Impacts of Lean Construction On Safety Systems: A System Dynamics Approach

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Impacts of Lean Construction on Safety Systems: A
System Dynamics Approach
Xiuyu Wu 1 , Hongping Yuan 2 , Ge Wang 3, * , Shuquan Li 1 and Guangdong Wu 4
1 School of Management Science and Engineering, Tianjin University of Finance & Economics, Tianjin 300222,
China; xywu2014@126.com (X.W.); lsq@tjufe.edu.cn (S.L.)
2 School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangdong 510006, China; hpyuan2005@gmail.com
3 College of Public Administration, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China
4 Department of Construction Management, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330013,
China; wuguangdong@jxufe.edu.cn
* Correspondence: ge_wang@yeah.net; Tel.: +86-027-8728-4349

Received: 7 November 2018; Accepted: 9 January 2019; Published: 14 January 2019
Abstract: Lean construction has been viewed as an effective management approach for reducing the
occurrence of no-value or destructive activities, such as wasting resources and safety-related accidents.
However, few studies have systematically addressed how and to what extent lean construction
practices influence construction safety. To bridge this gap, a conceptual model is developed and
validated using a system dynamics approach. The construction system in this model comprises
four sub-systems (i.e., environment system, equipment system, management system, and employee
system). Data were collected from 448 projects in China. Simulations were conducted to determine
the correlations between five types of lean tools and the four construction sub-systems. The results
show that: (a) 5S management has significant positive impacts on the control of key locations and
facilities at construction sites, and contributes to the mitigation of environmental impacts; (b) visual
management can significantly improve safety compliance and safety management; (c) just-in-time
management has significantly positive influences on the safety facilities layout and formulation of the
safety plan; and (d) the Last Planner® System and conference management are effective in improving
safety training and the implementation of the safety plan. These findings provide new insights
into the use of lean construction for improving construction safety through the implementation of
a targeted lean approach.
Keywords: lean construction; safety system; system dynamics; construction projects
1. Introduction
Construction projects, especially those building infrastructures, are booming in developing
countries such as China, and have contributed greatly to social-economic development over the past
few decades. Due to the complexity of the building environment during the construction stage,
safety hazards are typically severe and pose enormous challenges to sustainable project delivery [1–3].
The safety levels of China’s construction industry are recognized to be deteriorating. According to
statistics provided by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China, there were
692 work-related accidents with 807 deaths on construction sites in 2017 [4]. In 2015, there were 442
accidents with 554 deaths [5]. In response, there has been a flurry of research on factors leading to safety
hazards, as well as countermeasures to cope with safety issues, including the cause of accidents [6],
safety inputs and safety performance theory [7,8], safety planning [9], safety culture, and safety climate
and safe behaviors [10–12]. These studies provide significant theoretical guidelines for reducing the
number of work-related accidents and hence improving safety performance. However, because of
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 221; doi:10.3390/ijerph16020221 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 221 2 of 16
the “decentralized” and “mobile” nature of construction activities, as well as the “complexity” of the
building environment, safety management measures that stem from the manufacturing industry are
far from satisfactory in their application to construction projects [13,14].
The factors influencing construction safety performance have been widely analyzed, including work
conditions, worker behaviors, and safety management systems [15]. With respect to work conditions,
Winge and Albrechtsen [14] indicated that many accidents can be explained by the lack of physical
barrier elements and that there is an urgent need to adopt a systematic barrier management approach.
The subjects of safe behaviors involve owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and front-line workers
on construction sites [16–18]. Safety programs that include safety commitments and responsibilities,
safety supervisions, employee involvements, and safety evaluations are recognized as some of the
most effective approaches for preventing construction work-related accidents [19]. Lean construction
is a term that refers to systematic and value-added practices that can directly or indirectly overcome
physical barriers and improve behavioral efficacy in construction safety management. More specifically,
Bashir et al. [20] noted that implementation of the LPS (Last Planner® System) and the 5S (seiri, seiton,
seiso, seiketsu, and shitsuke) management method can significantly reduce accidents by tracking the
roots of the problems. In a longitudinal study of 141 construction organizations, Thomassen et al. [21]
found that the accident rate after implementing lean construction tools was 6.95% lower than in their
absence. Furthermore, Forman [22] indicated that lean construction and the safety management system
are two different types of social transformation “projects,” and that future research should consider
how these two “project” types interact. Recently, the potential impacts of lean construction on safety
performance have attracted increasing attention from scholars [23,24].
Koskela [25] first applied the lean thinking to the construction field and then put forward the concept
of lean construction. Since the introduction of the Last Planner® System [26,27], lean construction
has rapidly developed and shown great effects on waste reduction, process control, and project
value-adding [28–30]. However, the impact of lean construction on safety issues is as yet in its infancy
and previous studies have been theoretical or involve just one type of lean tool. The influencing
mechanism of lean construction on construction safety, therefore, lacks systematic and in-depth analysis.
On this basis, this study focuses on five main types of lean tools—5s management, visual management,
the Last Planner® System, just-in-time management, and conference management—and investigates
their impacts on improving construction safety. To address these concerns, in this study, we first
developed a comprehensive model of the construction system (i.e., comprising environment, equipment,
management, and employee sub-systems) through the lens of lean theories. Then, we targeted the
optimization and improvement of the safety system from the perspectives of process control by providing
a new perspective for improving safety management.
System dynamics, as proposed by Forrester [31], establishes a comprehensive model that comprises
system structures, causal relationships, and feedback loops. Complex problems, such as causality,
nonlinear relationships, multiple feedback, and time delay, can be addressed by applying system
dynamics. Considering the advantages of system dynamics in simulating complex social systems, it has
been widely applied to transportation systems [32], project management [33,34], and building design
and operation [35]. As a kind of complex system, the construction safety system is characterized by
multi-subjects, complex workflows, and a dynamic environment. As such, the system dynamics approach
could be suitable to simulate the characteristics and operation process of construction safety systems.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, a system dynamics model comprising five types
of lean techniques is established. In Section 3, using the back propagation (BP) neural network and
the mean impact value (MIV) algorithm, we verify the objectivity of the parameters within the system
simulation process. The relationship between lean construction tools and the construction system is
simulated in four scenarios in Section 4, wherein each scenario represents a construction sub-system.
In Section 5, the study results are presented, including both the theoretical and practical implications.
Int. 2. Literature
J. Environ. Review
Res. Public Healthand Theoretical
2019, 16, 221 Model 3 of 17
2.1.2.1. Construction
Construction Safety
Safety System
System Model
Model
TheThe system
system accidents
accidents analysis
analysis hashas shifted
shifted from fromthethe cause-based
cause-based analysis
analysis to to system
system function
function
analysis. System theoretic accident model and process (STAMP)
analysis. System theoretic accident model and process (STAMP) is one of the most representative is one of the most representative
approaches.
approaches. STAMP
STAMP considersthe
considers theinfluence
influence of of management
managementcommitment,commitment,culture, culture, andandfeedback
feedback on safety
on
performance
safety performance [36].[36].
A system
A system consists of interrelated
consists of interrelated components
components (e.g.,(e.g.,
technical, physical,
technical, and human
physical, and
elements)
human and uses
elements) andfeedback loops ofloops
uses feedback information and control
of information and to enforce
control safety constraints
to enforce safety[37]. According
constraints
to According
[37]. Grant et al. to [38], complex
Grant et al.systems need to systems
[38], complex identify the need safety tenets through
to identify the safety a systematical
tenets through thinking
a
approach to predict accidents. As for construction activities, the safety
systematical thinking approach to predict accidents. As for construction activities, the safety system system involves people, materials,
machinery,
involves people,andmaterials,
activities machinery,
related to safety issues [39].
and activities related to safety issues [39].
To To improve
improve thethe operation
operation of of
thethe construction
construction safety
safety system,
system, scholars
scholars havehave conducted
conducted research
research
from two perspectives. On the one hand, some researchers
from two perspectives. On the one hand, some researchers have focused on human issues, such have focused on human issues, such
as as
the behaviors of employees [40], safety management practices [41], and the relationship between thethe
the behaviors of employees [40], safety management practices [41], and the relationship between
twotwo [42].
[42]. Other
Other researchers
researchers have have addressed
addressed objects
objects andand environments,
environments, suchsuch as safety
as safety equipment
equipment [43][43]
and safety environment [44]. As for construction projects, the safety system is in a continuous andand
and safety environment [44]. As for construction projects, the safety system is in a continuous
dynamic
dynamic process
process of change
of change in which
in which thethe elements
elements intrinsically
intrinsically interact.
interact. To To systematically
systematically analyze
analyze thethe
dynamic
dynamic effects
effects of lean
of lean construction
construction tools,
tools, in this
in this paper,
paper, wewe divide
divide thethe construction
construction safety
safety system
system intointo
four
four sub-systems:
sub-systems: thethe management
management system,
system, employee
employee system,
system, equipment
equipment system,
system, andand environment
environment
system.
system. Of these,
Of these, the construction
the construction management management (managers)(managers)
system systemis the coreis the core sub-system
sub-system [19], which [19],
which has responsibility for the formulation and implementation of
has responsibility for the formulation and implementation of safety measures, safety inspections, and safety measures, safety inspections,
theand the correction
correction of hazards.of hazards.
The employeeThe employee (construction
(construction workers)workers)
sub-system sub-system includes employee
includes employee safety
safety participation
participation (e.g., taking (e.g.,
parttaking part training)
in safety in safety andtraining)
safetyand safety compliance
compliance (e.g., compliance
(e.g., compliance with safety with
safety regulations) [11]. The mechanical equipment and
regulations) [11]. The mechanical equipment and construction environment are peripheral sub-construction environment are peripheral
sub-systems.
systems. The equipment
The equipment system system
includesincludes safety equipment
safety equipment and theand the equipment
equipment qualification
qualification rate, keyrate,
key and
parts, parts, and control
control status status
of theofequipment.
the equipment. The The individual
individual behaviors
behaviors exhibited
exhibited in the
in the employee
employee
system
system directly
directly affect
affect thethe normal
normal operation
operation of the
of the equipment
equipment system,
system, while
while thethe management
management system
system
indirectly
indirectly controls
controls thethe equipment
equipment system
system viavia
thethe employee
employee system.
system. TheThe environment
environment system
system refers
refers to to
the social and natural environment wherein the construction site
the social and natural environment wherein the construction site is located and its influence on is located and its influence on different
projectproject
different participants, including
participants, the owner’s
including satisfaction,
the owner’s disputes
satisfaction, between
disputes managers
between and workers,
managers and
and anyand
workers, public
anycomplaints about the construction
public complaints environmentenvironment
about the construction [44]. In addition, [44].theInequipment
addition, system
the
has a direct impact on the operation of the environment
equipment system has a direct impact on the operation of the environment system and the system and the environment system plays
a significantsystem
environment role in plays
the operation of therole
a significant management and employee
in the operation of the systems
management [43]. Figure 1 shows the
and employee
structure
systems [43].and relationships
Figure 1 shows the of the four sub-systems.
structure and relationships of the four sub-systems.
Environment system Equipment system
Management system
Employees system
Figure
Figure 1. Structure
1. Structure andand relationships
relationships of construction
of construction safety
safety sub-systems.
sub-systems.
2.2. Construction Safety System Operation Process and Its Feedback to Lean Construction Tools
2.2. Construction Safety System Operation Process and Its Feedback to Lean Construction Tools
Lean construction applies work structuring (alignment of product and process design and supply
Lean construction applies work structuring (alignment of product and process design and
chains) to improve construction performance and workflow reliability. Moreover, lean construction
supply chains) to improve construction performance and workflow reliability. Moreover, lean
construction provides the framework to ensure an orderly construction process and hence promotes
the operating efficiency of the construction system [45].
Int. J. Int.
Environ. Res. Public
J. Environ. Health
Res. Public 2019,
Health 16,16,
2019, 221221 4 of 17
4 of 16
Figure 2 shows the operation and feedback of a construction system in a lean construction
provides
scenario. Lean theconstruction
Int. J. Environ.
framework toincludes
ensure
Res. Public Health 2019,
an orderly construction process and hence promotes the operating
16, 221 a range of tools. This study mainly focuses on five specific 4 of 17 lean
efficiency of the construction system [45].
construction tools, including 5S management, visual management, the Last Planner System, just-in- ®
Figure 22 shows
Figure shows the operation and
and feedback of aa construction system in in aaconstruction
lean
lean construction
time management, and the operation management.
conference feedback of These construction
five typessystemof lean construction
tools are
scenario. Lean construction includes a range of tools. This study mainly
scenario. Lean construction includes a range of tools. This study mainly focuses on five specific focuses on five specific
lean
closely related
lean construction to safety practices and have gained wide attention in recent years, especially
® 5s
construction tools,tools, including
including 5S management,
5S management, visual visual management,
management, the Lastthe Last Planner
Planner ® System,System,
just-in-
management
just-in-time inmanagement,
occupationaland safety [46], visual
conference management
management. in construction safety [47], toolsthe Last
time management, and conference management. These These five
five types types
of leanof lean construction
construction tools are
Planner ®
closely system
are closelyrelated with
related respect
to safety
to safety to safety
practices
practices and involvement
and have
have gained
gained [48], just-in-time
wide
wide attentioninin
attention management years, regarding
recent years,
recent especially 5s
especially safety
5s
process [49],
management in
management and safety meeting
in occupational
occupational safety management
safety [46],
[46], visualprocedures
visual management [50].
management in In addition,
in construction these
construction safety lean
safety [47], construction
[47], the
the Last
Last
® system with respect to safety involvement [48], just-in-time management regarding safety
toolsPlanner
have been
Planner ® system widely
with respect to safety involvement [48], just-in-time management regarding safety lean
used in China [51]. The following is a brief introduction to the five
process
construction [49],
process [49], toolsand
andandsafety meeting
meeting management
the elements
safety procedures
of the construction
management procedures [50].
[50]. In
system. In addition,
addition, these
these lean
lean construction
construction
tools have
tools have been
been widely
widely usedused inin China
China [51]. The following
[51]. The following isis aa brief
brief introduction
introduction to to the
the five
five lean
lean
construction tools and the elements of the construction
construction tools and the elements of the construction system. system.
Management system Employees system

