Content uploaded by Albert Eddy Husin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Albert Eddy Husin on Feb 28, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1385 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 10, Issue 02, February 2019, pp. 1385-1394, Article ID: IJCIET_10_02_134
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=02
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FOR SAFETY
PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTATION IN
INDONESIAN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Anwar Ali, Mawardi Amin, Albert Eddy Husin
Magister Technic Civil
Faculty of Technic, Mercu Buana University, Jakarta, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
The Social Security Organizing Agency Indonesia has noted that the number of
workplace accidents in Indonesia tend to increase. As many as 123 thousand work
accident cases were recorded throughout 2017 and the value increased around 20
percent compared to 2016. Total work accidents in 2017 were 123 thousand cases with
a claim value of Rp. 971 billion. The purpose of this study is to get an overview of the
key success factors (KSF) that hold the most dominant factor in the success of work
safety management programs in Indonesian Project. A total of 48 questionnaires
spread to safety expert on several construction projects in Indonesia to get input on the
priority of KSF that play a role in implementing work safety programs. The results of
the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and Pareto analysis show that there are seven
KSF make a major contribution to the 80% successful implementation of work safety
programs in the field. Consecutively there are Management Support; Work Motivation;
Team Work; Authority, Delegation & Responsibilities; Sufficient Resources Allocation;
Clear and Measured Targets and Safety Meetings. Verification has carried out on 3
project examples to assess whether the key success factors obtained are in accordance
with the conditions in the field.
Key words: KSF, safety program, AHP, Pareto analysis, construction, Indonesia.
Cite this Article: Anwar Ali, Mawardi Amin, Albert Eddy Husin, Key Success Factors
for Safety Programs Implementation in Indonesian Construction Projects, International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(02), 2019, pp. 1385–1394
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=02
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent year for period 2014-2019, infrastructure development in Indonesia, especially toll
roads, which has been spurred to create economic effect in all regions not only in Java but also
in other large islands such as Sumatra, Sulawesi and Kalimantan. The most rapid infrastructure
Anwar Ali, Mawardi Amin, Albert Eddy Husin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1386 editor@iaeme.com
development carried out in Java, with the target at the beginning of 2019, the toll road along
Java Island of the approximately 900 km from west to east will be connected.
Increasing or accelerating the construction of toll roads automatically mobilizes large
numbers of workers and work equipment to be able to carry out the project on time. Likewise
with other infrastructure such as the construction of a power plant with a target of 35 thousand
MW until 2019. In line with the rapid growth of the construction project itself will increase the
severity of accident hazards in the field and of course requires special attention to handling
health and safety issues. As well as with oil and gas projects, chemical plants and steel mills
require even more attention because they are very potential to cause hazards, especially
explosions.
It has been well known when construction work is accelerated, so it needs extra attention
to aspects of quality and safety. Both of these aspects are very important to be considered.
Quality usually can be overcome with the application of the suitable technology and equipment,
while the aspect of work safety can be handle with the proper implementation of safety
management program especially in the field.
As it is known that in the ongoing infrastructure projects in 2017 - 2018 as explained by
the Chair of the Construction Safety Commission, there are 24 accidents from August 2017 -
February 2018 which not only lose work completion time and material losses but also occur
fatality.
The Indonesia Social Security Organizing Agency noted that the number of workplace
accidents in Indonesia tends to increase. As many as 123 thousand work accident cases were
recorded throughout 2017 and there was an increase in work accidents around 20 percent
compared to 2016 nationally. Total work accidents in 2017 were 123 thousand cases with a
claim value of Rp. 971 billion more. This figure has increased from 2016 with a claim value of
only Rp 792 billion more.
The Project Management Body of Knowledge which is known as a holy book for
construction managers also gives special attention to this safety by providing an additional
section (section III. The Construction Extension Unique Project Management Knowledge
Area), which places Safety Management as the 13th Knowledge Management Project which is
one part of the 16 Project Management Knowledge Areas basic knowledge for Project
Managers (PMBOK 2000 edition).
The results of this study are expected to be used directly by contractors, especially to the
top management as a basis for strategic action measures to improve work safety performance
in the field. It can also be used by Project Managers and safety officers to have the same
understanding on how to take effective steps to improve project performance regarding to
reduce workplace accidents.
