8484 Georgia Avenue

Suite 1000

Silver Spring, MD 20910

phone: 301.578.8500

fax: 301.578.8572

w w w. c p w r. c o m • w w w. e l c o s h . o rg

Reducing Highway Construction Fatalities Through Improved Adoption of Safety Technologies

Chinweike EseonuJohn GambateseChukwuma Nnaji

Oregon State University

March 2018

©2018, CPWR-The Center for Construction Research and Training. All rights reserved. CPWR is the research and training arm of NABTU. Production of this document was supported by cooperative agreement OH 009762 from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH.

REDUCINGHIGHWAYCONSTRUCTIONFATALITIES

THROUGHIMPROVEDADOPTIONOFSAFETY

TECHNOLOGIESWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnology

Submitted by: Chinweike Eseonu, Assistant Professor, School of Mechanical, Industrial

and Manufacturing Engineering John Gambatese, Professor, School of Civil and Construction

Engineering, Oregon State University Chukwuma Nnaji, PhD Candidate, School of Civil and Construction

Engineering, Oregon State University

Submittedto:TheCenterforConstructionResearchandTraining(CPWR)

(CPWRSmallStudyNo.17‐4‐PS)

i | P a g e   

TableofContents1.  Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2.  KeyFindings ........................................................................................................................................ 2 3.  Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 4.  StudyGoalandObjectives .................................................................................................................. 5 5.  Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 5 6.  Accomplishmentsandresults,includingtheirrelevanceandpracticalapplication ..................... 6 7.  Changes/problemsthatresultedindeviationfromthemethods ................................................ 37 8.  Listofpresentations/publications .................................................................................................. 38 9.  Disseminationplan ........................................................................................................................... 38 10.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 38 11.  FutureResearchOpportunities ................................................................................................... 39 12.  References ..................................................................................................................................... 40 13.  Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 45 

1 | P a g e   

1. AbstractHighwayconstructioniscommonlyassociatedwithhighratesofworkeraccidents.Thesehighratesareoftenlinkedtotherequirementofworkincloseproximitytolivetrafficandheavydutyconstructionequipment.Existingtransportationresearchshowsthattechnologicalsolutions,likeWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnology(WZAIT)improveworkzonesafety.However,feworganizationsinthehighwayconstructionindustryhaveadoptedthesesafetytechnologies.Industryactorsreportconcernsabouttechnologyeffectiveness,costimplicationsadoptingnewtechnology,andlackoftechnologyfeature‐synergy.Fewstudieshaveexploredstrategiesforimprovingworkzonesafetytechnologyadoption,implementation,andeventualdiffusionacrossthehighwayconstructionindustry.Tofillthisgapinresearchandpractice,thisstudyattemptstodeveloptoolsandidentifyeffectiveprocessesthatcouldbeusedtoimprovetheadoptionofworkzonesafetytechnologiesusingworkzoneintrusiontechnologyasacasestudy.

2 | P a g e   

2. KeyFindingsI. Technological,individual,organizational,andexternalfactorsdeterminethe

extenttowhichWZITadoptionissuccessfulandsustained.

II. WZIATfinancialbenefitsoutweighassociatedcostsifthetechnologiescanpreventbetween12.6%and34%oftheintrusionaccidentsthatleadtoinjuriesandfatalities.

III. Twenty‐onefactorsinfluenceWZIATadoption(Table4).Thesefactorsarelargelytechnology‐relatedandwereidentifiedthroughliteraturereviewandinterviewswithsubjectmatterexpertsemployedatcontractorfirmsanddepartmentsoftransportation.

IV. Lackofsharedlanguage/meaning/criteriabetweenendusers(constructioncompanies)andtechnologymanufacturers/salespeople.Eachgroupprovideddifferentsafetytechnologyfeatureimportanceratings.

V. LaborcostassociatedwithWZIATcontributesasignificantfractionoftotalimplementationcost.

VI. Themostimportanttechnology‐basedfactorswere

o workercomprehensionofwarningsignal,o adequatecoveragedistance,ando fewornofalsenegativeandfalsepositive.

VII. Easeofuseandsubjectivenormarestrongpredictorsofaworker’sintentionto

acceptandimplementaworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology

3 | P a g e   

3. IntroductionWorkZoneInjuriesandFatalities

TheconstructionindustryhasthehighestworkerfatalitylevelsintheUnitedStates.Withinconstruction,highwayconstructionaccountsfor16%ofthesefatalities(BLS2017).Onaverage,thistranslatesto121annualworkzonefatalitiesbetween2005and2014,withonefatalityevery15hoursandoneworkzoneincident‐relatedinjuryoccurringevery16minutes(FHWA2017).Factorssuchasdriverdistraction,weather,androadwayconditionshavebeenidentifiedasmajorcausesofworkzoneaccidents.Thevolumeofhighwayconstructionandmaintenanceprojectsisexpectedtoincreaseaseconomicgrowthspurspublicandprivateinvestment.Thismeanstherearemoreworkzonesandincreasedprobabilityofharmtoworkersandmotorists.

Figure1.Basichighwayconstructionworkzonelayout(AdaptedfromITSI,2011)

Forthisreport,aworkzoneaccidentisanyincidentthatoccurswithinaworkzone.Thisincludesworkzoneapproachandexit.Existingresearchshowsthatmostcrashesoccurwithinthe“activityarea”(GarberandZhao,2002),whichiswheremostconstructionworkersarelocated.Activityareasinclude“work”,“traffic”,and“buffer”zones.Vehicleintrusionpastthechannelizingdevices(pictureinsertsinFigure1)isaprimarycauseofworkerfatalities.

4 | P a g e   

Figure2showsthatworker“runover”byintrudingvehiclesorconstructionequipmentistheprimarycauseofworkzonefatalities.Othercausesincludecollisionbetweenvehiclesandmobileequipment,andincidentsinwhichworkersarecaughtbetweenorstruckbyconstructionequipment.

Figure2.Distributionbycauseoffatalitybetween2005and2014(n=1209)

(AdaptedfromFHWA2017)

HowdoesTechnologyaffectWorkZoneSafety?

Recently,theFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)andotheragenciesimpactedbyworkzoneinjuriesandfatalitiesintroducedseveralprogramstohelpcurbworkzonefatalityrates.ExamplesofsuchprogramsaretheNationalWorkZoneAwarenessWeekandTurningPoint.Whilepost‐programassessmentsindicateworkzonefatalitieshavedecreased,annualmotorist‐induceddeathshaveremainedrelativelystagnant(Bello2009;Sant2014).Inresponse,regulatory,industry,andotheragenciesacrosstheUnitedStateshaveencouragedhighwayconstructionstakeholderstoadoptworkzonesafety.Thisapproachisbolsteredbyresearchthatshowssynergybetweentechnologyuseandimprovedworkersafety.

5 | P a g e   

Inpreparingthisreport,theOregonStateUniversityteamundertookadetailedliteraturereviewofover132articles.Therewasamarkedincrease–byabout700%–inworkzonesafetytechnology(WZST)researchbetween2002and2012.TherehasalsobeenanincreaseinWZSTproduction.Asaresult,thereisaneedtoassesswhyadoptionissignificantlylowerthanWZSTresearchanddevelopment.ExistingresearchhaslookedatWZSTperformanceasameansofassessingtheadoptionchallenge.Thisincludesworktoassesseffectivenessofproximitywarningsystems(Parketal.2015),truck‐mountedattenuators(UllmanandIragavarapu2014),andportablechangeablemessagesigns(GambateseandZhang2016).However,otherstudiesshowthatWZSTadoptionispersistentlylowbecause1)itisdifficulttoquantifytheholisticbenefitsofcertaintechnologiesusingadirectmeasureofeffectiveness(DMOE),2)returnoninvestment(ROI)andbenefit‐costanalyses(BCA)areoftennegativeorinconclusive,and3)thereareconflictingopinionsaboutWZSTusefulnessandeaseofuse(Fyhrie2016;Ederaetal.2013;Huebschmanetal.2003).WhileresponsestochallengeslikeROIarefocusedonmanagement,DMOEandopinionsabouteaseofuseandusefulnesscallforemployee/workerfocusedstrategies.ThefollowingsectionisfocusedonaWZST–WorkZoneintrusionalerttechnology(WZIAT)–thathasnotsuccessfullydiffusedacrossthehighwayconstructionindustry.

WorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnology

Workzoneintrusionalerttechnologies(WZIATs)arealert‐producingdevicesusedtowarnworkerswithinanactivityareaofanimpendingaccidentcausedbyavehicleintrudingintotheworkzone.Theobjectiveistosecureadditionaltimeforworkerstoreactwhenanintrusionoccurs.Firstintroducedtoworkzonesin1995,WZIATwastheproductofaStrategicHighwayResearchProgram(SHRP)sponsoredstudy(AgentandHibbs1996).SincetheSHRPprogram,severalWZIATshavebeendeveloped,evaluatedbydepartmentsoftransportation(DOTs),andimplementedinworkzonesonanumberofhighwayprojects.

6 | P a g e   

TherearecurrentlyfourcommerciallyavailableWZIATs.Table1isasummaryoftheseWZIATs,includingattributesextractedfrompastresearch(Wangetal.2011;ELWC2015;HighwayResourceSolution2015;Gambateseetal.2017;Marksetal.2017).InadditiontotheWZIATslistedinTable1,OldcastleMaterialsrecentlyintroducedanalerttechnologynamedAdvancedWarningandRiskEvasion(AWARE).Thesystemreliesonpositionandorientationsensorsandradarstoconstantlymonitortheworkzone.Whileinitiallyintendedtoalertdriversoftheirintrusionintoaworkzone,thesystemisalsobeneficialforalertingworkersofintrudingvehicles.AWAREisundergoingtestingandisnotcurrentcommerciallyavailable(http://artisllc.com/highway‐safety/;http://theasphaltpro.com/oldcastle‐aware‐system/).DespitetheintroductionofWZIATover20yearsago,therehasbeenlimitedapplicationofWZIATinworkzones(Wangetal.2011;Gambateseetal.2017).Thisphenomenoncouldbeattributedtoseveralfactorssuchasreportedinaccuratealarms,difficultytoinstallandretrievedevices,lackofevaluationprotocol,non‐existingbusinesscaseanalysis,andlowproductawareness(Fyhrie2016;Wangetal.2011).

4 | P a g e   

Table1:Commercially‐AvailableWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnologies

Intellicone Intellistrobe SonoBlaster WorkerAlertSystem(WAS)

Manufacturer HighwayResourceSolution IntelliStrobeSafetySystems

TranspoIndustries AstroOptics,LLC

Website www.intellicone.co.uk www.intellistrobe.com www.transpo.com www.astrooptics.comAccessories Lamps,motiondetector,and

portablesitealarm Flagger‐W1‐AGandRemoteControlRadio‐FC401‐1

Singlealarmunit Pneumatichose,flashingalarmlight,personalvibratingandaudioalert

Alert

Mechanisms

Impact‐tilt,wirelesssensoractivatedalarmsystem

Pressuredtriggerpneumatictubealarmsystem

Impact‐tiltactivatedalarmsystem

Pressuredtriggerpneumatictubealarmsystem

Suggested

Application

Longerthanoneday,tappershorterthan1,500ft.

Alongtapper Onedayorshorter,tappershorterthan1,500ft.

Priceestimate $2,000each $25,000 $100each $600eachTypeofAlarm Audioandvisual Audioandvisual Audio Audio,visual,andhapticSoundlevel 75dB@50feet 90dB@50feet* 90dB@50feet 80dB@50feetDeployment Installdeviceonchannelizer

alongtaperandworkzonePlacetubeatthebeginningoftaper.

Attachdevicetochannelizeralongtaper

Placetubeatthebeginningoftaper.

5 | P a g e   

4. StudyGoalandObjectivesTheprimarygoalofthisstudyistoreduceworkzoneincident(injuryandfatality)occurrenceandseveritybyidentifyingfactorsthatdriveworkzonesafetytechnologyadoptioninthehighwayconstructionindustry.Previousresearchshowsthattechnologyutilizationincreasesworkersafety,soitisexpectedthatproactivesteps,likeeffectiveworker‐centricsafetytechnologyadoption,willreduceworkzoneincidentoccurrenceandseverity.Objectivesestablishedforthestudyinordertomeettheprimarystudygoalinclude:

I. Investigatehowsafetytechnologyaffectsworkersandhighwayconstructionworkzones;

II. Developandevaluateamodelforworkzonesafetytechnologyacceptance;andIII. DevelopproposedframeworksfordeterminingfinancialimplicationsofWZIAT

adoption,andstandardizedprotocolsforevaluatingWZST‐includingWZIAT.