Management system Employees system
Lean construction technologies
Lean construction technologies
Figure 2. Construction system incorporating lean construction tools.
Figure 2. Construction system incorporating lean construction tools.
2.2.1. 5S Management
2.2.1. 5S
2.2.1. 5S Management
Management
5S management
5S management refers totothe
refers management of of workers,materials,
materials, machines, andand other on-site
5S management refers to the
the management
management of workers,
workers, materials, machines,
machines, and other
other on-site
on-site
factors in the
factors production
in the
the production process.
process.Literally,
Literally,5S
5S refers to
to thefirst
first letter of five Japanese words: sorting
factors in production process. Literally, 5S refers
refers to the
the first letter
letter of
of five
five Japanese
Japanese words: sorting
words: sorting
(seiri), consolidation (seiton),
(seiri), sweeping (seiso),
(seiso), cleaning (setketsu),and and quality (shitsuke). Figure 3
(seiri), consolidation
consolidation (seiton),
(seiton), sweeping
sweeping (seiso), cleaning
cleaning (setketsu),
(setketsu), and quality
quality (shitsuke). Figure
(shitsuke). Figure 33
shows a diagram
shows
shows
of aofconstruction
aa diagram
diagram of aa construction system
construction system
based
system based
based on
on 5Smanagement.
on 5S
management.
5S management.
Figure 3. Construction system causality diagram based on 5S management.