2. THEORITICAL BACK GROUND
2.1. Definition of Key Success Factors
Refer to the definition of success by Oxford Dictionaries, Definition of success - the
accomplishment of aiming at purpose; the definition of success is the completion of a goal or
goal. Tuman (1986) defines in a proceeding at the Project Management Institute seminar in
Montreal Canada defining that "project success as" having everything turned out as expected:
anticipating all project requirements and having sufficient resources in a timely manner,
defining that project success is to get everything as expected, fulfill all the requirements
required in the project and have sufficient resources to meet the requirements in accordance
with the time specified.
Key Success Factors for Safety Programs Implementation in Indonesian Construction Projects
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1387 editor@iaeme.com
While the definition of success factors or success factors, first published or published by
D. Ronald Daniel of McKinsey & Company in 1961. Critical Success Factors (CSF) is a
management term for an element that is necessary for an organization or project to achieve its
mission. Alternative terms are Key Result Areas (KRA) and Key Success Factors (KSF).
And then it was further refined into the definition of Critical Success Factors by John F.
Rockart between 1979 and 1981 and published in the Harvard Business Review, saying that
define those few favorable activities results are absolutely necessary for a particular manager
to reach his or her goals, defining a number of activities / activities that can provide the desired
results is, of course, requires special management to achieve the desired goals. Where in 1995,
James A. Johnson and Michael Friesen applied it to various sectors including the health sector.
2.2. Definition of Safety Management Standards
Various definitions of work safety programs that have been made by Anton researchers (1989)
define a work safety program as "the control of the working environment, equipment, processes
and the workers for the purpose of reducing accidental injuries and losses in the workplace" is
control in the work environment, equipment, tools and workers with the aim of reducing work
accidents and loss in the work area.
According to OHSAS 18001; 2007 OHS Management system: part of an organization's
management system and to manage OH & S Risks;
• A management system that is set of interrelated elements used to establish policies
and objectives and to achieve those objectives.
• A management system for organizational structure, planning activities (including
for example, risk assessment and the setting of objectives), responsibilities,
practices, procedures, processes and resources;
2.2.1. Previous Research
The Key Success Factors (KSF) on the implementation of occupational safety management in
the field has been carried out in several neighboring countries, in the Middle East and overseas.
First written in a journal in Thailand (2008), then the same thing was then examined in the
same case i.e. in Malaysia, and Cambodia, as well as in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Hong
Kong, China and USA. Based on literature KSF from several countries, in this study will be
researched for 13 element KSF which are dominant effect for success implementation of safety
management. Figure 2.1., shows the 13 element KSF with the hierarchy.
2.2.2. Flow of Study
The focus of this study is to look for the key factors that influence the successful
implementation of safety management in the field and also show which factors are the most
important in the success of safety management in the field. Study literature from journals and
OHSAS standard then matched the conditions in the field will be conducted. After determining
these variables from various literary sources, sampling is carried out in the field from
contractors. From the results of careful sampling taken from occupational safety experts in the
field, AHP mathematical method analysis with Expert Choice tools to be used to analyze
priority ranking / level. The results are then checked their inconsistency ratio that should not
be greater than 0.1 (Saaty, 1970). Then this result will be conducted with a final ranking with
the dominant role of the most important role by analyzing Pareto to be the final key ranking.
Finally verification stage will be made to verify whether the final result ranking is relevant with
the implementation on the actual project.
Anwar Ali, Mawardi Amin, Albert Eddy Husin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1388 editor@iaeme.com
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Types / Research Designs
This study intends to get a ranking of the KSF on the implementation of work safety programs
on construction projects in Indonesia. The research design used is a qualitative, inductive
research method because the data obtained comes from perceptions / facts in the field. Data is
obtained by survey by giving questionnaires to the experts of the construction actors involved.
The measurement of data used in this survey is a type of ratio scale, which is a measurement
based on the level of a particular attribute on the variable under study. The Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) method popularized by Saaty 1970 will be applied in this study is because there
are several criteria or factors or safety elements that need to be considered in the selection of
the most dominant KSF. Then later the results of this AHP ranking will be further filtered out
the most dominant factors that contribute 80% of the KSF, the method to get this with Pareto
Analysis.
