The competences of successful safety and health coordinators in construction projects

Abstract

The construction industry is among the most hazardous industries, with a fatality rate in Europe 3.4 times higher than average. While the occupational safety and health (OSH) coordinator has been a key actor in European efforts proposed to improve OSH in the industry since 1992, it is important to study the competences needed for the successful coordination of OSH in the construction industry. Existing literature on OSH coordinator competences are examined, and an expert survey is used to identify the competences characterising the most successful coordinators in Denmark. Finally, observational case studies of the perceived most successful coordinators in the Danish construction industry are used to exemplify the newly identified competences. The most frequently mentioned competences, not covered in previous research, are “innovativeness,” “having overview,” “persistency,” “thoroughness,” “sociability,” and “being systematic.” The results demonstrate the important “practice of knowing,” rather than possessing formal knowledge, education, and/or skills. The most important practice of knowing for the coordinators is likely that of the ability to transfer knowledge into practice. Future research, education and legal requirement in this field could benefit from a focus on what practices of knowledge actually work in real-life settings, rather than focussing on idealistic notions of these qualities.

Keywords:

• Occupational safety and health coordinator
• construction industry
• sociability
• overview
• innovativeness
• persistency

Introduction

The construction industry continues to be one of the most hazardous industries in terms of occupational safety and health (OSH). According to Eurostat, 716 fatalities and 371,732 non-fatal accidents at work were registered in the industry in 2016 in the EU. The fatality rate in construction was 3.4 times higher than the EU average for 2016, and 1.9 times higher for non-fatal accidents (Eurostat 2019).

Research suggests that the construction site can be termed as a very dynamic setting, characterised by temporary organising, several employers, a multicultural workforce, tight schedules, multiple professions, high risk work, etc. (Thiel 2012, Ajslev et al. 2013), and efforts are needed to maintain focus and ensure the sustainability of preventive measures in the industry (Ringen et al. 1995, Spangenberg et al. 2005, Dyreborg et al. 2010, Spangenberg 2010). This dynamic nature requires a strong coordination in both the planning and the building phase of a construction project.

Since 1992 and the subsequent implementation of directive 92/57/EEC across European member states, the OSH coordinator has been a key actor in the efforts to ensure the safety of construction workers. The coordinator is, on behalf of the client, responsible for the coordination of safety measures in both the design and the execution phase of construction projects. As the coordinator is central in legislation and must be appointed in all construction projects with more than one employer, it is important to know what competencies are needed in order to successfully coordinate OSH in the industry. Construction projects are technically and organisationally becoming increasingly more complex, with innovative technologies and multinational joint ventures, which increase the demands on OSH coordinators and their competences (Spangenberg 2010).

The aim of the presented study is to investigate what characterises such successful OSH coordinators. In the following section, we contextualise the paper by presenting the required responsibilities in legal documents and existing research on OSH coordination, as well as discussing the concept of competence. After a brief presentation of the methods used, we then identify OSH coordinator competences in existing literature, and compare them with the competences of successful coordinators based on survey responses conducted among OSH experts in the Danish construction industry. Finally, we examine the competences found in our survey using observation data from an ethnographic study on successful OSH coordination.

Background

The legal responsibility of the Osh coordinator

“Directive 92/57/EEC – Temporary or mobile construction sites” is a provision to article 16 (1) of the “Directive 89/391/EEC – OSH,” which serves as a Framework Directive for the overall OSH regulation in the EU. As the name suggests, directive 92/57/EEC regulates requirements for temporary or mobile construction sites. It defines the different roles and responsibilities of actors in construction projects. One innovation in the directive was the introduction of an OSH coordinator in both the design and the execution phase of constructions project with two or more expected employers during the execution phase.

On behalf of the client, the coordinator assumes several duties in the two phases of the construction project, to ensure OSH coordination during the execution phase. Directive 92/57/ECC sets a minimum of tasks for the coordination among member states, who adapts (transposition) the directive. While the national adaptations vary across member states, they are typically more detailed and specific regarding the tasks of the coordinator than the directive (see Aulin and Capone 2010, Martínez-Aires et al. 2016). For instance, in Denmark, it explicates how often safety meetings and safety walks must occur.

Whereas the duties presented in the legislation may require a host of prerequisites of the given coordinator, the legally required competences of the coordinator are ambiguous and vague: For all construction sites, the coordinator is required to have “expert knowledge” on construction work and its actors. When five to ten people work at the site at the same time, the coordinator is also required to have the necessary knowledge on OSH issues in construction work. For construction sites with more than ten employees working at the same time, the coordinator is also required to have practical managerial experience from previous construction projects as well as having completed a five-day education program for OSH coordinators in the construction industry.

Existing research on the OSH coordinator

Only few scientific publications focus on the roles, duties and/or competences of the OSH coordinator in construction, e.g. Spangenberg (2009), who argues for the importance of the coordinator at large construction projects in Denmark to increase construction site safety. However, most studies focus on the coordinators’ legal role and/or the differences between European counties’ implementation of directive 92/57/EEC (see Rubio et al. 2005, Aulin and Pietro 2010, Martínez-Aires et al. 2016). These studies are relevant in order to understand the OSH coordinator’s role at a political level, but they do not contribute with knowledge on how OSH coordination affects the actual practices of safety in construction work. Another study by Rubio et al. (2008) studied the gender, education, and OSH training of OSH coordinators in publicly funded Spanish construction sites in 2002. The article suggests a professional profile for the “ideal” OSH coordinator—as a civil engineer or architect with economic and professional insights into construction processes, and the ability to work independently (Rubio et al. 2008)—but the argumentation is not based on empirical data, which would have provided more credibility to the article.