Figure
Figure 3. Constructionsystem
3. Construction systemcausality
causality diagram
diagrambased
basedonon
5S5S
management.
management.
5S management was
5S management originally designed
was originally designed to reasonably optimize
to reasonably optimize the layout of
the layout of various
various on-site
on-site
5S management
factors and thereby was originally
improve productiondesigned to
efficiencies reasonably
and reduce optimize
wastes.
factors and thereby improve production efficiencies and reduce wastes. Thomassen et al. [21] noted
the layout
Thomassen of
et various
al. [21] notedon-site
factors
thatand thereby
the implementation
that the improve
implementation of production
of 5S efficiencies
management would
5S management and
would effectively reduce
effectively reducewastes.
reduce the Thomassen
number of
the number et al. [21]
of work-related
work-related noted
that accidents
the implementation
accidents caused of 5S management
causedbybydisordered
disordered management
management would
at the effectively
at workplace,
the workplace,
suchreduce
assuch the number
as slipping,
slipping, falling, andof work-related
falling, and
colliding.
colliding.
accidents
Specifically, Specifically,
caused “sorting” “sorting”
by disordered
is performed is performed
management
to distinguishat to distinguish
the workplace,
between between
necessary and necessary
such and
as slipping,
unnecessary unnecessary
falling,
items found at and
items
colliding.
the work found
site, at
Specifically,
and the work site, is
to “sorting”
then remove and to then remove
performed
the unnecessary to items theand
distinguishunnecessary
between
provide items
a more and provide
necessary
appropriate and a more
unnecessary
workspace.
itemsappropriate
found at workspace.
“Consolidation” a direct“Consolidation”
theis work resultand
site, of sorting,
to then is aremove
directnecessary
whereby result
the of sorting,
items whereby
are arranged
unnecessary itemsinnecessary items are
order.provide
and “Sweeping” a more
arranged
refers to in order.
cleaning up “Sweeping”
the refers
workplace. to cleaning
“Cleaning” up
referstheto workplace.
maintaining “Cleaning”
the refers
cleanliness ofto maintaining
the workplace
appropriate workspace. “Consolidation” is a direct result of sorting, whereby necessary items are
the cleanliness
by its of the workplace
institutionalization andrefers by its institutionalization
standardization. and standardization. “Quality” referstheto
arranged in order. “Sweeping” to cleaning“Quality” refers
up the workplace. to training
“Cleaning” workers to develop
refers to maintaining
training workers to develop the cleaning habit. These five “s” steps
cleaning habit. These five “s” steps are connected and complement each other. Sorting providesare connected and complement
the cleanliness of the workplace by its institutionalization and standardization. “Quality” refers to
each other. Sorting provides the basis for consolidation, and consolidation improves the sorting
training workers
results. Sweeping to develop
embodiesthe thecleaning
effects of habit. These five
consolidation “s” steps
and sorting andareall connected
three steps form and complement
the basis
eachforother. Sorting
cleaning. provides
The good the basis
“quality” for consolidation,
of workers is achieved through and theconsolidation improves theand
continued implementation sorting
results.
improvement in the above four steps. The establishment of worker quality eventually promotesbasis
Sweeping embodies the effects of consolidation and sorting and all three steps form the
for cleaning.
improvement The in good “quality”system,
the employee of workers is achieved
such that throughsystem
the construction the continued implementation
enters a virtuous cycle. and
improvement in the above four steps. The establishment of worker quality eventually promotes
the basis for consolidation, and consolidation improves the sorting results. Sweeping embodies the
Int. J. Environ. Res.
effects of Public Health 2019,
consolidation 16, 221 and all three steps form the basis for cleaning. The good “quality”
and sorting 5 of 17
of workers is achieved through the continued implementation and improvement in the above four
2.2.2.
Int. Visual
J. Environ.
steps. TheManagement
Res. Public Health 2019,
establishment 16, 221 quality eventually promotes improvement in the employee system,
of worker 5 of 17
such that
Visual the construction
management system
refers enters a virtuous
to managers using cycle.
various tools or methods to achieve transparent
2.2.2. Visual Management
and 2.2.2.
visualized management
Visual Management [52]. For example, the organization’s human resources policies,
Visual norms,
production management refers toare
and processes managers using
illustrated various
visually, sotools or methods
that workers can to achieve
easily transparent
understand and
and Visual management
visualized management refers to managers
[52]. For using various
example, the tools or methods to
organization’s achieveresources
human transparentpolicies,
and
follow its policies. After applying the visualized approach in safety management (e.g., safety
visualized management [52]. For example, the organization’s human resources policies, production
production norms,
warnings, safety and processes
information are illustrated
disclosure, visually,
and worker so that
safety workers canit easily
commitments), understand
is expected and
that those
norms, and processes are illustrated visually, so that workers can easily understand and follow its
follow itssafety
who policies.
lack policies. After applying
consciousness the visualized
and judgment approach
willinhave nowhere intosafety
hide. management4 shows(e.g., safety
After applying the visualized approach safety management (e.g.,Figure
safety warnings, asafety
diagram
warnings, safety
of a construction information
system based
information disclosure, disclosure,
on visual
and worker and worker
management.
safety safety commitments), it is expected
commitments), it is expected that those who lack safety that those
who consciousness
lack safety consciousness
and judgmentand will judgment
have nowhere willtohave
hide.nowhere to hide.
Figure 4 shows Figure of
a diagram 4 shows a diagram
a construction
of a construction
system based system
on visualbased on visual management.
management.
Figure 4. System causality diagram based on visualized management.
Figure 4. System causality diagram based on visualized management.

2.2.3. Last Planner®Figure
System4. System causality diagram based on visualized management.
2.2.3. Last Planner® System
The Last Planner® System, also referred to as the Last Planner®, is a new pull-in construction
2.2.3. Last Planner® System ® System, also referred to as the Last Planner® , is a new pull-in construction
planning TheandLast Planner
control tool that enables foremen at the frontline of the project (the last planner) to
planning
The Last
participate and control
Plannerplanning
in project ® tool
System, that enables
also
and referred
monitoringforemen at theLast
totoasimprove
the frontline
Planner
planning of ®accuracy
the
, is project
a new (the
and last construction
pull-in
reduce planner)
deviations
to
planning participate
and controlin project
tool planning
that enables and monitoring
foremen at theto improve
frontline planning
of the
[26]. However, research on its application to safety management remains scant. Tools for applying accuracy
project (the and
last reduce
planner) to
deviations
participate [26].
in project However, research
planning and on its
monitoringapplication to
to improve safety management
planningin accuracyremains scant.
and reduce Tools for
deviations
the LPS to safety management include the participation of foremen the formulation of the weekly
applying the LPS to safety management include the participation of foremen in the formulation
[26].
plan However, research on
and the adjustment its application
of monthly to safety management
plans (prospective plans). Onremains
the one scant.
hand, Tools for applying
implementation of
of the weekly plan and the adjustment of monthly plans (prospective plans). On the one hand,
the LPS
Last to safety management include the participation of foremen in the formulation
Planner arouses interest in safety participation by grassroots personnel, and on the other
® of the weekly
implementation of the Last Planner® arouses interest in safety participation by grassroots personnel,
plan and
hand,and the the
it has
on the
adjustment
advantages
other
of monthly
of the
hand, it has
plansgrassroots
involving
advantages
(prospective plans).
management
of involving
On personnel
the one hand,
grassroots management who implementation
are familiar
personnel
of
who arewith
the Last
safety Planner
hazards
familiar with
® arouses
atsafety
the interest
construction
hazards inconstruction
safety
at thesite. Figure participation
5site.
shows by
a causal
Figure grassroots
5 shows a causalpersonnel,
diagram of of and
a construction
diagram on system
the other
a construction in
hand,
the LPS.it hasinthe
system theadvantages
LPS. of involving grassroots management personnel who are familiar with
safety hazards at the construction site. Figure 5 shows a causal diagram of a construction system in
the LPS.
5. Construction systemcausality
causality diagram
diagram for ®
Figure
Figure 5. Construction system forthe
theLast
LastPlanner
PlannerSystem.
® System.
2.2.4. Just-In-Time Management

Figure 5. Construction system causality diagram for the Last Planner® System.
Just-in-time management (JIT) aims to reduce costs by optimizing inventory to enable the on-
time supply of raw materials, semi-manufactured products, or finished products [53]. JIT