3.2. Population, Study Samples and Sources of Data
The research sample will be taken from the occupational safety experts of the contractors
as stated above so that they are considered to represent the population studied. Because it is
said to be qualitative in nature, sampling is analogous to statistics such as non-probability
sampling with purposive, where the data collection is limited to those taken from experts or
contractors who are experienced in the field of work safety. The AHP method is very sensitive
to the inconsistency answer of the participant and requires precision in filling it out. For the
purposes of processing data in weighting / ratio final conclusions, the results of the weights of
the experts are then made geometric averages as proposed by Saaty (2008).
The sampling is needed as input to carry out the hierarchical process analysis (AHP). This
sampling technique for this method is not only quantity but also quality because in addition to
the sample it also considers its expertise as well as the questions asked using the ratio scale by
Saaty (2008) with grades 1 through 9.
Based on the source of data, the data used in this study consisted of two, namely Primary Data
which is obtained directly from the answers of the participants. The questionnaire given to
owners, executors, and consultants involved in construction. And Secondary Data which is
obtained from literature and reference studies regarding the KSF for the implementation of
occupational safety programs in various other countries which had carried out the same
research.
3.3. Data Collection Techniques
The instrument is collecting data by questionnaire. The questions raised were based on
literature studies where a list of the key elements of the success of the implementation of work
safety programs in several other countries was sorted out to be selected which one is have big
effect on each country and will be implemented to Indonesian construction project.
The quiz is distributed to several contractors where it is known that the contractors have
safety experts who can provide the right answers to what are the key factors for the successful
implementation of work safety programs in the companies / projects they work for.
The questionnaire technique that is conducted is closed where the participants just choose
the answers provided by the researcher. So the participants give a qualitative assessment, which
is about the participants' perceptions of the questions given in the form of importance. After
obtaining all data from all participants, the next step is to do data analysis. The author uses
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This technique was developed by Prof. Thomas L. Saaty
Key Success Factors for Safety Programs Implementation in Indonesian Construction Projects
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1389 editor@iaeme.com
at the University of Pittsburg in the USA. Saaty states that AHP is a general theory of
measurement used to reduce the scale of the ratio of several discrete and continuous paired
comparisons (Saaty, 1980). Pairwise comparisons can be obtained through actual
measurements or relative measurements of preference, importance or likelihood. In a hierarchy
there are main objectives, criteria, sub criteria and alternatives as on option. The hierarchical
structure in this study is shown in Figure 2.1. 13 Element Chart - Element KSF Implementation
of Work Safety Program.
In doing AHP simulation Expert Choice version 11 tools will be used to analyze the weighting
priority of large hierarchies or hierarchies that have many levels.
Figure 2.1. 13 Element Chart - Element KSF Implementation of Work Safety Program
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Overview of Participants
Participants are drawn from contractors. One contractor / company can be represented by
several participants while occupying different positions and projects within the company. The
number of invited participants was 60, and those who replied and completed the questionnaire
answers properly as many as 48 or about 80% data can be processed furtherly. The participant
Anwar Ali, Mawardi Amin, Albert Eddy Husin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1390 editor@iaeme.com
is divided into three categories namely Management (person at head office who responsible to
the safety project i.e. Director, Safety Manager), Project Manager/Construction Manager and
Safety Officer. Those participant shall have safety experiences from 5 years to more than 20
years.
During the process filling the questionnaire, there was enough intense communication to
understand how to fill it. Some of the answers were sent back via e-mail and others through
social media. Most of the answers can provide an initial indication of the ranking of the KSF
given. Participants who have a inconsistency ratio of 0.1 or greater need to readjust the
appraisal to meet the minimum inconsistent ratio requirements without changing the
composition of the original priority of the KSF assessment by directly consulting with the
participant concerned.
Data was taken in several locations mainly in Jakarta and Banten, some additional other
participants from projects carried out in West Java, East Java, South Sulawesi, Southeast
Sulawesi, South Sumatra and East Kalimantan.