5. MethodsAmixed‐methodsapproachinvolvingacombinationofqualitativeandquantitativemethodswasadoptedtoinvestigatetheresearchobjectives.Specifically,anextensivereviewofextantliteratureonWZSTwasconductedtoidentifyandassesstheeffectivenessofthetechnologiescurrentlyusedtoprotectworkersinconstructionworkzones.InadditiontoidentifyingtheWZSTs,theliteraturereviewprovidedanopportunitytoidentifypotentialbarriersanddriversofadoptingWZSTaswellaskeytechnologyattributesthatinfluencetechnologyacceptance.Aconcurrenttriangulationprocesswhichreliedonacross‐sectionalsurveyof,andin‐depthinterviewswith,highwayconstructionstakeholderswasutilizedtoprovideadditionalcontextualinformationonfactorsthatinfluencetheacceptanceofWZSTs.Lastly,acasestudyapproachwasadoptedtoprovideobservationaldatarequiredtodevelopbenefit‐costanalysis(BCA)andreturnoninvestment(ROI)forworkzoneintrusionalerttechnologies.

6 | P a g e   

6. Accomplishmentsandresults,includingtheirrelevanceandpracticalapplication

Toensurethattheresearchobjectivesweresufficientlymet,thefollowingresearchquestionsweredevelopedtoguidethestudy:

I. Whatarethemajorcausesofworkerfatalitiesandhowoftendotheyoccur?II. WhatistheusefrequencyandperceivedeffectivenessofexistingWZIT?III. Areend‐usersreceptivetotheadoptionofnewworkzonesafetytechnology

(WZIATandothertechnologies)?IV. Whatisthecurrentprocess/protocolusedforadoptingworkzonesafety

technology(WZIATandothertechnologies)?V. Whatfactorsimpacttheacceptance,use,anddiffusionoftechnologyinhighway

construction?VI. Doessafetyclimateimpactsafetybehavior(decisiontoadoptatechnology)VII. Towhatextentdoesend‐user(consumer)andsafetytechnologymanufacturer

WZSTexpectationsconverge?VIII. DoesinvestmentinWZIATrepresentvalueformoneyforcontractorsandDOT’s?Answerstotheresearchquestionsweredistributedacrossfiveprimarytaskswhichweresuccessfullyexecutedbytheresearchers.Eachofthetasksandcorrespondingresultsareprovidedbelow.Task1:Investigatetheimpactofsafetytechnologyonworkzoneconstruction

workers

AssessinganddocumentingtheimpactofsafetytechnologiesusedinhighwayworkzoneswastheprimaryobjectiveofTask1.Inaddition,identifyingthemajorcausesofworkerfatalitiesinworkzonesandtheenablersandbarrierstoadoptionofworkzonesafetytechnologywasconductedwithinthissection.Toachievetheseobjectives,theresearchersreliedonasystematicreviewprocessusingaprovenreviewframework(Hongetal.2012;YiandChan2014),aretrospectiveanalysisofworkerfatalitieswithinFACEdatabase,andinterviewresultsfromaprecedingstudy(Gambateseetal.2017).Intotal,132articleson

7 | P a g e   

workzonesafetytechnologyassessmentwereidentifiedthroughthesystematicreviewprocessinvolvingfourdatabases.PublicationtrendsshowthatthenumberofstudiesfocusedonWZSTevaluationshasincreasedsteadilyoverthepast25years.Atthesametime,thenumberoffatalitiesinworkzoneshasreducedprogressively.Althoughdifficulttoassert,thetrend,depictedinFigure3,suggeststhepossiblepresenceofarelationshipbetweenthelevelofinterestandadoptionofsafetytechnologiesandthereductionofworkerfatalities.

Figure3:NumberofWorkZoneFatalitiesandWZSTEvaluationStudies

WhilethetrendinevaluationstudiesisabettermetricformeasuringthelevelofinterestinWZST(comparedtotheactualadoptionofsuchtechnologies),anindicationofinterestisexpectedtotranslatetoactualtechnologyadoption(Davisetal.1989).

8 | P a g e   

ThetechnologiesevaluatedinthearticlesreviewedprimarilyfellwithinthreecategoriesbasedontheobjectiveoftheWZSTasfollows:

I. Speedreductionsystems(SRS):Thesetechnologiesareusedtoreducethetravelingspeedofmotoristsatadvancedwarningareas,transitionareas,bufferareas,andworkareas.Thetechnologiescouldhavedirectorindirectphysicalimpactonthetravelingvehicle.

II. Intrusionpreventionandwarningsystems(IPWS):Technologiessetuptopreventerrantdriversfromintrudingintoaworkzoneand/orwarnworkersofimminentdangerduetoanintrusionintotheworkzone.

III. Workerdetectionsystems(WDS):Thesearetechnologiesimplementedinsideaworkzonetoalertworkersandequipmentoperatorsofanimminentcollisionbetweenaworkerandequipment.

AsseeninFigure4,theWZSTSmostfrequentlyevaluatedwerechangeablemessagesystems(CMS),speedenforcementsystems(SE),lanemergesystems(LMS),andwarninglights.Thesetechnologiesfallwithinthespeedreductionsystemscategory.

Figure4:NumberofEvaluationStudiesforeachWZST

9 | P a g e   

Overall,theliteraturereviewindicatesthatthereisagrowinginterestintheevaluationanduseofWZSTs.Nevertheless,findingsfromthepresentstudyindicatevaryingevaluationapproachesareexecutedforsimilarWZSTs.ThelackofminimumevaluationrequirementsforWZSTscreatesanavalancheofmethodologies,whichmakesitinherentlydifficulttocomparefindingsamongstsimilarstudies.Next,aretrospectiveanalysisofworkzoneincidentswasconductedtoassesstheusefulnessofWZIAT.AcomprehensiveassessmentofNIOSHFatalityAssessmentandControlEvaluation(FACE)ProgramreportswasconductedbytheresearcherstodetermineifWZIATcouldhaveplayedasignificantroleinpreventingthereportedfatalities.Intotal,25highwayworkzonerelatedfatalitycaseswerereportedandevaluatedbyNIOSHbetween1984and2007.Although80%ofthedocumentedfatalitieswereprimarilycausedbyworkersbeingstruckbyequipment,threefatalitieswereinducedbyintrudingvehicles.Table2summarizesfactsabouteachintrusionfatality.AsseeninTable2,usingadditionalworkzonesafetydevicessuchasworkzoneintrusionalerttechnologiescouldhaveimprovedthesurvivalrateoftheworkerskilled.Table2:SummaryofFACEReportsofHighwayWorkZoneFatalities

CauseofFatality FACERecommendationsPossiblyPreventedby

WZIAT?

Sleepingdriverstruckmaintenanceworkerinworkzone

Periodicallymonitorandevaluateemployeeconformancewithsafeoperatingprocedures;adoptpoliciesthatrequireworkerstoworkonthemediansideoftheguardrail;educatethepublicregardingworkzonesafetyissues

YES

InstallWZIATequippedwithaudioandvibratoryalertsapproximately400feetupstreamoftheworker

10 | P a g e   

DriverlostcontrolofvehicleandveeredintotheworkzonestrikingaDOTworker

Considertheuseofsupplementaltrafficcontroldevices;considerinstallingrumblestripsalongtheroadwaypavementedgestowarnmotorists

YES

Equipworkerswithpersonalalertsystems.InstallWZIATacrosspotentialentrypointsaroundtheworkzone

Flaggerstruckbysecondarycontactfromtrucktravelingat55milesperhour

Considertheuseofadditionalwarningsignsandtrafficcontroldevices;provideandrequireuseofhand‐heldorotherportableradiocommunicationsequipmentbyflaggersatalltimes

YES

ImplementWZIATwithspeeddetectorandpersonalalertsystemswithatleast600feettransmissiondistance

Task2:DevelopframeworkforWZSTassessment,adoption,IntrusionTechnology

AcceptanceModel(ITAM),andWZSTevaluationprotocol

HighwayWorkZoneTechnologyAssessmentProcess

Giventheimportantrolesafetytechnologiesplayinkeepingworkerssafeinaworkzone,itisessentialtocaptureinformationthatcouldhelpimprovetheadoption,implementation,andacceptanceofusefultechnologies.DOTsplayacentralroleintheadoptionofWZST.Insomestates,DOTsincludecertaintechnologiesintothetrafficcontrolplantherebymakingtheuseofthosetechnologiesmandatoryforcontractors.Adecisionprocessmap(showninFigure5)detailingaworkzonesafetytechnologyacceptanceprocesswasdevelopedbasedontheresearchers’experienceconductingevaluationstudiesonworkzonesafetytechnology.InterestinadoptingaspecificworkzonesafetytechnologyisgenerallyinstigatedbypeerDOTs,researchers,ormanufacturers.

11 | P a g e   

ReferringtoFigure5,tobeconsideredforevaluation,thesafetytechnologyhastobecapturedintheDOTqualifiedproductlist(QPL).AQPLisalistofproductsandsupplierswhoseproductsareapprovedtouseonprojectswithoutadditionaldocumentationandtesting.IfthetechnologyisamongtheitemsintheQPL,theDOTevaluatesinternalinterestintheproduct.Ifadequateinterestisachieved,theRequestforProposal(RFP)scopeisexpandedtoincludeacategorythataddressesthetechnology.Subsequently,researcherswillbeencouragedtosubmitproposalsforevaluatingtheworkzonesafetytechnology.ItisimportanttonotethattheprocessdescribedaboveisstrictlyforasituationwhereaDOTischampioningtheevaluationofaspecificworkzonesafetytechnology.Iftheideaemanatesfromaresearcher,theresearchersubmitsaResearchProblemStatement(RPS)(assumingthereleasedRFPaccommodatestheevaluationtopic).IftheRPSissuccessful,theresearcherwillbeencouragedtosubmitafullproposal.IftheproposalisacceptedbytheDOT,thetechnologyisthentestedtodetermineitseffectiveness.Theassessmentusuallyincludesapilottestandlivetesting,andincertaincases,anextensivecosteffectivenessanalysis.Iftheproposalisrejected,theevaluationprocessisterminated.Subsequently,followingtestingofthetechnology,areportisdevelopedtodisseminatethefindingsfromthestudy.Iftheworkzonesafetytechnologyisconsideredeffective,theDOTadoptsthetechnologyandmayrequirecontractorstousethetechnologyinfutureprojects.Iftheeffectivenessofthetechnologyisnotconclusive,recommendationsthatcouldimprovefutureadoptionofthetechnologyaremadeavailable.

12 | P a g e   

Figure5:DOTDecisionMapforWorkZoneSafetyTechnologyAdoption

ItisimportanttonotethatalthoughDOTsprescribetheuseofcertainsafetytechnologiesaspartofacontractrequirement,contractorscouldchoosetoutilizeadditionalsafetytechnologiesinconstructionworkzones.Currently,informationontheprocessutilizedbycontractorstoarriveatacongruentdecisionforadoptingsafetytechnologyisnonexistent.Therefore,theresearchersproposedandvalidatedaframeworkthatdescribestheprocessofadoptingasafetytechnology.Also,thisframeworkcouldbeimplementedwithinthe“AssessTechnology”stageoftheDOTtechnologyacceptanceprocess.

13 | P a g e   

SafetyTechnologyAdoptionFactors

Anintegrativereviewofliteratureindicatesthattechnologyadoptioncanbepredictedbyassessingseveralfactorsdistributedintofourprimarycategories:individual,organizational,technological,andenvironmental.AtheoreticalframeworkdescribingtheprocessleadingtotechnologyadoptioncanbefoundinFigure6.Projectmanagersfromeighthighwaycontractingorganizationswereinterviewedtovalidatetheaccuracyoftheproposedadoptionprocess.ThesecompanieswereprimarilylocatedinthePacificNorthwestwithannualrevenuerangingbetween$10millionand$2billion.

Figure6.SafetyTechnologyAdoptionProcess

14 | P a g e   

Oneprimarydeficiencyinextantliteratureassociatedwithworkzonesafetyisthelackofsomeconsensusontheprimaryphasesforconductinganevaluationstudy.Anevaluationstudyisakeycomponentinthetechnologycategoryofthesafetytechnologyadoptionprocess.Inthenextsection,theresearcherssummarizetheprimarystepsrequiredtoconductaneffectiveWZSTevaluationstudy.TheevaluationprotocolwasdevelopedaspartofastudyconductedbyGambateseetal.(2017).

WZSTEvaluationProtocol

Developingatestingprotocol,groundedinscientificrigor,playsapivotalroleinvalidatingthefindingsofanevaluation‐basedstudy.AccordingtoFyrie(2016),itisessentialtodevelopatestingprotocolforWZSTstoimproveperceptionofusefulnesswhichcouldimpactuserintentiontoadopttechnologyalongsideencouragingtheproductionofadditionalWZSTs.Inordertodeveloparigorousprocess,theresearchersreliedonStrategicHighwayResearchProgram(SHRP)reportsandpastworkzonetechnologyevaluationreports(AgentandHibbs1996;Brownetal.2015;Marksetal.2017;MarksandTeizer2013;Novosel2014;Parketal.2017;Teizeretal.2010;ZhangandGambatese2017).TosuccessfullyevaluateaWZST,thestepsdepictedinFigure7arerecommendedanddescribedindetailbelow.

