ArticlePDF Available

Designing an HSE Management of Change Model: A Case Study of Civil Engineering Projects Based on the Delphi Method

Authors:
Ahmad Soltanzadeh at Qom University of Medical Science and Health Services
Ahmad Soltanzadeh
Ira Mohammadfam at University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences
Ira Mohammadfam
Ahmad Ghorbani
Ahmad Ghorbani
Ahmad Ghorbani
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Mohsen Mahdinia at Qom University of Medical Science and Health Services
Mohsen Mahdinia
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation
Content uploaded by Mohsen Mahdinia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohsen Mahdinia on Oct 31, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Designing an HSE Management of Change Model: A Case Study of Civil
Engineering Projects Based on the Delphi Method
*
.
*
.
’
’
’
1. Introduction
[]
[]
’
HSE Management of Change Model Soltanzadeh A, et al.
Journal of Human Environment and Health Promotion. 2022; 8(2): 104-9 105
] [
] [
’
2. Materials and Methods
’
’
’] [
’
’
’
] [
’
] [
] [
’
] [
Delphi Questionnaire
design
1st session Delphi
study
Analyzing 1st
session results
2nd session Delphi
study
Analyzing 2nd
session results
Analyzing 3rd
session results
3rd session Delphi
study
HSE MOC
Model
Soltanzadeh A, et al. HSE Management of Change Model
106 Journal of Human Environment and Health Promotion. 2022; 8(2): 104-9
3. Results and Discussion
’
’
] [
‘
’
] [ ‘ ’
‘
’ ] [
‘
’
‘
’ ‘
’
] [
‘ ’ ‘
’
] [
] [
] [
] [
] [
HSE Management of Change Model Soltanzadeh A, et al.
Journal of Human Environment and Health Promotion. 2022; 8(2): 104-9 107
’
’
’
Soltanzadeh A, et al. HSE Management of Change Model
108 Journal of Human Environment and Health Promotion. 2022; 8(2): 104-9
1st Stage:
Investigate the current
situation
strategies and programs
human resources
factors influencing on
HSE goals
SWOT
2nd Stage:
Analyzing and Recognition
environment and
employees
costs of changes
consequences of change
HSE requirements
3rd Stage:
Planning
Team formation
financial resources
education and
culturalization
qualified personnel
Cost-benefit analysis
problem solving
4th Stage:
Make a change
Remove barriers of
change
Continuous
implementation
relationship between
managers and employees
practical training
Planned implementation
HSE MOC
Model
5th Stage:
Keeping of changes
evaluation team
Continual monitoring
measurement of satisfaction
justifying senior managers
] [
] [
4. Conclusion
’
Authors’ Contributions
HSE Management of Change Model Soltanzadeh A, et al.
Journal of Human Environment and Health Promotion. 2022; 8(2): 104-9 109
Conflicts of Interest
Acknowledgements
References
–
č Č ž ć đ
’
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Analysis of the Impact of Change Management Implementation on an Organization
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2022
Change is something that cannot be avoided, especially in an organizational environment, changes will often occur. Transformation or change in an organization has become a global issue since the discovery of the industrial revolution, therefore an organizational leader must be able to carry out various organizational changes and innovations and cannot escape the inevitable changes because this is what makes a leader carry out various organizational changes and innovations and cannot escape the inevitable changes because this is what makes a leader be a winner in business competition. Companies must be able to keep up with changes by carrying out organizational development. Therefore, the author conducted research to find out what are the impacts of implementing change management, things that affect change management and obstacles in change management. This study uses a qualitative method with a literature approach from several sources. The results of this study indicate that the impact of the implementation of change management on the organization affects the success of the company in the future.
