1

Author: Anderson, Rebecca J.

Title: Communications Assessment of Developing Construction Industry Safety Culture

from the Historical Focal Point of the Big Blue Accident

The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial
completion of the requirements for the
Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Technical and Professional Communication
Research Advisor: Mitchell Ogden, Ph.D.
Submission Term/Year: Summer 2021
Number of Pages: 52
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 7th edition

I have adhered to the Graduate School Research Guide and have proofread my work.
I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School.
Additionally, by signing and submitting this form, I (the author(s) or copyright owner) grant the
University of Wisconsin-Stout the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate, and/or distribute this
submission (including abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium,
including but not limited to audio or video. If my research includes proprietary information, an
agreement has been made between myself, the company, and the University to submit a thesis that
meets course-specific learning outcomes and CAN be published. There will be no exceptions to this
permission.
I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been
used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the
laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.
My research advisor has approved the content and quality of this paper.
STUDENT:

NAME: Rebecca Anderson DATE: 8/6/2021

ADVISOR: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):

NAME: Mitchell Ogden, PhD DATE: 8/6/2021

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only
Committee members (other than your advisor who is listed in the section above)

1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:
3. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
This section to be completed by the Graduate School
This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.
Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:
 2

Anderson, Rebecca J. Communications Assessment of Developing Construction Industry

Safety Culture from the Historical Focal Point of the Big Blue Accident

Abstract

The research objective of this study is to assess the development of safety culture in construction

and engineering industries using the Big Blue crane collapse that occurred in Milwaukee,

Wisconsin in 1999 as a historical focal point. Construction accidents, particularly those that

cause injury or death, act as special catalysts in industry that propel forward safety efforts

(McCann, 2008). The last few decades have witnessed a concerted effort on the part of

construction and engineering industries to position safety culture as vital. Despite the challenges

of increasingly complex technology and projects, individuals, organizations, and the industry

more broadly have become invested in developing safety culture. This study analyzes the growth

of safety culture and how technical and professional communication can best support its

continued development in specific contexts. Accident assessment, communications research,

documentation, and construction and engineering norms are examined in coordination with one

another in order to evaluate what safety culture is in this context, how it can be applied, and how

it can be best supported using technical and professional communication principles.

 3

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 5

Chapter I: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6

Chapter II: Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 13

Community Interest .......................................................................................................... 13

Legal References and Reflections ..................................................................................... 14

Defining Safety Culture .................................................................................................... 14

Chapter III: Results ....................................................................................................................... 18

Safety Culture Perspective on the Big Blue Crane Collapse ............................................ 18

Safety Culture Interaction Model and Application to Big Blue Collapse ........................ 21

Assessment of Safety Culture by Industry Professionals and the Technical and

Professional Communication Response ............................................................................ 28

Safety Culture and Productivity ........................................................................................ 33

Document Analysis ........................................................................................................... 35

ASME P30.1 Planning for Load Handling Activities ....................................................... 35

Accessibility .......................................................................................................... 36

Updates Integrating Communications Principles.................................................. 37

The Inclusion of Personnel ................................................................................... 39

Mandatory Versus Situational Direction .............................................................. 40

ASME B30.5 Mobile and Locomotive Cranes ................................................................. 41

A Focus on Definitions ......................................................................................... 42

Emphasizing Responsibility.................................................................................. 45
 4

Document Analysis Reflection…………………………………………………………..46

Chapter IV: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 47

References ..................................................................................................................................... 50
 5

List of Figures

Figure 1: SCI Model ......................................................................................................................23

Figure 2: Fang’s SCI Model Applied to Miller Park Construction ...............................................24

Figure 3: Model Depicting Challenges and Pressure Points ..........................................................25

Figure 4: Personnel Categorization Demo for Phased-Based Approach .......................................39

Figure 5: Crawler Crane Image......................................................................................................42

Figure 6: Truck-Mounted Crane Image .........................................................................................43

 6

Chapter I: Introduction

Communications trends within virtually all disciplines have radically shifted over the last

20 years. The introduction of new technology, an increasingly interconnected world, and

burgeoning project complexity has necessitated a more purposeful and engaged communications

atmosphere. All fields have been subject to notable shifts in communications, but an impressive

evolution in the engineering and construction industries can serve as a case study and model for

observing the positive impacts of purposeful communication and messaging. Observing

emerging cultural conditions can also help inform technical and professional communicators and

those in industry regarding how fundamental communications principles can further bolster

ongoing efforts.

There is a growing safety culture that is permeating construction and engineering at a

remarkable rate (Choudhry, 2007; Wamuziri, 2006). Spurred on by the scope of past catastrophic

failures, these industries have embraced a new trend of communications that prioritizes safety

and openness as a fundamental principle (R. Stemp, personal communication, March 16, 2021).

When considering the communications climate and limitations of even the recent past, it is

commendable that these industries have demonstrated such commitment to safety. From an

industry culture that suppressed objection in the interest of productivity, to one that welcomes

each worker’s right to speak up, the integration of safety culture is a testament to what

purposeful communication can accomplish in even a short time. While work in cultivating safety

culture is ongoing, there are real and exciting changes that have transpired indicating an industry

wide commitment to safety. These changes came and continue to come with significant effort on

the part of those in industry and are often spurred forward by high visibility catastrophic failures

that are indicative of underlying concerns. One such incident that will act as the focal point of
 7

this study and that inspired a significant shift in industry culture is the Big Blue crane collapse at

the Miller Park construction site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1999.

The groundbreaking for Miller Park took place in Milwaukee on November 9, 1996

(Photos: How Miller Park Took Shape Over the Years, 2019). Excited fans could watch Miller

Park taking shape from their seats in the former ballpark, County Stadium. Miller Park loomed

like a goliath of modern engineering, its iron skeleton hinting at the complexity of the structure.

In an effort to shield against Milwaukee’s temperamental weather, Miller Park was built with a

retractable roof, the first in Wisconsin’s history (Miller Park Milwaukee, n.d.). It was and is truly

an achievement and one of the crown jewels of Milwaukee. As the grandeur of Miller Park

began to take shape, excitement buzzed throughout the community.

On July 14, 1999, three years after construction had commenced, a crane nicknamed Big

Blue lifted two sections of Miller Park’s famed retractable roof totaling 450 tons under

tumultuous conditions. The project was already falling behind, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

faced a significant deficit. Projects facing scheduling challenges and contractors contending with

financial concerns can be a dangerous combination. The additional pressure has the potential to

cause error (R. Stemp, personal communication, March 16, 2021).

This type of atmosphere can create unique communications challenges that deprioritize

safety and compliance in the interest of spurring the project forward. Construction and

engineering industries are not unique in this way; however, the project scope and potential risk is

distinct, particularly the risk to human life. It is important to note that the challenges faced by the

Miller Park project did not necessitate the outcome. Environmental concerns and project pressure

did contribute to the accident, but this study aims to argue that they were not the foundational

cause. The lack of safety culture and a hostile communications climate created an atmosphere in
 8

which situational concerns compounded exponentially (Ehlke, 2000). A hazardous construction

situation is not the result of a single environmental factor and is often subject to communications

obstacles. By assessing the details of this incident in conjunction with reviewing safety culture

efforts, communications professionals can gain an understanding on how to best engage with the

industry. The unique nature of construction is demonstrated in the Miller Park project, which can

provide a valuable lens for technical and professional communicators who wish to support safety

efforts through the application of communication principles.

The Miller Park project had a strict completion date; with the Milwaukee Brewer’s

season ahead, owners had a significant financial and social investment in a punctual completion.

While the crane lifted the sections of roof, an OSHA official looked on, recording the event in a

memorialized and heartbreaking video accessible to this day. In a span of about 30 seconds,

starting with a cracking boom that reverberated across the site, the “Big Blue” crane collapsed,

killing Jeffrey Wischer, William DeGrave, and Jerome Starr, three Iron Workers Local 8

members who watched from a suspended basket as the crane collapsed (Fallone, 2001). The

collapse also injured five others, caused $100 million worth of damage, and delayed construction

of the park one year (Fallone, 2001). Conflicting accounts and the situation’s complexity resulted

in confusing legal and community implications. As we reflect on this momentous incident, we

will also reflect on the construction industry as a whole and how a safety culture that was

inspired in part by this tragedy bloomed to impact the industry.

