【正文】 In Singapore, the MOM is the government regulatory body responsible for enforcement of legislations relating to safety. The main safety legislations that construction sites have to ply with are the Factories Act (Chapter 104) and the Factories (Building Operations and Work of Engineering Construction) (BOWEC) Regulations,1994. The BOWEC Regulations require all construction worksites that have contract values of S$10 million (US$1 _ S$) or more to implement an SMS based on the Code of Practice on Construction Safety Management System (CP) 79. Worksites with contract values of less than S$10 million do not need to implement an SMS,but these sites are encouraged to do so. The CP79 consists of 14 main safety management elements as follows: ? safety policy, ? safe work practices, ? safety training, ? group meetings, ? incident investigation and analysis, ? inhouse safety rules and regulations, ? safety promotion, ? evaluation, selection and control of subcontractors, ? safety inspections, ? maintenance regime for all machinery and equipment, ? hazard analysis, ? movement control and use of hazardous substances and chemicals, ? emergency preparedness, ? occupational health programmes. Each element provides specific guidelines on how construction firms should anise and manage their sites to ensure safety of their personnel and the public. However, CP 79 is not meant to be a stringent set of rules and regulations because each construction project is different. The project manager has to carefully interpret the clauses in the code of practice and adapt the guidelines to the context of his project. Besides Singapore, SMS is also a requirement in many other countries. From the review of the SMSs used in Hong Kong [3,10], Australia [11], UK [4] and USA [5,12] it was found that Singapore’s CP 79 is very prehensive and covers all levels of the construction project and anisation. However, the focus on the higher level issues like management mitment is inadequate as pared to Australia and the UK. The SMS approaches employed by the UK are not as extensive in terms of specific details, but they highlight the need for management participation where their opinions and reviews are given very high importance. Many studies have shown that management mitment and involvement is the core element of any SMS [13–16]. Without management support, it is difficult to enforce safe practices and inculcate a safety culture into the anisation. 3. Research methodology The research methodology is shown in Fig. 1. The first step was to review the various SMS standards and guidelines of selected developed countries that are known to have relatively high safety standards. These countries include Hong Kong, Australia, UK and USA. In step 2, relevant attributes were selected and collated based on the literature review and study of various countries’ SMS. A questionnaire was then designed to survey practitioners’ perception of the importance of the collated attributes. The developed questionnaires were sent to 420 randomly selected general building contractors who were registered with the Building Construction Authority (BCA) of Singapore(step 3). In step 4, a review was done on selected award winning panies of the Annual Safety Performance Award (ASPA) documents to determine their best practices and SMS used within these anisations. In step 5, preliminary interviews were conducted with three safety auditors to find out their auditing practices. A preliminary framework was developed (step 6) based on the literature review and the postal survey results(step 7). From the results a model to measure the effectiveness of SMS was invented (step 8). This model is based on multiattribute value technique (MAVT) [17]. In step 8, all possible attributes to be incorporated into the model were identified through reviewing the CP79, checklists, tools and practices adopted in other countries. In steps 9 and 10, the importance weights for the factors and attributes of the CSI framework were determined. For the first level factors and second level attributes, the weights were determined through Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (step 9), where 30 industry experts were interviewed. Due to the relatively large amount of time needed to conduct AHP, and the large number of lower level attributes e4500T, the lower level attributes’ weights were determined based on 5point Likert Scale (step 10), where 1 ? not important。 and 5 ? very important/critical. Twelve industry experts were interviewed to obtain the importance weights. A rating method was developed (step11) and verified by nine industry experts. Thereafter the model was tested through three site audits (step 12). Based on the feedback,minor improvements were made (step 14) before the final version was presented (step 15). The survey results (step7) had been reported in Teo et al. [18]. This paper focused on step 8 onwards, describing the development of the proposed model and its validation. 4. Model construction (step 8) From the literature review and survey results [18], the many attributes affecting safety were found. These were structured into an MAVT model. The MAVT approach to solving problems with multiple attributes is to develop a scoring model, where each attribute is assigned a weight to reflect its importance, and each construction site is rated on a scale of 0–1 against all attributes. Thereafter, the weight is multiplied by the rating, and the product is summed for each alternative. The inputs to the model which need to be determined are as follows [17]: ? list of attributes that need to be evaluated。 ? the construction site’s rating for each attribute。 process。 (2) factors relating to site safety through policy aspect (level two weights)。 (4) factors relating to personnel aspect (level two weigh