View
Path analysis of occupational injuries based on the structural equation modeling approach: a retrospective study in the construction industry
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2019
Background and aims: The construction industry, sites, and projects are the most dangerous industries in terms of the risk of occupational accidents and injuries. Important factors that have led the industry as a health, safety, environment (HSE) high-risk industry in the world can be cited such as continuous changes in construction projects, using a lot of resources, poor working conditions, non-continuous employment, and cross-seasonal work, harsh environment. Risk of a variety of occupational accidents (e.g., fall, throwing objects, Slipping, Collision and crash, chemicals, electrical shock, Abrasion, and manual material handling, etc.), inherently exist in all construction projects. Given the existence of such risks, construction sites often fail to achieve their goals, such as the completion of the project, the estimated budget, project quality and expected extent of accidents and damages. In general, some studies have shown that the use of risk management systems in construction sites as each title and model, led to risk reduction in construction projects and sites. Also, this is a systematic approach and reasonable alternative to traditional and non-systematic methods used by many contractors. Risk management strategy in the construction industry can lead to efficient and effective results in terms of safety to construction sites including risk avoidance, risk transfer, reduce deaths and injuries, risk prevention and etc. Modeling and analysis of the indicators of the construction HSE risk management system to reduce the incidents and consequences of accidents, as well as its relationship with accidents, can be a very good self-monitoring approach, as has been shown in some studies, defects in the HSE management Risk system had allocated a high proportion (84%) in construction accidents. The analysis of occupational accidents and injuries could improve safety and health in the construction industry. Occupational safety and health challenges are tied largely to the construction industry. Various studies have reported catastrophic statistical data despite the many efforts made in this industry to reduce occupational accidents and injuries. The reported injury rate for the construction industry is higher than its average rate across all other industries and workers’ compensation costs of treatment, injuries, and fines in the construction industry are 4 times higher than those in other industries. However, construction workers make up only 5% of the US workforce, this industry accounts for 20% of all work-related deaths and 9% of disabling injuries. In developed countries, the rate of occupational accidents in the construction industry is 17%. This rate is 45% in Iran which is 2.6 times the global rate. Although construction workers make up less than 12% of Iran’s workforce, the rate of injuries caused by accidents in this industry is high. Identifying the factors affecting occupational injuries is a retrospective approach to analyze, prevent and reduce these injuries. However, researchers in various fields have attempted to describe various types of injury to analyze the factors affecting them, the significant point in most of the previous studies is that only some causes of accidents and injuries are addressed and the interaction of these variables are not investigated, nor the path analysis for the incidence of injuries or accidents is provided. One of the most effective accident analysis techniques developed to understand and explain the causes of events and analyze the path leading to accidents and their consequences is RCA (Root Cause Analysis). The use of software modeling approaches that can identify and analyze the relationship between variables and factors involved in the process of causative events as well as identifying the causes of accidents can be useful. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to analyze the path of causes resulting in occupational injuries involved in construction work by using structural equation modeling. Method: This study was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of occupational injuries that occurred in 82 small and medium-sized construction projects during the 11 years (2007-2017). The statistical population included all occupational injuries that occurred in construction projects. The main variables in this study were different types of injuries caused by occupational accidents. The initial size of the statistical population was 1328 accidents. Therefore, 1232 accidents were selected as the study sample based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It should be noted that the minimum sample size for analysis of a structural model should not be less than 200. The main tool for collecting data in this study was a checklist for reporting occupational accidents in construction projects. Interviews and records were also used to complete the data. The implementation of the study included "five steps". Step 1: Primary data (1328 accidents) were collected. Then, screening was done based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria and finally, 1232 accidents leading to injuries were selected as the final sample of the study. Step 2: occupational injuries were analyzed based on Root Cause Analysis (RCA). In this analysis, three questions were answered: “What happened?", "how?" and "why?". The executive stages of answering the three questions included a descriptive examination of the injury, sequencing of the events, identifying the factors affecting the incidence, collecting complementary data and identifying the causal chain. Step 3: Different dimensions of various factors affecting occupational injuries in the construction projects were identified, evaluated and classified. This step aimed at preparing the data for promoting the capability of the conceptual model for structural equation modeling (SEM). Step 4: A conceptual model for analyzing the causes of construction injuries was drawn following the chain of events and path analysis. Step 5: Finally, the associations, interactions, and effects of all factors and variables were analyzed using the structural equation modeling. Applying IBM SPSS AMOS version 0.22, the structural equation modeling was used for data analysis. It is noteworthy that the structural equation modeling is a general and powerful multivariate analysis technique within the family of multiple regression analysis. In other words, it is the extension of the general linear model that allows a set of regression equations to be simultaneously tested. Structural equation modeling is a comprehensive statistical approach for testing hypotheses about relationships among visible and latent variables. It is called covariance structure modeling, causal modeling or structural equation modeling. Results: Generally, the results of structural equation modeling showed that occupational injuries are reversely related to individual factors, organizational factors, safety training, and risk management, whereas they are positively related