Search results

The purpose of this paper is to advance knowledge on the advantages of integrating safety earlier in the construction project lifecycle.

A case study approach is used to collect data from construction sites in the USA, which performs poorly in construction safety and health, and Australia (AU), which performs well in construction safety and health. Qualitative data are collected to determine how and when safety is considered in the project lifecycle in both countries, and then the results are benchmarked to determine the benefits of addressing safety earlier in the process.

Data show that addressing a potential hazard earlier in the project lifecycle has performance benefits in terms of the level of hazard control.

The processes that are identified as possibly explaining the performance difference are just based on qualitative data from interviews. Targeted research addressing the relationship between these processes and safety outcomes is an opportunity for further research.

The case study data are used to identify specific processes that are used in AU that might be adopted in the USA to improve performance by integrating safety earlier into the decision-making process.

This paper highlights the advantages of integrating safety as a decision factor early in the process. Worker safety is not just an issue in the construction industry, and thus the findings are applicable to all industries in which worker safety is an issue.

This paper advances the safety in design literature by quantitatively supporting the link between when a hazard is addressed and performance. It also links the results to specific processes across countries, which advances the literature because most research in this area to data is within a single country.

Sir Watson Cheyne, M.P., recently introduced a deputation to Mr. Balfour to urge upon the Government a proposal for the granting of awards or pensions to persons making medical or other scientific discoveries of general benefit to humanity. The method suggested is the annual voting of £20,000, to be distributed in pensions, some of £1,000 a year, others of £500. In commenting upon the matter the Daily Telegraph observes that the public is more concerned with the adoption of the principle than of any cut‐and‐dried scheme, but it may be pointed out how essentially moderate this proposal is, considering the priceless value of the services which it is desired to reward, and how our credit as a nation stands in this respect. It has been pointed out by foreign writers at least as often as by our own that Great Britain stands above all other countries in respect of the number of original and world‐important ideas and discoveries contributed to science, and that reputation is well maintained to this hour. But what material form does the nation's gratitude, and its pride in the possession of such citizens, take? The answer is that they are not rewarded to the extent of one penny of public money, and we believe that ours is the one leading country in the world of which this can be said. Let us note the case of Sir Ronald Ross, for example, whose work in connection with the cause and prevention of malaria is a landmark in the progress of medical science, and has already been the means of saving tens of thousands of lives. If we considered only the direct benefit done to his own countrymen, and left out of account the honour that he has reflected upon the British name, Sir Ronald's work might still be regarded as equally worthy of recognition with that of a distinguished soldier let us say. But it has brought him nothing, so far as his own country is concerned, in recompense for the years of devoted and often dangerous labour which his discovery represents. Sir Ronald Ross has himself remarked that a doctor who gave to the world the long‐sought cure for cancer would get nothing for his pains from his own people; yet of those people alone, we have seen it stated on high medical authority, 35,000 die of cancer every year upon the average. For any material reward, such a British discoverer would have to look outside his own country. He might receive a small prize from the French Academy; he might receive—as Sir Ronald Ross, we are proud to remember, has received—a large prize from the Nobel trustees, in Sweden. That is not a very gratifying reflection; and even if it were consistent with our self‐respect that such services should be rewarded at other than British expense, the fact would remain that not one in fifty of our pioneers of science could receive such recognition. The matter is thrown into an especially strong light just now, when large sums of public money are being awarded—and most justly and properly awarded—to officers and others who have assisted Britain's military effort by inventions found serviceable by the Army and Navy. A great innovation in healing science will preserve to the world incalculably more lives than the most deadly device of war could destroy; but only the latter service is thought worthy of recompense. Yet consider the circumstances in which by far the greater part of British research, leading to ultimate discovery, is carried on. Much of the most valuable work in medicine, for example, has been done by men who, at the expense of health and strength, were carrying on medical practice at the same time, and not always making ends meet without difficulty. Even the researcher who draws a salary from public or private funds has no more than a pittance in most cases. Some of the greatest names in the history of British science are associated with melancholy stories of poverty and struggle, continued over many years. For such triumphs are not achieved without the devotion of a great part of a man's life. Koch's discovery of the tubercule bacillus was the fruit of eleven years of patient seeking. The wonderful drug salvarsan was only given to the world after years of monotonous labour. Any scale of reward which Parliament could reasonably be expected to sanction would have been earned a dozen times over by sheer hard work and perseverance alone in every case which was held to deserve such recognition. Mr. Balfour, we can be quite sure, would be personally well‐disposed towards the appeal that has been made. As Lord President of the Council, he has the national organisation of research which Great Britain at last possesses—such as it is—under his Ministerial care. The Medical Research Committee expends an annual sum of £60,000 of public money, which represents, we should say, infinitely the cheapest national investment on record. The sum which it is now proposed to lay out stands upon a similar footing. A great stimulus would unquestionably be given to research of every kind, if a reasonable prospect of such recognition were opened to the scientific worker; and a man possessing the definite talent for such service would, once adequately pensioned, be able to carry on without distraction the task of extending still further the boundaries of knowledge. That science should continue to be starved because men can be found to undertake unrewarded labour for their fellow‐creatures is not only a reproach to us as a nation, but bad from the point of view of tangible results; and we trust that the case submitted by Sir Watson Cheyne and his colleagues will be admitted and acted upon without delay.

