1. Summary of a Performance Issue
During ihe summer 1997, I participned in an imporlanl project. We worked the roof construction of “Forum Fribourg1 ”, a multi purpose building. Our team was composed of five employees. We all knew each other well and all had adequate experience with this type of construction.
Tbc 360 parts, each measuring 72.6 feet2 3, have been shaped and glued together in Vial’s factory. Those parts were ready to be delivered to the work site. The project’s architects decided that the roofs framing should be divided between three companies. In fact the roof was also divided in three sections4. The teams were each asked to place 120 parts between the "tridimensional” suspended beams4. Vial SA was covenng the middle section. Jules Sallin SA and Jean Pacquier SA were covering the sides. This was a great chance to sec three companies working together on the same job. Although each group was from the same state and same background, they all performed their work quite differently. One of the differences was how die companies used security tools during the construction of the building. Even though this roof was 65 feet high. Vial SA used the strategy of "the more we assemble on the floor the less we have to do it dangerously up there". One week before the delivery of the parts on the working site, our team built some wood scaffolds on the ground in order to prefab four single parts in one single structure5. This gave us an opportunity to fix the roof working on pie-covered structures greatly reducing the chances of falling. On the other hand the two other teams rose their 120 parts one by one. While working at this height, even the smallest mistake could lead 10 disaster. Our safety tools were the first things we put in the break room. Although the two other teams always performed connected by their ropes, we ignored them.
2. Performance Analysis
The purpose of this analysis is to describe which consequences negatively reinforced our team not using the safety tools even if this was breuking a law. The following part suggests a way for the future to positively reinforce teams to use safety tools appropriately.
It does not matter which construction system the company provides its employees. As soon as a worker performs any tasks at this height, either they should be secured by a rope or by a net6 strongly fixed under the working space. From this notion, at least one example of working with safety can be pinpointed and then analyzed.
The Pinpoint I chose is:
- Using safety ropes while working on structures at great heights
Checklist for evaluating this Pinpoint (Aubrey C. Daniels. 1998):
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figures 2 and 3 show why using or not using the safety ropes have been "negatively reinforced" by describing their consequences (Aubrey C. Daniels. 1989).
* Dus system woiks in ookr.rxit tall on the ground In case if fall, the work would suit have great chances lo hll structure pans while falling Actually, the team of the compiny "lutes Sailin’- dal use safety nets instead of safely ropes for a couple of days It took them a lot of time and they fixed the net inappropriately The best way would hase been to let ft*£thc nets by safety Specialists; at this point an imponari proportion of the benefit would have been lost.
Vm
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
- Avoid walking without paying attention to the danger of falling’
- Avoid slowing down the work pace
- Avoid having a limited performing space
- Avoid not being flexible
- Avoid stepping on the rope while moving back and forth
- Avoid mixing clcctnc wires with the rope
- Avoid stepping on and getting mixed up with
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
~ (Figure
shows that using die rope in this setting prevents the construction worker from dying, but it also can severely hinder tob performance.
I can demonstrate through the use of the "Performance Matrix" (Aubrey C.
Daniels. 1989) (see Appendix I) that it is possible to enhance the chances for construction workers lo work in a safe environment. I suggest that the construction managers set
In Inti, most construction workers who use safety topes feel so secure lhai they would walk on the roof without paying mention even though the danger of sliding and hitting against roof structure* while falling down is soil possible safety signs on the working site and remind the their workers before climbing the roof. The construction workers should get regular safely training from professionals in the field. Managers should take time to study each work site and determine the most appropriate safety tool to use. Then some time should be taken in order to set up safety tools. After each job's completion, construction workers will rate how comfortable they were with using those safety tools. At last, the boss should positively reinforce the entire team, if those steps are followed appropriately.
As I thought through the “Performance Matrix" chart. I noticed it would have been possible to use safety tools appropriately during the construction of "Forum
$
Fribourg”. Instead ^having safety ropes at .ached to poles at the same height as the workers and bothering their feet while walking aroundf cables could have been set above the worker's heads letting their safety ropes slide back and forth. The construction workers would have enjoyed their freedom of movements without having the fear to fall down.