Figure7:WZSTEvaluationProtocol

15 | P a g e   

Step1:DocumentationofTechnologiesItisimperativetoaggregateandreviewliteratureoncurrentlyavailabletechnologiesthathavehighpotentialforpreventinginjuriesinhighwayworkzones.ThisstepcanbeachievedthroughacomprehensivesearchofarchivalpublicationsusingInternetsearchengines.TheoutputofthissearchanddocumentationshouldincludetechnicalspecificationsoftheWZST,associatedbenefitsofusingtheWZST,limitationstoitsuse,andsummariesoffindingsfrompriorresearchonthetechnology.Step2:SurveyofCurrentPracticeStep2involvesconductingasurveyofhighwayconstructionandmaintenancekeystakeholdersincludingstatedepartmentsoftransportation(DOTs),constructionandtrafficcontrolcontractors,equipmentvendors,etc.Theobjectiveofthesurveyistodocumentcurrentandrecommendedpractices,barriers,enablers,andimpactsassociatedwiththeWZST.FindingsfromStep2resultintheidentificationofthestatusquooftheconstructionindustryanditscurrentbestpracticeintermsofpreventingaccidentsthatcouldbepreventedbyimplementingtheWZST.Step3:PilotTestingofTechnologiesBasedontheresultsofSteps1and2,asampleoffeasibletechnologiesshouldbeselectedforpilottesting.Selectionshouldconsidertechnologyavailability,cost,easeofuse,potentialforimprovingsafety,andpotentialforincorporatingthetechnologyintypicaltransportationcontrolplans.Pilottestingoftheselectedtechnologiesshouldbeconductedundercontrolled,off‐roadwayconditions.Eachselectedtechnologyshouldbeassessedtocaptureitscapabilities,andrecordhowitisimplemented.Theresultsofthepilottestingprovidevitalinformationonfeasibilityofuse,capabilities,andlimitationsrelatedtoeachtechnologyunderinvestigation.Step4:SelectionofTechnologiesforLiveTestingFollowingcompletionofthepilottestingandanalysisoftheresults,Step4involvesconductingfocusgroupsessionswithkeystakeholderssuchasDOTpersonnelandconstructioncontractorstoidentifyandselectspecifictechnologiestoimplementandtest

16 | P a g e   

inanactiveworkzone.Feedbackoneachofthetechnologiesshouldbesolicitedfromeachtargetedgroup.Thosetechnologiesthataredeemedpromisingbythefocusgroupparticipantsshouldbeselectedforfurtherevaluation.Inaddition,potentialconstructionand/ormaintenanceprojectsonwhichtoconductlivetestingofthetechnologiesshouldbediscussedwiththeparticipatingDOTpersonnelandcontractorsandselectedforStep5.Step5:ImplementationandEvaluationofSelectedTechnologiesStep5involvesimplementingtheselectedtechnologiesoneachselectedcasestudyproject.Dependingonthecasestudyprojectsselected,eachtechnologyshouldbeappliedunderdifferentworkzoneconditions(e.g.,short‐termandlong‐term,daytimeandnighttime,andstationaryandmobile).Eachselectedtechnologyshouldbeimplementedduringactualworkoperationstypicallyexperiencedonprojects.Thetestingprotocolshouldaddressavarietyofcriteriasuchas:easeofimplementationanduse,abilitytodetectpotentialhazard,abilitytowarnofimpendinghazard,sensitivitytofalsealarms,andimpactonrisktoworkersafety,andimplementationcost.Uponcompletionoftesting,feedbackoneachtechnologyshouldbecollecteddirectlyfromtheconstructionandmaintenanceworkersinvolvedineachcasestudyproject.Next,theresearchersproposeabasictheoreticalframework–ITAM‐forcapturinginformationthatinfluencestheacceptanceandutilizationofaWZST(WZIATascasestudy)byendusers.IntrusionAlertTechnologyAcceptanceModel(ITAM)Structure

Consumermarketingresearchhasbenefitedgreatlyfromapplyingpredictive(forecasting)andassessmentmodelsthatdrawfromunderstandingkeyfactorsthatinfluenceintentiontoacceptaproduct.Thepresentstudycombinesthepredictivestrengthoftwowell‐foundedtechnologyacceptanceandbehavioraltheoriesasameanstounderstandfactorsthatinfluencetheadoptionofaWZST.Althoughdesignedmainlyusingconstructs(parameters)associatedwithWZIAT,theproposedmodelcanbeappliedtoWZSTandothertechnologyadoptionsituationswithsimilarcharacteristics.ThetwomodelstobecombinedareTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM)andTheoryofPlannedBehavior(TPB)(Mathieson1991;VenkatechandDavis1996;Mathiesonetal.2001;Chuttur2009).Figure

17 | P a g e   

8depictsthesimplifiedintrusionalerttechnologyacceptancemodel(ITAM)usedinthisstudy.

Figure8:IntrusionAlertTechnologyAcceptanceModel

Theconstructsabovecanbedefinedas: PerceivedEaseofUse(PEU):beliefthatusingatechnologywillrequirelittleeffort SubjectiveNorm(SN):anindividual’sperceptionregardingagivenactionwhichis

significantlyinfluencedbythejudgementofsignificantothers PerceivedUsefulness(PU):beliefthatusingatechnologywouldimprovejob

performance BehavioralIntention(BI):anindicationofaperson’sintentiontoperformagiven

taskBIwaschoseninsteadofactualbehavior(observableresponsesuchasacceptingtouseatechnology)sincetheuseoftechnologiessuchasWZIATisnotwidespread.Inaddition,pastresearchindicatesthatinmostcases,behavioralintention,isagoodpredictorofactualuse(Venkateshetal.2002).Theresearcherskeptthemodelsimplegiventheexploratorynatureofthepresentstudy.FuturestudiesshouldconsiderincludingotherTPBconstructssuchasattitudeandperceivedbehavioralcontrol.

18 | P a g e   

Task3:Collectandanalyzedatafromhighwayconstructionstakeholders

TheresearchersconductedanonlinesurveyinordertoanswerresearchquestionsV,VI,andVII.FollowingreviewofthesurveyinstrumentandprotocolbytheOSUInstitutionalReviewBoard(seecopyofsurveyquestionnaireintheAppendix),theresearcherspre‐testedthereliabilityandconsistencyofthesurveyquestionsusingdatareceivedfromcivilandconstructionengineeringstudentsatOSU.Beforecollectingstudentfeedback,apresentationwhichincludedvideosandpicturesofworkzoneintrusionaccidents,workzonesafetytechnologies,andresultsfromaWZIATevaluationstudywasfacilitatedandconductedbytheresearchersforthestudents.ThepresentationwasconductedtoensureparticipatingstudentshadsufficientinformationtoprovideusefulfeedbackonfactorsthatcouldinfluencetheadoptionofWZIAT.Atotalof145responseswerereceivedfromparticipatingstudentsintwodifferentcoursesofwhich135responseswereanalyzed(10responseswereincomplete).ReliabilitytestsincludingKaiser‐Myer‐Olkin,Cronbachalpha,andBarletttestofsphericitywereconductedtoensurethattheresearchtoolscapturedreliableinformation.Followingevaluationofthesurveyinstrument,thesurveyquestionnairewasdistributedtothetargetedhighwayconstructionstakeholders.Surveyresponseswerecollectedfrom181individuals(316,includingstudents)withinthetargetpopulation.Specifically,owneragencies,includingDOTsandresearchinstitutions,accountedfor38%(69)ofthereceivedresponseswhilegeneralcontractors,workzonesafetyconsultants,andworkzonetechnologymanufacturersandvendorsaccountedfor38%(53),11%(20),and21.5%(39)oftheresponses,respectively.Furthermore,64respondents(35%)self‐identifiedasprojectmanagerswhile37trafficengineers(20%ofrespondents)responded.Responsestothequestion“Areyoufamiliarwithworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology”indicatethatmostoftheparticipantsarefamiliarwithWZIAT(80%ofthe141responsesreceivedtothequestion,approximately62%ofallrespondents).

19 | P a g e   

WZIATfeature/attributeimportance(combinedandbyworkcategory)

Forsomequestions,therespondentswereaskedtoprovidetheiropinionaboutWZIATusingaLikert‐typescale(e.g.,1=notimportant,5=veryimportant).Whenasked“HowimportantarethefollowingattributestoyourdecisiontoadoptWZIAT,”participantsindicatedthatworkercomprehensionofwarningsignal(meanresponse=4.44)andadequatecoveragedistance(meanresponse=4.25)areconsideredthemostinfluentialattributesthatimpactthedecisiontouseaWZIAT.TheresultsaresummarizedinTable3.Easeofstorageisconsideredtheleastimportantattribute(mean=2.94).AcomprehensivetableoftheresultscanbefoundintheAppendix.Table3:WZIATFeature/AttributeImportancetoAdoptionDecision

MeanResponseregardingImportanceof

Feature/Attribute

(1=notimportant,5=veryimportant)

WZIATFeatures/Attributes Contractor

(n=53)

DOT

(n=69)

Manuf.&

Vendors

(n=39)

Total

(n=316)

Workercomprehensionofwarningsignal

4.6 4.67 4.3 4.44

Adequatecoveragedistance 4.51 4.36 4.22 4.25Driveradequatelycomprehendsvisualandaudiowarning

4.25 4.39 3.62 4.21

Impactofwarningalertondriver 4.17 4.41 3.78 4.18Fewornofalsealarms 4.38 4.33 4.03 4.17Limitsworkerexposure 4.51 4.48 4.08 4.15Multiplewarningalertsources 4.08 4.23 4.16 4.08Reusable 4.19 3.79 4.10 4.04Manuf.=technologymanufacturer

20 | P a g e   

Differenceinmeanratingbetweengroups

Itisessentialtoconductastatisticalanalysistoverifythepresenceofanalignmentbetweenthesubgroups’‐especiallycontractorsandmanufacturers–perceptionsofimportantWZIATattributes.Thisverificationcanbeachievedbyeitheraparametricornon‐parametricindependentsamplemeantest(t‐test).First,theresearchersassessedthedatabyworkgrouptoguidetheapplicationofparametricornon‐parametrictesting.Atestfordatanormalitywasnotconductedgiventhatthesamplesizeforeachgroupwasatleast30(GhasemiandZahediasl2012).Levene’sTestofEqualityofvariancewasconductedtodetermineiftheassumptionofhomogeneityofvariancewasviolated.Thetestreturnedamixedresultwithsixoutofthe21factorsviolatingtheequalvarianceassumption.Takingaconservativeapproach,theresearcherelectedtoperformanon‐parametrictwo‐sampletest–theMann‐WhitneyUTest‐toreducetheTypeIerrorrate.Table4summarizestheresultsfromtheMann‐WhitneyUTestbetweenresponsesreceivedfrommanufacturersandotherworkgroups.AsseeninTable4,thelevelofimportanceassignedtoeachWZIATattributedifferedsignificantlyforsevenoutof21attributeswhencomparingthemanufacturers’responsestothosereceivedfromtheDOTemployees.Thisresultindicatesthepossibilityofamisalignmentbetweentheend‐users’andmanufacturers’perceptionsoftheimportanceofeachWZIATattribute.ThisresultsuggestsaneedforheightenedinvolvementofDOTsandcontractorsinthedevelopmentphaseofsimilartechnologies.Thedevelopmentofstandardtoolsthathelpbridgetheknowledgegapbetweenmanufacturersandend‐usersshouldbeencouraged.

18 | P a g e   

Table4:Non‐Parametrictestfordifferenceinmeanbetweengroups;Mann‐WhitneyUTest

WZIATAdoptionfactors Contractorvs.

Manufacturer

DOTvs.

