 by Changs Extent Analysis
Method as follows:
1 1 1
S OF =( 4.50,6 .00,7 .50 ) ( 23.50 ,
17.67 13.53 )
, (0.19,0 .34,0.55)

1 1 1
S IF = (3.40,4 .50,5 .67 ) ( 23.50 ,
17.67 13.53 )
, (0.14,0 .25,0 .42)

1 1 1
S TF =( 2.80,3 .50,4 .33 ) ( 23.50 ,
17.67 13.53 )
, (0.12,0 .20,0.32)

1 1 1
S EF =( 2.83,3 .67,6 .00 ) ( 23.50 ,
17.67 13.53 )
, (0.12,0 .21,0.44)

Page 16 of 23
 S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
V ( EF STF )=1.00,
V ( EF S IF )=0.86,
V ( EF S OF )=0.66,
V ( TF S EF )=0.95,
V ( TF S IF )=0.76,
V ( TF S OF )=0.48,
V ( IF S EF)=1.00,
V ( IF S TF )=1.00,
V ( IF S OF )=0.73,
V ( OF S EF )=1.00,
V ( OF STF )=1.00,
V ( OF S IF )=1.00,

C
( OF )=V ( SOF S IF , STF , S EF )=min ( 1.00,1 .00,1.00 ) =1.00
d'

C
( IF)=V ( S IF SOF , STF , S EF ) =min ( 0.73,1.00,1 .00 )=0.73
d'

C
( TF)=V ( STF S OF , S IF , S EF ) =min ( 0.48,0.76,0 .95 ) =0.48
d'

C
( EF)=V ( S EF SOF , S IF , STF )=min ( 0.66,0 .86,1 .00 )=0.66
d'

Page 17 of 23
 ' T
W =( 1.00, 0.73, 0.48,0.66 ) ; W =(0.35,0.25, 0.17, 0.23)

The weight vectors for Sub-Factors are calculated in similar

manner and are presented in table 7 till 10:
Table 7
Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of Organizational Sub-Factors

Factors LH IS AP IG Weights

Long Work Hours (LH) (1,1,1) (1,3/2,2) (1/2,1,3/2) (1,1,1) 0.27

Inadequate Supervision (IS) (1/2,2/3,1) (1,1,1) (2,5/2,3) (1,1,1) 0.32
(1/3,2/5,1/2
Activity Completion Pressure (AP) (2/3,1,2) ) (1,1,1) (1/2,1,3/2) 0.19
Improper EHS Guidelines (IG) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/3,1,2) (1,1,1) 0.22

Table 8
Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of Individual Sub-Factors

Factors NG LE TB SL Weights

Non-Compliance of EHS Guidelines (NG) (1,1,1) (1/2,1,3/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (1,3/2,2) 0.33

Lack of Experience (LE) (2/3,1,2) (1,1,1) (1,3/2,2) (1,3/2,2) 0.30
(2/5,1/2,2/3
Tendency of Risky Behavior (TB) ) (1/2,2/3,1) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) 0.24
(2/5,1/2,2/3
Stress Levels (SL) (1/2,2/3,1) (1/2,2/3,1) (1,1,1)) 0.13
Table 9
Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of Task Related Sub-Factors

Factors TP TR LI LT Weights

Inadequate T&P Handling (TP) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1/2,1,3/2) (1/2,1,3/2) 0.23

Task Repetition (LE) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) (1,1,1) 0.30
(2/5,1/2,2/3
Lack of Task Information (LI) (2/3,1,2) ) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) 0.21
Lack of Training (LT) (2/3,1,2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) 0.26

Table 10
Local weights and pair wise comparison matrix of Environmental Sub-Factors

Factors IA WD LH PL Weights

Improper Access and Egress (IA) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) (1,3/2,3) (1,1,1) 0.39
(2/5,1/2,2/3
Worker Density (WD) ) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1/2,1,3/2) 0.15
Lack of Housekeeping (LH) (1/3,2/3,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,3/2,2) 0.25
Poor Lighting Condition (PL) (1,1,1) (2/3,1,2) (1/2,2/3,1) (1,1,1) 0.22

4th Step: In this step, global weights of Sub-Factors are calculated by

multiplying local weight of Sub-Factor to the local weight of its
parent Factor. The global weights thus calculated are shown in
table 11.

