ToolSHeDTM: The development and evaluation of a decision support tool for health and safety in construction design

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe an innovative information and decision support tool (ToolSHeD™) developed to help construction designers to integrate the management of OHS risk into the design process. The underlying structure of the prototype web‐based system and the process of knowledge acquisition and modelling are described. Design/methodology/approach – The ToolSHeD™ research and development project involved the capture of expert reasoning regarding design impacts upon occupational health and safety (OHS) risk. This knowledge was structured using an innovative method well‐suited to modelling knowledge in the context of uncertainty and discretionary decision‐making. Example “argument trees” are presented, representing the reasoning used by a panel of experts to assess the risk of falling from height during roof maintenance work. The advantage of using this method for modelling OHS knowledge, compared to the use of simplistic rules, is discussed Findings – The ToolSHeD™ prototype development and testing reveals that argument trees can represent design safety risk knowledge effectively. Practical implications – The translation of argument trees into a web‐based decision support tool is described and the potential impact of this tool in providing construction designers (architects and engineers) with easy and inexpensive access to expert OHS knowledge is discussed. Originality/value – The paper describes a new computer application, currently undergoing testing in the Australian building and construction industry. Its originality lies in the fact that ToolSHeD™ deploys argument trees to represent expert OHS reasoning, overcoming inherent limitations in rule‐based expert systems.

[1]  Jacco M. Hoekstra.  Designing for Safety , 2001 .

[2]  David Robertson,et al.  Industrial Use of Safety-Related Expert Systems , 2000 .

[3]  Michael Behm,et al.  Linking construction fatalities to the design for construction safety concept , 2005 .

[4]  Eric Tucker,et al.  Occupational Health and Safety Act , 2003 .

[5]  Stuart D. Summerhayes.  CDM Regulations Procedures Manual , 1999 .

[6]  Jimmie Hinze,et al.  Viability of Designing for Construction Worker Safety , 2005 .

[7]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[8]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  Supporting the design OHS process: a knowledge-based system for risk management , 2006 .

[9]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Neural networks and open texture , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[10]  E. Shortliffe.  Computer-based medical consultations: mycin (elsevier north holland , 1976 .

[11]  A. Roy Duff,et al.  Development of Causal Model of Construction Accident Causation , 2001 .

[12]  M. Adler,et al.  Gazing into the oracle : the Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health , 1996 .

[13]  Michael Behm.  An Analysis of Construction Accidents from a Design Perspective , 2006 .

[14]  Tim Driscoll,et al.  Design issues in work-related serious injuries , 2005 .

[15]  Richard E. Susskind,et al.  Expert systems in law , 1987 .

[16]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

[17]  Douglas B. Lenat,et al.  The Role of Heuristics in Learning by Discovery: Three Case Studies , 1983 .

[18]  E H Shorthffe,et al.  Computer-based medical consultations mycin , 1976 .

[19]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  A hybrid rule – neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia , 1999, Artificial Intelligence and Law.