While the competences needed for supervisors in order to improve OSH in construction have been studied (Hardison et al. 2014), and are undoubtedly relevant for OSH coordinators, there are fundamental differences between lower management and coordinators in terms of mandate and proximity to specific tasks.

During our search for existing literature, we found two studies focussing on the competences of OSH coordinators (Antonio et al. 2013, Rodríguez-Largacha et al. 2019). The first study, Antonio et al. (2013), developed a concept on the competences of the OSH coordinator based on empirical data, by first identifying the duties of the OSH coordinator in the Spanish adaptation of the directive 92/57/EEC. They then identified the competences for the coordinator by (a) examining the duties described in the legislation, (b) examining existing competence certification models for project managers, (c) reading literature on competences of project managers, and (d) performing expert interviews and case studies. From this, they compiled a list of relevant competences, which they further qualified through “work sessions” with experts in the field, to evaluate what competences were most relevant. Finally, they produced a questionnaire sent out to 125 experts in the construction industry, asking them to weigh which competences were the most important for the coordinator. The second study, Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019), contributes to the discussion on competences by studying what formal prerequisites were required for OSH coordinators in 326 publicly financed construction projects. They subsequently conducted a questionnaire among Spanish coordinators, identifying: 11 “usual functions” of the coordinator in the execution phase; seven “most used and most relevant tools”; as well as the six “main personal skills and competencies” for OSH coordinators, which were “practice sense,” “communication,” “self-confidence,” “teamwork,” “negotiation” and “leadership.”

However, both studies focus on the formal requirements, tasks and “curricular competences” (Jonnaert et al. 2007) of the coordinator, instead of the competences in practice. There is therefore, a need for more research related to the practical duties of OSH coordinators. This is essential for, among other things, enhancing the importance of the safety coordination at work, as stipulated by the framework directive on construction work.

The concept of competence

“Competence” is a contested and politicised concept (Olesen 2017). Lindberg and Rantatalo (2015) identify two paradigms within the literature on personal competence: The entity-based and the interpretive-relational (Lindberg and Rantatalo 2015, p. 562). The entity-based paradigm would define competence as attributes, skills or knowledge that are applied through work from a positivist or rationalist epistemology (Lindberg and Rantatalo 2015). This understanding of competence can be found in the studies by Antonio et al. (2013) and Hardison et al. (2014), as they search for formal skills and knowledge defined by law or experts, which are suitable for the education of OSH professionals.

The interpretive-relational paradigm within competence research, on the other hand, draws insight from “interpretive, pragmatic and constructionist theories wherein professional competence is defined as an unstable and open-ended construct” (Lindberg and Rantatalo 2015, p. 563). Rather than seeing competence as attributes independent from specific contextual conditions, like power dynamics and limited resources, or from personal, often temporary, bio-psychological factors like fatigue, cognition or attention, Lindberg and Rantalato suggest that competence is understood as “the capacity of an individual (or a collective) to successfully (according to certain formal or informal criteria, set by oneself or by somebody else) handle certain situations or complete a certain task or job” (Lindberg and Rantatalo 2015 with reference to Eilström and Kock 2008).

We place this paper within this interpretive tradition, albeit within a practice theoretical framework. Following this, competence is defined as the ability to perform knowledge situated in a specific contextual practice, or as knowing-in-practice (Cook and Seely Brown 1999, Gherardi and Nicolini 2002, Gherardi 2013). From this perspective, competence is the practice of a particular relevant professional action and the ability to judge the appropriate timing, measure and context for the action, as defined by the contextual circumstances (law, contract, resources, value chains, culture, etc.). We investigate competences as the ways in which the OSH coordinators practice different skills, communicate, handle materials and engage in relations with people at the worksites.

The objective of our study is to contribute to the scarce research literature as well as creating attention from the construction industry regarding the competences required to coordinate OSH successfully.

Methods

We carried out an expert survey and an ethnographic field study. The ethnographic data served multiple purposes in the research project, which will also be published in other articles. In this analysis, they are used to develop and contextualise the competences identified in the survey by showing how they are practiced.

Expert survey to identify successful coordinators

The survey used is inspired by the “Delphi-method” developed by Dalkey and Helmer (1963), a method traditionally used to forecast future developments by inviting experts in a giving field in one or more rounds of surveys and/or interviews. The method has previously been used to forecast and validate knowledge in construction research (e.g. Chan et al. 2001, Manoliadis et al. 2006), and has even been used to identify desirable supervisor competences to improve OSH (Hardison et al. 2014). We used the expert survey to (1) identify and rank successful OSH coordinators, (2) learn what competences are typically attributed to those coordinators.