Page 18 of 23
 Table 11
Calculated global weights of Sub-Factors

Main Factors Local Sub-Factor Local Global

Weight Weight Weight

Organizational Factors (OF) 0.35 Long Work Hours (LH) 0.27 0.09
Inadequate Supervision (IS) 0.23 0.11
Activity Completion Pressure (AP) 0.19 0.07
Improper EHS Guidelines (IG) 0.22 0.08
Individual Factors (IF) 0.25 Non-Compliance of EHS Guidelines (NG) 0.33 0.08
Lack of Experience (LE) 0.30 0.08
Tendency of Risky Behavior (TB) 0.24 0.06
Stress Levels (SL) 0.13 0.03
Task Related Factors (TF) 0.17 Inadequate T&P Handling (TP) 0.23 0.04
Task Repetition (LE) 0.30 0.05
Lack of Task Information (LI) 0.21 0.04
Lack of Training (LT) 0.26 0.04
Environmental Factors (EF) 0.23 Improper Access and Egress (IA) 0.39 0.09
Worker Density (WD) 0.15 0.03
Lack of Housekeeping (LH) 0.25 0.06
Poor Lighting Condition (PL) 0.22 0.05

According to these global weights the three most important

Sub-Factors are Inadequate Supervision, Long Work Hours and
Improper Access and Egress.
5th Step: In this step, linguistic variables of Sub-Factors for two Work
Activity 1 and Work Activity 2 are measured using scale
presented in figure 2 and table 4.
6th Step: In this step, FBR values of Work Activity 1 and Work Activity 2
are measured using the proposed model and linguistic
variables from step 5. The FBR vales along with linguistic
variables are presented in table 12.

Page 19 of 23
 Table 12
FBR Values of two work activities with the proposed Fuzzy AHP Model

Sub-Factor Global Work Activity 1: Work Activity 2:

Weight Fixing of Scaffolding Reinforcement binding
(gw) of Slabs and Beams
Linguistic Scale gw x sv Linguistic Scale gw x sv
Variable Value Variable Value
(sv) (sv)
Long Work Hours (LH) 0.09 High 0.75 0.07 High 0.75 0.07
Inadequate Supervision (IS) 0.11 Medium 0.50 0.06 Medium 0.50 0.06
Activity Completion Pressure (AP) 0.07 High 0.75 0.05 High 0.75 0.05
Improper EHS Guidelines (IG) 0.08 Low 0.25 0.02 Low 0.25 0.02
Non-Compliance of EHS Guidelines (NG) 0.08 High 0.75 0.06 High 0.75 0.06
Lack of Experience (LE) 0.08 Low 0.25 0.02 Low 0.25 0.02
Tendency of Risky Behavior (TB) 0.06 High 0.75 0.05 High 0.75 0.05
Stress Levels (SL) 0.03 Medium 0.50 0.02 Low 0.25 0.01
Inadequate T&P Handling (TP) 0.04 Low 0.25 0.01 Low 0.25 0.01
Task Repetition (LE) 0.05 High 0.75 0.04 Medium 0.50 0.03
Lack of Task Information (LI) 0.04 Low 0.25 0.01 Low 0.25 0.01
Lack of Training (LT) 0.04 Medium 0.50 0.02 Medium 0.50 0.02
Improper Access and Egress (IA) 0.09 High 0.75 0.07 Medium 0.50 0.04
Worker Density (WD) 0.03 Medium 0.50 0.02 Low 0.25 0.01
Lack of Housekeeping (LH) 0.06 Medium 0.50 0.03 Medium 0.50 0.03
Poor Lighting Condition (PL) 0.05 Low 0.25 0.01 High 0.75 0.04
FBR Work Activity 1: 0.54 Work Activity 2: 0.52

9. ANALYSIS OF FBR VALUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

According to the nature of these work activities and practice of
construction industry in general the lower limits (LL) and upper limits
(UL) of FBR values are considered as 0.40 and 0.60 by researchers and
EHS team.
According to the calculations the FBR value of Work Activity 1 was
found out to be 0.54 and FBR value of Work Activity 2 was found out to
be 0.52. These both FBR values fulfill the condition b of Step 6 defined
in Section 7 therefore requires correcting actions in order to bring the
FBR values below LL.
While analyzing the calculation in detail, it was observed that there are
3 common Sub-Factors in both the activities which are increasing the