4.2. AHP Results Weight the Key Success Factors
The results of expert choice software based on participant data above are explained in detail in
the following explanation. The result is specifically intended to examine the results of the pair
comparisons between the main and sub elements of the KSF. From the output of the expert
choice software where the inconsistent check is required, the maximum inconsistent value shall
be less than 0.1.
The final result show that the combined total of participants has fulfilled the conditions that
have been set, namely the combined total inconsistency ration is 0.004 <0.1 and in each factor
and sub factor made pairwise comparisons also have inconsistent values less than 0.1.
Table 4.1. Ranking & Weight of KSF Construction Project based on AHP and Pareto Analysis
Rank KSF (AHP) Avg. Weight Cumulative (%)
1 Management Supporting 0.1843 18.4%
2 Worker Motivation 0.1550 33.9%
3 Team Work 0.1345 47.4%
4 Delegate, Authority &
Responsibility 0.1056 57.9%
5 Clear & Realistic Target 0.0928 67.2%
6 Sufficient Resources Allocation 0.0680 74.0%
7 Safety Meeting 0.0591 79.9%
8 Personnel Competence 0.0560 85.5%
9 Safety Training 0.0401 89.5%
10 Safety Equipment & Maintenance 0.0302 92.6%
11 Eligible Supervise 0.0300 95.6%
12 Effective Enforcement of Rule 0.0265 98.2%
13 Program Evaluation 0.0179 100.0%
1.0000
Above in table 4.1., provides a description of the priority ranking of KSF include the weight
factors of each element. The shading shows the seven KSF which give contribution of 80% of
success safety implementation as Pareto analysis.
Key Success Factors for Safety Programs Implementation in Indonesian Construction Projects
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1391 editor@iaeme.com
4.3. Verification Results
Verification is made to get the evidence that the result of above KSF is relevant with the actual
safety performance in the Project. One of the standard to measure the safety performance based
on the value of the Frequency Rate (FR) and Severity Rate (SR).
This section is intended to measure work safety performance on projects based on the value
of the Frequency Rate (FR) and Severity Rate (SR) calculated based on the Indonesia Minister
of Manpower Regulation No. 03 / MEN / 1998 concerning Accident Reporting and
Examination Procedures regarding the standard calculation of Accident Figures Work as
follows:
Table 4.2. Summary Project Verification Likert Scale Compare to FR & SR
Element KSF Weight
ing
Building Weight
Likert
Infrast’ Weight
Likert
Plant Weight
Likert
Value Value Value
Management
Supporting 18% Good 0.74 Very
Good 0.92 Very
Good 0.92
Worker
Motivation 16% Fair 0.47 Good 0.62 Good 0.62
Team Work 13% Good 0.54 Good 0.54 Good 0.54
Delegate,
Authority &
Responsibility
11% Fair 0.32 Good 0.42 Good 0.42
Clear &
Realistic
Target
9% Fair 0.28 Good 0.37 Very
Good 0.46
Sufficient
Resources
Allocation
7% Fair 0.20 Very
Good 0.34 Good 0.27
Safety
Meeting 6% Fair 0.18 Very
Good 0.30 Very
Good 0.30
Personnel
Competence 6% Fair 0.17 Fair 0.17 Good 0.22
Safety
Training 4% Good 0.16 Good 0.16 Good 0.16
Safety
Equipment &
Maintenance
3% Fair 0.09 Good 0.12 Good 0.12
Eligible
Supervise 3% Fair 0.09 Fair 0.09 Good 0.12
Effective
Enforcement
of Rule
3% Fair 0.08 Very
Good 0.13 Good 0.11
Program
Evaluation 2% Fair 0.05 Good 0.07 Good 0.07
Total Value Likert weight 3.36 4.25 4.34
Total Value Likert weight in % 67% 85% 87%
Project Progress 25-50% 100% > 75%
Value FR 10.42 6.94 1.08
Value SR 26 0 1
Anwar Ali, Mawardi Amin, Albert Eddy Husin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1392 editor@iaeme.com
FR is the number of work accidents per one million hours of work caused by accidents over
a period of 1 year.
Frequency Rate (FR) = (Number of Accidents x 1,000,000)
(Number of Working Hours)
FR value obtained shows that in a year there are as many accidents as the FR value in every
one million hours of work.