First, we identified 79 experts with experience and insights into the Danish construction industry, from the parties in the construction industry as well a national network for OSH coordinators. These experts received the questionnaire and were asked to nominate OSH coordinators they considered to be the best in the business through the open questions: “write the names of up to 6 OSH coordinators (D) who are good at their job.” And: “write the names of up to 6 OSH coordinators (E) who are good at their job.” We asked the experts to nominate both D and E coordinators separately, as the two roles are very different and would, in theory, require different skills and people. The results somewhat confirmed this hypothesis, as many experts nominated different coordinators for the two roles. 35 participants (46%) nominated one or more D coordinators and 30 experts (39%) nominated one or more coordinator E. Seventy-six different D coordinators, and 68 different E coordinators were nominated. Of these nominated coordinators, 23 had at least three recommendations for one or both roles, and were deemed eligible as cases as at least two experts recommended them. We ranked the coordinators by number of nominations and recruited participants for the ethnographic study starting with the most frequently nominated (11 nominations), as we wanted to study the most successful coordinators according to the industry experts.

For each nomination, the experts were asked to: “Give a short motivation tied to each of the nominated names.” These motivations were coded three times, with a focus on words and phrases that described prerequisites of the coordinator.

Ethnographic study

The coordinators perceived as the most successful, based on the number of nominations in the survey data, were identified and contacted for an ethnographic study. We estimated that studying 12 highly recommended coordinators for ten workdays each would provide sufficient material for the aims of the project. While every coordinator, we contacted, expressed interest in participating, about half of the nominees on our list were unable to participate due to retirement, lack of acceptance from client/employer or lack of sufficient coordinator tasks. In the end, we were able to recruit 12 coordinators, who had received three or more nominations in the survey, as cases for the ethnographic study.

Each case consisted of an ethnographic study for up to ten workdays (8.7 days on average) in which researchers observed the coordinator using a “shadowing” method (Czarniawska-Joerges 2007, McDonald and Simpson 2014) and a one-hour interview conducted by the observer. The latter was not included in this paper, as we have focussed on the actual practices of competence rather than claims. The last author, and project lead, carried out the first four case studies, and the first author carried out the remaining eight studies. Throughout the shadowing study, the first and last author developed and followed an observation guide focussed on how coordinators practiced the competences listed below (Table 1), as well as on the coordinator’s interaction with human and nonhuman actors in the context, in their effort to promote OSH. Besides the observation guide, we promoted the reliability and validity of the observations by discussing the field notes within the research group. In addition, we carried out two workshops with about 35 OSH coordinators each in the western and eastern region of Denmark, in which we presented and discussed our preliminary findings from the survey, interview and observation data, to ensure their communicative validity (Kvale 1995). We took field notes throughout the study, and these notes were coded thematically in order to identify situations where the case OSH coordinators displayed the competences identified in the survey study.

Table 1. The ten most mentioned competences in our survey compared with previous findings.

Coordinator competences identified in present study	#	% out of 309	Coordinator competences prioritised by Antonio et al. (2013)	Coordinator competences prioritised by Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019)	Supervisor OSH competences prioritised by Hardison et al. (2014)
Communication Overview Cooperation Thoroughness Sociability Prioritization Persistence Innovative Systematic Results-oriented	38 25 22 18 18 18 18 18 15 12	12.3% 8.1% 7.1% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 4.9% 3.9%	Communication Teamwork Effectiveness Efficiency Self-control Self-confidence Solving conflicts and crises Leadership Consultation Negotiation Results-oriented Planning and organising Commitment to the project	Practice sense Communication Self-confidence Teamwork Negotiation Leadership	Knowledge of use and selection of personal protective and lifesaving equipment Knowledge of effective pre job planning and the organisation of daily work flow Knowledge and application of mitigating measures regarding work-specific hazards* Knowledge of their contractor’s safety and health program Establishing effective communication Knowledge of managing health hazards in construction Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks
Total mentions of the 10 most mentioned competences (of 309 mentions of competences)	202	83.1 %

*For brevity, nine competences referring strictly to the knowledge, identification and application of work-specific hazards, like the use of ladders, electrical hazards, fall risk, etc., have been collapsed into one.

Ethnographic work is a difficult and problematic method in which the observer affects the very practices he tries to objectify. It is, at the same time, an important way to understand how practices are carried out in real life. Patti Lather describes ethnographic practice as an aporia—an impossible path that you have to walk (Lather 2001), encompassing a plethora of methodological and ethical dilemmas (Lather 2012). One of the methodological challenges is that several coordinators expressed uneasiness of being observed. Another is that they sometimes asked for our opinion as safety researchers. We developed different tactics to mitigate this uneasiness and defer their questions by talking about other things, reassuring them about confidentiality or answering their questions when the situation had passed. Another methodological consideration was the coordinator’s ability to select tasks and/or days for the observation that would make them appear more successful. This is an important consideration in the recruitment and scheduling phase. The 10 workday observation period was chosen to mitigate this selection bias as we expected it to be hard to conceal unsuccessful practices for such a long period. We also stressed the anonymity of coordinators, their employer and their clients, and the importance of representing the work of coordinators as objectively as possible, if the industry was to learn from our research. In our experience, the coordinators were engaged in this endeavour, and most of them were eager to tell us about their considerations, errors, insecurities or ambivalences. During our ten days with them, they did not show any intention of concealing their less successful construction sites. In upcoming articles, we will focus more on the successes and barriers of coordination using the same data.