Manufacturer

Contractorvs.DOT

UStatistic p‐value UStatistic p‐value UStatistic p‐valueEaseofdeployment/retrieval 973.5 0.602 1292.5 0.707 1652.5 0.317Easytomovethetechnologyaround 728 0.032 1271 0.596 1588.5 0.176Userfriendliness 849 0.105 1052.5 0.043 1700.5 0.45Littleornoimpactontrafficflowandcontrolwithinworkzone 822 0.081 1332.5 0.929 1415 0.024Limitsworkerexposure 778 0.026 1039.5 0.031 1797 0.852Easytostore 857 0.139 1104 0.107 1771 0.755Resistancetoenvironmentalandphysicalimpact 871.5 0.467 923.5 0.023 1482.5 0.057Reusable 978 0.629 1019.5 0.029 1328.5 0.008Easytomaintain 900 0.352 1185 0.53 1712.5 0.722Extendedbatterylife 866.5 0.141 997.5 0.022 1586 0.221Costoflaborandequipment 885.5 0.305 1167 0.385 1754 0.794Availabilityofequipmentinthemarket 734.5 0.047 1254 0.792 1527.5 0.123Costofreplacingparts/maintenance 956.5 0.668 1264 0.846 1755 0.796Impactofwarningalertondriver 936 0.697 1102.5 0.207 1605.5 0.206

17 | P a g e   

Workercomprehensionofwarningsignal 824.5 0.142 1018 0.043 1750.5 0.621Multiplewarningalertsources 860 0.283 1268 0.951 1591.5 0.183Adequatecoveragedistance 874.5 0.327 1260.5 0.907 1627 0.243Limitedphysicalimpactonvehicle 729 0.033 1208.5 0.638 1604 0.222Driveradequatelycomprehendsvisualandaudiowarning 725.5 0.027 869.5 0.004 1737 0.604Fewornofalsenegativeandpositivealarms 804 0.114 1063.5 0.122 1799 0.866Lessdependenceonexistinginfrastructure 923.5 0.621 1218 0.683 1805 0.899

19 | P a g e   

Potentialimpactofsafetyclimate

Giventhatpastresearchindicatesapossiblecorrelationbetweensafetyclimateandsafetybehavior(SchwatkaandRosecrance2016),theresearchersexploredthepotentialrelationshipbetweensafetyclimateandconstructionworkerdecisionstoadoptasafetytechnology.Toachievethisobjective,theresearchersutilizedanadaptedversionofasafetyclimatematurityassessmenttooldevelopedbyTheCenterforConstructionResearchandTraining(CPWR)alongsidethe“behavioralintention”constructoftheITAM.Thesafetyclimatemeasuringscalehaseightleadingindicators:DemonstratingManagementCommitment;AligningandIntegratingSafetyasaValue;EnsuringAccountabilityatAllLevels;ImprovingSupervisoryLeadership;EmpoweringandInvolvingWorkers;ImprovingCommunication;TrainingatAllLevels;andEncouragingOwner/ClientInvolvement(CPWR2015).Toutilizethescale,workersareaskedtoanswerquestions(between3to6questions)withineachleadingindicator.Thequestionsaredesignedtoillicitresponsesregardingthecompany’scommitmentandattitudetowardssafetyusingascalethatrangesfrominattentivetoexemplary(seehttps://www.cpwr.com/whats‐new/new‐safety‐climate‐assessment‐s‐cat‐websiteformoreinformationonthesafetyclimatemeasuringscale).Duetothelengthofthesafetyclimatescale(36questionsrequiringadecentamountofreading),theresearchersreducedthenumberofquestionsforeachleadingindicatortotwo(16intotal).Thereductionwasachievedthroughevaluatingthestatisticalanalysisconductedbythedevelopersofthesafetyclimatescale–selectingtheitemsineachcategorywiththehighestmeanscoreandtheleastvariance.Atotalof53contractorscompletedthesurveysubstantially.However,onlyatotalof45oftherespondingcontractors(85%)providedsufficientinformationforexploringtheconnectionbetweensafetyclimateandadoptiondecision.Toexplorethepotentiallinkbetweensafetyclimateandtechnologyadoption,theresearchersseparatedtherespondentsintotwogroups–“exemplary”and“belowexemplary”–usingtheaggregatemeanvalueofeachleadingindicator.Thatis,theresponsesreceivedfromeachsurveyparticipantweresummedandthendividedby16(thetotalnumberofquestionsacrosstheeightleadingindicators).Theresearcherselected

20 | P a g e   

tosetacumulativemeanthresholdof4.0andaboveas“exemplarysafetyclimate”inlinewiththedesignofthesafetyclimatemeasuringtool.Ameanvaluebelow4.0wasconsiderednotexemplary.Twenty‐fiveofthe45respondingcontractors(56%)self‐reportedacumulativemeanaveragegreaterthan4.0.Next,linearregressionwaschosentoinvestigatethelevelofimpactsafetyclimatecouldhaveonthe“behavioralintention”construct.Toconducttheanalysis,thesafetyclimaterating(SCR)meanvalueforthetwogroups(exemplaryandnotexemplary)werechosenasindependentvariableswhilethemeanvalueof“behavioralintention”(BI)‐whichispartoftheITAMconstruct‐wasselectedasthedependentvariable.Priortoconductingthelinearregression,theresearcherscheckedtoverifyifanyassumptionwasviolated.Althoughthesamplesizerequirementwasmet(atleast20casesperindependentvariable),theresearchersobservedthatthedatawasnotlinearandshowedevidenceofheteroscedasticity.Giventheconcernsidentifiedwithinthedata,theresearcherselectedtoconductanonparametricanalysisfocusingondirectionality.SpearmancorrelationwasexecutedtoinvestigatethedirectionalrelationshipbetweenSRCandBI.Althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,theresults,highlightedinTable5,indicatethatSCRfortheexemplarygrouphasapositivecorrelationwithBI(γ=0.374).Table6showstherelationshipbetweenSCRandBIforthe“belowexemplary”groupwaslessthanthatoftheexemplarygroup(γ=0.021).Table5.CorrelationbetweenBehavioralIntention(BI)andSafetyClimateRating

(SCR)of“Exemplary”Group

Spearman'srho SCR BISCR CorrelationCoefficient 1.000 0.374 Sig.(1‐tailed) . 0.052 N 25 25BI CorrelationCoefficient 0.374 1.000 Sig.(1‐tailed) 0.052 . N 25 25

21 | P a g e   

Table6.CorrelationbetweenBehavioralIntentionandSafetyClimateRating(SCR)of

“BelowExemplary”Group

Spearman'srho SCR BISCR CorrelationCoefficient 1.000 0.021 Sig.(1‐tailed) . 0.461 N 20 20BI CorrelationCoefficient 0.021 1.000 Sig.(1‐tailed) 0.461 . N 20 20

Task4:ConductfinancialanalysisforWZIAT

Onepossiblereasonfortherelativelylownumberofcommerciallyavailableintrusionalarmtechnologiesisthelackofacost‐benefitanalysis(Fayrie2016).Furthermore,asintrusionalarmtechnologiesrequiresomeinvestment,consumers(DOTsandcontractors)needanempiricalframeworktodeterminethefinancialimplicationoftheintervention.Todeveloparobustframeworkthatprovidesparametersthatcanbeusedtojudgeiftheinvestmentintheintrusionalarmisworthwhile,theresearchersreliedontheframeworksdescribedbyAASHTO(2010),Theissetal.(2014),AricoandRavani(2008),andSunetal.(2011).GiventhattheimplementationofWZIATrequiresatwo‐phaseadoptionprocess(adoptionbystatedepartmentoftransportationandcontractor),itisimportantthatfinancialmetricsspecifictotheend‐usersareconsidered.Hence,aframeworkforROI(Contractor)andBCA(DOT)wasdeveloped.ThreeWZIATs–AWARE,Intellicone,andWAS–wereevaluatedaspartofthefinancialanalysis.

22 | P a g e   

CostofImplementingWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnologies

AccordingtoBoardmanetal.(2001),nineprimarystepsarerequiredinothertoconductabasicfinancialanalysisforgovernmentinterventions,regulations,policies,programs,etc.Thestepsare:I. SpecifythesetofalternativeprojectsII. DecidewhosebenefitsandcostscountIII. Cataloguetheimpactsandselectmeasurementindicators,orunitsIV. PredicttheimpactsquantitativelyoverthelifeperiodoftheprojectV. Monetize(adddollarvaluesto)allimpactsVI. DiscountbenefitsandcoststoobtainpresentvaluesVII. ComputethenetpresentvalueofeachalternativeVIII. PerformsensitivityanalysisIX. MakerecommendationbasedonfindingsGiventhescopeofthecurrentstudy,theresearchersfocusedonthestepsrequiredtodevelopafinancialimplicationanalysisframeworkforeachWZIAT(StepsIII,IV,V,VI,andVII).StepsIIItoVinvolvetheidentification,collection,andmonetizationofinputsandoutputs(information)requiredtoperformafinancialanalysis.Tables7and8captureessentialinformationrequiredtoestimatethecostofimplementingthetechnologies.TheinformationpresentedinTables7and8wasacquiredthroughinterviewswithcontractors,reviewingliteratureonWZIATsandotherworkzonesafetytechnologies,andassessingmanufacturer’swebsitesandmanuals.

23 | P a g e   

Table7.CostInputData

CostItem WorkzoneIntrusionAlertTechnology

AWARE Intellicone WASCapitalcost($/device) 50,000 2,000 $750Costofrequiredaccessory/ies($) 35 Batterycost($/device) 20 15 Batterylife(weeks) 32 32 DeviceReplacementrate(%/year) 0.125 0.125 0.125StrobeReplacementrate(%/year) 0.10 0.13Maintenanceworkerwagerate($/h) 26 26 26Maintenancetime(hr/week/mile) 2.1 4.2 4.2Wageratemultiplier 1.5 1.5 1.5Disposalcost 0 0 0Costperday:

Maintenancecost($) 20.48 40.95 40.95Devicecost($) 78.12 $3.13 $1.17Sensorcost($) $0.05 Batterycost($) 0.16 0.12

Table8.CostofusingWorkZoneIntrusionAlertTechnologiesinWorkZones

CostItem WorkzoneIntrusionAlertTechnologies

AWARE Intellicone WASNumberofdevicespermile 1 1 8

Usedononesideofroadway 2 2 16Usedonbothsidesofroadway 1 1 8

Numberofaccessoriespermile

24 | P a g e   

Usedononesideofroadway 12 5Usedonbothsidesofroadway 24 10

Costperdeviceperday($/day) 78.13 3.13 1.17Costpermileperday($/mile/day) 0.17 ‐Laborcostperdeviceperday($/day) 20.48 40.95 40.95Costpermileperday($/mile/day)

Usedononesideofroadway 98.60 46.14 50.33Usedonbothsidesofroadway 197.20 92.28 100.65

Costpermileperyear($/mile/year) Usedononesideofroadway 7,888.00 3,691.00 4,026.00Usedonbothsidesofroadway 15,776.00 7,382.00 8,052.00

InformationinTable7indicatesthatAWARE,Intellicone,andWAScost(operationandcapitalcost)$98.60,$46.14,and$50.33perday,respectively.WiththeexceptionofAWARE,operationcostistheprimarycostdriver,notthecapitalcost(Intellicone=88.5%andWAS=81.5%oftotalcost).Theseestimatesdoesnotincludeadditionalcostforpersonalsafetydevices;justthecostsofbuyingandoperatingthebasictechnologyareincluded.Aneighty‐dayworkyearwasassumedbasedonfivework‐monthsayearandfourwork‐daysaweek.TheworkdaywasestimatedbasedonthedurationofatypicalpavingseasoninthePacificNorthwest.Thenumberofannualworkdayswillvarydependingonthelocation.Thecostperdaycalculationincludedastraight‐linecapitalcostdeprecationofeachtechnology.Ashelflifeofeightyearswasassumedbasedonpastresearch(Theissetal.2014).Table8summarizesthecostofimplementingWZIATonprojectsusingcostpermileperyear($/mile/year).TheanalysisshowninTable8includescalculationforoneandbothsidesofaroadwaygiventhatconstructioncouldhappensimultaneouslyonbothsidesoftheroadway(bothdirectionsoftraffic).ThetotalcostforapplyingtheAWARE,Intellicone,andWASinaworkzoneis$15,776,$7,382,and$8,052permileperyear,respectively.ThefactorsusedtoarriveatthevaluesinTable8areincludedintheAppendix.