It is important to consider that while the development of safety culture in construction

and engineering industries is a notable phenomenon, there are limits to its examination. The

foremost challenge lies in the work itself; construction and engineering industries are project-

based, causing difficulty in assessing conditions with consistency (Biggs, 2013). There are also
 9

issues related to dissecting and understanding complex projects, such as the building of Miller

Park, that contain multiple layers of contractors, subcontractors, and workers. This creates a

particularly unique and complicated communications atmosphere from which it can be

challenging to assess a prevailing culture. There is also variation in the work, with projects

including, “commercial and residential buildings, roads and motorways, tunnels and bridges,

railway lines, electrical, gas and water services, and work in open-cut mines” (Biggs, 2013).

Based on the sheer quality and quantity of work done by engineering and construction industries,

it would be impossible to suggest that the same cultural standards hold across disciplines.

There is also definitional variation. While there is reasonably consistent agreement on

safety culture as a phenomenon, and its importance, there is disagreement on how it should be

defined. Experts argue on the usefulness of certain definitions to the industry, and even some

argue that any definition of safety culture at all may invite complacency (Antonsen, 2016).

Disagreement regarding the specifics of safety culture also limits the ability of research to

collaborate meaningfully. Still, there is widespread agreement that a phenomenon promoting the

importance of safety has taken root within construction and engineering industries in recent

decades.

Despite limitations, there is great value in researching safety culture. There is,

undoubtably, on both an anecdotal and research level, a movement towards prioritizing safety

(Feyer, 2004). As communications professionals, it is essential to assess the processes that are

proving effective at promulgating safety culture. Through this research, we can gain a better

understanding of which changes are producing desired results and how communications

principles may help to inform decisions that support safety culture development. In doing so, a
 10

reduction in risk and accidents will result in greater productivity and decreased personal and

economic loss (Feyer, 2004).

The benefits of safety culture are evidenced in various facets of industry and project

assessment. For example, a 2016 study by Dodge Data and Analytics indicates a significant

positive impact of safety culture from 2012 to 2015 using various metrics for analysis. Positive

impacts of safety in four areas, Project Budget, Project Schedule, Project Return on Investment

(ROI), and Reportable injuries, increased from 2012 to 2015 (Jones, 2016). The most significant

increases in positive impact were noted in Project ROI (e.g., 6% increase) and Reportable

Injuries (e.g., 10% increase; Jones, 2016). This data demonstrates that safety culture has an

industry wide impact with business and financial implications. These implications are being

noted and tracked, providing useful insight into the organizational changes that safety culture can

promulgate. Technical and professional communicators in support of safety culture can capitalize

on these benefits. The organizations who have implemented effective safety measures observed a

marked increase in productivity metrics. Communicators can integrate this knowledge into

messaging to project the multi-faceted benefits of well-developed safety culture.

Attitudes of corporate financial decision makers have also notably shifted in support of

safety culture. A 2007 survey study indicates that the majority of such decision makers,

“believed that the indirect costs associated with workplace injury were higher than the direct

costs…that money spent improving workplace safety would have significant returns” (Huang,

2007). Responses demonstrated that the top benefits of “effective workplace safety programs”

included, “increased productivity, reduced cost, retention, and increased satisfaction among

employees” (Huang, 2007). This survey response supports the notion that by integrating a safety

lens into project and accident assessment, industry professionals can gain a greater understanding
 11

of underlying causes and the implications of ineffective safety standards. The awareness of how

safety culture impacts every area of industry is working to propel safety efforts.

Safety culture is further working to change the industry landscape beyond projects and

even organizations. Workers are making the choice to prioritize safety in their job search,

resulting in companies who embrace safety culture being viewed as desirable. This creates

downstream effects, including the continued prioritization of implementing effective safety

strategies and the general success of organizations who propagate safety culture. A 2017 survey

regarding recruiting indicated that, “safety of the work environment was among the top criteria

employees consider when evaluating a new job offer” (Workplace Safety can give Small

Business, 2017). Surprisingly, safety was prioritized before such considerations as “opportunities

for professional growth” (Workplace Safety can give Small Business, 2017). A positive trend on

both an individual and industry level, this drive towards organizations who prioritize safety will

allow leaders to attract top talent. Thus, the benefits of safety culture will continue compounding.

These factors, when observed together, indicate a prevailing and industry-wide prioritization of

safety culture that impacts each area of business.

It is important to note that technical and professional communication is as widely varied

as construction and engineering industries. Therefore, the principles and procedures that may

function well in one discipline may not be useful in another. This research will work to

understand the perspective of construction and engineering professionals and then integrate

relevant communications concepts. Quality communication is one of the key predictors of a

healthy safety culture. With open communication comes greater understanding, synthesized

learning, and an overall greater investment in safety culture by all workers. Communication can
 12

help to support the development of safety culture in meaningful ways by being responsive to

industry needs.
 13

Chapter II: Literature Review

This study aims to synthesize information and context from a variety of sources on

communication trends in construction and engineering with a special consideration towards the

development of safety culture. Construction and engineering industries respond with particular

consideration to catastrophic events. These events serve as a catalyst to prompting significant

change in industry. As such, this study observes the Big Blue crane collapse as a historical focal

point. This study draws from a variety of sources in order to construct an overarching narrative

that adequately represents industry shifts and demonstrates how technical and professional

communication may be included in facilitating enhanced safety culture.

Community Interest

Due to the extreme visibility of the Big Blue crane collapse, public facing documents,

such as news reports and magazine articles, provide a meaningful perspective on the community

impact and response. Construction and engineering industries build and maintain our world and

the immense nature of projects positively correlates with the hazardous conditions. Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) statistics indicate that in 2019, 20% of all worker

fatalities occurred in construction (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d.). This is

a considerable portion, and communities have taken notice. Populations react viscerally to the

loss of life of construction workers who are working to build the community. The profound sense

of loss provides a humanitarian context through which to contend with harrowing statistics and

the resulting safety efforts. Information of public interest also serves to deconstruct complicated

communications structures and highlights the increasingly interconnected nature of our

developing communications climate.

 14

Legal References and Reflections

The significant repercussions of the Big Blue crane collapse resulted in a lengthy and

tumultuous legal proceeding that continued to uncover specifics regarding the events leading up

to the accident. The legal document references and reflections included in this work provide a

valuable perspective that describes events, engineering concerns, and liabilities. By examining

the project and accident via a legal perspective, clarity emerges that allows for a modeled

analysis of communication interactions and environmental impacts. Legal proceedings,

reflections, and references provide the framework for engaging with Fang’s Safety Culture

Interaction model, which aims to demonstrate construction project communication complexity

from an interaction-based perspective (Fang, 2013).

Legal reflections and testimony tell a story—one of many, perhaps—but one that has

been accepted and vetted by the legal system as true. In a situation fraught with compounding

factors, it is essential to operate from an established sequence of events with the proper

environmental considerations. Legal proceedings allowed each party to engage and provide

evidence in support of their claims. This is a vital element of understanding the communication

framework in which the Miller Park project operated.

Defining Safety Culture

While a concept explored and integrated much more completely in recent decades (R.

Stemp, personal communication, June 10, 2021), safety culture is not a novel idea. In fact, safety

culture, or lack thereof, is often referenced when reflecting on some of the highest visibility

catastrophes in history. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA, referred

to poor safety culture as a fundamental cause of the disaster in Chernobyl (International Nuclear

Safety Advisory Group, 1992). The need for a focus on safety culture also does not seem to be
 15

constrained geographically. An assessment of construction fatalities in Singapore concluded that

“changes in organizational safety culture…and effective communication are critical to improve

safety performance in Singapore’s construction industry” (Ling, 2009). The encouragement

toward safety culture is historically documented and observed internationally.

However prevalent the concept of safety culture has become in industry literature, it

remains challenging to define with clarity and purpose. Agreement among experts seems to

indicate that there is more research required into the phenomenon of safety culture, but it appears

that agreement ends there: “what critics are pointing to is a lack of theoretical models and

frameworks to explain the relationships between organizational culture and safety” (Antonsen,

2016).