Results

We found 473 words and/or phrases describing positive prerequisites of the coordinators, from which we found 78 distinguishable prerequisites. From the 78 prerequisites, we categorised 21 pf them as types of formal knowledge (including experience). While the experts considered knowledge as an important characteristic of the nominated coordinators, we excluded this type of prerequisite from the analysis, as we consider competence and knowledge as fundamentally different concepts: Whereas, knowledge is technical attributes that can be obtained by formal training and experience, competence is the ability to successfully carry out the desired tasks (Lindberg and Rantatalo 2015). It seems logical to assume that knowledge about construction processes, rules and legislation, technical aids and innovative tools is important to the coordinator, but this knowledge only becomes relevant when put into practice.

The remaining 57 prerequisites, which we characterise as competences, were distilled into 42 due to overlap. As a consequence, “foresight,” “innovative,” “prioritization,” “cooperation” and “communication” all consist of 3–7 overlapping prerequisites. The ten most frequently mentioned competences are listed and compared with Antonio et al. (2013) in Table 1 below.

Despite the theoretical understanding of competence and methodological approach, we find it interesting to compare our study with that of Antonio et al. (2013), Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019) and Hardison et al. (2014), to show the competences our study can contribute with and exemplify. As the table above shows, the competences identified by Hardison et al. are mostly related to knowledge of hazards and methods, and the management hereof. Only “effective communication” is directly comparable with the competences identified by Antonio et al. (2013), Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019) and us. This has to do with the scope of Hardison et al. (2014), which focuses on technical OSH competences required by supervisors in relation to the American OSHA course. The comparison is interesting as it shows the difference between formal requirements of OSH education, which is typically curricular and focuses on knowledge and methods, whereas Antonio et al. (2013), Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019) and we focus more on what can be defined as “knowledge brokering” (Styhre et al. 2004), which is more focussed on broader abilities to transfer knowledge into different levels of the organisation. As Hardison et al. (2014) and our study only share “communication” and curricular competences as being important, we compare in the following our findings with those of Antonio et al. (2013) and Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019).

While “communication” and “results-oriented” are the only terms used in more than one study, there are several overlapping competences between the three studies. For instance, “cooperation” in our study may be seen as overlapping with “teamwork,” “solving conflicts and crises,” “consultation” and “negotiation” in the other two studies. “Prioritization” and “systematic” can both be seen as overlapping with “planning and organising,” however there is more to being systematic than planning or organising in the way it is practiced by OSH coordinators in our observations. Among other competences, there are less overlap. Even though “persistence” and “thoroughness” arguably will benefit from “leadership,” “effectiveness,” “efficiency,” “self-control” and “results-orientation,” we find that “persistence,” “overview,” “thoroughness” and “sociability” in our survey are distinguishable from the competences found by Antonio et al. (2013) and Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019). “Innovative” seem to be a unique finding in our survey. Interestingly, none of our experts mention “efficiency,” while “practice sense” and “self-confidence” are only identified by Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019). Unfortunately, practice sense is not defined and therefore not further discussed in the following.

Our study identifies the practice of “persistence,” “overview,” “thoroughness,” “sociability,” “innovative,” and “systematic” as competences of successful OSH coordinators that have not been studied in existing research literature. These competences are basis for the following analyses. The discrepancy between the two studies is further discussed in the discussion section of this paper.

Competence in practice

In the following, we study how OSH coordinators practice each of the newly identified competences, and exemplify the “effect” of a given competence within the coordinator’s immediate context. All the excerpts below are pseudonymized.

An important methodological consideration is the general difficulty of determining whether the coordinator is competent or not when observed during tasks such as safety walks, risk assessments, incident analyses, project plan examinations, meetings, etc. To verify competence, we identified situations in which the coordinator was successful in taking preventive actions during the coding of our data. These situations were then interpreted in relation to the competences identified from the survey data and coded accordingly. The excerpts below demonstrate successful practices of competence.

Persistence

The experts in our survey mention persistence, which we define as the determination to carry out actions even though there are obstacles, 17 times, as a competence attributed to successful coordinators. It seems logical that OSH in a dynamic industry with many incidents and a very dynamic work organisation with limited resources for OSH coordination calls for a persistent attitude from the coordinator. It is, however, very different how persistent the coordinators are when following up on problems in practice. A typical example of persistence can be drawn from a case with John, who is OSH coordinator in a larger company and responsible for huge and complex construction projects, as reflected here in the observation notes:

On day one of the observation study, I walk with John on a safety walk, which he does at least once a week. From a safety perspective, most of the site is in rather good shape. […] However, as we arrive at a part of the site, where one particular contractor operates, things looks worse. There are bits of iron bars and leftovers from pieces of wood, as well as electric cables lying across the rather narrow working space, which is also a transport way for materials. John immediately addresses this to one of the supervisors, Tim, who is in charge of the work in this area. Tim is accommodating of this, and the dialogue is constructive. They agree that this should be sorted out, so no one risks falling.