25 | P a g e   

InjuryCostModel

Thefollowingstepswereundertakeninordertoestimatethecostassociatedwithworkzoneaccidents:I. EstimatetotalnumberofworkzoneintrusionaccidentsII. Estimateinjuryseverityofworkzoneintrusionaccidents(usingMAIS)III. UsecomprehensivecostmethodtoassigncosttoinjuryseverityIV. UseValueofaStatisticalLife(VSL)toestimatefractionforeachinjurycategoryV. Determineworkzoneintrusion‐inducedaccidentcostVI. Useworkzonerequiredlengthandtypeofactivitytoseparateoutactivitiesthat

cannotimplementWZIATVII. DeveloptablethatshowstotalcostandavertedcostThenumberofworkzoneintrusionaccidentswasestimatedusinginformationfromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans)andOregonDepartmentofTransportation(ODOT).TheseveritylevelofworkzoneaccidentswasestimatedusingtheMaximumAbbreviatedInjuryScale(MAIS)(AAAM2015).ThecoefficientforeachseveritylevelwasgeneratedusingtheValueofaStatisticalLife(VSL).TheVSListheadditionalcostthatindividualsarewillingtobearforimprovingsafety(riskreduction)(Moran2016).Table9highlightstheseveritylevelsandcostassociatedwhicheachlevel(Moran2016).Table9.CostAssociatedwithDifferentLevelsofAccidentSeverity

MAISLevel Severity VSL(2016)Fraction Cost(million$)

MAIS1 Minor 0.003 0.029MAIS2 Moderate 0.047 0.45MAIS3 Serious 0.105 1.01MAIS4 Severe 0.266 2.55MAIS5 Critical 0.593 5.69MAIS6 Fatal 1.000 9.6

26 | P a g e   

IntrusioncrashdatafromODOTindicatesthat165intrusion‐inducedaccidentsoccurredbetween2011and2015,anaverageof33workzoneintrusionaccidentsayear.AccordingtoWong(2010),308workzoneintrusionaccidentswerereportedinCaliforniabetween1998and2007,averaging31workzoneaccidentsayear.Inaddition,Wong(2010)reportedthataccidentdistributionwhenclassifiedbyworkzonedurationvaried;mobileoperationsaccountedfor49%oftheaccidents,shortdurationoperationsaccountedfor9%,andshort‐termstationaryoperationscontributed29%ofworkzoneaccidents.Althoughnotcurrentdata,theresearcherselectedtousethedatafromCaltrans(Wongetal.2010)duetothesegmentationofthedataintousefulseveritylevels.Sincetheaveragecrashratesaresimilar,theresearchersassumedthatthetrendisapplicableto2017aswell.Theoutcomesofaworkzoneintrusionledtoaminorinjury91%ofthetime.Amoderateandseriousinjuryoccurred7%and0.0034%ofthetime,respectively.Onaverage,afatalityoccurredapproximately2%ofthetimewhenanaccidentoccurred.Inagreementwithapreviousstudy(Gambateseetal.2017),somecontractorswereoftheopinionthatWZIATshouldnotbeusedonmobileprojectsgiventheinherentneedtomovefrequently.However,someDOTpersonnelindicatedthepossibilityofusingWZIATinmobileoperationstoimproveworkersafety.Therefore,theresearchersdecidedtoincludemobileoperation‐relatedaccidentsinthecostanalysisfortheBCAbutnotfortheROI.BenefitCostAnalysis

Table10liststheinjuryseverity,injurycost,totalcosts,andtheavertedcost.TheInjurySeverityandInjuryCostareextractedfromTable9whiletotalcostisamultipleofthenumberofworkersinjuredwithineachinjuryseveritycategoryandinjurycost.Forinstance,theTotalCostofInjurySeverity1iscalculatedbymultiplyingtheinjurycost(0.029)withthenumberofworkerswithaminorinjury(91%of308or281).TheavertedcostrepresentspotentialcostassociatedwithavoidinganinjuryorfatalitywithintheworkdurationsusingacountermeasuresuchasWZIAT.

27 | P a g e   

Table10.ComparisonofWorkZoneInjuryCost(total)toPotentialAvertedCost‐

BCA

InjurySeverity(MAIS)

InjuryCost(million$)

TotalCost(million$)

AvertedCosts(million$)

1 0.029 8.128 8.1282 0.45 9.702 9.7023 1.01 1.041 1.0414 2.55 0 05 5.69 0 06 9.6 59.14 59.14

Total 78.01 78.01ExpectedYearly

Average 7.801 7.801

TheestimatedavertedcostisoptimisticsincetheunderlyingassumptionisthatimplementationofWZIATwouldpreventallinjuriesandfatalities.Duetoinsufficientdata,itwasimpossibletoestimatetheactualfractionofpreventableworkzoneintrusion‐inducedinjuriesandfatalitieswhenWZIATisapplied.Therefore,applyingareductionfactorwouldbeprudentinordertonotover‐estimatethepotentialofthetechnologies.Table11highlightstheavertedcostwhenapplyingreductionfactorsrangingbetween10%and90%.Table11:ApplicationofConservativeFactors(BCA)

InjurySeverity(MAIS)

AvertedCosts(million$)

FractionofPreventableInjuriesandFatalities(million$)10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

1 8.128 0.81 1.63 2.44 3.25 4.06 4.88 5.69 6.50 7.322 9.702 0.97 1.94 2.91 3.88 4.85 5.82 6.79 7.76 8.733 1.041 0.10 0.21 0.31 0.42 0.52 0.625 0.73 0.83 0.944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 | P a g e   

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 59.14 5.91 11.81 17.74 23.66 29.57 35.48 41.40 47.31 53.22

Total 78.01 7.80 15.60 23.40 31.20 39.01 46.81 54.60 62.41 70.20ExpectedYearlyAverage

7.801 0.78 1.560 2.34 3.12 3.90 4.68 5.46 6.24 7.02

ResultsfromthedataanalysisindicatethatWZIATtechnologyisworthwhiledependentonatechnology’spotentialtopreventbetween12.6%and34%ofintrusion‐inducedworkeraccidents(AWARE=34%,Intellicone=16.1%,andWAS=17.6%).ThesepercentagesaretheinjuryandfatalitycostequivalentofthetotalcostofpurchasingandoperatingWZIATs.ReturnonInvestment

ThepotentialcostofinjuriesandfatalitiesassociatedwithworkzoneintrusionandthemonetaryvalueoftheinjuriesandfatalitiesthatcouldbesavedbyimplementingWZIATarepresentedinTable11.UnlikeAvertedCostvaluesinTable10,AvertedCostinTable12suggestthatitisnotfeasibletoaccrueallthepotentialbenefits(costsavings)associatedwithimplementingasafetycountermeasure.Althoughthetotalcostassociatedwithworkzoneaccidentsis$7.8millionyearly,WZIAThasthepotentialtoimpactonlyapproximately51%oftheassociatedcost.ThisrestrictedextentofimpactisbecausethecontractorsinterviewedindicatedthattheyarenotwillingtoimplementWZIATinmobileoperations–whichaccountforapproximately49%ofinjuriesandfatalities.Theresearchersmultipliedthetotalnumberofaccident(308)by51%todeterminethepotentialavertedcost.Itisimportanttonotethatbyapplying49%,theresearchersassumedalinearrelationshipbetweenseverityandfrequencyofinjury–thatis,injuriesreducedacrosstheseveritylevelsequally‐whichisnotalwaysthecase.Table12.ComparisonofallWorkZoneInjuryCosts(total)toPotentialAvertedCost‐

ROI

InjurySeverity(MAIS)

InjuryCost(million$)

TotalCost(million$)

AvertedCosts(million$)

29 | P a g e   

1 0.029 8.128 4.1452 0.45 9.702 4.9483 1.01 1.041 0.5314 2.55 0 05 5.69 0 06 9.6 59.14 30.159Total 78.01 39.784ExpectedYearlyAverage

7.801 3.978

Inaddition,theresearchersappliedconservativefactorssimilartothoseappliedinTable11toaccountfortheinjuriesandfatalitieswithinthe51%non‐mobileactivities.Table13showsthataminimumavertedcostof$398,000peryearisobtainableifWZIATpreventsatleast10%ofworkzoneintrusioninjuriesandfatalities.Table13:ApplicationofConservativeFactors(ROI)

InjurySeverity(MAIS)

AvertedCosts(million$)

FractionofPreventableInjuriesandFatalities(million$)10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

1 4.15 0.42 0.83 1.24 1.66 2.07 2.487 2.90 3.32 3.732 4.95 0.5 0.99 1.49 1.98 2.47 2.969 3.46 3.96 4.453 0.53 0.05 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.27 0.319 0.37 0.42 0.484 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 30.16 3.02 6.03 9.05 12.06 15.08 18.10 21.1 24.13 27.14

Total 39.79 3.98 7.96 11.9 15.91 19.89 23.87 27.85 31.83 35.81ExpectedYearlyAverage

3.978 0.40 0.8 1.19 1.59 1.99 2.39 2.78 3.18 3.58

30 | P a g e   

Ideally,theinjurycostmodelforcalculatingtheROIshouldbebasedoneachcompany’ssafetyrecord,thatis,informationonworkerfatality,losttimeinjury,andinjurywithoutlosttime.Thisinformationwasnotprovidedbythecontractorsinterviewedaspartofthisstudy.Therefore,theresearchersutilizedthecomprehensiveCaltransaccidentdata.Tomaintainunitconsistency,contractorsinterviewedwereaskedfortheapproximateamountofmilespavedeveryyear.Theaverageresponsefromthreecontractorswasapproximately15milesperyear.Basedonthedataanalysis,WZIATwouldbeusefultocontractorsifthetechnologiesprevent2%‐3%ofinjuriesandfatalitiescausedbyintrudingvehicles.AlthoughtheROIcouldhaveasignificantimpactontheadoptionofaWZIAT,ifatechnologyispartofastate’sstipulatedtrafficcontrolplan,thecontractorisrequiredtousethetechnologyregardlessofROI.

Task5:Evaluateproposedmodelsandprotocols

Toassessthefactorsthatinfluenceaworker’sintentiontoadoptWZIAT,arangeof2‐4variableswereusedtomeasureeachconstruct(perceivedeaseofuse,socialnorm,etc.).Thevariableswereselectedfrompastliteratureandadaptedtofittheresearchobjective.Utilizingvariablesfrompreviousstudiesensuredthatfaceandinternalvalidityweremaintained.Apathanalysis–asubsetofstructuralequationmodeling(SEM)‐usingAMOS25Graphics(AMOS25.02017)wasconductedtoanalyzethecorrelationsbetweeneachconstructandaworker’sintentiontoadoptWZIAT.ToconductSEM,asampletoconstructvariableratioofatleast10:1isrequired.Thatis,foreveryvariabletested,atleast10casesorrespondentsarerequired.Intotal,142respondents’(contractor=53,DOT=69,consultants=20)providedfeedbackusedforthisanalysisleadingtoa14:1ratio(10variables).First,areliabilitytestwasconductedtoverifydataconsistency.ResultsfromtheCronbachalphatestshowedthatthesurveywasgenerallyreliable(minimumα=0.65).Next,fourprimaryhypotheseswereproposedbasedonpastresearchandtheresearcher’sexperience:

31 | P a g e   

H1=Perceivedeaseofuse(PEU)ofWZIATwillpositivelyaffectbehavioralintention(BI)toadoptWZIAT

H2=Perceivedusefulness(PU)ofWZIATwillpositivelyaffectbehavioralintentiontoadoptWZIATadoptionintention

H3=Socialnorm(SN)willpositivelyaffectbehavioralintentiontoadoptWZIAT H4=PerceivedeaseofuseofWZIATwillpositivelyaffectperceivedusefulness

AsseeninFigure9,allfourprimaryhypothesesweresupported.ThepathanalysisresultssuggestthatincreasedPUofWZIATincreaseswithanend‐user’sBItoacceptWZIAT(γ=0.41).Inthiscase,PUcomprisesfactorssuchasthetechnology’sabilitytoprovideadequatesafetycoverage,adequatealerts,etc.PEU‐whichrepresentsthelevelofeaseassociatedwithimplementingthetechnology‐alsoshowedapositiverelationshipwithBItoacceptatechnology(γ=0.23).Thisrelationshipimpliesthatworkers’BItoacceptWZIATisassociatedwithincreasedperceivedeaseofuse.SocialnormalsoshowedapositivecorrelationwithbehavioralintentiontoadoptWZIAT(γ=0.34).ThePEUofWZIATalsocorrelatedpositivelywithPU,suggestingthatPEUplaysasignificantroleonhowworkersperceivetheusefulnessofWZIAT(γ=0.45).Thisresultisconsistentwiththerelativelyhighratingoffactorsassociatedwithease(e.g.,easytomaintain,easeofdeployment/retrieval,andeasytomovearound)seeninAppendix.Together,PEU,PU,andSNexplain54%ofthevarianceinanindividual’sBItoacceptWZIAT.PEUexplains21%ofthevarianceinPU.

32 | P a g e   

Figure9:ResultsofHypothesisTesting

Theimplicationsoftheresultsareasfollows: WorkersmustperceivethatusingWZIATisnotcomplicatedandwillnotrequire

extensivelearning.WZIATsthatareeasytoinstall,retrieve,move,andmaintainwilllikelybeacceptedbeforeWZIATsthataremorecomplex.

GiventhattheprimarycostdriverofusingWZIATonprojectsisthelaborcostassociatedwithmoving,retrieve,andmaintainingWZIATs,technologiesthatareeasiertousewillsignificantlyimprovethePEUandincreasetheBCAtherebyincreasingtheoddsofadoption.

SupervisorsandmanagersplayanimportantroleindrivingtheacceptanceofWZIAT(throughSN).

InordertoachievehighbehavioralintentiontoacceptWZIAT,itisessentialthePEU,PU,andSNarehigh.