In an effort to create a functional theoretical model from which to examine developing

safety culture resulting from the Big Blue crane collapse, it is important to consider first what

culture is in this context. We may consider culture to be, “the frames of reference through which

information, symbols and behavior are interpreted and the conventions for behavior, interaction

and communication are generated” (Antonsen, 2016). This successfully positions culture as both

a private and public phenomenon; culture grants the individual the ability to meaningfully

perceive the world and draw conclusions, and it allows the system more broadly to function

based on “patterns of [shared] meaning” (Antonsen, 2016). This definition of culture is useful for

the examination of growing safety trends in industry because it informs individual action and

group behavioral patterns and mentality. This is how safety culture operates within an

organization. It is integral to the worker, on any level of skill or management, and must be

prioritized by the organization for any potential for measurable success.

 16

Communications and culture are closely intertwined, particularly when observing or

discussing communication trends, principles, and procedures. Culture facilitates the effectiveness

of communication and determines the style and manner that is appropriate. Culture sets the

individual’s expectations and serves as a framework for how an organization interacts internally

and externally. While culture can be challenging to define, it provides the necessary context for

purposefully assessing communications trends. Further, if communications recommendations are

to be made, the cultural conditions must be appropriate. This is integral to promoting positive

communications development. A prescription of general communications principles is not going

to be effective, or even reasonable, in any cultural context. By assessing cultural conditions and

reflecting on the most relevant communications applications, technical and professional

communicators can provide targeted support.

Culture within an industry, and then within an organization, closely mirrors these

principles of engagement. The patterns of meaning and behavior observed within industry shape

an individual’s perception and guide their actions. This understanding, and its consequences,

contributed to the alarm and action of the construction and engineering industries. An industry

atmosphere that had previously been marred by potential job instability and an unyielding

hierarchy needed to foster a culture of openness in order to evolve (R. Stemp, personal

communication, March 16, 2021). The frames through which industry members viewed their

working relationships, position, and perhaps most significantly, their own role in safety, had to

adjust to accommodate dissent appropriately. However, dissent can only be voiced when workers

are appropriately trained. Therefore, more stringent training protocols with defined standards

shaped the industry workforce (R. Stemp, personal communication, March 16, 2021). More
 17

broadly, the industry itself had to function as a network of open communication, modeling the

frames of reference necessary to facilitate safety-minded changes.

Culture is ever present in organizations. Whether or not it is a desirable culture is

irrelevant, organizations and industries form cultures. It then requires concerted effort to shift a

culture towards an outcome, particularly when that outcome may initially appear to run counter

to productivity (R. Stemp, personal communication, June 10, 2021). If culture provides the frame

through which an individual views and interacts and how a broader system functions, then a

culture dedicated to safety, “must be understood in relation to the presence of some hazard or

risk” (Antonsen, 2016). Without the presence and acknowledgement of risk (and in the case of

construction and engineering, this risk is substantial on both a personal and economic level), our

theoretical model for assessing culture fails to integrate the appropriate frame. Safety culture can

only exist to combat risk, and it is when that risk is made so plainly evident that the need for

change becomes apparent. When disasters occur and risk is realized, the need for a culture of

safety is that much plainer. In cases of accidents and failures, the worst possible outcomes can be

realized. It is in these incidents, in which risk becomes reality, that the industry pauses to assess

the steps that can be taken to avoid any such reoccurrence. As a result, construction disasters

often act as the greatest catalysts for industry change.

 18

Chapter III: Results

It is challenging to pinpoint with any useful specificity the cause of such far reaching

disasters. Construction accidents that cause injury, loss of life, or have significant financial

implications often have lengthy litigation processes indicating the complexity. Multiple factors

interact to produce unsafe conditions. Therefore, when assessing the Big Blue crane collapse and

discussing the resulting impacts on industry, it is important to contextualize communication

findings within the broader framework of construction industry. By applying a safety culture

lens, this study aims to discover how culture and communications interacted to produce

hazardous conditions.

Safety Culture Perspective on the Big Blue Crane Collapse

In the aftermath of catastrophe, questions crave answers. When the Big Blue crane

collapsed, the complexity of the project and the many teams involved created an elusive veneer,

requiring investigation to uncover the truth. But ultimately, the answer was, and often is, simple:

human error. The Big Blue crane came with a load chart indicating that situational conditions,

such as environmental factors, were not taken into consideration (R. Stemp, personal

communication, March 16, 2021). The machinery was capable of functioning in the manner

intended under the proper conditions, but the machinery could not assess those conditions for

itself. As the organizational and human errors were uncovered, a scenario begins to take shape.

The project was behind schedule and weather had prohibited the complex lifts on previous

occasions (R. Stemp, personal communication, March 16, 2021). In court proceedings,

employees on the site indicated that they, “had been conditioned not to disobey [the site

supervisor], because [he] had, only a month before, forced the removal of the first crane crew
 19

supervisor” (Cranes Today, 2001). The previous crane crew supervisor had clashed with the site

supervisor on several occasions over safety related concerns (Cranes Today, 2001).

While this account merely constitutes a small slice, if culture is the frame through which

individuals and organizations operate, this account can certainly act as a frame of reference for

assessment. There was added pressure due to the project being behind schedule, crew members

were concerned for their livelihoods—they did not want to be sent home from a job for raising

too many safety concerns—and one individual was dictating procedure, despite dissent from

others. The machinery functioned as it should. The materials and ability to assess conditions was

present. Dissent had already been heard. This was not a failure of the crane; the crane could not

and was not supposed to function under these conditions. This was a human failure. The

atmosphere facilitated a horrific outcome, one that rocked the community and forever altered the

lives of the victims’ families. The industry recognized this and sought collectively to identify

those areas of culture that had weakened construction and engineering and put lives at risk.

As awareness of risk, and the challenges of cultural risk, emerge, quantitative risk

analysis served to identify, “what may go wrong, how likely it is that something will in fact go

wrong, and the consequences involved if these things go wrong” (Antonsen, 2016). However, a

strictly objective and sterile view of risk analysis does not fully encapsulate the importance of

culture. The notion that, “risk will always be, at least to some extent, socially constructed” is a

powerful idea that, emphasizes the importance of the intersection of risk, individual behavior,

and organizational patterns (Antonsen, 2016). It seems that including a cultural lens in the

examination of risk is prudent, considering that safety culture could not interact with (or

decrease) risk if these considerations were unrelated. Only by assessing risk through a

multifactored analysis can communications professionals discover where to best intervene.

 20

This is evidenced in the examination of the Big Blue crane collapse. Industry culture was

of such importance to assessing the risk realized that it was noted in court proceedings. Safety

culture is just one of many responses to risk. Being that it is both organizational and individual,

and that it takes into consideration human elements that are often the most difficult to account

for, it quickly ascended as a paramount priority in construction and engineering industry.

However, altering an industry’s culture is no small endeavor. Recall that culture is an individual

and organizational phenomenon, indicating the many layers of complexity involved in

developing a culture. Facilitating a significant cultural shift requires concerted effort, one that

communications practices and principles can support. Through communications best practices

that are relevant to these industries, professionals can continue to effectively navigate and inform

this important cultural shift.

If we can accept the two premises that culture is the lens or frame of reference through

which individuals orient themselves within a structure and that culture provides the structure

with functional patterns, then the relationship with risk, particularly in industries such as

construction and engineering, emerges as symbiotic and significant. We may then reasonably

conclude that safety, as positioned oppositional to risk, also requires a cultural response.

While the notion of safety culture is not novel, the integration of it into accident

assessment is a relatively new phenomenon. As Jorma Saari writes:

Earlier explanations for accidents were sought from personal and specific technical

factors. The view was narrowed to the very short moment of injury and to the exact scene

of the incident. More recently, researchers have expanded their view to include preceding

events. Surrounding organizational conditions have also been found to contribute to

accident sequences much more than thought possible earlier. (1999)

 21

The above reflection on the shift in accident assessment indicates the importance of culture. This

more holistic approach resonates with an honest review of the Big Blue accident. If one was to

limit their examination to, “the very short moment of injury and to the exact scene of the

incident,” an incomplete picture of the event would lead to an insufficient response (Saari, 1999).