Four workdays later, while walking on the site – John says; “let’s check how they are doing over there” – referring to the earlier incident in Tim’s area. Not only is the area still messy, but a group of four concrete workers at work on some iron reinforcement for a concrete structure – have built a five meter high box of iron reinforcement, and one of them is working inside with only a ladder to get up to the top. There is no ladder on the outside, as he used the same ladder to get up and into the box. Therefore, it would take a long time to get to him in case of an accident or other emergency. John expresses his dissatisfaction with both these conditions to me. We walk a while and encounter Tim and Dave, the supervisors of the construction crew. In a determined but professional manner, John asks if they should not get their mess cleared out, and how they expect to save the worker in the box in case of an emergency. Dave answers: “there’s always issues when you do construction work – now if you will excuse us,” he smiles to us and starts moving some iron around. We continue our walk along on the tour. As we are out of hearing range, John says: “they will figure it out” and smiles knowingly to me.

Even though the site is in rather good condition, there are things to sort out, and these things do not necessarily come easy or happen the first time John speaks up about them. The example above shows how John several times during the week mentions a particular issue, which needs taking care of. Even though Dave, in the final sentences of the excerpt, expresses his resistance to John’s directions, he begins clearing the area. As such, the persistence practiced by John results in some increased accommodation to OSH practice, however we cannot determine whether this leads to an overall improved focus on safety. Judging by the safety standards of the rest of the construction site, we find there is reason to believe that the persistence, John practices, has a positive impact on the level of safety on site.

We encountered examples of this persistence in other cases as well, where coordinators repeatedly addressed safety issues such as helmets, fall equipment and protection, access roads and welfare facilities before the issues were accommodated.

Thoroughness

“Thoroughness” is often mentioned in the survey, and like persistence, it is a sought after competence in a dynamic industry that rarely allows the coordinator to deliver more than promised. All coordinators express difficulties in being as thorough as they think they should be when coordinating OSH, and they often mention dilemmas between the tasks and the allocated resources.

I watch as John examines the written risk assessment of the construction of the pillars and bridge. He reads every bullet point carefully to ensure that he understands them, and that there is nothing left unspecified. John tells me that the work is a high-risk manoeuver if the crane is not properly maintained. He checks the maintenance plan. The subcontractor has written that they will comply with the manual, as well as ‘standard procedures’. This is not reassuring for John. He checks which procedures apply regarding the maintenance of the specific crane. In something called a ‘method description’, he finds a checklist to go through before craning. In this, it says that someone has to go through the certified crane examination ahead of operation. “Okay,” John says, “this [process] is something that is the responsibility of the supplier and of an external, certified serviceman. If these procedures are followed, then everything is in order.”

This is a clear example of thoroughness in practice, where John ensures that the tools on site are serviced and used properly. This is just one point from a checklist in a method statement referred to by the subcontractor in a maintenance plan, which John finds in order to examine one bullet point in the risk assessment. It is rare to see this level of thoroughness, though, as most coordinators we observe, struggle to find the time to analyse all documents in-depth. John’s examination also involves some level of technical expertise and ability to handle complex literature, which arguably require some level of education and/or experience. Our general impression is that most coordinators are thorough and diligent in their work. For example, some coordinators participate in meetings that are not directly relevant to them in order to promote the OSH agenda. Most of them react unhesitantly to problems, and most of them paid rigorous attention to details as in the example above. Another example of thoroughness was in a case where the coordinator involved himself in the project management’s choice of tools.

Mike has arranged a meeting with the lift supplier. […] He shows them the building plans and explains the challenges to mount some wooden profiles on the facade of a seven-story building. We go outside to the site to look at the issues. The challenge, as Mike explains it, is that next to the slanted facade is an access slope to the parking lot of the neighbouring building, which is also a fire lane. Furthermore, this small road, where the personal lift is supposed to be, can only carry 20 tons, and the most suitable personal lift weights more than that.

[…] After the meeting, I ask Mike why he cares about the personal lift. He tells me that it is in fact the responsibility of the contractor mounting the wooden profiles, but that, as they have not taken any initiative, he fears that in a couple of weeks, they will provide a suboptimal and hazardous solution. If there is an accident, the OSH authority will ask what the coordinator had done to prevent the accident.

The situation above illustrates how the coordinators sometimes do more than their job description dictates. It is not Mike’s job to find the appropriate personal lift to access the slanting facade of the building. However, he knows from experience that the management and contractor will only look into this issue when the workers actually need to access the facade. By that time, they may find a sub-optimal solution to the problem, with an increased risk of delays and accidents.

Sociability

A frequently mentioned competence in the survey is what can be termed “sociability” or “people skills.” It is difficult to define and show from the observation notes, but at the same time it is very apparent when practiced, and, in particular, when not practiced, as you can immediately sense the atmosphere when people interact. While it perhaps should not be necessary, our observations suggest that a positive relation to the different stakeholders in the construction projects is important for the coordinator in order to push his or her agenda. It becomes most obvious when the coordinator lacks managerial support or a clear mandate, or when OSH is not systematically supported early on in the construction process, and therefore has to be negotiated later on in order to be prioritised. The coordinator then needs to appeal to the conscience or fear of reprisal of the others, in order to get things done.