Just-in-time management (JIT) aims to reduce costs by optimizing inventory to enable the on-time
supply of raw materials, semi-manufactured products, or finished products [53]. JIT management
organization of work. Due to the defects of a construction management plan, workers have to spend
can shorten the waiting times of workers and the equipment. It has also been applied in the area
more time
of waiting.
construction
Int. J. Environ.
Assafety,
such,
Res. Public Health
“idle”
with
2019,
workers are likely to hang around the site and hence trigger work-
16,respect
221 to the timely treatment of equipment failures and hidden safety 6 of 17
related accidents.
hazards, the JIT management
establishment reduces safety
of appropriate hazards
construction while
safety plans,also
and improving productivity.
the elimination of periods of Figure
shows aidleness.
6organization causal “Idle behavior”
diagram
of work. Dueoftoathe refers to the enforced
construction
defects idleness
of system in the
a construction due to management
JIT poor organization
management of work. Due to the
scenario.
plan, workers have to spend
defects of a construction management plan, workers have to spend more time waiting. As such, “idle”
more time waiting. As such, “idle” workers are likely to hang around the site and hence trigger work-
workers are likely to hang around the site and hence trigger work-related accidents. JIT management
related accidents. JIT management
reduces safety hazards while also reduces safetyproductivity.
improving hazards while also
Figure improving
6 shows productivity.
a causal diagram of Figure
6 shows aa construction
causal diagramsystemof in athe
construction
JIT managementsystem in the JIT management scenario.
scenario.
Figure 6. Construction system causality diagram for just-in-time management.
2.2.5. Conference Management

Figure 6. Construction system causality diagram for just-in-time management.
Figure 6. Construction
Effective communication between system causality
workers anddiagram
managers for just-in-time
significantly management.
reduces the number of
2.2.5. Conference Management
work-related accidents, and conference management is reported to be the best way to communicate
2.2.5. Conference
safety objectives Management
[54].
Effective Based on the between
communication lean construction
workers andconcept,
managersin this scheme,
significantly the foreman
reduces the number meets
of with
work-related
construction
Effectiveworkers accidents, and
each morning
communication conference
between management
to discuss
workerstheandwork is reported to
of the previous
managers be the best way
day and
significantly to communicate
arrange
reduces thethe tasks for
number of
the day safety
ahead. objectives
A [54].
weekly Based
conferenceon the lean
between construction
the concept,
foreman andin this scheme,
project the
manager foreman
is meets
held to discuss
work-related accidents, and conference management is reported to be the best way to communicate
with construction workers each morning to discuss the work of the previous day and arrange the
problems that occurred
safety objectives [54]. during that
Based week, which provides a good channel for solving problems atwith the
tasks for the day ahead.on A the lean
weekly construction
conference betweenconcept, in this
the foreman andscheme, the foreman
project manager is heldmeets
to
construction
construction site
discuss in a timely
workers
problems each manner.
morning
that occurred It discuss
to
during isthat
notablethethat
week, work
whichconference management
of the previous
provides a good day for
channel and isarrange
different
solving from
the
problems LPS.
tasks for
LPS emphasizes
at the the participation
construction site in a of
timely frontline
manner. workers
It is notable in project
that planning
conference
the day ahead. A weekly conference between the foreman and project manager is held to discuss and
management monitoring,
is different while
problemsfrom
conference thatLPS. LPS emphasizes
management
occurred during the
focusesthatonparticipation
establishing
week, which of frontline
the wayworkers
provides in project
fora communication
good channel planning
forand and monitoring,
information
solving problems sharing.
at the
Conference while conference
management management
not only focuses on
involves establishing
the the way
communications for communication
between and information
project managers and
construction site in a timely manner. It is notable that conference management is different from LPS.
sharing. Conference management not only involves the communications between project managers
foremen but also the
LPS emphasizes includes the dailyofhuddles among project managers from and different departments.
and foremen butparticipation
also includes the frontline
daily huddlesworkers in project
among project managers planning
from different monitoring,
departments. while
Figure 7
conferenceshows a causal
management
Figure diagram
focuses
7 shows a causal of the construction
on establishing
diagram system
the way
of the construction system for the conference
forforcommunication management
and information
the conference management scenario.
scenario. sharing.
Conference management not only involves the communications between project managers and
foremen but also includes the daily huddles among project managers from different departments.
Figure 7 shows a causal diagram of the construction system for the conference management scenario.
Figure 7. Construction system causality diagram for conference management.

3. Methodology
3.1. Research Method
3. Methodology
In this study, a hybrid research strategy was applied. First, the existing literature on safety
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Method

In this study, a hybrid research strategy was applied. First, the existing literature on safety
management and lean construction was comprehensively reviewed to identify the operational
processes of construction systems. This literature was retrieved from academic journals and industry
reports and mainly focused on safety management and lean construction, such as safety planning [55],
safety compliance [56], safety participation [17], and safety inspection [57]. This step provided
the foundation for a system flow construct. From the systematic literature review, a questionnaire
was developed, comprising two sections. The first section contained the respondent’s background
information and the second included 24 items related to lean construction tools and construction
safety systems. Details regarding the questionnaire survey process are provided in the data collection
section. Next, to describe the safety level of construction systems, a quantitative model was developed,
which includes parameter estimation and the establishment of equations. Finally, the system dynamics
model was tested and a sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the influence of lean construction
tools on construction safety system. To verify the model, this study paid a return visit to some of the
surveyed respondents and received their feedback on the analysis results of the system model.
In this study, the system model regarding the impact of lean construction tools on construction
safety system considers the following three criteria:
Criterion 1: When project management measures are applied to the safety area, the basic
requirement for the management system is that the implementation of the lean construction tool must
be supported by safety management schemes and measures [25]. Thus, within the implementation
process of a lean construction tool, a feedback node of the construction system must be established in
the context of the management system.
Criterion 2: As a bottom-up change, the smooth implementation of lean construction lies in the
positive safety participation of workers and their adherence to safety guidelines [43]. In addition to
safety management support, lean construction also seeks workers’ feedback as a prerequisite of its
implementation process. As a result, a feedback node for the lean construction tool and construction
system is established in the employee system.
Criterion 3: Different lean construction tools have different emphases, and the cause and impact
relationships differ in each sub-system. This study assumes that lean construction tools have a direct
impact on each of the four sub-systems. The strength of these impacts is determined by the parameters
used in the optimization calculation and simulation.
3.2. System Flow Construct

For each of the five types of lean construction tool, a construction safety system flow chart was
established using the Vensim PLE system dynamics simulation software. In this study, we use the
construction safety system flow chart for 5s management as an example to illustrate the analysis
procedure (as shown in Figure 8). The horizontal variables include the four construction safety
sub-systems—namely, the management, employee, equipment, and environment systems—and
indicate the safety accumulation state of each in the system operation process. The rate variables refer
to the safety level of each sub-system, which indicates the change rate of the horizontal variables.
The auxiliary variables are the safety system and lean construction tools. For example, the safety
plan formulation and implementation, along with the safety inspection and correction, refer to the
output variables of the management system: sorting, consolidation, sweeping, cleaning, and quality,
as represented in the 5S management tool. Regarding the other four types of lean construction tools,
the principles of the construction safety system flowcharts are similar to that described for 5S
management. In other words, the 5S management tool is replaced by the other lean construction tools
to fix the structure of the safety system.
<5S management
<5S management
maturity>
maturity> Safety equipment
arrival rate
equipment
Environment
<Quality> system equipment safety
system Environmental
level
safety level critical equipment
employees' control <Quality>
complaint
the dispute with safety participation
the owner Sweeping safety compliance
owner satisfaction
Cleaning
Consolidation employees
system emplyees safety
Quality
sorting level
management <Quality>
system safety planning and <5S management
management maturity>
implementation <employees'
safety level
complaint>
safety inspection
5S management and correction
maturity .
Figure8.8.Construction
Figure Constructionsystem
system flow
flow based on 5S
based on 5S management.
management.
3.3. Data Collection and Validation