Without an awareness as to the workplace project culture, the incident’s causes may have been

limited to engineering or environmental concerns. While these are important contributing factors

to understand, they manifested in a disastrous scenario due to the lack of safety culture and

healthy communication. Had the culture of the project workplace not been considered by

industry professionals in reflection, it could not have acted as a key catalyst in promoting safety

culture and a healthier atmosphere. Court testimony demonstrated the key role that culture

played in creating an environment conducive to accident conditions.

Assessing accidents absent considerations of culture is an irresponsible approach. Even in

a hypothetical situation in which an accident occurred completely without cultural influence, this

can only rationally be determined if culture is assessed in the first place. Beyond this very rare —

or perhaps impossible, depending on the definition of culture being used—occurrence, most

accidents relate to the organization’s or industry’s patterns or an individual’s actions, both of

which are inextricably linked with culture. Accident assessment can only then be wholly

conducted with a consideration towards cultural elements.

Safety Culture Interaction Model and Application to Big Blue Collapse

Construction is a unique industry, almost entirely project-based, with many dynamic

moving pieces. This is demonstrated in our reflection of the Miller Park project. Contractors,

subcontractors, supervisors, and tradesmen from different organizations were tasked with

working together on a phased and complex project. Because of the distinctiveness of

 22

construction, typical safety culture models are not always applicable. Models geared towards

safety culture generally often do not take into full consideration the unique atmosphere of

construction projects. A functional safety culture model for construction must acknowledge the

dynamic nature of project-based work and take into consideration the involvement of more than

one organization on a fundamental and day-to-day basis. This indicates the importance of safety

culture as an industry-wide initiative. One organization cannot dictate the culture of a project

space; the entire industry must be invested in safety culture so that projects with multiple

organizations involved find their prioritizations harmoniously aligned.

Another key element that challenges the application of a general safety culture model to

the construction industry is logistics (Fang, 2013). Because construction projects often have

several tasks being completed simultaneously and because workers find themselves moving to

different workspaces, there is a lack of consistency that is common to other industries, such as

manufacturing (Fang, 2013). The flow of construction projects results in workers being in flux,

further emphasizing the need for a stable and visible safety culture on every level of work. The

unique nature of construction warrants a specialized cultural model.

Safety culture models represent how safety culture is “embedded [into an] organization’s

practices and safety management systems” (Fang, 2013). Safety culture models are significant to

technical and professional communication research because they demonstrate the functional

elements of culture. The model developed by Fang (see Figure 1) works within the unique

atmosphere of construction projects to develop a model that demonstrates the importance of

interaction and the requirement for investment in safety culture by supervisors and workers

(2013).
 23

Figure 1

SCI Model

Note. From “Development of a Safety Culture Interaction (SCI) model for construction projects,”

by D. Fang and H. Wu, 2013, Safety Science, 57, p. 145. Copyright 2013 by Elsevier.

Fang’s model demonstrates key elements of developing project culture. First, the

“Workgroup” and “Management” groups are each considered fundamental (Fang, 2013). Safety

being everyone’s job is not a mere slogan; it is imperative that safety culture is embraced at all

levels. This awareness can bring a new understanding to how technical and professional

communicators engage with safety culture. Identifying the relevant audiences in industry will

help communicators to create targeted content. Next, there is a significant emphasis placed on

the interaction between the owner, contractor, and subcontractor. Each represents a functional

piece of the cultural framework, and if one is inadequately prioritizing safety, the project culture

will reflect this. The Safety Culture Interaction model demonstrates the importance of

communication between each element of the construction project and indicates that safety should

be prioritized by both management teams and workers (Fang, 2013).

 24

The SCI model is significant to technical and professional communication because it

compartmentalizes potential intervention spaces while highlighting interactive networks.

Technical and professional communication is most effective when it is targeted for the relevant

audience. This interaction model provides the audiences and situates them within a broader

industry framework. For example, the SCI model indicates that management teams are an

essential group in the propagation of safety culture within a project. Rhetorical training and an

emphasis on increased collaboration between management groups may be a place that technical

and professional communication can intervene to support the SCI model. Additionally, if

management is present in a high visibility capacity promoting safety culture to the worker group,

there will be a more open atmosphere overall.

In applying Fang’s SCI model to the Miller Park project, specific obstacles to the support

of a healthy and stable safety culture environment begin to emerge (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Fang’s SCI Model Applied to Miller Park Construction

Workers' 8
Mi!llJ-B
Project Safety
Cultur-c
Contractor
Safety Culture Subcontractor
Mitsubishi Safety Culture
Heavy Industries arnpson Internationa

Miller Park Construction Site

Note. From “Development of a Safety Culture Interaction (SCI) model for construction projects,”

by D. Fang and H. Wu, 2013, Safety Science, 57, p. 145. Copyright 2013 by Elsevier.
 25

An assessment of the situation using this model reveals many challenges. First, notable

factors of the construction site included unsafe environments with wind speeds up to 32 mph

(Fallone, 2001). Unhealthy communication between contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and

subcontractor Lampson International was noted as a crane operator supplied by Lampson

International reportedly clashed over safety guidelines with a Mitsubishi supervisor (Cranes

Today, 2001). In court documents, workers perceived that their job may be in jeopardy for

voicing safety concerns (Cranes Today, 2001). This influenced worker behavior and decreased

the likelihood of voicing dissent while increasing the likelihood of following unsafe directions.

Worker environment, in both a literal and figurative sense, was unsafe. The below model

indicates the areas in which cultural lapses broke down, rather than supported, safety culture (see

Figure 3).

Figure 3

Model Depicting Challenges and Pressure Points

Project pressure, Crane supervisor is vocal

financial concerns regarding safety concerns

Interaction
challenges

High wind speeds, unsafe conditions, challenging

conummications atmosphere

Note. From “Development of a Safety Culture Interaction (SCI) model for construction projects,”

by D. Fang and H. Wu, 2013, Safety Science, 57, p. 145. Copyright 2013 by Elsevier.
 26

What is vital to note for professional and technical communicators using this model is

that the single issues within the outward framework did not necessarily predict the resulting

failure of safety culture. The significant impact on safety culture resulted from the interactions

between the fundamental elements of the Safety Culture Interaction model. For example, a safety

culture could very well have still existed despite the environmental high wind speeds. A safety

culture could have still existed in a pressurized project atmosphere with financial implications.

These elements may make a stable safety culture more difficult to establish, but safety culture is

not mutually exclusive to these factors. The core breakdown of safety culture existed in the

interactions between fundamental elements of the SCI model. When contractor and subcontractor

management no longer agree on what constitutes a safe worksite, and this friction develops into

an environment hostile to dissent, a safety culture cannot thrive. As communications and

environmental challenges from both management and workers impact culture, behavior and

perception suffer negative impacts.

With this assessment it becomes clear that safety culture can exist in even challenging

climates. It may require more effort and greater prioritization over project deadlines, but it is

possible for safety culture to thrive in these circumstances. The significant factors in supporting

safety culture are prioritization of healthy interaction and atmosphere and the development of

correct worker and management behaviors and perceptions. Each of the fundamental elements

must promote safety culture and interactions must further support this goal.

Fang’s Safety Culture Interaction model also positions “interaction” as a vital component

of promoting safety culture, further emphasizing the importance of healthy communication.

Culture and communication are closely related, and Fang’s model demonstrates how integral

communication is to the support of safety culture. In construction and engineering industries, the
 27

involvement of multiple organizations necessitates a constant flow of interaction, as indicated by

the model. This demonstrates one avenue through which communications principles can serve

construction and engineering industries. The need is present, constant, and cannot be served by a

generalized prescription of communications principles. Therefore, moving forward in support of

safety culture, technical communicators can best facilitate progress by responding to industry

professionals and cultivating industry-wide standards.

