【正文】 and two had ratios between 10% and 15%. These two respondents (Experts 4 and 5) were given another chance to relook at their ratings and determine if they would like to change their decisions. Caution was taken to ensure that respondents do not change their previous decisions just to fulfil the inconsistency ratio target. Eventually, one respondent did not change his rating (Expert 5) while another (Expert 4) made some adjustments on his own free will. The inconsistency ratio for Expert 5 on the section of policy aspect was 38%. This is considered very high and Expert 5 had chosen to keep this score. Nevertheless, Expert 5’s data were included in the analysis of weightage because the higher than usual inconsistency ratio was due to his extreme judgement rather than a clerical error. Thus, Expert 5’s ratings were accepted even though the inconsistency ratio was greater than 10%. According to Saaty [19], an accurate judgement is more important than consistently inaccurate judgement. The first and second level weights were puted by averaging the weights for the 16 remaining respondents. As the 3P+I Model may be licensed, the actual weights are not shown in this paper. Nevertheless, the relative importances of the factors, in ascending order are: ? Personnel Factor, ? Incentive Factor, ? Process Factor, ? Policy Factor. . Importance weights for lower level attributes using Likert scale (step 10) Due to the large number of third and lower level attributes, it was not practical to use AHP to determine the weights. As such, the 5point Likert Scale was used to elicit the importance weights. A questionnaire showing all the lower level attributes was designed. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which each attribute contributed to the effectiveness of SMS on construction sites on a 5point scale where 1 ? not important, 3 ? neutral, 4 ? important and 5 ? very important (critical). To determine the importance of lower level attributes, 17 experts were randomly selected from the following types of organisations: clients (p。 (3) factors relating to site safety through process aspect (level two weights)。 and ? an aggregation rule, to determine the score of each alternative. . List of attributes The attributes that contractors and their construction sites need to achieve in order to ensure high level of site safety were identified through literature review and their relevance tested in an industry wide survey [18]. The significantly important variables (identified through ttest) were input into the SPSS software and factor analysis was carried out, to ascertain if there is any further relationship among the many proposed safety strategies. Factor analysis is motivated by the fact that measured variables can sometimes be correlated in such a way that their correlation may be reconstructed by a smaller set of parameters, which could represent the underlying structure in a concise and interpretable form. Fig. 1 3P+I Model Fig. 2. 3P + I hierarchical framework The factor analysis produced four principal ponents, labelled as Policy Factor, Process Factor,Personnel Factor and Incentive Factor (3P + I). Each factor prised several attributes. See Fig. 2 for the 3P+ I model. The four factors and relevant attributes were organized into a hierarchy tree or value tree, where the goals at the top may be abstract, but lower down on the hierarchy, the goals are measurable, nonconflicting, coherent and logical (see Fig. 2). Higher level objectives are usually the decision maker’s objectives in global terms. These objectives need to be of the highest order and must collectively represent the decision maker’s total objectives. Each higher level objective is successively subdivided into twigs which are intermediate level objectives, and finally to lower level objectives. The value tree allows attributes to be presented in an orderly structure that helps in problem evaluation, and elicitation of importance weights for twigs. In this study, the highest level objective in the hierarchy is known as a ‘factor’. The four factors are: policy。3 ? neutral。 accepted 9 June 2020 Abstract: In Singapore, the construction industry had implemented safety management system (SMS) and SMS auditing for about 10 years now, but the improvement in safety standard is not significant. In response to the need to improve the effectiveness of SMS and SMS audit, the aim of the paper is to propose a method to develop and test the tools that auditors may use to assess the effectiveness of a construction firm’s SMS. The research methodology adopted in this study consists of 15 steps. Surveys were conducted。匹茲堡： RWS 的出版物 。紐約： Wiley， 1976 年。 1996 年 6 月 1799803。第二版。126（ 6） :599609。19:393403。在這項(xiàng)研究中開發(fā)的新框架要求通過共同的努力來處理安全危險(xiǎn)源，所有利益相關(guān)者必須識(shí)別風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，承擔(dān)相關(guān)責(zé)任，采取措施防止或減輕安全危害并使安全文化根深蒂固。 該模型作為實(shí)際的安全測試工具。這是因?yàn)橐恢睕]有規(guī)范的審計(jì)工具，它可以客觀地評估安全管理體系一貫的實(shí)力和弱點(diǎn)。五個(gè)技師在三個(gè)不同的地點(diǎn)進(jìn)行審計(jì)，表明該模型是客觀的，因?yàn)闇顦?biāo)準(zhǔn)偏差范圍從 到。 5 點(diǎn)李克特量用來表示確定低級別屬性的重要性權(quán)重， 3P+ I 模型用來檢驗(yàn)這些權(quán)重是否正常。 政策因素。 3p+I 模型其相對的重要性的因素，按由小到大的次序依次是 : 他們 提倡邀請 專家 是 因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為必要的知識(shí)和工作經(jīng)驗(yàn) 對 處理的建筑項(xiàng)目 安全管理的相當(dāng)必要的 。例如 ,元素在政策因素部分 是 對比了工藝因素、雙向 0 9 的各個(gè)方向的規(guī)模顯示相對重要性或過程的因素。(5) 通過 的 因素與現(xiàn)場安全激勵(lì)方 面 (二級重量 )。第二個(gè)層次權(quán)重 的 3 P +I模型問卷內(nèi)容包括五個(gè)部分 : (1)通過相關(guān)因素的現(xiàn)場安全政策、過程和人員激勵(lì) (一級重量 )。 有幾個(gè)公約 來自 分配屬性 的 權(quán)重 體系，利用 一個(gè)慣例對每枝體重層次樹狀 分析 得到的增殖透過樹 ,即重量之和 為 1 的 每個(gè)層次樹。每一個(gè)二級屬性進(jìn)一步 下分 直到下級屬性適度 降低 得到屬性 ，該 列表包含 590種 屬性和《 CSI 犯罪現(xiàn)場》清單。這價(jià)值屬性樹必須要 有 一個(gè)井然有序結(jié)構(gòu) 來 幫助評估問題和啟發(fā)權(quán)值樹枝作用 的 重要性。見圖 1 的 3P+I 模型。這顯著 性 重要變量被輸入到 SPSS 軟件進(jìn)行因素和結(jié)構(gòu)分析 ,以確定是否 可以 提出 與 許多 方面有 聯(lián)系 的 安全策略。 施工現(xiàn)場各個(gè)屬性的評分 。 屬性列表需要評價(jià) 。基于反饋 的 信息 ,步驟 十四 改進(jìn)算法 便成為步驟 十五， 此次調(diào)查的結(jié)果 (步驟 七 ) 曾被張棟梁丁曉萍報(bào)道。 通過 步驟 九 和 步驟十 的重要性權(quán)重因素和屬性框架 《 CSI 犯罪現(xiàn)場》確定第一級和二級因素屬性 , 30 位 專家們接受了采訪 ， 分析確定了指標(biāo)的權(quán)重層次分析法 (AHP)(步驟 9)。 第四步 ,審核 并獎(jiǎng)勵(lì) 安全性能獎(jiǎng) (ASPA)來鼓勵(lì)選擇 使用 安全管理體系的 這些組織。這些國家包括香港、澳大利亞、英國和美國。然而 ,關(guān)注更高水平的問 題 ,如管理承諾不足相比澳大利亞和英國。然而 ,CP 79 注定不會(huì)被 封閉 在一個(gè)嚴(yán)格的組 ， 因?yàn)槊總€(gè)法規(guī)的建設(shè)項(xiàng)目是不同的。 化學(xué)材料 ； 安