to unsafe conditions and actions and the type of accident. The descriptive results of the factors and variables are shown that the average age and work experience of the injured workers were 6.24 ±33.41 and 3.14 ±5.75 years, respectively. Approximately, two-thirds of the accidents had occurred during construction activities and more than 70% of the accidents had occurred for small contractors. The desirability degrees of two key safety program parameters i.e. duration and content of the programs (quantity and quality) were estimated to be 23.5% and 12.0%, respectively. The highest degree of the desirability of risk management variables belonged to safety checklist (28.7%) and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (22.1%). Workplace hazards (63.6%) and dangerous work methods (56.1%) caused the highest share of accidents. The majority of unsafe actions were linked to inadequate knowledge and awareness (65.5%) and non-usage of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (57.9%). The most common accidents fell from height (31.2%) and falling objects (27%). The analysis of occupational injuries showed that 1.5% of the accidents had resulted in death and 10.4% had led to physical limb deformation. Path analysis of construction injuries based on SEM revealed that occupational injuries had a significant inverse relationship with individual and organizational factors, safety education and risk management (p
View
Transformational Leadership and Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2020
  • J Appl Behav Sci
Numerous studies have empirically tested the linkage between transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change. However, no systematic attempt has been made to organize and summarize those findings. Based on a sample of 30 empirical studies that included 39 independent effect sizes and 12,240 participants, this meta-analysis found that transformational leadership exhibited (a) a positive relationship with commitment to change, openness to change, and readiness for change; (b) a negative correlation with resistance to change and cynicism about change; and (c) a nonsignificant correlation with support for change. Moderation analyses showed that in cross-sectional (vs. longitudinal) designs, transformational leadership exhibited a stronger correlation with openness to change and cynicism about change. Using Bass and Avolio’s scale (vs. Podsakoff et al.’s), transformational leadership exhibited a stronger correlation with resistance to change. In the Eastern (vs. Western) cultural context, transformational leadership exhibited a stronger correlation with commitment to change and resistance to change. In low-level (vs. high-level) journals, transformational leadership exhibited a stronger correlation with commitment to change, openness to change, and support for change. This study highlights the value of incorporating transformational leadership theory into the literature on change reactions to obtain a better understanding of how leaders facilitate or hinder organizational change.
View
Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2019
In most societies, resources are distributed by individuals acting in markets and by governments through some form of collective decision-making process. Economic evaluation offers a set of tools to inform collective decisions by examining the resource requirements and outcomes of alternative policies. The ‘societal perspective’ has been advocated, but less consideration has been given to what this should include and its practical implementation. This paper presents a framework for economic evaluation of policies with costs and outcomes falling on different sectors (e.g. health, criminal justice, education) and involving different decision makers. It extends the ‘impact inventory’ developed by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine by considering all affected individuals and reflecting how outcomes attributed to an intervention can be compared with outcomes forgone as a result of resources not being available for other purposes. The framework sets out the series of assessments to be made, distinguishing points at which value judgements feed into the evaluation, and the implications of alternative judgements. These assessments reflect the institutional arrangements of public bodies, for example, their funding, the outcomes they consider important and their relative valuations of these outcomes. By avoiding the use of an abstract ‘societal perspective’, the contribution of the framework is to inform multiple decision makers with different objectives and provide practical guidance on overall societal impact.
View
Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness
Article
  • Jul 2021
The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting. However, the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance, and details of the process followed are usually unclear. We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology; identification of problem area of research, selection of panel, anonymity of panelists, controlled feedback, iterative Delphi rounds, consensus criteria, analysis of consensus, closing criteria, and stability of the results. Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points, we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019. There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members, defining consensus, closing criteria for rounds, and presenting the results. We propose our evaluation points for researchers, medical journal editorial boards, and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.
View
View
View
View
View
Top Ten Reasons for Process Improvement Project failures
Article
  • Nov 2017
The purpose of this paper is to provide the top ten reasons of process improvement projects termination or failure to Lean and Six Sigma professionals and researchers. The top ten reasons of process improvement projects termination or failure are based on literature, interaction of authors with Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belts, consultants, practitioners and trainers on various topics of Lean, Six Sigma, general quality management and continuous improvement along several years’ experience of the authors. The top ten reasons in our opinion include: Lack of commitment and support from top management, Poor communication practices, Incompetent team, Inadequate training and learning, Faulty selection of process improvement methodology and its associated tools/techniques, Inappropriate Rewards and recognition system/culture, Scope creepiness, Sub-optimal team size and composition, Inconsistent monitoring and control, Resistance to change. The top ten reasons mentioned in this study are based on only literature and authors’ opinion. The authors of this article have been pursuing a global study to critically evaluate the reasons behind project improvement projects failure based on a case-study approach. The chief operations officers and executives of various businesses can use these top ten reasons to develop project failure risk mitigation strategies and save significant cash-savings associated with such project terminations or failures in some other cases.
View