DevelopandtestABMmodel

Agent‐BasedModeling(ABM)isaheterogeneoussimulationmethodusedtopredictagroupleveloutputbyaggregatingindividualagentreactionsandinteractions(Hamiltonetal.2009;RandandRust2011).Givenitsbottom‐upapproachtopredictingtheoutcome,itisconsideredagoodtheoreticaltoolforforecastingandunderstandingtheimpactofindividualdifferencesongroupleveloutcomesinsocialscienceandmarketingresearch.

33 | P a g e   

Oneobjectiveofthecurrentstudywastoinvestigatethepossibilityofcombiningadiffusionsimulationmethod‐agent‐basedmodelinthiscase‐andinformationobtainedfromatechnologyacceptancemodel.Responsesreceivedfromtheinterviewsandsurveyswereusedtocreateconstraintsandboundariesforthesimulations.TodeveloptheABM,itisessentialtodefinethephasesinadoption.AccordingtoInnovationDiffusiontheory,apopulationcanbedividedintothreegroupwhenassessingtechnologyadoptionwithinapopulation:non‐adopters,potentialadopters,andadopters(Leeetal.,2011).Individualswhodonotconsideranewtechnologyaretermednon‐adopterswhilepotentialadoptersareindividualswhoconsidertheadoptionofanewtechnology.Thepresentstudyfollowsasimilarpremise.Technologyadoptioncouldoccuratanorganizationalleveland/orindividuallevel.Technologyadoptionintheconstructionindustryisconsideredmosteffectivewhenitoriginatesandexemplifiesatop‐downdynamic(topmanagementinitiatestheadoptionprocedure)(MitropoulosandTatum2000).Incontrast,successfultechnologyacceptance,thatis,theactualuseofthetechnology,isanemergentphenomenon–similartoabottom‐upapproach.Forthepresentagent‐basedmodel,threeprimaryconstructs–SN,PU,andPEU–determinetheintentionofanend‐usertomovefromanon‐adoptertoapotentialadopter.Thisfactorscouldbeextendedtoincludeorganizationaldemographicinformationsuchascompanysize(employeesandrevenue),companytype(sub‐contractorvs.generalcontractor),andindividualdemographicinformationsuchasage,experience,gender,etc.Atransitionfromnon‐adoptertopotentialadopterisachievedwhenthepotentialconstructvalueofanagentisgreaterthanorequaltoauser‐definedconstructthreshold.Thisthreshold–thecoefficient‐indicatesameasureofsensitivity.Consistentwithfindingsinthepresentstudy,AffordabilityTheory,andpreviousstudies(Gambateseetal.2017;Rasoulkhanietal.2017;Lynneetal.1995),costofimplementingthetechnologyiscomputedastheprimaryfactorthatinfluencesanagent(andorganization)toadoptaworkzonesafetytechnology(seeTable14).Affordabilityinthecontextofthepresentstudyisdefinedasthevalueofthetechnologyrelativetoitscost(ROIandBCA).Figure10typifiesthisrelationshipbetweennon‐adopter,potentialadopter,andadopter.The

34 | P a g e   

adoptedmodelingprocessissimilartothoseappliedinpastresearch(Rasoulkhanietal.2017).

Figure10:Simulationtheoreticalframework

Tables14and15listthefactorsrequiredtodevelopandoperationalizetheagent‐basedmodel.ThecoefficientslistedinTable14areextractedfromthestructuralequationmodelingconductedintheprevioussectionwhilethecostinformationinTable15isextractedfromfindingsfromthefinancialanalysis.Table14:Coefficientandvalueofsimulationconstructs

Construct Value Coefficients

Perceivedusefulness IfYes=1,ifNo=0 0.41Perceivedeaseofuse IfYes=1,ifNo=0 0.23Subjectivenorm IfYes=1,ifNo=0 0.34Table15:WZIATCostSummary

Technology Costpermile Benefitcostanalysis* Returnoninvestment*

AWARE $5,776.00 0.58 136%Intellicone $7,382.00 1.24 106%

WAS $8,052.00 1.14 98%*assumingeachtechnologycanprevent20%ofinjuriesandfatalitiesItisimportanttonotethatalthoughTable15suggeststhatAWAREhasanegativeBCA,AWAREwouldlikelypreventmorethan20%ofaccidentsandfatalitiescausedbyworkzoneintrusiongivenitsadvancedtechnologyandeaseofimplementation.Twentypercent

35 | P a g e   

wasselectedintheabsenceofempiricaldataandinordertocreatearangeofvaluesforthecomputationalmodel.AnyLogic8.0wasutilizedtodevelopacomputationalmodelforsimulatingthechangeinworker’sbehavior.Inthismodel,onlyoneclassofagent–DOTlevel‐isincorporated.Thisclassofagentrepresentsthefirststepintheadoptionprocess(DOT‐>constructioncompany‐>constructionworkers).Ideally,themodelshouldreflectmultipleclassesofagentstomimicthecomplexnatureoftechnologyadoptiononhighwayconstruction.However,theapproachsufficesgiventheexploratorynatureofthepresentstudy.Futurestudyshouldmodeltheinteractionsbetweenagentsusingmorecomplexconstraintsandboundaries.Intotal,50agents,representingeachstateDOTwereutilizedintheadoptionmodel.AstateDOTwouldlikelyadoptaWZIATifthestateDOTbelievestheWZIATisuseful,easytouse,orisusedbyotherstates.Todeterminethethresholdthattriggersachangeofstate(fromnon‐adopter‐>potentialadopter‐>adopter),theregressioncoefficientsfromtheSEMwereutilized.Theseconstructswereparameterizedusingstochasticcomputationandusedwithinthesimulationasprobabilisticfactorsfordeterminingbehavior.Theformulabelowshowsthemathematicalexpressionofthemodel:

Br1=w1(PUr)+w2(PEUr)+w3(SNr)Br2=w4(BCA)

WhereBr1andBr2referstothepotentialadoptionandadoptionbehaviorrespectively.Wnrepresentstheregressioncoefficientforeachconstruct.Thesumofthevaluesinequation1couldrangefrom0to1withnumbersbelow0.5consideredlowandnumbersabove0.5consideredhigh.Ifthesumoftheconstructexceeds0.5,theagentinquestionmovesintothenextstate(fromnon‐adoptertopotentialadopter).Aprobabilitythresholdof0.5wasselectedsimilartopreviousstudies(Scalcoetal,2017).Thesameprocessappliestotransitioningfrompotentialadoptertoadopter.BCAwasselectedasthepreferredfinancialmetricsincetheclassofagentinquestionistheDOT.GiventhatinvestmentswithBCAresultsabove1areconsideredpositiveinvestments,theresearcherssetatransitionthresholdof1andarangeof0.5to1.5.

36 | P a g e   

TheredareainFigure11representsnon‐adopterwhileyellowandgreenrepresentspotentialadoptersandadopters.ThesimulationstartdateisMay2018anditterminatesinJanuary2025–approximately7yearsintotal.Thesimulationbeginswithall50stateDOTsinanon‐adopterstate.ThenumberofDOTsinthenon‐adoptersstatereducedbyabout78%bytheendofthesimulationin2025.Withinasimilartimeframe,19stateDOTsadoptedWZIAT.

Figure11:WZIATdiffusionbetween2018‐2025withinStateDOTs

Figure12depictstherateofadoptionwhentheregressioncoefficientofPU,PEU,andSNofthetechnologiesisincreasedby15%(cumulativecoefficient).Thisincreaseresultedtoahigherrateofadoptionbyyear2025(approximately75%ofDOTsutilizingWZAIT).TheresultsindicatesthatmorestateDOTswilladoptWZIATiftheybelievethatWZIATismoreusefulintermofitseffectiveness,durability;andiseasiertoimplement,retrieve,andmaintain.Also,resultsfromthemodelindicatesthatsocialinfluencessuchcouldbeakeyfactorfordiffusiontooccur.Forinstance,astateDOTwouldbeinfluencedbythedecisionofanotherstateDOTwithincloseproximitytoadoptWZIAT.

37 | P a g e   

Figure12:IncreaseddiffusionofWZIAT.

7. Changes/problemsthatresultedindeviationfromthemethodsWhileexecutingthestudy,theresearchersencountereddifficultiesgeneratingresponsesfromworkzonesafetytechnologymanufacturersandhighwayconstructioncontractorswhichimpactsthegeneralizabilityofthestudyfindings.Althoughtheoreticallysound,thedevelopmentofanacceptancemodelusingABMrequiresadditionalparametersandboundariestoensurethatallpotentialfactorsareaccountedfor.ItisimportanttonotethatalthoughTPBandTAMwerecombinedtodevelopanacceptancemodelforWZIAT,extendingthetheoriestoincludemodelssuchastask‐technologyfit(TTF)andtheoryofreasonedaction(TRA)couldhelpidentifymoreconstructsthathaveanimpactontheacceptanceofworkzonetechnologiessuchasWZIAT.Developingthefinancialanalysisinvolvedmakingsomeassumptionsforinformationthatwereunobtainable.These

38 | P a g e   

assumptionswereclearlystatedandshouldbeconsideredwhengeneralizingtheresultsofthisstudy.

8. Listofpresentations/publicationsFindingsfromthisstudywillbepublishedinacademicjournalsandpresentedinconferences,workshops,and/orseminars.1. Nnaji, C., Gambatese, J., and Eseonu, C. (2017). “Theoretical Framework for Improving

Adoption of Safety Technology in Construction Industry.” 2018 Construction ResearchCongress(CRC2018),NewOrleans,LA.[AcceptedonOctober17,2017]

2. Nnaji,C.,Lee,H.,andGambatese,J.(2017).“Canworkzoneintrusion‐inducedinjuriesandfatalitiesbereducedefficiently?”ProfessionalSafety,ASSE[Acceptance,Jan.20,2018]

3. Nnaji,C.,Gambatese, J., Lee,H.W., andZhang,F. (2017). “Assessing the ImpactofWorkZone Safety Technology: A Systematic Review.” Accident and Analysis and PreventionJournal.[SubmittedtothejournalonSeptember19,2017]

9. DisseminationplanTheresearchershavesubmittedandpublishedsectionsofthisstudyinacademicjournalsandconferenceproceedings.Theresearchersalsoplantosubmitacomprehensivejournalpaperfromthestudytoatopacademicjournal.

10. ConclusionsWorkerswithinhighwayworkzonesareanat‐riskpopulationgiventheinherentlyriskynatureoftheirjobs.Thecurrentstudyassessedtheroletechnologyplaysinimprovingworkersafetyandprovidesinformationthatshouldeasetheprocessofadoptingandimplementingtechnologyonhighwayprojects.Currenttechnologiesusedinworkzonesafetymanagementplayanessentialroleinimprovingworkersafetythroughreducingmotoristspeed,alertingequipmentdriversofpotentialcollisionwithworkers,andinformingworkersofanintrudingvehicle.Thefindingsfromthepresentstudyprovideessentialinformationsuchasthekeypredictorsofsafetytechnology,financialanalysis,andprimaryfactorsthataffectauser’sintentionto

39 | P a g e   

acceptaWZIATtoconstructionpractitionersinvolvedintechnologyadoptiondecision‐making.Forinstance,thepresentstudyillustratesthesevereimpactthatlaborcosthasontheoveralldailycostofutilizingWZIAT.ReducingthetimeworkersareinvolvedinmanagingaWZIATvastlyreducesthecostassociatedwithimplementingWZIAT.Utilizingthisinformation,stakeholderscanarriveatacongruentdecisionregardingWZIATadoptionthatissupportedbyempiricaldataandwhichinturnimprovestheoutcome–inthiscase,areductionininjuriesandfatalitiesinhighwayconstructionworkzones.

11. FutureResearchOpportunitiesProvidedbelowarerecommendationsforfutureresearchbasedonfindingsfromthecurrentstudy:

Thedevelopmentofadaptablestandardtoolsthathelpbridgetheknowledgegapbetweenmanufacturersandend‐usersshouldbeencouraged

Thereisaneedforthedevelopmentofarobustmodelforpredictingpotentialadoptionoftechnology

MonteCarlosimulationshouldbeappliedtothefinancialanalysistohelpnormalizesomeassumptions

Workforcedevelopmenttrainingisneededforworkerstohelpimproveintegrationofsafetytechnologywithinconstructionoperations

40 | P a g e   

12. ReferencesAAM(2017).“ISS,NISSandMAISMappingwithAAAM’sICDISSMap.”Associationforthe

AdvancementofAutomotiveMedicine.(Jan.05,2018)

AAAM(2015).“Overview.”AssociationfortheAdvancementofAutomotiveMedicine

AASHTO(2010).“UserandNon‐UserBenefitAnalysisforHighways.”AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials.(Jan.21,2017)

Arico,M.C.,andRavani,B.(2008).AdvancedHighwayMaintenanceandConstructionTechnologyResearchCenter.