The problem here is that when the relational prowess of the coordinator meets the economic structures, culturally embedded practices, dynamic organisation of a construction project and perhaps an unclear mandate, then the coordinator simply lacks power. The poststructuralist theorist Maurizio (Lazzarato 2014) describes this dynamic as an asymmetrical power balance between social and technical signification. Whereas social relations becomes meaningful through spoken or written human language, economic models, routines and political decisions flow through people on the construction site beyond normal language. Instead, they get their significance through signs that are not easily debated by other than those who have a privileged relation to change these flows of signs, e.g. the bank, engineers, the client, safety inspectors, managers, regulators etc.

While perhaps facilitating change, in itself sociability is not a very potent competence, whereas the others are more clearly linked to the structures of the construction process; the coordinator typically applies innovative methods to increase the benefits of tasks deemed necessary by legislation, such as risk assessment, safety walks etc. When persistence is practiced, it is rooted in objectively identified problems, which are legally necessary to mitigate.

Innovative

The term “innovative” is mentioned frequently, with 18 mentions in the survey data. Innovation is defined as the ability to apply novel solutions to solve problems and/or promote the OSH agenda. We find an example of an innovative practice when a coordinator arranges a workshop to do the risk examination of a construction project, an ice-skating arena to be used for practicing in conjunction with an existing skating arena used for competitions located in a suburban area next to a football field. While the other participants describe the construction as simple and straightforward, the coordinator, Susan, points out that the existing building and surroundings represent important safety challenges. Further, she points to hazards from the large metal framing, craning and working at heights while roofing. The aim of the workshop is to make the OSH plan as precise and applicable as possible. In addition, the workshop is the first situation where the OSH coordinator is able to influence both the building process as well as the design and materials used. For instance, Susan confronts the participants with the fact that they can only use epoxy-based paint, if there is no other safe solution available.

I arrive to the conference room with Susan, helping her to set things up. I help setting up blank posters on the glass wall. On these, Susan will put up notes of all tasks in the construction process, each with notes on the associated safety hazards. Susan sets up posters on the opposite wall of the canvas. Here, the idea is to put hazards into three categories: ‘Particular risks and other particular conditions – Particularly dangerous work’, ‘Operation & maintenance and the safety and health hazards associated with this’ and ‘The construction site’ . She puts the project materials on the table and tells me that after the workshop, she will compile a ‘risk log’ from all the information gathered in the workshop. This log qualifies the OSH plan, as well as the journal for operations and maintenance.

They end up using nearly two hours at the workshop, about half an hour more than Susan promised the participants, and there is a lot they do not get to talk about, e.g. the entire outfitting of the building. The delay is mostly caused by the advisor and the contractor, who go into great detail about the construction process, rather than sticking to the safety hazards.

Susan goes on introducing the exercise. She shows an example of a risk assessment for the individual sub-processes of the entire construction process. It is a long table, accounting for all potential risks and it is, at the same time, documentation for the fact that the assessment has taken place. The workshop will clarify what should be in the table, and if there are any design or material decisions that involve risks, but which cannot be changed, then it is important to declare this the journal. The goal is not having a maintenance journal at all.

Susan goes meticulously through every step of the construction process, creating a timeline on the large poster on the glass wall. They start with a map of the construction site and talk about access roads. Maria, the architect, points out the placement of access roads and how the building will conjoin the existing building. She also talks about the desires from the client. Susan continues to talk about each step, from the establishment of the site with power supply, fencing, signs, handling of existing users, work lights, sheds, common facilities, placement of cranes, access routes etc., to the construction with excavation, piping, foundation, the link to existing buildings and cooling system, assembly of prefabricated elements, roofing etc. There is a good atmosphere at the workshop, everybody is very active, but only seem to contribute with the most obvious risks. Susan goes into much more detail than the others do, e.g. in regards to the order of various installations, the weight of elements and the toxicity of products. Overall, the contractor seems very willing to take the steps necessary to ensure safety, and is knowledgeable regarding various solutions.

Using the temporal dimension of the construction process plan ensures that the coordinator remembers to examine all planned tasks. Even though all details about the subcontractors are not final, the assessment of risks while the construction project is still being planned, allows Susan to make real alterations to the project in terms of choice of materials, safety measures and time plan.

Systematic

In the example above, being innovative involves systematising the processes involved in the risk assessment, which promotes OSH in the execution phase, as well as the later maintenance of the building. In fact, the most impactful practices we observed, relied heavily on structures and systems, which is logical considering the dynamic nature of the projects. Being “systematic” was mentioned 15 times in the survey, and can be attributed to situations where the coordinator worked to ensure that all parts of the construction projects lived up to the contractual and legal demands, as well as established best OSH practices. A systematic approach also ensured that the attention to OSH was sustained throughout the project. The fact that Susan was coordinator in both the design and execution phase motivated the coordinator to do more than live up to regulatory demands, as she inherited her own OSH plan.