3.3. Data Collection and Validation
In In
this study, we investigated the implementation of lean construction and safety management
this study, we investigated the implementation of lean construction and safety management
measures in
measures in 448 projects,
448 projects,using
usinga aquestionnaire
questionnaire survey
survey toto collect the data.
collect the data.AAtotal
totalofof2424items
items were
were
included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire items include the implementation
included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire items include the implementation level of lean level of lean
construction
construction tools (15 items
tools regarding
(15 items the fivethe
regarding types of lean
five types construction tools) and thetools)
of lean construction implementation
and the
level of the construction safety system (nine items regarding the four sub-systems).
implementation level of the construction safety system (nine items regarding the four sub-systems). All the items
were
Allmeasured
the items wereby five-point
measuredLikert scale, with
by five-point Likertpoints
scale,1–5
withindicating
points 1–5“strongly
indicatingdisagree”
“stronglyto “strongly
disagree”
agree,” respectively.
to “strongly agree,”At respectively.
first, a total ofAt710 questionnaires
first, a total of 710 werequestionnaires
collected. 43 werequestionnaires
collected. were43
excluded based on
questionnaires the following
were criteria.
excluded based on (1)
theThe numbercriteria.
following of missing items
(1) The exceeds
number of 10% of the
missing itemstotal
exceeds
number of10%
items;of the
(2) total
The number
answersofinitems; (2) The answersare
the questionnaire in the questionnaire
irregular aresame
(e.g., the irregular (e.g.,for
answer theall
same A
items). answer
total offor667
all questionnaires
items). A total of 667 verified
were questionnaires
in terms were verified inand
of reliability terms of reliability
validity. A commonand
validity.
method for A commonverification
reliability method for is reliability verification
to calculate is toαcalculate
Cronbach’s In this αstudy,
Cronbach’s
coefficients. coefficients. In this
the Cronbach’s
the Cronbach’s α
α coefficients of lean construction tools (fifteen items) and construction safety system (ninesafety
study, coefficients of lean construction tools (fifteen items) and construction items)
aresystem (nine
0.784 and items)
0.731 are 0.784 and
respectively, 0.731 respectively,
indicating satisfactoryindicating satisfactory
reliability reliability
and stability of theand stability of
constructs [58].
the constructs [58]. Meanwhile, the validity verification was mainly
Meanwhile, the validity verification was mainly implemented by content validation and construct implemented by content
validation and construct validation. This study invited five project managers and three professors to
validation. This study invited five project managers and three professors to discuss the content and
discuss the content and expression of the questionnaire items through three rounds of group
expression of the questionnaire items through three rounds of group meetings. Based on the feedback,
meetings. Based on the feedback, some flaws (e.g., vague expressions) in the initial questionnaire
some flaws (e.g., vague expressions) in the initial questionnaire were further revised. The construct
were further revised. The construct validation was tested in terms of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
validation was tested in terms of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficients. The KMO coefficients of
coefficients. The KMO coefficients of lean construction tools and construction safety system are 0.824
lean construction tools and construction safety system are 0.824 and 0.794 respectively, exceeding the
and 0.794 respectively, exceeding the threshold of 0.6. Thus, the questionnaire was confirmed to be
threshold
valid; andof 0.6. Thus,
the data canthebequestionnaire was confirmed
used in the subsequent analysis.to be valid; and the data can be used in the
subsequent analysis.
3.4. Parameter Estimation and Equation Establishment
3.4. Parameter Estimation and Equation Establishment
The estimation of parameters, a key step in establishing a system dynamics model, provides the
The estimation
foundation of parameters,
for equation buildinga key
andstep in establishing
model simulation. aInsystem dynamics
this study, model, provides
the methods used forthe
foundation for equation building and model simulation. In this study, the methods used for parameter
parameter estimation included trend extrapolation, regression analysis, table function, and historical
estimation included
experience methods.trend extrapolation,
Most regression
of these methods wereanalysis,
used to table function,
determine and historical
parameter experience
values based on
methods.
existingMost of these
functions or methods
empiricalwere used toTo
decisions. determine
improve parameter values
the objectivity based
and on existing
accuracy of thefunctions
model
or simulation
empirical decisions.
results, thisTo improve
study the objectivity
employed and accuracy
the back propagation (BP)ofnetwork
the model simulation
to calculate results,
the mean
this study employed the back propagation (BP) network to calculate the mean impact value (MIV)
as the correlation coefficient of each variable, thereby overcoming any subjective influence in the
parameter determination.
Details of the parameter estimation process are as follows. First, a multi-input and single-output
impact network
BP neural value (MIV) was as established
the correlation coefficienttoofthe
according each variable,
system thereby overcoming
flowchart. The input any subjective
variables are the
influence
values of theininfluencing
the parameter determination.
factors (i.e., independent variables) in the questionnaire, and the output
variablesDetails
are the of the
values parameter
of the estimation process(i.e.,
affected factors are asdependent
follows. First, a multi-input
variables). Then,andwe single-output
used the MIV
BP neural network was established according to the system flowchart. The input variables are the
algorithm to calculate the effect of each influencing factor on the affected factors. Second, each of
values of the influencing factors (i.e., independent variables) in the questionnaire, and the output
the independent variables in the training sample S was incremented or decremented by 10% from
variables are the values of the affected factors (i.e., dependent variables). Then, we used the MIV
its original value, to obtain two samples S1 and S2. Third, using the network to simulate the S1
algorithm to calculate the effect of each influencing factor on the affected factors. Second, each of the
andindependent
S2 samples, variables
we obtained in thethe simulation
training sample results
S wasQ1 and Q2. The
incremented difference between
or decremented by 10% fromQ1 and its Q2
is the change
original value.
value, The MIV
to obtain value was
two samples obtained
S1 and by using
S2. Third, calculating
the networkthe average of the
to simulate thechange
S1 and S2 value,
whereby
samples, we obtained the simulation results Q1 and Q2. The difference between Q1 and Q2 is the the
the greater the MIV value is, the greater the influence level of the independent variable on
dependent variable
change value. Theis.MIV Using thewas
value above steps,by
obtained thecalculating
MIV value theofaverage
each variable was considered
of the change value, wherebyto be the
correlation
the greater coefficient
the MIV between
value is, thethe
influencing
greater the and affectedlevel
influence factors,
of theandindependent
the system dynamics
variable onequation
the
was dependent
then establishedvariable is. Using
based on thethecorrelation
above steps, the MIV value
coefficient. of each variable
The calculation of thewas
MIV considered
value of theto besafety
the correlation coefficient between the influencing and affected factors,
management level for 5S management is used here as an example. According to the construction safety and the system dynamics
equation
system flow was
chart then
forestablished
5S management,based on asthe correlation
shown in Figurecoefficient.
8, we can Thesee calculation
that theofinfluencing
the MIV value factors
of the safety management level for 5S management is used
on the safety management level include the owner’s satisfaction, disputes with the owners, here as an example. According to and
the the
construction safety system flow chart for 5S management, as shown in Figure 8, we can see that the
number of complaints about the environment and quality. Thereafter, we used the four influencing
influencing factors on the safety management level include the owner’s satisfaction, disputes with
factors as input variables in the BP neural network, with the safety management level being the output
the owners, and the number of complaints about the environment and quality. Thereafter, we used
variable. According to the Kolmogarav theorem [59], the use of a single implicit layer can guarantee
the four influencing factors as input variables in the BP neural network, with the safety management
better accuracy
level being the of output
the fitting results
variable. for general
According function
to the mappings.
Kolmogarav theorem The number
[59], the useofofimplicit
a single layer
implicitnodes
is determined by the number of variables in the input and output layers
layer can guarantee better accuracy of the fitting results for general function mappings. The number (m = 2n + 1, where m is the
number of implicit
of implicit layer is
layer nodes nodes, and n by
determined is the number
numberofofvariables
input nodes) [60,61].
in the input andTherefore,
output layersthe (mnumber
=
of implicit layersm
2n + 1, where is isone,
the and
numberthe number
of implicitoflayer
implicit
nodes,layer
andnodes
n is the is number
nine. Figure 9a nodes)
of input shows [60,61].
the neural
Therefore,
network the number
topology structure. of implicit layers is
The ‘tansig’ andone, and the functions
‘purelin’ number of were implicit layer nodes
selected in theistransfer
nine. Figure
process
9(a) shows the neural network topology structure. The ‘tansig’ and
of the implicit and output layer nodes, respectively. The maximum number of model iterations was ‘purelin’ functions were selected
in the
set to 3000, transfer
with process
a targetofaccuracy
the implicit of and
0.01output
and alayer nodes,rate
learning respectively.
of 0.05. FigureThe maximum
9b shows number of
the model
model iterations was set to 3000, with a target accuracy of 0.01 and
simulation result. When the iteration number was 2944, a target accuracy of 0.01 was achieved, a learning rate of 0.05. Figure 9(b)
shows the model simulation result. When the iteration number was 2944, a target accuracy of 0.01
and the MIV values of the four output variables were 0.33, 0.25, 0.26, and 0.16, respectively after
was achieved, and the MIV values of the four output variables were 0.33, 0.25, 0.26, and 0.16,
normalization. Therefore, the system dynamics equation was established as follows: “management
respectively after normalization. Therefore, the system dynamics equation was established as follows:
safety level = 0.33 × owner’s satisfaction + 0.25 × the dispute with owners + 0.26 × employees and
“management safety level = 0.33 × owner’s satisfaction + 0.25 × the dispute with owners + 0.26 ×
public complaints
employees and about
publicthe environment
complaints about+the × quality”.+System
0.16environment 0.16 × dynamics equations
quality”. System for other
dynamics
variables were similarly established.
equations for other variables were similarly established.
Figure
Figure 9. 9.
BPBP neuralnetwork
neural networktopology
topology structure
structure(a)
(a)and
andsimulation results
simulation (b).(b).
results
3.5. Model Testing and Validation

