Does the format of design information affect hazard recognition performance in construction hazard prevention through design reviews?

Abstract

A series of simulated design for safety reviews with civil engineering students, construction and engineering designers, and construction supervisors were conducted across the United States to explore the effects that different formats of design information have on hazard recognition performance during construction hazard prevention through design (CHPtD) reviews. In total, 117 participants were provided one of three information formats including: two-dimensional (2D) computer aided design (CAD) drawings, three-dimensional (3D) computerized visualizations, and a combination of the two (2D & 3D). Participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups using blocked counterbalanced design. In the experiment, participants were asked to explore the design and identify as many safety hazards as possible for three separate construction work activities: rooftop skylight installation, interior soffit drywall installation, and interior metal wall stud framing. Mean and dispersion and ANOVA tests suggest that the format of design information did not have any significant effects on the hazard recognition skill during CHPtD reviews. These findings challenge the pervasive assumption that three-dimensional design information is superior to two-dimensional information in terms of safety planning. The primary theoretical contribution of this research lies in the exploration of how design information affects the ability of an individual to forecast and address construction dangers from different abstractions of the target facility. The practical implication of the findings is that the format of design information may be far less important than the experience of the professionals and the time they invest in searching for and correcting hazards.