【正文】 bute by assigning them weights. The weight is important to decision makers because it expresses the importance of each attribute relative to the others. For those attributes being evaluated, a weight indicates what the decision makers are most concerned about in a quantitative way. There are several conventions to follow in assigning weights to attributes [17]. One convention is that the final weight for each twig on the hierarchy tree is obtained by ‘multiplying through the tree’. The next convention is to normalise the weights, that is, to make weights sum to 1 at each level of the tree. This study adopted two methods to obtain the importance weights, using: ? Saaty’s [19] AHP for higher level attributes (levels 1 and 2). ? Likert Scale for lower level attributes (level 3 onwards). . Importance weights for higher level attributes using AHP (step 9) The questionnaire to obtain the first and second level weights using AHP. The weights of the four factors (Policy, Process, Personnel and Incentives) make up the first level weights. The second level weights are the 17 subfactors of the 3P + I model (see Fig. 2). The questionnaire consists of five sections. They are (1) factors relating to site safety through policy, process, personnel and incentive aspects (level one 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。 ? importance weights of attributes。3 ? neutral。 Safety audit。 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。 Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sites Evelyn Ai Lin Teoa,_, Florence Yean Yng Linga aDepartment of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore Received 16 February 2020。匹茲堡： RWS 的出版物 。23:32941。紐約： Wiley， 1976 年。紐約： 麥格勞 希爾公司， 1987。 1996 年 6 月 1799803。 [8] Petersen 。第二版。1996 年。126（ 6） :599609。4（ 1） :2944。19:393403。 [2] Hinze 2020 129（ 2） :15964。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。顯然，在這項(xiàng)研究中開發(fā)的模型不可能解決所有項(xiàng)目上的安全問題。 該模型作為實(shí)際的安全測(cè)試工具。無效的安全管理體系可以通過低滬深分?jǐn)?shù)確定。這是因?yàn)橐恢睕]有規(guī)范的審計(jì)工具，它可以客觀地評(píng)估安全管理體系一貫的實(shí)力和弱點(diǎn)。 通過框架計(jì)算滬深開發(fā)和測(cè)試在這項(xiàng)研究是非常重要，因?yàn)樗梢宰鳛楹饬恳粋€(gè)項(xiàng)目安全管理體系考核成效的參考。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。在該評(píng)級(jí)方法的基礎(chǔ)上，五位專家采訪和定稿的評(píng)價(jià)方法是四種可能的評(píng)價(jià)選項(xiàng)： 0/1， 01，0/1/NA01/ NA。 5 點(diǎn)李克特量用來表示確定低級(jí)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。一個(gè)全面的名單已確定了 590 個(gè)屬性，可用于評(píng)估施工安全。 政策因素。 刺激因素， 3p+I 模型其相對(duì)的重要性的因素，按由小到大的次序依次是 : 通過 四個(gè)因素 (一級(jí) )調(diào)查比較 來 解他們 ， 受訪者 請(qǐng)求 比較變量 ,他們 必須為他們提高 安全管理體系的城市 建設(shè) 給出 分?jǐn)?shù) ,其真實(shí)可靠性是 基于受訪者的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和不影響任何變量 而 歸納 的 。他們 提倡邀請(qǐng) 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(duì) 處理的建筑項(xiàng)目 安全管理的相當(dāng)必要的 。 運(yùn)用層次分析法 確定指標(biāo)的權(quán)重 ,30 位 經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的專家進(jìn)行 了 現(xiàn)場(chǎng)安全研究。例如 ,元素在政策因素部分 是 對(duì)比了工藝因素、雙向 0 9 的各個(gè)方向的規(guī)模顯示相對(duì)重要性或過程的因素。強(qiáng)度的重要性措施的由打分 得來 ,分值范圍為 1 – 9 來表示其 “ 絕對(duì)的重要性 ” 。(5) 通過 的 因素與現(xiàn)場(chǎng)安全激勵(lì)方 面 (二級(jí)重量 )。(3)相關(guān)因素現(xiàn)場(chǎng)安全通過工藝方面 (要求等級(jí) 2 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(chǎng)安全政策、過程和人員激勵(lì) (一級(jí)重量 )。 屬性重要性的應(yīng)用層次分析法 (AHP)步驟 九 利用 問卷調(diào)查來獲得第一和第二水平運(yùn)用層次分析法 的 權(quán)重。 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(duì)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。內(nèi)部安全法規(guī) 激勵(lì)因素 (I) 工藝因素 (Pr) 1．危 害識(shí)別和分析 2．安全的工作過程和安全措施 3．通訊和信息轉(zhuǎn)移 4．立地條件 5．設(shè)備、工具、植物和危險(xiǎn)物質(zhì) 6．分包商管理 人員因素 (Pe) 1．安 全文化 2．培訓(xùn)和能力 3．工作關(guān)系和語言上的障礙 4．安全委員會(huì)和安全的組織 5．安全與健康促進(jìn) 有必要對(duì)這兩方面加以區(qū)分 ,哪些屬性在 3 P+I層次框架是理想的 ,如前面提到的 590 例屬性細(xì)節(jié) ， 這是因?yàn)椴煌瑢傩缘闹匾?支持 不同網(wǎng)站的安全。每一個(gè)二級(jí)屬性進(jìn)一步 下分 直到下級(jí)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(chǎng)》清單。這四個(gè)因素是 :政策、過程、人事和激勵(lì)