Page 20 of 23
 FBR values. These three Sub-Factors are Long Work Hours, Inadequate
Supervision and Non-Compliance of EHS Guidelines.
The first two of these factors belongs to Organizational Factors
therefore, the contractor should review the policy and schedule to
minimize the long working hours and number of supervisory staff (both
works supervisors and EHS supervisors) should be increased.
For third Sub-Factor i.e. Non-Compliance of EHS Guidelines the
individual worker should be held responsible of his actions and
measures should be taken to increase the EHS awareness. Researchers
feels that this could be accomplished by increasing the level of
practical training and rewarding those workers who follow EHS
guidelines while punishing those who dont. This will set examples
among the workforce and could work as a catalyst among them for
following the EHS guidelines.
Beside these three factors, there is another factor only in Work Activity
1 which is also playing its part in increasing the FBR value and that is
Improper Access and Egress. When the researchers examined the
situation on site, it was observed that the scaffolding provides the way
of access to other workers and the workers that are building that
scaffolding do not have proper ways and access to build it at height.
Therefore, it suggested that the scaffolding fabrication plan should be
looked critically by contractors and PMCs EHS as well as technical
teams and order to provide better solution and provisions to worker
building the scaffolding.
By implementing the corrective actions suggested above, the FBR
values of Work Activities should come below the LL and operations
could be performed in a safer manner.
10. CONCLUSION
The essence of safe working lies in the behavior of work force itself.
Any safety management system implemented or devised is as good as
the people implementing it and the people following it and there is
always room for improvement.
In this study, a model of identifying the weaknesses in the system
through Faulty Risk Behavior Values was implemented and based on
these values the two Work Activities were found to be working within
limits but require correction in the process in order to bring their FBR
values below the lower limit.
The researcher suggests the following steps for improving FBR Values.
1. The Contractor should review the schedule and re-align the work
activities in order to control long working hours. If that is not

Page 21 of 23
 possible then assign the workforce in shifts so that divide the
work load and provide adequate resting period to the workforce.
2. The number of supervisory staff for both technical and EHS
teams should be increased.
3. A system should be devised in order to held individual worker
responsible of his acts and non-compliance of EHS guidelines. In
researchers opinion this system could work by increasing the
level of training and rewarding those who follow EHS guidelines
while punishing those who dont.
4. Access to high height areas for Scaffolding Workers should be
improved and Scaffolding Plans should be re-visited by technical
team by getting recommendations from EHS team in order to
provide better access and egress options.
The findings of this study were shared with participating PMC as well
as contractor and it is hoped that the researchers recommendations
will be implements in order to create a safer environment for its
workforce.
For future, it is recommended that a follow up study should be done
and revised FBR values after the improvements should be calculated
so as to ascertain that those are below the lower limit.

REFERNCES

Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-

based safety management, Journal of Information Sciences, October,
2007, Metin Dagdeviren and Ihsan Yuksel.
Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European
Journal of Operations Research, 95, Da-Yong Chang.
A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic
network approach, European Journal of Operations Research, 04, Cengiz
Kahraman, Tijen Ertay , Gulcin Buyukozkan.
Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Services
Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008, Saaty, T.L.
Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade
value of membership Function, European Journal of Operational Research,
96, C.H. Chang,
Labor Force Survey 2013-14, Govt. of Pakistan, Bureau of Statistics
Labor Policy 2010, Govt. of Pakistan

Page 22 of 23
Construction Safety Research in Pakistan: A Review and Future Research
Direction, 7th International Civil Engineering Congress (ICEC-2015)
Sustainable Development through Advancements in Civil Engineering
June 12-13, 2015, Karachi, Pakistan. Hafiz Zahoor, Abert P.C. Chan, Rafiq
M. Choudhry, Wahyudi P. Utama, Ran Gao.
Health, Safety and Environmental Practices in the Construction Sector of
Pakistan, Syed Ahmed Hasan, 2012.
Investigation of Safety Performance Indicator on Construction Projects,
Sci.Int. Rehan Masood, Babar Mujtaba, M. Ali Khan, Sajjad Mubin, Faizan
Shafique, Hafiz Zahoor, 2014.
Role of Construction Sector in Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from
Pakistan Economy.First International Conference on Construction In
Developing Countries ICCIDCI) Advancing and Integrating Construction
Education, Research & Practice 2008, Raza Ali Khan.
Safety Performance in Construction Industry of Pakistan, First
International Conference on Construction In Developing Countries ICCIDC
I) Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research &
Practice 2008, Rizwan U. Farooqi, Farukh Arif, S.F.A Rafeequi
Construction Safety Assessment Framework for Developing Countries: A
Case Study of
Sri Lanka, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 18(1), 3351,
2013, Kanchana Priyadarshani, Gayani Karunasena and Sajani Jayasuriya.

Page 23 of 23