Assessment of Safety Culture by Industry Professionals and the Technical and Professional

Communication Response

While safety culture has made a marked influence on construction and engineering

industries, it is essential to consider how cultural changes are facilitated and acknowledged on an

individual level. How individuals respond to safety culture and assess it in their day-to-day

operations is a fundamental predictor of effective strategies. In a research assessment of safety

culture, based on interviews of leaders in some of Australia’s largest construction organizations,

a trend of action-oriented considerations was observed (Biggs, 2013). Biggs found that, “whilst

values, beliefs and attitudes were mentioned by several interviewees, it seemed that most

emphasis was placed on the actions, behaviors and practices of people in the organization”

(2013). Interview respondents described safety culture by action. Safety culture was “the way we

do things around here” or “What people do when no-one’s looking” (Biggs, 2013). This

assessment of safety culture relies heavily on actions, which can help to inform how technical

and professional communication principles can effectively be implemented to continue

supporting safety initiatives. Technical and professional communication can contribute

meaningfully to support safety culture by taking an approach focused on actions. Emerging

technologies and training tools, such as videos and interactive interfaces, have provided a new
 28

avenue to approach action-based learning. Visual presentation of information is becoming

increasingly prevalent in industry and has been demonstrated as an effective method of

communicating action-based training in engineering (St. Amant & Flammia, 2016).

If we accept that safety culture is oriented, at least in part, as an action-based

phenomenon, then technical and professional communication can help to support training efforts

by integrating visual tools. This provides an avenue for technical and professional

communication to integrate key foundational principles. For example, a key tenet of technical

and professional communication is engaging with the audience in a manner that makes sense to

them. Including visuals of an action alongside text or audio can reduce friction caused by

language barriers and can give visual learners a more inclusive avenue to engage with content.

Visuals can be particularly useful in video format as users can repeat their viewing of the action.

The validity of video-based training is well-documented and may be superior to reading written

instructions in some circumstances. A 2014 study comparing the effectiveness of presenting

software instructions in a paper-based format versus video concluded that, “[results favored] the

presentation of software instructions via video rather than on paper” (van der Meij & van der

Meij, 2014). Further, “the most pronounced difference between these media was found during

training. While the participants who worked with the paper-based tutorial successfully completed

63% of the training tasks, participants who had viewed a video achieve a success rate of 87%”

(van der Meij & van der Meij, 2014).

Considering the effectiveness of technical training of actions via video, technical, and

professional communication can inform training protocols to better support safe actions. For

example, a training video regarding crane operations and complex lifts could input a purposeful

step that instructs the user to assess environmental conditions. This can be challenging to
 29

standardize, as cranes and their document materials are different. However, by providing visual

cues in training videos, such as checking load charts and reviewing for environmental concerns,

the action may be more effectively retained.

It is also important to note the philosophical elements of the construction leaders’

reflections. There is an acknowledgement that culture is a wider phenomenon and that it is every

individual’s responsibility. In several key responses, survey participants referenced the work

environment more broadly. There are elements of camaraderie working symbiotically with the

persistence of safety culture. It is an industry initiative that everyone must be invested in, even

when no one is looking, in order for it to be effective. These assessments indicate the need for a

total integration of safety culture on multiple levels. Safety culture should be prevalent and

prioritized in training, management, and all processes and procedures in order to be fully

immersed in industry. From a technical and professional communications perspective, there are

tools that can be implemented to help effectuate this outcome.

Rhetoric plays an unparalleled role in shaping culture, and it is a tool that technical and

professional communicators can leverage to promote safety culture. The language used by the

interviewees indicates the ubiquitous nature of culture; it is the system in which they work. The

broader framework that supports culture is heavily influenced by rhetoric (Gold, 2019). If

rhetoric positions safety as the primary objective and delineates productivity as a result of safety

culture, an atmosphere more welcoming to dissent can emerge. Rhetorical choices aimed at

persuading workers to invest in safety culture and promote safe protocols can be integrated at all

levels, from training to project management to complex lift sign offs. The benefits of visual

rhetoric can also be explored in the promotion of safety culture. Technical communicators use

tools such as call outs to indicate information of primary concern. This is a form of visual
 30

rhetoric that works to engage with the user’s risk assessment. Call outs are more pronounced and

less likely to be ignored, making them a key rhetorical tool to promote safe practices. However,

call outs do come with limitations. Their unique ability to engage the audience is derived from

their sparse use. It is only the most vital of information that is typically included in a call out.

This creates a bit of a hazardous communication situation when pieces of safety information

must be prioritized to a call out level. Therefore, only safety information that is capable of

causing catastrophic failure should be included in this manner. Regardless, rhetorical choices that

emphasize safety and visual rhetoric that helps users to better understand and prioritize content

can aid in the promotion of safety culture.

Single sourcing is an additional technical and professional communication tool that can

better support industries in their efforts to promote safety. By single sourcing training, Standard

Operating Procedures (SOPs), and other reference documents, organizations can ensure that their

content is up to date, streamlined, and there is the added benefit of quickly adjusting rhetorical

conditions to promote safety culture. Prior to single sourcing, content may have had, “different

levels of detail, varying quality of information presentation, overlapping detail between modules,

and slightly different ways of formatting” (Albers, 2003). Any one of these challenges could

provide serious obstacles for a stable safety culture and may even be a contributing factor to a

catastrophic event. Single sourcing does have its own challenges, such as ensuring that multiple

content creators working on the same module have smooth formatting and style, but ultimately,

maximizing control over content is an ideal way to ensure that safety culture is propagated.

Single sourcing is a relatively new technological phenomenon that is made available

through novel tools and interconnectivity. However, the concept of workers learning from the

same resource is powerful and one that was recognized in the aftermath of the Big Blue accident.
 31

At the time of the accident, construction relied heavily on work experience, rather than

formalized training, in the progression of tradesmen (R. Stemp, personal communication, March

16, 2021). Trades in Milwaukee have since developed comprehensive technical education

programs along with testing to assess the knowledge and ability of workers. Requiring formal

education ensures that workers share a similar frame and that a certain level of competency can

be assumed. Formal education also provides an excellent opportunity to further inculcate safety

culture.

When asked to assess the factors that contributed to a positive safety culture, the

interviewees in Biggs’ research provided a wide array of responses with themes of particular

interest to technical and professional communication. Themes included leadership commitment,

safety communication, workers’ involvement, defined safety accountabilities, and simple safety

systems (Biggs, 2013). A common foundation of promoting positive safety culture is in the

presence and visibility of safety leaders and their commitment to supporting safety values. This

acts in interesting contrast to our reflection on the Big Blue incident, in which the supervisor

pressured workers into unsafe conditions and processes. This idea also combats the pressure felt

by workers of the Big Blue site to acquiesce or risk job security. If a high-ranking leader who is

visible on a job site is promoting safety culture and safe conditions, workers on all levels are

going to feel more secure in voicing their concerns. This research, in contrast with the

assessment of the Big Blue incident, illustrates interesting shifts in safety culture.

Two other key factors contributing to safety culture that are specifically relevant to

technical and professional communication are safety communication and simple safety systems

(Biggs, 2013). Examples of respondents’ emphasis on safety communication are, “It’s no good

having the best systems in the world if you can’t communicate information effectively” and
 32

“Messages are already fairly diluted once they get to the paddock” (Biggs, 2013). Technical and

professional communicators have an opportunity in construction industries to strengthen safety

culture even further. Communication solutions in these situations may include a usability

analysis that can indicate the effectiveness of the communication received at every level and for

each respective audience. Usability can also address concerns of complexity in safety systems.

By applying a heuristic analysis to safety systems and simplifying them using a user-centered

approach, technical communicators may be able to help enhance the protocols already in place to

combat risk.

It is essential that technical and professional communication supports industry

professionals in a way that makes sense in construction and engineering contexts. By learning

from construction personnel, communicators can better understand the principles that will best

support the continued development of safety culture. Further integrating technical and

professional communication principles is a useful way to capitalize on the work already done by

industry and promoting the use of new technologies, such as single sourcing and visual training

aids, can take safety efforts to a new age of effectiveness.

Safety Culture and Productivity

While new safety guidelines, expectations, and training has been worthwhile on multiple

levels, an initial and superficial reflection might suggest a decrease in productivity. Additional

safety measures may create longer timetables, delay projects due to environmental concerns, or

require greater consensus before proceeding. The industry has pushed back against this view.

Engineering and construction industries have challenged the notion that productivity must come

at the expense of safety (R. Stemp, personal communication, June 10, 2021). The prevailing
 33

wisdom is that safety culture has bolstered productivity overall, by avoiding accidents, setbacks,

asset loss, and catastrophes.

In the case of the Big Blue crane collapse, both safety and productivity came at the

expense of a lacking safety culture. This is the lynchpin in the argument in favor of supporting

and continuing to propagate safety culture. Not only does safety culture prioritize the workers

and their rights to a safe work environment, the organization experiences multifaceted benefits.