SR is a number that shows days lost per million working hours of people due to accidents
over a period of 1 year.
Severity Rate (SR) = (Number of Lost Days x 1,000,000)
(Number of Working Hours)
SR values obtained indicate that in a year there has been a value of SR days of loss of work
time in every one million hours of work for people.
These values will be used as standard benchmarks on a project regarding project
performance in the implementation of work safety. Following in table 4.2., shows if the Likert
scale value grade is converted to value / number from 5 is very good to 4 is very bad, it means
that if we have 13 factors assessed, then the maximum value that can be obtained by a project's
evaluation is 5, which means that all the elemental factors are very good value. Tables 4.2.,
shows that if the achievement of a total Likert scale weighted above 80% is obtained, the
project will show good performance in occupational safety which can be seen from the obtained
FR and SR values which are relatively very small. The result shows that the role of the KSF is
to express work safety performance in accordance with the results of this research.
5. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusions
Based on the description given in chapter 4 about the results and discussion of research, to
provide answers to the formulation of the problem and the purpose of the study, conclusions
can be taken as follows:
1.
There are 13 elements of the Key Success Factors that can be applied in Indonesia
which are sorted by literature. From the 13 factors that have been sorted, there are
three KSF that are most of the concern in some very dominant countries and obtain
the highest weight, namely Program Evaluation; Authority, Delegation &
Responsibility and Management Support.
2.
From the results of the AHP weighting and Pareto analysis which show that there
are seven key success factors that make a major contribution to the 80% successful
implementation of work safety programs in the field. Consecutively are
Management Support; Work Motivation; Team Work; Authority, Delegation &
Responsibilities; Sufficient Resource Allocation; Clear and Measured Targets and
Safety Meetings. And the first three, namely Management Support, Worker
Motivation and Team Work contributed a key factor to the successful
implementation of safety management of weighting 47.4%.
5.2. Recommendations
Some suggestions can be given below because of the limitations in this study as well as
suggestions for developing further research as follows:
Key Success Factors for Safety Programs Implementation in Indonesian Construction Projects
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1393 editor@iaeme.com
1.
Further research is needed which focuses more on only a few key success factors in
accordance with the Pareto analysis of the results of this study and in one field of
construction which may have recorded many accidents.
2.
The results of this study are suggested to be used as a basis for the operations of
construction companies to take action to improve work safety performance in their
projects / companies
REFERENCES
[1] Abudayyeh, O., Fredericks, T. K., Butt, S. E., & Shaar, A. (2006). Project An investigation
of management commitment to construction safety, 24, 167–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.005.
[2] Agumba, J. N., & Haupt, T. C. (2012). Identification of health and safety performance
improvement indicators for small and medium construction enterprises: a Delphi consensus
study. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 545–557.
https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2012.v3n3p545.
[3] Aksorn, T., & Hadikusumo, B. H. W. (2008). Critical success factors influencing safety
program performance in Thai construction projects. Safety Science, 46(4), 709–727.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.006.
[4] Al Haadir, S., & Panuwatwanich, K. (2011). Critical success factors for safety program
implementation among construction companies in Saudi Arabia. Procedia Engineering, 14,
148–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.proeng.2011.07.017.
[5] S.S. Kuber, R.S. Bharsakade and Kartik Ramesh, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for
Selection of Residential Place, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and
Development, 8(1), 2017, pp. 01–08.
[6] Jasvinder Singh, Mahipal Singh, Anil Baliram Ghubade and Manjinder Singh Analytical
Hierarchy Process for Road Accident of Motorcycle in India: A Case Study. International
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 2017, pp. 1348–1356.
[7] Anton, T. J. (1989). Occupational Safety and Health Management (Second). New York:
Mc. Graw Hill, Inc.
[8] B. Al Mannai, S. Suliman and Y. Al Alawai, Implementation Effect on Bahrain Industrial
Performance, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development,
8(1), 2017, pp. 27–48.
[9] B.L. Golden, E.A. Wasil, P. T. H. (Eds). (1998). The Analytical Hierarchy Analysis,
Aplication and Studies. USA: Springer.
[10] Basak, I., & Saaty, T. (1993). Group Decision Making usin AHP. Mathematical and
Computer Modelling, 17(415), 101–109.