Prior to simulation and analysis, the validity of the system dynamics model must be determined.
According to Sterman [62], the major testing criteria are as follows: (1) the variables in system causal
loop flow depicting the lean construction and construction safety system must be aligned with the
research statement; (2) the equations in the system causal loop flow must conform to the relationships
between lean construction and the construction safety system; and (3) the system dynamics model
must be consistent at all dimensions, and, ultimately, the model should pass the extreme condition test.
The first test criterion is that the model contains all the important variables that relate to the
research purpose. This was determined by confirming the contents of the system causal loop flow.
As shown in Figure 8, all the relevant variables are included in the flow and clearly represent the
effects of lean construction on the construction safety system. The second test criterion is that the
model is logical and reasonable, with reference to the system causal loop flow. In this study, the system
flow is in line with the construction practice. The third test criterion is that the measurement units
of all variables in the model are consistent at all dimensions, which was determined using a units
check” action in the Vensim 5.7a software. Because all variables in the model were measured using
a five-point Likert scale, the measurement units of the variables are consistent. In sum, the model
passed the validity test and can be used for further simulation and analysis.
4. Simulation Analysis and Discussion

The distribution of the validated questionnaires covers 18 provincial areas, of which four provinces
are located in north China (e.g., Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, and Inner Mongolia) and accounted for 57.6%
of the data. Four provinces are located in east China (e.g., Shandong, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and
Jiangsu) and accounted for 33.2% of the data. The rest of the provincial areas accounted for 9.2% of
the data. The project types in this study include civil buildings, industrial buildings, municipal facilities,
and other projects, with respective percentages of 57.7, 13.6, 18.4, and 10.3%. The respondents included
individuals in all job designations in construction organizations. The percentage of first-line managers
and technical professionals was 83.2%, middle managers accounted for 14.1%, and senior managers
accounted for 2.7%. The demographic characteristics of the projects and respondents are diverse and
thus comprehensively reflect the condition of lean construction tools and safety management.
Since the duration of construction projects typically extends beyond one year, we performed
a simulation analysis of the research model on a yearly basis for an overall period of five years.
In addition, to analyze the influence mechanism of lean construction tools on the safety system,
two maturity levels are adopted as control variables. Then, the influence level of different lean
construction tools on the safety system at different maturity levels were compared and analyzed.
A technical maturity level of 0.1 was recorded as “A” and that of 0.7 as “B.” The simulation analysis
results are as follows.
4.1. Effects of Lean Construction Tools on Construction System

In Figure 10a, the change trend of the safety level of the management system is shown by the
changing maturity level of the lean construction tools. In the figure, we can see that when the
maturity levels increase from 0.1 to 0.7, the safety level of the management system is significantly
improved (lines “1” to “5” indicate the initial maturities of 5S management, visual management, the
LPS, conference management, and JIT management, respectively, and then become lines “6” to “10”).
Of these lines, those labeled “6,” “7,” “8,” and “10” improved more than the others, which indicates
that the application of JIT management, visual management, conference management, and the LPS
can significantly improve the safety level of management systems. Similarly, Figure 10b shows the
change trend of the safety level of the employee system when the maturity level of the five types of
lean construction tool is changed. In the figure, we can see that improvement in the maturity level
of the lean construction tools can greatly improve the safety level of the employee system. The most
significantInt.
effects were
J. Environ. made
Res. Public by
Health JIT
2019, 16,management,
221 conference management, and the LPS. Of the five
11 of 17
types of lean construction tool, visual management, JIT management, and 5S management exhibited
significant effects were made by JIT management, conference management, and the LPS. Of the five
the most prominent impacts on the equipment system (as shown in Figure 10c). Figure 10d shows the
types of lean construction tool, visual management, JIT management, and 5S management exhibited
influence mechanism
the most prominent of lean construction
impacts tools system
on the equipment on the(asenvironment
shown in Figuresystem, from10(d)
10(c)). Figure whichshowswe can see
that when the maturity levels of lean construction are changed, the environment
the influence mechanism of lean construction tools on the environment system, from which we can system is significantly
improved. see
Nothat when thedifference
significant maturity levels of lean construction
is observed between the are degrees
changed, of
theimprovement
environment system
of theis five types
significantly improved. No significant difference is observed between the degrees of improvement of
of lean construction tool. In other words, all five types are consistent in their effect on the safety level
the five types of lean construction tool. In other words, all five types are consistent in their effect on
of the environment
the safety level system.
of the environment system.
Figure 10.Figure 10. Construction

Construction systemsafety
system safety level
levelunder different
under lean construction
different technical levels:
lean construction (a)
technical levels:
Management System, (b) Employee System, (c) Environment System, (d) Equipment System.
(a) Management System, (b) Employee System, (c) Environment System, (d) Equipment System.
4.2. Discussion and Implications
The sensitivity analysis results show that the five types of lean construction tool exert various
influences on the construction system. This is due to the fact that different lean construction tools
have different emphases with respect to construction activities. The influencing mechanism of the
lean construction tools on the construction system is described in the following.
5S management primarily influences the equipment and environment systems. It deals with the
4.2. Discussion and Implications