Another system was a method for carrying out safety walks in the construction industry called “Ideal Safety Walk.” All the coordinators, we observed, used some kind of template or system when doing the mandatory safety walks on the worksite, at least once every fortnight. Ideal Safety Walk was one of the more refined methods, we encountered, and was used in different adaptations. The Ideal Safety Walk consisted of a table of typically 6–8 themes (common areas, storage, chemicals, work areas, etc.) adapted by the coordinator to the specific risks of the project, each with a list of key focus points. At least every two weeks, the coordinator walked through the whole construction site with one or more employer representatives, documenting the state of each focus point, giving it a colour of green, yellow or red to grade it. Red called for immediate action, and was typically coordinated immediately; yellow showed room for improvement, and green showed that everything lived up to the specifications. The coordinator then distributed a report with pictures illustrating the problems, as well as the exemplary practices. Management and OSH representatives from all contractors, as well as the project owner, received this report. Typically, a safety meeting was held immediately after the report was disseminated to coordinate the tasks between the contractors and bring every focus point into green. From each weekly or biweekly report, a chart was comprised, maintained and displayed on the site together with the latest report—allowing everyone to see the progress of the overall safety and health. Several mobile applications had been developed based on this method. Here, the coordinator could see a list of themes and focus points, take pictures and write comments in the app, and then send it to stakeholders without the need to process the information from a computer.

Most of the coordinators used several templates and checklists to ensure that all risks were covered in all parts of the construction process. These systems were developed by the different companies employing the coordinators, or by the coordinators themselves. All coordinators in our study were employed by a large contractor or an advisory company with expertise in OSH coordination. Their organisation and/or clients all had different complete OSH coordination paradigms, ensuring that the coordinator used the methodology appropriately.

Relying on systems diminishes reliance on the more personal competences examined in this article. Systems do not need as much human initiative to work, as they are put into the calendar and supported by digital solutions. They work next to, or augment, the human interaction, as they do not need to be negotiated all the time or compete with other agendas. They make it very visible, when a protocol is not followed, thus creating a managerial urgency for action. There is, however, also a potential risk when relying on systems, as they will inevitable not foresee all risks. The coordinator needs to be vigilant about potential blind spots and continuously adapt the systems to the dynamic construction site.

Overview

The final competence not covered in other research is “overview,” which is a direct translation of the Danish word “overblik” of which there is no synonymous English word. Overview encompasses the ability to gain a broad perspective and perception of a complex phenomenon in order to navigate appropriately, some sort of intuition about what needs to be done. Overview is also difficult to exemplify using the observation material. Most often, it is an implicit practice embedded in the daily routines of the coordinator, where the coordinator navigates on site with all the actors, as if he or she were at home—knowing all the different people at all levels of the organisation, the work schedule for the construction process, the different agendas at play, the individual work processes and their associated risks, methods for mitigating said risks, etc. Demonstrating overview, seemingly, summarises the ability to understand your surroundings and all its dynamic practices, combine it with the knowledge and skills that you have obtained, and put it into appropriate action. It could, perhaps, be defined as the act of successful sensemaking (Weick et al. 2005). Some of the coordinators, we observed, eluded a calmness and confidence in themselves and their knowledge, and while hard to describe, it was easy to see if the coordinator had gained an overview. Overview was especially visible, when the coordinators, we observed, trained less experienced coordinators, who sometimes made mistakes, became confused or were unable to act at all. During our observations, we also find that knowledge is important to both gain and maintain this overview. This knowledge typically comes from education, and from working in various roles in the industry.

Discussion

The results presented in this article raise some questions. Firstly, it complemented and contrasted earlier studies on coordinator competences, which raises both methodological and theoretical discussions. Secondly, the competences needed by the coordinator can be interpreted as a way of showing what is lacking in the construction industry regarding OSH and the coordination hereof.

Contribution and contrasts to existing research

As shown in Table 1, this study contributes to the existing research on OSH coordinator competences, which has, until now, largely consisted of the studies by Antonio et al. (2013) and Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019). The open-ended expert survey allowed us to identify competences that have not been identified earlier as the experts characterised the practices of successful coordinators rather than rate competences identified in existing literature.

The discrepancy between our findings and those of Antonio et al. (2013) and Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019) are apparent, and some of the competences identified in our survey may be culturally determined, as the Nordic countries perhaps have more tradition of bipartisan OSH collaboration on-site. However, the main cause of differences between the identified competences is due to the research scope and methods. Whereas Antonio et al. (2013) used existing literature, quality models and expert interviews, and Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019) used contract documents and expert surveys, our approach to competence, in which practice is epistemology rather than the inherent characteristics of the coordinator, leads us to seek for competences by asking experts about why the nominated coordinators are successful. In this way, more emphasis is on the visible actions of the coordinators rather than some (self-reported) ideal. Note that the competences found here are not necessarily those with the highest impact, but merely the competences associated with the best coordinators in the industry, according to the experts. If we had asked the same experts what prerequisites are the most important, they would perhaps answer differently and more in line with other studies. As they each contribute to the compilation and qualification of important competences of OSH coordinators from different perspectives, the different approaches have their legitimacy.

Interestingly, Antonio et al. rank effectiveness and efficiency as the 3rd and 4th most important competence, whereas they are not mentioned by our experts. There are several possible explanations for this. It could mean that none of the nominated coordinators were associated with these terms. It could also be because the two terms originate from literature outside the field of OSH coordination, as Antonio et al. looked into the project management literature and models for desirable competences for the coordinator, before discussing the competences with experts in the field. This raises the question of whether the role (and thus the competences) of the coordinator can even be compared to the role of a project manager, or supervisor for that matter.