[11] Bavafa, A., Motamed, S., Marsono, A. K., Ressang, A., & Sadeghifam, A. N. (2016).
Significant Factors Affecting Safety Program Performance of Construction Firms in Iran.
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 4(3), 71–77.
[12] Raghu Veera Reddy N, Hari Kiran Reddy R and Y P Deepthi, Evaluation of Hybrid PTFE
Composite by Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method, International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(9), 2018, pp. 1182–1192.
[13] Bullen, C. V., & Rockart, J. F. (1981). A primer on critical success factors. Sloan, (69), 1–
64. https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/10/3/014.
[14] Choudhry, R. M., & Zahoor, H. (2016). Strengths and Weaknesses of Safety Practices to
Improve Safety Performance in Construction Projects in Pakistan. Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 142(4), 04016011.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.19435541.0000292.
Anwar Ali, Mawardi Amin, Albert Eddy Husin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1394 editor@iaeme.com
[15] Durdyev, S., Mohamed, S., Lay, M. L., & Ismail, S. (2017). Key Factors Affecting
Construction Safety Performance in Developing Countries: Evidence from Cambodia.
Construction Economics and Building, 17(4), 48.
https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v17i4.5596.
[16] El-mashaleh, M. S., Rababeh, S. M., & Hyari, K. H. (2010). Utilizing data envelopment
analysis to benchmark safety performance of construction contractors. International
Journal of Project Management, 28(1), 61–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.04.002.
[17] Forster, N. S., & Rockart, J. F. (1989). Critical succes factors: An annotated bibliography.
MIT Sloan Rev, 191(1), 3041–3089.
https://doi.org/
10.1109/SP.2006.29.
[18] Hinze, J., Hallowell, M., & Baud, K. (2013). Construction-Safety Best Practices and
Relationships to Safety Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 139(10), 04013006.
https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000751.
[19] Institute., P. M. (2003). Construction Extension to Guide to Project Management Body of
Knowledge PMBOK Guide 2000 Edition. USA: Newton Square Pensylvania. USA.
[20] Ismail, Z., Doostdar, S., & Harun, Z. (2012). Factors influencing the implementation of a
safety management system for construction sites. Safety Science, 50(3), 418–423.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.10.001.
[21] Li, Y., Ning, Y., & Chen, W. T. (2018). Critical Success Factors for Safety Management
of High-Rise Building Construction Projects in China. Advances in Civil Engineering,
2018(June).
https://doi.org/10.1155/
2018/1516354.
[22] Novianti, M. D., Purwoko, B., Bintoro, K., & Susanto, T. (2017). Factors Influencing
Safety and Health Performance for Low Cost Housing : Developer ’ S. In The 3rd
International Conference on Engineering of Tarumanegara. Jakarta.
[23] Royce Moser, Jr., MD, M. (1992). Effective Management of Occupational and
Environmental Health and Safety Programs. Beverly Farm, USA.: OEM Press.
[24] S, Jhonson. (2003). Behavioral Safety Theory: Understanding The Theoritical Foundation.
Professional Safety, 48 (10), 39–43.
[25] Saaty, T.L, L. G. V. (n.d.). Models, Methods, Concepts & Application of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. USA: Springer.
[26] Saaty, T. (1990). How to make a decision The analytic hierarchy process. European
Journal of Operation Researc, 48, 9–26.
[27] Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York.: McGraw-Hill.
[28] Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International
Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83.
https://doi.org/
10.1504/ IJSSCI.2008.017590.
[29] Shirouyehzad, H., Khodadadi-karimvand, M., & Dabestani, R. (2011). Prioritizing Critical
Success Factors Influencing Safety, Using TOPSIS. International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 2(20), 295–300.
[30] Steve., R. (2004). Construction Safety Management System. Spon Press. London & New
York: Spon Press.
[31] Tooma, M. (2011). Safety, Security, Health and Environment Law. Sydney, Australia: The
Federation Press.
[32] Yiu, N. S. N., Sze, N. N., & Chan, D. W. M. (2017). Implementation of safety management
systems in Hong Kong construction industry – A safety practitioner’s perspective. Journal
of Safety Research, 64, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.12.011.