The sensitivity analysis results show that the five types of lean construction tool exert various
influences on the construction system. This is due to the fact that different lean construction tools
have different emphases with respect to construction activities. The influencing mechanism of the lean
construction tools on the construction system is described in the following.
5S management primarily influences the equipment and environment systems. It deals with the
emergence of unsafe conditions or equipment protection issues. With sweeping, sorting, and consolidation
as its core steps, this tool aims to keep materials and equipment in excellent condition and to avoid
any accidents caused by a disorganized work environment [21]. 5S management also improves the
workplace and living environment by cultivating good working habits [63]. After contacting the surveyed
project managers and workers, the effect of 5S management can be summed into the following two
aspects. On one hand, the complaints (from workers or nearby communities) about the on-site working
environment have been reduced; and on the other hand, the level of dissatisfaction of the owners has also
been decreased.
Visual management mainly influences the management, equipment, and environment systems.
It targets safety warnings regarding dangerous usage of equipment to enhance employee safety
awareness and provides a platform for the dissemination and communication of safety management
policies [64]. Visual management enhances the visualization of the on-site safety situation, while also
improving the management and equipment systems, and avoiding safety disputes due to failure to
fulfill safety responsibilities. The application of building information modeling to safety management
makes visual management more influential with respect to construction systems [65]. After consulting
the surveyed project managers and workers, it can be found that visual management urges them to keep
an eye on changes in construction safety systems, and hence improve their intuitive understanding
and memory.
The LPS primarily influences the management, employee, and environment systems.
Mitropoulos et al. [66] noted that proactive planning is an effective way to cope with task uncertainty.
The LPS provides a driving force for the formulation and implementation of safety management
planning [24]; and it also enables frontline employees to participate in the formulation of work planning,
which enhances their sense of responsibility and motivation, and therefore enhances the safety training
and promotes their compliance with safety regulations and participation in safety activities. Finally,
the role of the LPS is mainly reflected in the communication of the safety environment policy and
participation in safety activities. The safety environment system is essential to the participation and
support of frontline employees. Thus, it becomes an effective way to change the environment system
from “push” to “pull.” By contacting the surveyed respondents, it can be found that LPS improves
workers’ engagement as well as the operating efficiency of construction planning.
Conference management mainly influences the management, employee, and environment systems.
Conference management is essentially a communication platform for resolving the problems that arise
in daily construction activities. It provides a mechanism for managers and workers to regularly
communicate about safety issues. In particular, the morning huddle enables workers to better
understand and prepare for their work and to avoid safety hazards to a large extent. After contacting
the surveyed respondents, it can be confirmed that the conference management is one of the most
effective ways to communicate and share safety information.
JIT management significantly impacts all four sub-systems. First, it emphasizes the fact that
rigorous construction inspection and the timely correction of safety hazards can promote the
formulation and implementation of safety management planning [27]. Secondly, it improves the
effectiveness of the safety schedule and avoids safety hazards caused by the worker idleness [67].
Thirdly, it emphasizes the timely elimination of hidden dangers in equipment, with the aim of
preventing work-related accidents caused by the unsafe operation. Finally, it aims to prevent materials
from being left and equipment from sitting idle at the construction site. Ideally, there are no idle
workers, which also contributes to 5S management objectives (e.g., cleanliness) at the construction site.
By contacting the surveyed respondents, it can be found that JIT management not only help save time
and cost but improve the site environment and avoid the safety hazards due to the materials exposure
on site.
In summary, lean construction tools have the most direct impact on improving workers’ safe
behaviors, including their safety compliance and safety participation behaviors, and different lean
construction tools show different effects on the construction system. In addition, it is notable that the
implementation level of lean construction tools depends, to a large extent, on the support of managers.
5. Conclusions
Considering the increasing number of construction work-related accidents in combination with
poor levels of safety management in rapidly developing countries, in this study, a construction safety
system was developed based on five typical lean construction tools. Through the lens of system
theory, logical relationships between the five types of lean construction tool and the safety system
were identified, and a questionnaire was designed to collect data regarding the implementation level
of safety systems and lean construction tools. Using the system dynamics approach, we analyzed
the influencing mechanisms of lean construction tools on safety systems. The results indicate that
the maturity level of lean construction tools plays a significant role in improving the safety level of
a construction system. Interestingly, the five types of lean construction tool have different impacts on
the four sub-systems: 5s management focuses on improving the equipment system (e.g., the control
of key parts) and plays a crucial role in improving the environment system; JIT management and
visual management have a significant effect on perfecting the management and equipment systems;
the LPS and conference management enhance management and employee systems. Furthermore,
these five types of lean construction tool all significantly influence the environment system. In sum,
the implementation of lean construction tools has a significantly positive effect on improving overall
safety systems. This study further analyzed the influencing mechanism of lean construction tools,
as well as developed the research of construction safety from systematic thinking. The results of this
study revealed that it is necessary to adopt different types of lean construction tools to cope with
different safety issues, and also shed light on improving safety management levels and developing the
safety management capabilities.
The limitations of this study are as follows. First, the surveyed participants all come from China.
This sampling technique limits the generalizability of research findings to other geographic contexts.
Whether the conclusions are applicable to different contexts needs to be further verified. Second,
this study aims to reveal the influencing mechanism of lean construction tools. Noteworthy, in the
course of the study, we found that the implementation barriers of lean construction tools attract
increasing attention from the project managers. How to effectively promote the adoption of lean
construction tools could be a potential direction for future research.
Author Contributions: X.W. is the lead author of this publication, completing most of the writing of this paper.
H.Y. contributed to the simulation analysis. G.W. (Ge Wang) provided many suggested revisions of the paper. S.L.
and G.W. (Guangdong Wu) proofread the entire paper.
Funding: The second author is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Project
Number: 71573216), the third author is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities,
China (Program Number: 2662018QD006), and the fourth author is supported by the NSFC (Project Number:
71571130).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1. Gao, R.; Chan, A.P.C.; Lyu, S.; Khan, H.Z.A.; Utama, W.P. Investigating the difficulties of implementing
safety practices in international construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2018, 108, 39–47. [CrossRef]
2. Nadhim, E.A.; Hon, C.; Xia, B.; Stewart, I.; Fang, D. Falls from height in the construction industry: A critical
review of the scientific literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Ugwu, O.O.; Haupt, T.C. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure
sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 665–680.
[CrossRef]
4. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China. Construction-Related Safety Accidents in
2017. Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201803/t20180322_235474.html (accessed on 8
June 2018). (In Chinese)
5. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China. Construction-Related Safety Accidents in
2015. Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201602/t20160218_226671.html (accessed on 8
June 2018). (In Chinese)
6. Hallowell, M.R.; Yugar-Arias, I.F. Exploring fundamental causes of safety challenges faced by Hispanic
construction workers in the US using photovoice. Saf. Sci. 2016, 82, 199–211. [CrossRef]
7. Alruqi, W.M.; Hallowell, M.R.; Techera, U. Safety climate dimensions and their relationship to construction
safety performance: A meta-analytic review. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 165–173. [CrossRef]
8. Hinze, J.; Hallowell, M.; Baud, K. Construction-safety best practices and relationships to safety performance.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 04013006. [CrossRef]
9. Zolfagharian, S.; Irizarry, J.; Ressang, A.; Nourbakhsh, M.; Gheisari, M. Automated safety planning approach
for residential construction sites in Malaysia. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2014, 14, 134–147. [CrossRef]
10. Newaz, M.T.; Davis, P.R.; Jefferies, M.; Pillay, M. Developing a safety climate factor model in construction
research and practice: A systematic review identifying future directions for research. Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 738–757. [CrossRef]
11. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety
behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 946. [CrossRef]
12. Musonda, I.; Lusenga, E.; Okoro, C. Rating and characterization of an organization’s safety culture to
improve performance. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 1–13. [CrossRef]
13. Fang, D.; Chen, Y.; Wong, L. Safety climate in construction industry: A case study in Hong Kong. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 573–584. [CrossRef]
14. Winge, S.; Albrechtsen, E. Accident types and barrier failures in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2018, 105,
158–166. [CrossRef]
15. Mohammadi, A.; Tavakolan, M.; Khosravi, Y. Factors influencing safety performance on construction projects:
A review. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 382–397. [CrossRef]
16. Goh, Y.M.; Ali, M.J.A. A hybrid simulation approach for integrating safety behavior into construction
planning: An earthmoving case study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 310–318. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Guo, B.H.W.; Yiu, T.W.; González, V.A. Predicting safety behavior in the construction industry: Development
and test of an integrative model. Saf. Sci. 2016, 84, 1–11. [CrossRef]
18. Shen, Y.; Ju, C.; Koh, T.Y.; Rowlinson, S.; Bridge, A.J. The Impact of Transformational Leadership on Safety
Climate and Individual Safety Behavior on Construction Sites. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 45.
[CrossRef]
19. Bavafa, A.; Mahdiyar, A.; Marsono, A.K. Identifying and assessing the critical factors for effective
implementation of safety programs in construction projects. J. Boil. Chem. 2018, 106, 47–56. [CrossRef]
20. Bashir, A.M.; Suresh, S.; Proverbs, D.; Gameson, R. A critical, theoretical, review of the impacts of lean
construction tools in reducing accidents on construction sites. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ARCOM
Conference, Bristol, UK, 5–7 September 2011.
21. Thomassen, M.A.; Sander, D.; Barnes, K.A.; Nielsen, A. Experience and results from implementing lean
construction in a large Danish contracting firm. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Lean
Construction, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 22–24 July 2003; pp. 644–655.
22. Forman, M. Inertia and change: Lean construction and health and safety work on construction sites.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 647–660. [CrossRef]
23. Bajjou, M.S.; Chafi, A.; Ennadi, A. The potential effectiveness of lean construction tools in promoting safety
on construction sites. Int. J. Eng. Res. Afr. 2017, 33, 179–193. [CrossRef]
24. Misiurek, K.; Misiurek, B. Methodology of improving occupational safety in the construction industry on the
basis of the twi program. Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 225–231. [CrossRef]
25. Koskela, L. Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction; Technical Report No. 72; Stanford
University: Stanford, CA, USA, 1992.
26. Ballard, G.; Howell, G. An update on last planner. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 22–24 July 2003; pp. 22–24.
27. Salem, O.; Solomon, J.; Genaidy, A.; Minkarah, I. Lean construction: From theory to implementation.
J. Manag. Eng. 2006, 22, 168–175. [CrossRef]
28. Koskenvesa, A.; Koskela, L.J.; Tolonen, T.; Sahlsted, S. Waste and labor productivity in production planning
case Finnish construction industry. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction, Haifa, Israel, 14–16 July 2010; pp. 477–486.
29. Salem, O.; Solomon, J.; Genaidy, A.; Luegring, M. Site implementation and assessment of lean construction
techniques. Lean Constr. J. 2005, 2, 1–58.
30. He, Q.; Wang, G. Hotspots Evolution and Frontier Analysis of Lean Construction Research—Integrated
Scientometric Analysis using the Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Front. Eng. 2015, 2, 141–147.
[CrossRef]
31. Forrester, J.W. Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1971, 3, 1–22.
[CrossRef]
32. Jifeng, W.; Huapu, L.U.; Hu, P. System dynamics model of urban transportation system and its application.
J. Transp. Syst. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2008, 8, 83–89.
33. Rodrigues, A.; Bowers, J. The role of system dynamics in project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1996, 14,
213–220. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, J.; Yuan, H. System dynamics approach for investigating the risk effects on schedule delay in
infrastructure projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 33, 04016029. [CrossRef]
35. Thompson, B.P.; Bank, L.C. Use of system dynamics as a decision-making tool in building design and
operation. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 1006–1015. [CrossRef]
36. Leveson, N. A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf. Sci. 2004, 42, 237–270. [CrossRef]
37. Leveson, N.G. Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 55–64.
[CrossRef]
38. Grant, E.; Salmon, P.M.; Stevens, N.J.; Goode, N.; Read, G.J. Back to the future: What do accident causation
models tell us about accident prediction? Saf. Sci. 2018, 104, 99–109. [CrossRef]
39. Tam, C.M.; Zeng, S.X.; Deng, Z.M. Identifying elements of poor construction safety management in China.
Saf. Sci. 2004, 42, 569–586. [CrossRef]
40. Shin, M.; Lee, H.S.; Park, M.; Moon, M.; Han, S. A system dynamics approach for modeling construction
workers’ safety attitudes and behaviors. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 68, 95–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Cheng, E.W.L.; Ryan, N.; Kelly, S. Exploring the perceived influence of safety management practices on
project performance in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 363–369. [CrossRef]
42. Li, H.; Lu, M.; Hsu, S.C.; Gray, M.; Huang, T. Proactive behavior-based safety management for construction
safety improvement. Saf. Sci. 2015, 75, 107–117. [CrossRef]
43. Teizer, J.; Allread, B.S.; Fullerton, C.E.; Hinze, J. Autonomous pro-active real-time construction worker and
equipment operator proximity safety alert system. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 630–640. [CrossRef]
44. Griffith, A. Management systems for sustainable construction: Integrating Environmental, Quality and
Safety management systems. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 2002, 2, 114–126. [CrossRef]
45. Abdelhamid, T. The Self-Destruction and Renewal of lean construction Theory: A Prediction from Boyd’s
Theory. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Group of Lean Construction,
Helsinga, Denmark, 3–5 August 2004.
46. Zocca, R.; Lima, T.M.; Gaspar, P.D.; Charrua-Santos, F. Kaizen Approach for the Systematic Review
of Occupational Safety and Health Procedures in Food Industries. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Human Systems Engineering and Design: Future Trends and Applications, Reims, France,
25–27 October 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 722–727.
47. Liu, D.; Chen, J.; Li, S.; Cui, W. An integrated visualization framework to support whole-process management
of water pipeline safety. Autom. Constr. 2018, 89, 24–37. [CrossRef]
48. Karakhan, A.; Gambatese, J. Hazards and risk in construction and the impact of incentives and rewards on
safety outcomes. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2018, 23, 04018005. [CrossRef]
49. Wang, D.; Chen, Y.; Chen, D. Efficiency optimization and simulation to manufacturing and service systems
based on manufacturing tool Just-In-Time. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2018, 22, 1061–1073. [CrossRef]
50. Sui, Y.; Ding, R.; Wang, H. An integrated management system for occupational health and safety and
environment in an operating nuclear power plant in East China and its management information system.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 261–271. [CrossRef]
51. Gao, S.; Pheng, L.S. Barriers to lean implementation in the construction industry in China. J. Technol.
Manag. China 2014, 9, 155–173.
52. Parry, G.C.; Turner, C.E. Application of lean visual process management tools. Prod. Plan. Control 2006, 17,
77–86. [CrossRef]
53. Akintoye, A. Just-in-time application and implementation for building material management.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 1995, 13, 105–113. [CrossRef]
54. Kines, P.; Andersen, L.P.S.; Spangenberg, S. Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal
safety communication. J. Saf. Res. 2010, 41, 399–406. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Zhou, Z.; Goh, Y.M.; Li, Q. Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the construction industry.
Saf. Sci. 2015, 72, 337–350. [CrossRef]
56. Pilbeam, C.; Doherty, N.; Davidson, R.; Denyer, D. Safety leadership practices for organizational safety
compliance: Developing a research agenda from a review of the literature. Saf. Sci. 2016, 86, 110–121.
[CrossRef]
57. Saurin, T.A. Safety inspections in construction sites: A systems thinking perspective. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016,
93, 240–250. [CrossRef]
58. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.
59. Kůrková, V. Kolmogorov’s theorem and multilayer neural networks. Neural Netw. 1992, 5, 501–506.
[CrossRef]
60. Huang, G.; Guo, W.; Su, J. A Novel Fault Diagnosis System for MANET based on Hybrid GA-BP Algorithm.
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile
Computing (WiCOM’08), Dalian, China, 12–14 October 2008; pp. 1–4.
61. Meng, L. Exchange rate forecasting based on neural network with revised weight. In Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Management Science and Electronic Commerce
(AIMSEC), Dengleng, China, 8–10 August 2011; pp. 6644–6647.
62. Sterman, J.D. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World; Irwin
Professional/McGraw–Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
63. Ogunbiyi, O.; Goulding, J.S.; Oladapo, A. An empirical study of the impact of lean construction techniques
on sustainable construction in the UK. Constr. Innov. 2014, 14, 88–107. [CrossRef]
64. Sacks, R.; Treckmann, M.; Rozenfeld, O. Visualization of work flow to support lean construction. J. Constr.
65. Zhang, S.; Teizer, J.; Lee, J.K.; Eastman, C.M.; Venugopal, M. Building information modeling (BIM) and
safety: Automatic safety checking of construction models and schedules. Autom. Constr. 2013, 29, 183–195.
[CrossRef]
66. Mitropoulos, P.; Abdelhamid, T.S.; Howell, G.A. Systems model of construction accident causation. J. Constr.
67. Sugimori, Y.; Kusunoki, K.; Cho, F.; Uchikawa, S. Toyota production system and kanban system
materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1977, 15, 553–564. [CrossRef]
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Impacts of Lean Construction On Safety Systems: A System Dynamics Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Impacts of Lean Construction On Safety Systems: A System Dynamics Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impacts of Lean Construction On Safety Systems: A System Dynamics Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of

Keywords: lean construction; safety system; system dynamics; construction projects

Environment system Equipment system

Management system Employees system

Figure 3. Construction system causality diagram based on 5S management.

Figure 4. System causality diagram based on visualized management.

Figure 4. System causality diagram based on visualized management.

2.2.4. Just-In-Time Management

2.2.4. Just-In-Time Management

Figure 6. Construction system causality diagram for just-in-time management.

2.2.5. Conference Management

Figure 7. Construction system causality diagram for conference management.

3.1. Research Method

3.2. System Flow Construct

3.3. Data Collection and Validation

3.5. Model Testing and Validation

4. Simulation Analysis and Discussion

4.1. Effects of Lean Construction Tools on Construction System

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 221 12 of 17

Figure 10.Figure 10. Construction

4.2. Discussion and Implications

You might also like