Safety versus productivity places each objective at odds, but this is not the case. As

evidenced by a 2015 data collection effort by Steve Ludwig in association with Rockwell

Automation, “safety IS productivity” (Ludwig, 2014). Ludwig had compiled data using

Rockwell Automation’s Safety Maturity Index, which evaluated organizations on culture,

compliance, and capital (Ludwig, 2014). Ludwig found that the “Best-in-Class” companies, or

those with performance in the top 20%, had an injury frequency rate of less than 0.05%. This is,

“about 18 times lower than the average companies” (Hessman, 2015). What Ludwig’s

assessment indicates is that companies that prioritize safety do not do so at the expense of

productivity.

This may be an area in which technical and professional communication can capitalize.

By rhetorically positioning safety as a vital support of productivity, rather than in opposition,

communicators have an opportunity to organically develop safety culture. Communicators can

also continue to explore the relationship between safety and productivity in order to increase

visibility and awareness at all levels of the organization. As previously discussed, a fundamental

element of healthy safety culture is leadership investment. The “safety is productivity”

conversation may resonate well with leadership and encourage greater commitment. When the

cultural connection is established between safety and productivity, a calculation favoring one no
 34

longer comes at the expense of the other. Prioritizing safety can become challenging in

pressurized atmospheres, such as the delayed schedule experienced by the Miller Park project.

However, if the organization has facilitated a safety culture, productivity will not be placed in

opposition to safety. Rather, safety will be the standard procedure and productivity the result.

Technical and professional communicators can build this narrative. Through training, rhetorical

choices, and project planning, communication tools can be implemented that highlight the

multiple benefits of safety culture.

Document Analysis

To help guide load handling activities, construction and engineering industries rely

heavily on standards authored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Two

of the standards most relevant to this study are ASME P30.1 “Planning for Load Handling

Activities” and ASME B30.5 “Mobile and Locomotive Cranes.” Past versions of these standards

helped to guide the Big Blue load handling activities. ASME updates standards on a variable

basis. Analyzing these documents and the changes made from previous versions can provide

valuable insight into the perspective of safety-minded industry professionals and the direction in

which culture and communication are progressing.

The analysis conducted focuses on technical and professional communication principles.

This analytical perspective provides a useful framework to assess how principles are being

integrated into the most fundamental and essential communication apparatus. By assessing the

documents that provide the basis for workers’ actions, we are granted a valuable view into

industry practices and how information and procedures are communicated. Further, document

analysis can establish industry context for project-based and task-based work and establish target

audiences.
 35

ASME P30.1 Planning for Load Handling Activities

Several components of ASME’s P30.1 standard indicate a commitment to integrating

communications principles, despite the complex challenges presented by construction and

engineering industries.

Accessibility

A point of high praise for standard P30.1 is its commendable accessibility. Language

choices are simple, concise, and direct. This promotes usability by all audience members and

further emphasizes the commitment to industry-wide safety. This is a standard that could be read

and accurately interpreted by personnel at all levels of the project and from virtually any

organization. For example, P30.1 reads:

The P30 standard is intended to

(a) prevent or minimize injury, and provide for the protection of life, limb, and property

by offering guidance for planning efforts that enhance the safety of load handling

activities (American Society of Mechanical Engineers [ASME], 2019)

One of the fundamental tenets of technical and professional communication is to know your

audience and write with their consideration in mind. Your document is not useful if it is not

usable by your target audience, regardless of if you achieved other objectives. This

communications principle is well integrated here. Language is simple and direct. Industry jargon,

which has the potential to cause barriers to understanding or isolate new personnel, is avoided

and terms that may require explanation for clarity are defined in section 1.2. The standard has

also positioned safety as a top priority by listing it prominently as the first objective. In doing so,

the standard has invited greater participation by personnel, further expanding accessibility.

Anyone who is interested in preventing or minimizing injury, that is to say any worksite
 36

personnel, are invited to find useful information in this standard (ASME, 2019). The objective

and language expand the audience, but the standard’s content remains focused and relevant. By

positioning and prioritizing safety in this way and by choosing accessible language, ASME has

continued to support the notion that safety is each person’s responsibility and that all personnel

should be engaging with documentation and standards to adopt proper procedures.

Updates Integrating Communications Principles

Documentation provides a valuable lens through which to discern shifts in culture and

communications strategies. Because these standards are continuously updated, changes to the

documents can indicate broader initiatives and perspectives. Analyzing the two most recent

versions of P30.1, 2014 and 2019, can provide us with a valuable lens into prioritization and

trends. While an extensive list of updates is detailed in the current 2019 standard, a common

thread of clarity and simple communication motivated many of the updates. For example, a noted

change to the 2019 standard removes one word from the intent definition, which clarifies the

statement:

The P30 Standard is intended to

(a) prevent or minimize injury to people, and otherwise provide for the protection of life,

limb, and property by offering guidance for planning efforts that enhance the safety of

load handling activities. (ASME, 2014)

The content of the statements is not altered in any way, nor is the positioning within the

document. The small change that was made promoted clarity and simplification. The 2014

standard included the term “otherwise,” which confuses the statement by placing the first listed

objective, “prevent or minimize injury to people” in a kind of linguistic dichotomy with “provide

for the protection of life, limb, and property” (ASME, 2014). The 2019 version does not change
 37

the objective or content of the statement but clarifies it by removing extraneous and potentially

confusing language. The removal of one word may appear to be insignificant, but in a lengthy

document such as a standard, there are likely many opportunities to clarify language and make it

more usable for the audience.

When considering the technical nature of the documents, clarity is of vital importance.

By building accessible documents, ASME is ensuring durability and consistency of

interpretation. For example, in section 5-2.3 “Rigging Plan,” the 2019 version is revised to

include a more comprehensive scope in clearer language. The 2014 excerpt reads, “Establish the

process to install and disassemble the rigging equipment using the information provided by…”

(ASME, 2019). This direction is a bit syntactically confusing as it could read as if “install” and

“disassemble” are paired tasks, when really they are mutually exclusive (ASME, 2014). A user

could perhaps “assemble” and “install” simultaneously. The audience may then wonder if this is

a typo (Did they mean assemble and install?) or just a series of tasks relevant to the direction?

The 2019 standard clarifies and elaborates on the scope of this direction and reads, “Establish the

process to assemble, install, remove and disassemble the rigging equipment using the

information provided by…” (ASME, 2019). This serialized set of possible processes clarifies the

scope and the progression of relevant tasks. By making just a small revision, ASME has

improved the document’s usability and its accessibility to the audience. This demonstrates the

importance of integrating communications principles aimed at simplifying documents when

appropriate to promote usability and understanding.

One of the most visible change to the P30.1 standard from 2014 to 2019 is with respect to

the term “rigging.” The word rigging appears several times in both standards and presents a

unique language challenge that is clarified in the 2019 standard. Rigging can be used as both a
 38

noun and a verb in this context. Rigging can refer to the “components, hardware, and devices

used to attach a load to the load handling equipment” or “the process of attaching a load to the

load handling equipment (LHE) by means of components, hardware or devices” (ASME, 2019).

The two contexts in which the word can be used has the potential to cause confusion for the

audience. This may be of particular concern to English Language Learners. By distinguishing the

use of the terms, ASME has improved upon the document’s accessibility. The distinction

between the noun and verb forms is clarified in the 1.2 “Definitions” section of the 2019 version.

The term “rigging” is still used in both capacities in each standard, but the clarification in the

2019 version indicates effort is being committed to adjustments for the sake of improved

understanding.

The Inclusion of Personnel

The assessment of the Big Blue accident and the Miller Park project atmosphere

emphasizes the importance of personnel in every category interacting in a healthy and functional

manner. It is vital for workers to be aware of their role and the roles of others who are relevant to

the load handling activity. P30.1 includes a section dedicated to defining personnel and their

responsibilities. This section is particularly useful because it identifies personnel specifically

involved in the activity, as well as peripheral actors, such as those who assemble/disassemble the

load handling equipment or those who are responsible for overseeing “work site safety policies”

(ASME, 2019). This helps the audience to orient themselves and understand the complexity of

the process overall.