This analysis describes the problems causing by inappropriate safety tool usage and suggests to be improved by simply checking through the evaluation of the "Performance Matrix” chart as a method to think before to act for each future constructions sites.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1. Documentation
skating area. Vial SA employs about seventy workers. Five workers work at the wood engineering and drawing bureau. Five other employees work at the sawmill. Twenty-five employees migrate between the glue lamiratcd beams industry, traditional carpentry, Gang-Nail® industrial carpentry, and prefab wooden frameworks. The other twenty are all wood construction builders. Every section of those different departments has a "working with" manager. I graduated in 1992 from a wood framing school and have sufficient experience not only in theory but also in practice. I have received the opportunity to work for this company every spring and summer since I started attending Western Michigan University.
1724 Le Mouret/FR Charpentes VIAL SA
Telelon 413 9413 Telefax 413 9410 Email: vial£.fiarpenlg§g^>!yewia.c!l
English
- Industrial produced truss rafters by GangNAIL connector plates,
- Traditional carpentring,
- Glue laminated beams,
- Tridimensional structure,
- Wooden panels and wooden frameworks.
- industrial and agricultural buildings, etc...
Deutsch
- Nagelplattenbinder
- Abbund
- Holzleimbinder
- Gittertraeger
- Holzwaende und Holzfachwerk
- Industrie- und Landwirtschaftgebaeude
Franpais
- Charpentes industrielles assemblees par connectcurs metalliques GangNAIL
- Charpentes traditionnelles
- Lamelle colie
- Structures tridimentionnelles
- Panneaux et ossatures bois
- Batiments industriels et agricoles, etc.
[...]
1 For description of the building type: hup/Avvw.ctscl ch/fnbourg/tOfunMnbourg jrngJi.\h.htm
2 Illustration of separated pans at the bottom of picture 7
3 Illustration of the thxcc different section on picture I and 3
4 Illustration of a blue pole suspending a “tridimcnsionir beam
Frequently asked questions
What is the performance issue described in the document?
The document describes a performance issue observed during the roof construction of "Forum Fribourg" in 1997. The author participated in the project, and the issue revolves around the use of safety tools by different construction teams.
How was the roof construction divided?
The roof's framing was divided between three companies: Vial SA, Jules Sallin SA, and Jean Pacquier SA. Each team was responsible for placing 120 parts between the "tridimensional" suspended beams.
What was the difference in the teams' approaches to safety?
Vial SA focused on prefabricating larger structures on the ground to minimize work at height, thus reducing the risk of falls. The other two teams assembled the roof parts one by one at a height of 65 feet. Vial SA's team tended not to use ropes, whereas the other teams did.
What is the main purpose of the performance analysis?
The analysis aims to identify the consequences that negatively reinforced the author's team's lack of safety tool usage, despite it being a legal requirement. It also proposes a way to positively reinforce the use of safety tools in the future.
What "Pinpoint" is chosen for the performance analysis?
The chosen pinpoint is the use of safety ropes while working on structures at great heights.
How does the document evaluate the pinpointed behavior?
The document evaluates the use of safety ropes by examining the positive and negative consequences associated with using them and not using them. This is illustrated through figures showing the potential risks and hindrances related to rope usage.
What is the suggested approach to improve safety tool usage?
The document suggests that construction managers should set safety signs on the working site and remind their workers before climbing the roof. Regular safety training from professionals, a thorough study of each work site to determine the most appropriate safety tools, proper setup of safety tools, and positive reinforcement from the boss are all recommended.
What is Vial SA and what kind of work do they do?
Vial SA is a construction company located in Le Mouret, Switzerland. They offer various wood construction services, including industrial produced truss rafters, traditional carpentring, glue laminated beams, tridimensional structures, wooden panels and wooden frameworks, for industrial and agricultural buildings. They employ about 70 workers.
- Quote paper
- Daniel Sciboz (Author), 2000, Performance Management, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/97662