Another question is whether competences can be prioritised, and if so, are statistical methods the most appropriate, or should the importance of competences be identified in others ways? Our methodological choices and theoretical view on competence as knowing-in-practice contributes to the research on competences, as well as safety, as we through a novel survey method and qualitative observations show how safety competences are practiced. Hopefully, this article can inspire how research can benefit from a more practice-oriented view.

The practice-based ethnographic approach to safety deserves some attention as well, as it contributes to the existing literature on OSH coordinators, which is mostly based on documents, expert interview and survey data. As Pink et al. (2010) argue, the complexity and dynamism of construction work is well suited for ethnographic approaches, and the focus on safety as a practice has proven very informative by others. For instance, it has been used to understand the negotiation of cooperation between OSH professionals, management and workers (Baarts 2009, Grytnes et al. 2020), managers’ transformational and/or passive/avoidant leadership behaviour (Grill et al. 2019), and to inspire methodological considerations of ethnography in construction work (Löwstedt 2015). Our study contributes to this expanding body of practice-based and/or ethnographic informed approaches to safety research. Perhaps not so much in the theoretical development of observations, but rather in the use of ethnography in combination with more quantitative approaches.

The practical examples also show how practices of OSH coordination happens in dynamic settings, with a sometimes unclear mandate to carry out OSH initiatives. While work-specific knowledge about rules, hazards, identification and methods to mitigate OSH issues are undoubtedly important and required to succeed, the very dynamism of OSH coordination in construction calls for broader competences, which both Antonio et al. (2013) and Rodríguez-Largacha et al. (2019) also point out. The focus on curricular knowledge in the mandatory coordinator course in Denmark raises the question, if the educational requirements are enough to become a successful coordinator. The results of the research project will be translated into educational material for OSH coordinators in the Danish construction industry.

Knowledge transfer as a competence

Interestingly, the 11th most mentioned competence characterising the successful coordinators is the “ability to transfer knowledge into practice.” While a competence in itself, knowledge transfer can also be seen as an effect of all the practices of competences, we exemplify with our observations.

The study on competences and the concept of knowledge transfer motivate reflections about the relation between knowledge and competence and on the relation between knowledge and practice. Our industry experts mention knowledge (and experience) about legislation, methods, tools, crafts, construction processes etc. very often in our survey, which suggests that “possessing” knowledge is an important prerequisite for successful practice, which we too identified, for instance, when observing experienced coordinators train newcomers (see the section about “overview”).

Like knowledge, the competences identified in our study and Antonio et al. (2013) can be obtained and possessed within the coordinator through formal or informal learning. However, having knowledge and competences is not necessarily transferred to practices of the construction project. Most of the competences—persistence, thoroughness, sociability, systematic, and to some extent visionary and innovative—can be characterised as practices or techniques to effectively transfer OSH knowledge into the construction project.

“Overview,” on the other hand, is more elusive. It is more clearly nested within the coordinator and is harder to explicate through observation as it is most easily identified when it is lacking. As an observer, however, you are never in doubt when a coordinator practices overview. Overview is perhaps an important competence, as it qualifies the coordinators’ strategies to transfer knowledge. At the same time, overview is highly dependent on situational factors—like information from other actors, time allocated to the coordination task, management participation, etc. Competences, systems and creative methods can help the coordinator not getting lost in the many details and agendas of a construction project, and help the coordinator obtain the overview necessary to prioritise his or her efforts.

Limitations

Like the selection bias of the coordinators’ tasks, discussed in the methods section, the selection of experts could be more thorough, as it relied heavily on the network of our research group. While comfortable that we know the industry well, the selection could be improved with a more systematic approach—like the Delphi-method.

Another methodological question is to what extent the results of this study are transferable to smaller sites. Our selection of coordinators identified well-established professionals, who have OSH coordination as their only or primary task, and who mainly work on large-scale construction projects. We assume that OSH coordinators on smaller construction project will often be part of the site management, with other responsibilities and less experience and knowledge in OSH coordination. These coordinators will perhaps benefit the most from the results of this study, yet they are also a group that is harder to reach, as they perhaps do not have OSH coordinator as their main professional role. The education and training of these people and the transfer of OSH knowledge to smaller construction sites are very important for future research.

Conclusions

The use of an expert survey with a focus of characterising successful OSH coordinators has revealed six new competences of OSH coordinators not identified in previous studies: persistence, thoroughness, sociability, innovativeness, systematic and overview. Ethnographic data exemplify how these competences of knowledge-in-practice are carried out, and reveal some of the difficulties in practicing these competences. As such, the design of the study using ethnographic data in combination with survey data contributes to the understanding of competence. Practical education and training of these competences may contribute to more successful OSH coordination on construction sites. In particular, the results demonstrate the important “practice” of knowing rather than possessing knowledge, attributes and/or skills. Instead of focussing on idealistic notions of these curricular possessions, we encourage a focus within both research and practice on what practices of knowledge actually work in a real-life setting.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank all the experts and coordinators who took part in the study, as well as thanks to the peer-reviewers and editors for their constructive and insightful comments.

Additional information

Funding

This paper has been published as a part of the research project “Successful Safety and Health Coordination in the Construction Industry,” funded by the Working Environment Research Fund in Denmark [grant no. 52-2016-09, 20165103730].