Agent,K.,andHibbs,J.(1996).“EvaluationofSHRPWorkZoneSafetyDevices”.KentuckyTransportationCenterResearchReport.381.KTC‐96‐30

Bello,D.(2009).“StateofWorkZoneSafety.”(Aug.21,2017)

Boardman,A.Greenberg,D.,Vining,A.,andWeimer,D.(2001).“Cost‐BenefitAnalysis:ConceptsandPractice.”seconded.PrenticeHall.

BLS(2017).“Fataloccupationalinjuriescountsandratesbyselectedindustries,2015‐16.”(Nov.11,2017)

Brown,H.,Sun,C.,andCope,T.(2015).“Evaluationofmobileworkzonealarmsystems.”TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,(2485),42‐50.

Chuttur,M.Y.(2009).“Overviewofthetechnologyacceptancemodel:Origins,developmentsandfuturedirections.”WorkingPapersonInformationSystems,9(37),9‐37.

41 | P a g e   

CPWR(2015).StrengtheningJobsiteSafetyClimatebyUsingandImprovingLeadingIndicators.TheCenterforConstructionResearchandTraining.https://www.cpwr.com/safety‐culture/strengthening‐jobsite‐safety‐climate>(Jan.12,2017)

Davis,F.D.(1989).“Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnology.”MISquarterly,319‐340.

Edara,P.,Sun,C.,andRobertson,A.(2013).“EffectivenessofWorkZoneIntelligentTransportationSystems.”ReportNo.InTransProject,06‐277.

ELWC(2015).“SonoBlaster–WorkZoneSafety.”(Oct.14,2015).

FederalHighwayAdministration(2017).“FactsandStatistics–WorkZoneSafety.”.(Dec.17,2017).

Fyrie,P.(2016).“WorkZoneIntrusionAlarmsforHighwayWorkers.”AHMCTResearchCenter.

42 | P a g e   

Hamilton,D.J.,Nuttall,W.J.,&Roques,F.A.(2009).Agentbasedsimulationoftechnologyadoption(No.0923).EPRGWorkingPaperSeries.

HighwayResourceSolution.(2015).“Intellicone.”(Sept.02,2015).

Huebschman,C.R.,C.Garcia,D.M.Bullock,andD.M.Abraham.(2003).“ConstructionWorkZoneSafety.”PublicationFHWA/IN/JTRP‐2002/34.JointTransportationResearchProgram,IndianaDepartmentofTransportationandPurdueUniversity,WestLafayette,Indiana.https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284313166

Hong,Y.,Chan,D.W.,Chan,A.P.,andYeung,J.F.(2011).“Criticalanalysisofpartneringresearchtrendinconstructionjournals.”Journalofmanagementinengineering,28(2),82‐95.

InfrastructureTrainingandSafetyInstitute(ITSI)(2011).“ReferenceGuidetoWorkZoneTrafficControl”(March21,2018)

Lee,Y.,Hsieh,Y.andHsu,C(2011).“AddingInnovationDiffusionTheorytotheTechnologyAcceptanceModel :SupportingEmployees’IntentionstouseE‐LearningSystems.”JournalofEducationalTechnologyandSociety,14(4)

Mathieson,K.(1991).“Predictinguserintentions:comparingthetechnologyacceptancemodelwiththetheoryofplannedbehavior.”Informationsystemsresearch,2(3),173‐191.

Mathieson,K.,Peacock,E.,andChin,W.W.(2001).“Extendingthetechnologyacceptancemodel:theinfluenceofperceiveduserresources.”ACMSIGMISDatabase:theDATABASEforAdvancesinInformationSystems,32(3),86‐112.

Marks,E.,Vereen,S.,andAwolusi,I.(2017).“ActiveWorkZoneSafetyUsingEmergingTechnologies2017”(No.UTCAReportNumber15412).

43 | P a g e   

Marks,E.,andTeizer,J.(2013).“Methodfortestingproximitydetectionandalerttechnologyforsafeconstructionequipmentoperation.”ConstructionManagementandEconomics,31(6),636‐646.

Mitropoulos,P.,andTatum,C.(2000).“Forcesdrivingadoptionofnewinformationtechnologies.”Journalofconstructionengineeringandmanagement,126(5),340‐348.

Moren(2016).GuidanceonTreatmentofEconomicValueofaStatisticalLife(VSL)inU.S.DepartmentofTransportationAnalysis–2016Adjustment.(Nov15,2017)

Novosel,C.(2014).“EvaluationofAdvancedSafetyPerimeterSystemsforKansasTemporaryWorkZones.”PhDdiss.,UniversityofKansas.

Park,J.,Yang,X.,Cho,Y.K.,andSeo,J.(2017).“Improvingdynamicproximitysensingandprocessingforsmartwork‐zonesafety.”AutomationinConstruction,84,111‐120.

Pegula,S.(2013).“Ananalysisoffataloccupationalinjuriesatroadconstructionsites,2003–2010.”TheBureauofLaborStatistics.Availableat(Sept.16,2017)

Park,J.,Marks,E.,Cho,Y.K.,andSuryanto,W.(2015).“Performancetestofwirelesstechnologiesforpersonnelandequipmentproximitysensinginworkzones.”JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,142(1),04015049.

Park,J.,Yang,X.,Cho,Y.K.,andSeo,J.(2017).“Improvingdynamicproximitysensingandprocessingforsmartwork‐zonesafety.”AutomationinConstruction,84,111‐120.

Rankin,J.H.,andLuther,R.(2006).“Theinnovationprocess:adoptionofinformationandcommunicationtechnologyfortheconstructionindustry.”CanadianJournalofCivilEngineering,33(12),1538‐1546.

44 | P a g e   

Rand,W.,andRust,R.T.(2011).“Agent‐basedmodelinginmarketing:Guidelinesforrigor”.InternationalJournalofResearchinMarketing,28(3),181‐193.

Rasoulkhani,K.,Logasa,B.,Reyes,M.P.,andMostafavi,A.(2017).“Agent‐basedmodelingframeworkforsimulationofcomplexadaptivemechanismsunderlyinghouseholdwaterconservationtechnologyadoption.”InSimulationConference(WSC),2017Winter(pp.1109‐1120).IEEE.

Sant(2014).“Work‐ZoneSafety:IntrusionAlert.”RoadandBridges.(June09,2016)

Schwatka,N.V.,andRosecrance,J.C.(2016).“Safetyclimateandsafetybehaviorsintheconstructionindustry:Theimportanceofco‐workerscommitmenttosafety.”Work,54(2),401‐413.

Sun,C.,Edara,P.P.,Hou,Y.,Robertson,A.,andSmith,D.(2011).“Cost‐BenefitAnalysisofSequentialWarningLightsinNighttimeWorkZoneTapers.”UniversityofMissouri,ReporttotheSmartWorkZoneDeploymentInitiative.

Teizer,J.,Allread,B.,Fullerton,C.,andHinze,J.(2010).“Autonomouspro‐activereal‐timeconstructionworkerandequipmentoperatorproximitysafetyalertsystem.”AutomationinConstruction,19(5),630‐640.

Theiss,L.,Miles,J.,Ullman,G.,andMaxwell,S.(2014).“PhotometricEvaluationofSteady‐BurnWarningLightsinWorkZones”.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,(2458),88‐95.

Theiss,L.,Pratt,M.,Ullman,G.,andMaxwell,S.(2014).“EvaluationofCost‐EffectivenessofSteady‐BurnWarningLightsinWorkZones.”TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,(2458),65‐73.

Ullman,G.,andIragavarapu,V.(2014).“AnalysisofExpectedCrashReductionBenefitsandCostsofTruck‐MountedAttenuatorUseinWorkZones.”TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,(2458),74‐77.

45 | P a g e   

Venkatesh,V.,Speier,C.,andMorris,M.G.(2002).“Useracceptanceenablersinindividualdecisionmakingabouttechnology:Towardanintegratedmodel.”Decisionsciences,33(2),297‐316.

Venkatesh,V.,andDavis,F.D.(1996).“Amodeloftheantecedentsofperceivedeaseofuse:Developmentandtest.”Decisionsciences,27(3),451‐481.

Wang,M.,Schrock,S.,Bai,Y.,andRescot,R.(2011).“Evaluationofinnovativetrafficsafetydevicesatshort‐termworkzones.”ReportK‐TRAN:KU‐09‐5,TheUniversityofKansas.

Wong,J.M.,Arico,M.C.,andRavani,B.(2011).“Factorsinfluencinginjuryseveritytohighwayworkersinworkzoneintrusionaccidents.”Trafficinjuryprevention,12(1),31‐38.

Yi,W.,andChan,A.P.(2013).“Criticalreviewoflaborproductivityresearchinconstructionjournals.”JournalofManagementinEngineering,30(2),214‐225.

Zhang,F.,andGambatese,J.(2017).“HighwayConstructionWork‐ZoneSafety:EffectivenessofTraffic‐ControlDevices.”PracticePeriodicalonStructuralDesignandConstruction,22(4),04017010.

13. AppendixAppendixA:Survey

ReducingHighwayConstructionFatalitiesthroughImprovedAdoptionofSafety

TechnologiesDearParticipant,Wewouldliketothankyoufortakingthetimetoparticipateinthissurveyentitled“ReducingHighwayConstructionFatalitiesthroughImprovedAdoptionofSafetyTechnologies."

46 | P a g e   

Thepurposeofthisstudyistodevelopatoolthatimprovestheadoptionanddiffusionofsafetyinnovationsintheconstructionindustry.Ifyouchoosetotakepartinthissurvey,youwillbeaskedtoprovidethefollowinginformation:

Perceptiononwhatfactorsinfluencestheacceptanceofworkzonesafetytechnologies· Perceptionontheimpactofworkzonesafetytechnologies· Personalattributessuchastitle,typeofcompany/organization,yearsofexperience,etc.

Thesurveyisexpectedtotakeapproximately15minutestocomplete.Yourresponsestothissurveyandpersonalinformationprovidedwillbekeptconfidential,usedonlyforacademicpurposesrelatedtothestudy,andwillnotbedistributedtothepublic.Allidentifyinginformationconnectingrespondentstotheirresponseswillberemovedaspartofthedatacollectionprocess.Publicationsgeneratedfromtheresearchstudywillnotincludeanyinformationthatcanbeusedtoidentifyrespondents.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthesurvey,pleasecontacttheresearcherslistedbelow.Ifyouhavequestionsaboutyourrightsorwelfareasasurveyparticipant,pleasecontacttheOregonStateUniversityInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB)Officeat541‐737‐8008,orbyemailatIRB@oregonstate.edu.ResearchTeam:Dr.ChinweikeEseonu(PrincipalInvestigator),Mechanical,IndustrialandManufacturingEngineering,OregonStateUniversity,204RogersHall,Corvallis,OR97331;Cell‐phone:541‐737‐0024;E‐mail:chinweike.eseonu@oregonstate.eduJohnGambatese,CivilandConstructionEngineering,OregonStateUniversity,101KearneyHall,Corvallis,OR97331;Cell‐phone:(541)737‐8913;E‐mail:john.gambatese@oregonstate.eduChukwumaNnaji,CivilandConstructionEngineering,OregonStateUniversity,101KearneyHall,Corvallis,OR97331;Cell‐phone:(541)908‐0475;E‐mail:nnajic@oregonstate.eduAcknowledgement:Bycontinuingthesurvey,Ihavereadtheabovedescriptionoftheresearch.IfIhadquestionsorwouldlikeadditionalinformation,Icontactedtheresearchersandhadallofmyquestionsansweredtomysatisfaction.Iagreetovoluntarily

47 | P a g e   

participateinthisresearch.Byansweringthesurveyquestionsandrespondingtothissurvey,IaffirmthatIhavereadtheaboveinformation,agreetoparticipateintheresearch,andamatleast18yearsofageorolder.

SurveyQuestionsDemographicInformation

Q1Pleaseselectyourrole OwnerAgency(e.g.OregonDOT,etc.)(1) GeneralContractor(2) Sub‐Contractor(3) Consultant(6) EquipmentManufacturer(7) EquipmentSupplier(4) Student(8) Other(5)____________________Q2Whatindustrydoyou(orhaveyou)workedin?Selectallthatapply. HeavyCivil(1) MarineConstruction(2) VerticalConstruction(ResidentialandCommercial)(3) IndustrialConstruction(4) Other(5)____________________Q3Selectthejobtitlethatbestdescribeswhatyoudo. ProjectManager(1) ProjectEngineer(2) TrafficControlDesigner(3) SafetyOfficer(4) SafetyEquipmentSupplier(5) RoadMaintenanceCrew(6) TrafficControlConsultant(9) TrafficControlCrew(7) Other(8)____________________

48 | P a g e   

Q4.Whatistheapproximateannualrevenueofyourcompany?Q5.Whatisthesizeofyourcompany?(Approximatenumberofemployees)Q6.Whichsectorwouldyoubestdescribemostofyourcompany'sprojects?(Selectallthatapply) Residential(1) Commercial(2) HeavyCivil(3) Energy(4) Industrial(5) Marine(6)Q7Howmanyyearsofexperiencedoyouhaveintheconstructionindustry? Lessthan1year(1) 1‐5years(2) 5‐10years(3) 10‐20years(4) Morethan20years(5)Thequestionsinthenextsectionfocusonfactorsthatcouldimpacttheuseofaworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology.Aworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology(WZIAT)isatypeofsafetysystemusedinaroadwayworkzonetoalertfieldworkersandsecuretimeforthemtoescapewhenerrantvehiclesintrudeintotheworkzone.PleaseanswerthefollowingquestionswiththeWZIATinmind.Q8Areyoufamiliarwithworkzoneintrusionalerttechnology? Definitelyyes(1) Probablyyes(2) Probablynot(3) Definitelynot(4)Q9HowimportantarethefollowingattributestoyourdecisiontoadoptWZIAT?