While the listed definitions of roles and responsibilities are valuable, the interaction and

categorization of roles can also serve to provide valuable insight for an audience. As the standard

indicates, “Not all of the roles [listed] may be identified in or required by the lift plan. In some
 39

cases, an individual or entity may perform multiple, nonconflicting roles” (ASME, 2019). This

could cause confusion among readers. For example, they may not be able to readily identify their

worksite’s “site safety officer” if the individual fulfills other roles or has a different title. Future

iterations of the ASME standard may aim to greater categorize roles, perhaps identifying roles

that are actively engaged in the load handling activity versus those that assess, plan for, or

prepare for load handling activities. Categorization in a visual aid, such as a phase-based flow

chart, may be a useful tool for the audience to orient themselves among the broader procedure.

Phase-based role categorization could be completed using Chapter 4’s “Standard Lift Plan,”

which includes four phases: Standard Lift Plan Development, Pre-Lift Review, Executing the

Standard Lift Plan, and Post Lift Review (ASME, 2019). It may be useful to categorize the roles

in accordance with these steps, though some roles may appear multiple times and considerations

would have to be noted for Critical Lift Plans (see Figure 4).

Figure 4

Personnel Categorization Demo for Phased-Based Approach

Standard Lift Plan Executing the

Pre-Lift Review Post Lift Review
Development Standard Lift Plan
Involved Personnel Involved Personnel
Involved Personnel Involved Personnel
Example: Example:
Example: Example:
Lift director Site safety officer
Lift Planner LHE operator

Mandatory Versus Situational Direction

In the two most recent versions of P30.1 that have been examined in this study (2014,

2019) “shall” and “should” are defined in the 1.2 “Definitions” section. Shall is defined as a
 40

“term used to indicate that a rule is mandatory and must be followed” and should is defined as “a

term used to indicate that a rule is a recommendation, the advisability of which depends on the

facts in each situation” (ASME, 2019). This is an important distinction as it tells the audience

“this is what you must do” and “this is what is recommended.” Because of the project-based

nature of construction and how significantly work can vary, it would be virtually impossible to

make all of a standard’s guidelines mandatory. Each situation is unique and should be assessed

using the standard’s guidance; however, not every recommendation is relevant in each situation.

By including this consideration, ASME has given the standard the space to create a safety culture

that is responsive and applicable to real conditions.

Shall is generally reserved for situations in which there are strict standards and

procedures that are vital to understand for the completion of a safe lift and that are consistent

throughout the industry. For example, “An evaluation of proposed load handling activity shall be

performed” (ASME, 2019). Should is often used in a situational capacity, when the experience

and knowledge of the industry professional is depended on to make the assessment. For example,

“for repetitive lifts, the lift director should decide the frequency of pre-lift meetings. Pre-lift

meetings may not be required prior to each repetition of the load handling activity” (ASME,

2019). This is an important distinction as it grants the standard the flexibility necessary to

function within the variable space of construction and engineering projects. The standard is

focused in its application of mandatory rules and clear in its recommendations. By distinguishing

necessities versus recommendations, ASME has ensured that the standard is relevant to the

audience.
 41

ASME B30.5 Mobile and Locomotive Cranes

ASME standard B30.5 is significantly lengthier and more technical than P30.1, but still

demonstrates a commitment to the inclusion of communications and technical writing principles.

The inclusion of several user-friendly elements increases the accessibility of the document, while

maintaining a high level of usability and consistency.

A Focus on Definitions

The ASME B30.5 standard includes more content related to technical information,

equipment, and important considerations such as testing and maintenance. As such, the B30.5

standard is more challenging for readers. It is significantly longer and more technical than the

P30.1 standard. Topics include construction, characteristics, testing, inspection, stability, and

environmental factors. In an effort to combat any barriers to understanding, ASME has supported

the document well through a comprehensive definitions section. The definitions section is

presented in two sections: “Types of Mobile and Locomotive Cranes” and “General.” The

“Types of Mobile and Locomotive Cranes” section contains five definitions with references to

relevant visual figures. This simple categorization is an excellent organizational choice as it

supports a user’s ability to quickly find the most relevant information. The “General” section

contains over 70 definitions that serve to support the document in various ways, from identifying

what is considered a “jobsite” to specifying anatomical features of various crane types (2018).

Visual aids also support the definitions section. Crane diagrams demonstrate the terms in

action and help to clarify complex technical meaning. This enhances the document’s usability

and engages another avenue of learning. Visual aids are often accompanied by general notes that

synthesize an element of the diagram with related definitions. The addition of visuals is vital to

such a technical document. When considering minute differences in technology or machinery,

 42

for example in crane type, it is important to illustrate these differences using all available tools.

Visuals make identifying crane types, and by extension the information most relevant to the

reader, significantly more accessible. Consider the following images (see Figures 5 and 6) of a

crawler crane and a commercial truck-mounted crane.

Figure 5

Crawler Crane Image

Figure 5-0.2.1-3 Crawler Crane

Note. From “Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,” by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in

ASME B30.5, Crawler Crane (p. 2), 2018, ASME. Copyright 2018 by ASME.
 43

Figure 6

Truck-Mounted Crane Image

Figu re 5-0.2.1-1 Comme rcial Truck-Mo unted Cra ne -

Telescopi ng Boom

l
Note. From “Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,” by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in

ASME B30.5, Truck-Mounted crane (p. 2), 2018, ASME. Copyright 2018 by ASME.

Differences that may be challenging to express in written terms become significantly

more evident when engaging with a visual. Both cranes are mobile, but there are marked

differences in the construction of the load handling equipment. The use of images further

standardizes audience understanding.

By giving the definitions section such special consideration, ASME has made the

document more widely accessible by a multidisciplinary audience of varied skill levels. This is

an important principle to supporting safety culture and further designates safety as everyone’s

responsibility. An expansive and comprehensive definitions section acts as the key to

interpreting the rest of the document. A shared understanding and technical language lay the

foundation for open communication in construction and engineering.

 44

Emphasizing Responsibility

A notable content and organizational choice in the B30.5 standard is the emphasis placed

on responsibility. Because this standard includes much of the information that is peripheral to the

load handling activity, but still extremely important to safety culture, such as maintenance and

inspection, it is important to define the responsible personnel. ASME accomplishes this in the

B30.5 standard by consistently highlighting the responsible personnel at the beginning of each

section. For example, chapter 5-3 “Operation” begins with an “Operators” section that details the

specific requirements a crane operator must have (ASME, 2018). The chapter continues by

emphasizing operators must, “successfully meet the qualifications for the specific type of crane

that they are operating” (ASME, 2018). By making the organizational choice to position the

responsible personnel at the beginning of the section, ASME has emphasized the importance of

formal training, certification, and competency, which are some of the core drivers of safety

culture. The trend continues throughout the standard which also helps readers to orient

themselves within the broader work and understand who they may go to with safety concerns. By

clarifying the structure of responsibility, ASME is facilitating a culture of accountability and, by

extension, openness.

Document Analysis Reflection

Documentation provides the core of official processes and governing rules for any

industry. Beyond being a usable tool for workers, it demonstrates the industry’s goals and

priorities. ASME provides many standards governing construction and engineering work; the

two briefly analyzed as part of this study are the most relevant to the Miller Park project and the

Big Blue crane collapse. While these standards were not those in use at the time of the accident,

they do illuminate the complexity of the Miller Park project and the load handling activities. The
 45

length and detail of each standard, as well as the inclusion of visuals, appendices, and definitions

sections, indicates that these tasks are technically and practically challenging. At several points

in each document references are made to environmental and personnel factors that had

significant impact on the Big Blue accident, further evidencing ASME’s proactive response to

industry needs.

If the trend noted in these ASME standards holds through other publications, it can be

concluded that ASME, through documentation, has taken notable steps to supporting safety

culture. Each standard focuses on rhetorical choices, organization, content decisions, and

usability that breaks down barriers to understanding, establishes personnel relationships and

responsibilities, and allows for the flexibility necessary to function within dynamic construction

and engineering spaces.