The types of innovation considered to be Schumpeterian can be very broad. What is an innovation? According to The Advanced Learner's Dictionary (Hornby, Gatenby, & Wakefield, 1973, p. 545), an innovation is “something new that is introduced.” This covers both inventions and their introduction. Thus, introducing methods to a new market can certainly be a form of Schumpeterian innovation. Schumpeter, however, distinguished innovations (innovators) from inventions (inventors) (Swedberg, 1991, p. 173). He considered innovations as the prime movers in the capitalist process. Johannessen, Olsen, and Lumpkin (2001) dwell on six measures of the “newness” of an innovation based on his interpretation of Schumpeter and others, but glossed over the distinction between innovations and inventions. What, then, was Schumpeter's original formulation?

In the matter of food purity and control Hospital Catering Services have been outside the law, a privileged position where the general law of food and drugs have never applied and the modern regulatory control in food hygiene has similarly not applied. In the eyes of the general public hospital catering standards have always been high above the general run of food preparation. As the NHS continued, complaints began gradually to seep out of the closed community, of dirt in the kitchens and prevalent hygiene malpractices. The general standard for most hospitals remained high but there were no means of dealing with the small minority of complaints which disgusted patients and non‐cater‐ing staff, such as insect and rodent infestations, and an increase in the frequency of food poisoning outbreaks.

The following classified, descriptive list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” The prevailing policy of including all reference books received has temporarily allowed the listing of titles with imprints older than two years; with increased receipt of more current titles from a longer list of publishers, this policy will soon be discontinued (with the exception of older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). An additional copy of any title specifically requested by Mrs. Cheney should be sent to her for review. A decision to review titles appearing in the present column will then be made by Mrs. Cheney at her own discretion.

CAUSE OF BEARING CORROSION IN TURBINES?. CORROSION of white‐metal bearings in marine steam turbines has been a problem for many years. It has taken the form of an attack on the tin matrix. Tin oxide, a very hard material, is a major component of the corrosion product. In some cases, this has formed to a depth of 10 to 15 mils and resulted in flaking with subsequent bearing failure. Similar, but much less severe, corrosion has been known to occur in land‐based turbines. A major problem in seeking the cause has been to reproduce in the laboratory similar corrosion to that arising in service.

Viewing the last dying embers of 1984, the Orwel‐lian year of Big Brother and some of its not‐so‐far off the mark predictions, the unemployment which one cannot help feeling is more apparent than real, it is hardly surprising that the subject of Poverty or the so‐called Poverty arise. The real poverty of undernourished children, soup kitchens, children suffering at Christmas, hungry children ravenously consuming free school meals has not, even now, returned.

Customer satisfaction is a significant issue for most marketers. Previous research has identified various factors that determine customer satisfaction in retail banking sector in Western countries. The current paper reports findings from a survey, which looked into determinants of customer satisfaction in the retail banking in Pakistan. A total of 300 questionnaires were randomly distributed to customers of a specific bank in Pakistan. Results indicate that there was a strong relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction. There was, however, no relationship between customer satisfaction and tangible aspects of the service environment. The paper discusses implications for bank management.