49 | P a g e   

NotImportant

(1)

SlightlyImportant

(2)

Neutral(3) Important(4)

VeryImportant

(5)

EaseofDeployment/Retrieval(1)

Easytomovethetechnologyaround(2)

UserFriendliness(learningcurve)(3)

LittleornoImpactonTrafficFlowandControlwithinworkzone(4)

Limitsworkerexposure(duringdeployment/retrievaloftechnology)(5)

Easytostore(6)

Resistancetoenvironmentalandphysicalimpact(7)

Reusable(8)

EasytoMaintain(9)

ExtendedbatteryLife(reliability)(10)

Costoflaborandequipment(11)

Availabilityofequipmentinthemarket(12)

Costofreplacingparts/maintenance(13)

ImpactofwarningalertondriverorDrivercomprehensionofvisualand

audiowarning(14)

50 | P a g e   

Workercomprehensionofwarningsignal(conspicuity,qualityofalarm)

(15)

Multiplewarningalertsources(audio,visual,haptic/vibratory)(16)

Adequatecoveragedistance(Sensor/light/sound/haptic)(17)

Limitedphysicalimpactonvehicle(collisionwithtechnology)(18)

Driveradequatelycomprehendsvisualandaudiowarning(19)

Fewornofalsenegativeandpositivealarm(20)

Lessdependenceonexistinginfrastructure(21)

51 | P a g e   

Q10HowdoesWZIATimpactworkers? Strongly

disagree/unlikely(1)

Somewhatdisagree/unlikely(2)

Neitheragree/likenordisagree/unlikely(3)

Somewhatagree/likely(4)

Stronglyagree/likely(5)

ImplementingWZIATenablesworkerstobemoreproductive(1)

UsingWZIATimprovesworkerssafety(2)

UsingWZIATimprovesworkquality(3)

WZIATiseasytouse(4)

WZIATwouldhaveasteeplearningcurve(5)

WorkerswillfindWZIATeasytouse(6)

PeoplewhoareimportanttomewouldthinkIshoulduseWZIAT(7)

IwilluseWZIATbecausepeoplewhoinfluencemybehavior(manager,etc.)

wouldwantmetouseit(8)

IwillencouragetheuseofWZIAT(9)

IwilllikelyincorporateWZIATintoyourworkoperations(ifitwasmy

decisiontomake)(10)

IwillrecommendtheuseofWZIATtomyboss(11)

52 | P a g e   

Thequestionsinthenextsectionfocusonsafetyclimateandculture.“Safetyclimate”isdefinedas“thevalues,attitudes,motivations,andknowledgethataffecttheextenttowhichsafetyisemphasizedovercompetinggoalsindecisionsandbehaviors.”(Barnes2009)Pleasekindlyindicatehowyouperceiveyourorganization'sattitudetowardsworkersafetymanagement.Q11Inmycompany,management… Doesnotparticipateinsafetyaudits.(1) Onlyparticipateinsafetyauditsinresponsetoaworkerinjuryoradversesafetyevent.(2) Participateinsafetyauditsonlywhenrequired.(3) Initiateandactivelyparticipateininternalsafetyaudits.(4) Activelyparticipateininternalsafetyauditsandusetheinformationformanagement

performanceevaluation.(5)Q12Inmycompany,… Thereisnoformalsafetymanagementsystem;safetytrendsarenotanalyzed.(1) Thesafetymanagementsystemisreviewedandsafetytrendsareonlyanalyzedinresponseto

workerinjuryoranadversesafetyevent.(2) Thesafetymanagementsystemisreviewedandsafetytrendsareanalyzedfromtimetotime.

(3) Thesafetymanagementsystemisreviewedandsafetytrendsareanalyzedannuallytoensure

effectivenessandrelevance.(4) Thesafetymanagementsystemisreviewedandsafetytrendsareanalyzedbi‐annuallyto

ensureeffectivenessandrelevance.(5)

53 | P a g e   

Q13Inmycompany,… Theprimaryfocusisonincreasingproductivityandreducingcosts.Employeesarerewarded

fortakingshortcutstomeetproductiongoals.(1) Whenaprojectfallsbehindschedule,productionbecomesvaluedmorethansafety.(2) Aslongasminimumsafetyrequirementsarebeingmet,productionandcostreductionarethe

mainprioritiesofaproject.(3) Forthemostpart,safetyisnotcompromisedforthesakeofproductivity.Projectsare

completedassafelyaspossible.(4) Safetyisnevercompromisedforproductivity,schedule,orcost.Safetytrulycomesfirst.(5)Q14Inmycompany,management… Doesnotinvestinsafetyprogramdevelopmentorprovideadequateresourcestoconductwork

safely.(1) Onlyinvestsinsafetyprogramdevelopmentanddevotesminimalresourcestosafetyactivities

afteranaccidentoranadverseeventhasoccurred.(2) Participatesinsafetyprogramdevelopmentandallocatesresourcestotheextentthatitis

requiredbyregulatoryauthoritiesortheowner.(3) Providesadequateresourcestoensureasafeworkingenvironment.Developsasafetyprogram

thatissharedwithallemployees.(4) Provideson‐goingfinancialsupportforongoingdevelopmentofsafetypolicies,programs,and

processes.Investsinsystemsandprocessestocontinuallyimprovethejobsitesafetyclimate.(5)

54 | P a g e   

Q15Inmycompany,… Therearenosafetyrelatedmetricsincludedinmanagerorsupervisors’performance

evaluations.(1) Theonlysafetymetricusedinmanagersandsupervisors’evaluationsisthenumberofworker

injuries,andoftenthatisignored.(2) Managersandsupervisorsareheldaccountableformeetingtheminimumrequiredsafety

standards;but,poorprojectsafetyperformancecarriesfewrealconsequences.(3) Managersandsupervisorsareprimarilyheldaccountableforlaggingsafetyindicators(e.g.,

RecordableInjuryRate),butsomeleadingindicators(e.g.,safetyclimatemetrics)havebeenincluded.(4)

Managersandsupervisorsareheldaccountableforleading(e.g.,safetyclimatemetrics)andlaggingsafetyindicators.Proactivesafetyleadershipisacriticalcomponentoftheirevaluationandpromotion.(5)

Q16Inmycompany,safetyexpectations,roles,andresponsibilities…

Arenotidentifiedorarticulatedtoindividualsworkingintheworkplace.(1) Areonlyclarifiedafteranadversesafetyevent.(2) AreonlysettomeetOSHArequirements.(3) Arefrequently,clearly,andconsistentlycommunicatedtoemployees.(4) Arediscussedwithemployeesacrosstheentirecompany,withsub‐contractors,and

owners;theyarereinforcedonadailybasis.(5)

55 | P a g e   

Q17Inmycompany,… Supervisorshavenosupervisorytrainingandhavelittleunderstandingorknowledgeof

regulatoryrequirements.(1) Afteranincidentoccursorregulatoryactionistaken,thereisadiscussionamonghigherlevel

managementabouttheimportanceofsupervisoryleadership.(2) SupervisorstakeOSHA30‐hourtrainingandthusarefamiliarwithOSHAregulationsbutthey

havelittleornoleadershiptraining.(3) Supervisorsaretrainedonregulatoryguidelinesandleadership.(4) Supervisorsareprovidedwithandrequiredtotakeleadershiptrainingthatincludestopics

suchas:howtocommunicatewith,andmotivateteammembers;howtoconductpre‐planningmeetings;andhowtoinspirecrewmemberstoalsobeproactivesafetyleaders.(5)

Q18Inmycompany,supervisors… Manageandpunishusingintimidationandfocusonlyonindividualbehaviorwithouttaking

whatmayhavebeenafaultyprocessintoaccount.(1) Startcaringfortheircrewandactingassafetyleadersonlyafteranincidentoccursor

regulatoryactionistaken.Thebehaviordisplayedisshort‐lived.(2) “Talkthesafetytalk”,butoftendonotfollowtheirownadviceandexpectations.(3) Initiateandactivelyparticipateinsafetyprogramactivitiesthatarefocusedoncontinuous

improvement.(4) Instillasenseofsafetyownershipatalllevels,serveaseffectivesafetycommunicators,

excellentrolemodelsforsafety,andareabletocoachandteach.Safetyisinfusedintoeverymeeting.(5)

Q19Inmycompany,employees… Feelnosenseofresponsibilityfortheirco‐employees’ortheirownsafety.(1) Aren’tengagedinpromotingsafetyuntilafteranaccidentoccurs.(2) Areengagedinpromotingsafetytotheextentthatisrequired.(3) Participateinallaspectsofensuringsafeworkingconditions,beginningattheplanningand

designstages.(4) Areempoweredandrewardedforgoingaboveandbeyondtoensuresafeworkingconditions

wheretheyalwaysfeelresponsiblefortheirandtheirco‐employeessafety.(5)

56 | P a g e   

Q20Inmycompany,… Workerfeedbackregardingsafetyconditionsandhazardreductionisnotsought.Theyjust

wantemployeesto“getthejobdone.”(1) Employeesareaskedforsafetyadviceandfeedbackafteraninjuryoradversesafetyeventhas

occurred.(2) Workerfeedbackregardingsafetyissoughtonlywheninitiatedbyemployeesorduring

mandatorysafetymeetings.(3) Managementactivelyinvolvesemployeesinidentifyinghazardsandsolvingsafetyproblemsby

includingthemindailypre‐jobsafetyandcrewtask/hazardanalysis.(4) Managementactivelyseeksworkerinputonsafety.Safetyandevennon‐safetymeetingsand

walk‐aroundsfocusonsolvingspecificproblemsidentifiedbyemployeesandothers.(5)Q21Inmycompany,Injuryandillnessdata… Arenotcollected,unlessthere’safatalitythatmustbereportedtoOSHAorotherentities.(1) Arecollected,buttheyareonlyreviewedafteranadversesafetyeventhasoccurred.Issuesare

notformallytrackednorareresolutionscommunicatedacrosstheorganization.(2) ArecollectedforthepurposeofbeingcompliantwithOSHArequirements.Supervisorspass

safetyinformationontotheircrewonlywhenrequiredbymanagement.(3) Areregularlyandformallycollectedandsharedwithmanagersandsupervisors;supervisors

areencouragedbutnotrequiredtoshareinformationwiththeiremployees.(4) Aregatheredthroughformalsystemsforregularlysharingandfollow‐upimprovementactions

withmanagers,supervisor,andemployees.(5)Q22Inmycompany,… Thereisnoadequatesafety‐relatedcommunicationeffort.(1) Safety‐relatedcommunicationeffortsoccuronlyinresponsetoanadversesafetyevent.(2) Safety‐relatedcommunicationeffortmeetsOSHArequirements.(3) Safety‐relatedcommunicationeffortismadewhenthere’sanewstandardorpolicythatneeds

tobefollowed.(4) Safetyrelatedcommunicationeffortisformalizedbothverticallyandhorizontallythroughout

thecompanyandintheworkplace.(5)

57 | P a g e   

Q23Inmycompany… Thereisnotrainingverificationprocess.(1) Trainingcardsorcertificatesareonlyinvestigatedafteranincidenthasoccurred.(2) TrainingisverifiedonlytotheextentrequiredbyOSHAregulations.(3) Trainingforallemployees,includingsub‐contractors,isverifiedregularly.(4) Trainingforallemployees,includingallsub‐contractorsisverifiedbeforeworkisconductedon

everyproject.Knowledgeandskillcompetenceareregularlyassessed.(5)Q24Inmycompany,… Trainershavenoformalqualifications.(1) Becauseofjob‐siteexperiencealone,seniorlevelemployees(e.g.,foreman)areaskedto

conductsafetytraining.(2) AformalsafetycurriculumisdevelopedandadministeredbytrainerswhomeetminimalOSHA

qualifications.(3) Safetycurriculumisdevelopedbyhighlyqualifiedtrainers.(4) Safetycurriculumisdevelopedandadministeredbyhighlyqualifiedandexperiencedcontent

expertswithknowledg