Documentation is an extremely valuable way to support safety culture. It functions as the

basis and the introduction many workers have to policies and procedures. As such, by

establishing safety culture as a priority throughout the document, ASME is signaling its

importance to the audience. By broadening the audience through usability principles that allow

any relevant workers to engage with the material, ASME is working to construct an open

communications atmosphere.
 46

Chapter IV: Discussion

A new safety culture is emerging in construction and engineering industries that is

purposeful and that can be supported by communication best practices. Safety culture is the

construction and engineering industries’ response to common practice insufficiencies that have

produced significant, high visibility catastrophes. The progression of safety culture in

construction and engineering industries has been persistent and continues to develop. Efforts to

expand safety culture principles have necessitated the establishment of an open atmosphere of

communication.

As demonstrated by the Big Blue accident, safety culture cannot thrive in an environment

that is hostile to communication, and, more specifically, dissent. The industry has responded to

the Big Blue crane collapse by promoting safety culture and continuing to engage with principles

that support open and retaliation-free communication. Communications professionals can help to

facilitate the continued development of safety culture though focused and relevant engagement.

By responding to industry needs, technical and professional communication can provide

targeted support for growing safety efforts. For example, tools such as visual training protocols

can engage workers with an actions-based approach, which is noted by industry professionals as

a key foundation of promoting safe practice (Biggs, 2013). Communications professionals could

also implement usability assessments and single sourcing to ensure an approach to training and

procedures that is focused, streamlined, and relevant. The objective in supporting safety culture

is ensuring that the interventions are applicable to the unique atmospheres of construction and

engineering.

In acknowledging the uniqueness of these environments, communication professionals

can engage Fang’s Safety Culture Interaction (SCI) model (2013). This model aims to
 47

contextualize the complex construction working environments. It also emphasizes the

importance of interaction and that safety culture, or lack thereof, is the result of several

interactive components. Fang’s model when applied to the Big Blue crane collapse revealed

several pressure points that negatively impacted the cultural environment of the project worksite.

Analysis using Fang’s model also demonstrated that single factors do not create an unsafe work

environment. While wind speed is ultimately what caused the Big Blue crane to collapse, wind

speed on its own does not necessitate an accident. Several other interacting factors coalesced to

produce hazardous conditions. Fang’s model demonstrates that had each other component of the

interaction been healthy and safety minded, the environmental conditions would not have

resulted in an accident because the lift would not have been attempted. Interactive components

support safety culture more broadly. This model demonstrates in action what risk analysis with a

cultural consideration suggests as necessary. Taking human perspective and behavior into

consideration when assessing accidents is a vital part of the investigation.

Understanding the perspective of construction and engineering workers is also essential

to crafting documents for their use. ASME has demonstrated dedication to providing usable

standards that engage meaningfully with the audience. In standards P30.1 and B30.5, there is a

clear commitment to integrating effective communications principles (2014, 2018, 2019).

Updated versions emphasize clarity, organization, focused content, and relevancy in order to best

support load handling activities.

Assessing the development of safety culture in construction and engineering industries is

a study in human ingenuity and commitment to improvement. A collective of multiple

organizations working in various capacities on ever-evolving projects has decided that the goal

of promoting safety is one worthwhile and necessary. The industries have mobilized to prioritize
 48

safety at every level. Safety and open communication are no longer viewed as barriers to

productivity, but rather necessary procedural pillars. This effort towards a safer work

environment is never, and will never be, quite complete. There is continuing improvement, but

the industries remain vigilant in their pursuit of a safer workspace. Unfortunately, accidents

continue to occur and will drive this process forward. With novel and increasingly complex

machinery and projects, the construction and engineering industries face new challenges.

Technical and professional communication, in conjunction with these industries, can help to

support safety culture, but we must be responsive to when and how to best intervene.
 49

References

Albers, M. J. (2003). Single sourcing and the technical communication career path. Technical

Communication (Washington), 50(3), 335-343. https://tinyurl.com/km3pjadw

Antonsen, S. (2016). Safety culture: Theory, method and improvement. CRC Press.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (2014). P30.1 - Planning for load handling

activities. https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/p30-1-planning-

load-handling-activities

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (2018). B30.5 Mobile and locomotive cranes.

https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/b30-5-mobile-locomotive-

cranes

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (2019). P30.1 - Planning for load handling

activities. https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/p30-1-planning-

load-handling-activities

Biggs, S. E., Banks, T. D., Davey, J. D., & Freeman, J. E. (2013). Safety leaders’ perceptions of

safety culture in a large Australasian construction organisation. Safety Science, 52, 3–12.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.04.012

Choudhry, R. M., Fang, D., & Mohamed, S. (2007). The nature of safety culture: A survey of the

state-of-the-art. Safety Science, 45(10), 993–1012.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.003

Cranes Today. (2001, January 2). Mitsubishi faces $99m damages as court finds it to blame for

Big Blue's collapse. http://www.cranestodaymagazine.com/news/mitsubishi-faces-99m-

damages-as-court-finds-it-to-blame-for-big-blue-s-collapse/
 50

Ehlke, G. (2000, October 26). Supervisor: Lifts were disorganized. Journal Times.

https://journaltimes.com/news/state-and-regional/supervisor-lifts-were-

disorganized/article_5bb5f3d5-5df5-55a2-962e-e8d127ec41a9.html

Fallone, E. (2001). Reflections on the accident at Miller Park and the prosecution of work-related

fatalities in Wisconsin. Marquette Sports Law Review.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub/153/

Fang, D., & Wu, H. (2013). Development of a safety culture interaction (sci) model for

construction projects. Safety Science, 57, 138-149.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.02.003

Feyer, A.-M. (2004). Occupational Injury: Risk, prevention and intervention. Taylor and Francis.

Gold, D., & Enoch, J. (Eds.). (2019). Women at Work: Rhetorics of Gender and Labor. University of

Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvn96hfp

Hessman, T. (2015). Safety is Productivity. EHS Today. https://www.ehstoday.com/safety-

leadership-conference-2015/article/21917265/safety-is-productivity

Huang, Y.-H., Leamon, T. B., Courtney, T. K., Chen, P. Y., & DeArmond, S. (2007). Corporate

financial decision-makers’ perceptions of workplace safety. Accident Analysis &

Prevention, 39(4), 767-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.11.007

International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group. (1992). The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of

INSAG-1, INSAG-7, IAEA. https://www-

pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf

Jones, S. (2016). Building a safety culture: Improving safety and health management in the

construction industry. Smart Market Report, Dodge Data and Analytics.

 51

Ling, F. Y., Liu, M., & Woo, Y. C. (2009). Construction fatalities in Singapore. International

Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 717-726.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.11.002

Ludwig, S. (2014). Safety maturity: Three crucial elements of best-in-class safety. Rockwell

Automation.

https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/wp/safety-

wp018_-en-p.pdf

McCann, M. (2008). Crane-related deaths in construction & recommendations for their

prevention. Electronic Library of Construction Safety and Health.

https://www.elcosh.org/document/1781/d000823/Crane-

Related+Deaths+in+Construction+%2526+Recommendations+for+Their+Prevention.html

Miller Park Milwaukee. (n.d.). Baseballstadiums.net. http://baseballstadiums.net/miller-park-

milwaukee/#:~:text=Rated%20as%20one%20of%20the,Miller%20Park%20under%20the

%20roof

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). Commonly used statistics. United States

Department of Labor. https://www.osha.gov/data/commonstats

Photos: How Miller Park took shape over the years. (2019, January 23). Wisconsin State

Journal. https://madison.com/wsj/sports/baseball/professional/photos-how-miller-park-

took-shape-over-the-years/collection_1bab2903-4b4c-5fe5-b5e0-7e259e5b8cd4.html

Saari. (1999). Occupational injury: Risk prevention and intervention. Scandinavian Journal of

Work, Environment & Health, 25(4).

 52

St. Amant, K., & Flammia, M. (2016). Teaching and training for global engineering:

Perspectives on culture and professional communication practices in teaching and training

for global engineering (1st ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119084297

van der Meij, H., & van der Meij, J. (2014). A comparison of paper-based and video tutorials for

software learning. Computers and Education, 78, 150-159.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.003

Wamuziri, S. (2006). Safety culture in the construction industry. Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 159(3), 167-174.

https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.2006.159.3.167

Workplace safety can give small business owners a recruiting edge. (2021, March 1). Employers

Insurance. https://www.employers.com/press-releases/2017/workplace-safety-can-give-

small-business-owners-a-recruiting-edge/