Advertisement

Behavioral Engineering Model to Identify Risks of Losses in the Construction Industry

  • V. G. BorkovskayaEmail author
  • D. Passmore
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 138)

Abstract

An important aspect of risk assessment in construction is the development of a method by which the results of a risk analysis can be converted into recommendations for the admissibility of complex systemic risk. And also the degree of expediency of taking measures, the safety, necessary to reduce this risk in the construction industry. The Behavioral Engineering Model (BEM) developed by Gilbert provides us with a way to systematically and systemically identify barriers to individual and organizational performance. The BEM distinguishes between a person’s repertory of behavior (what the individual brings to the performance equation) and the environmental supports (the work environment factors that encourage or impede performance). By means of the Gilbert model this article will consider the risk criteria, determine the most significant risks of losses in the construction industry, and give suggestions on their minimization and elimination. In essence, the risk assessment is used to determine the measures that need to be taken to control the management or completely eliminate the risks that arise as a consequence of hazards. Qualitatively conducted engineering risk assessment and implementation of measures to prevent and minimize risks at the enterprise allows to reduce the probability of occurrence of dangerous events, thereby increasing security, and to reduce unprofitability. Engineering risk assessment can become one of the key links in the formation of the enterprise’s risk management system in construction.

Keywords

Behavior engineering model Gilbert model Risks of losses Risk management Risk assessment Teaching risk management Construction industry 

References

  1. 1.
    Boehm, B.: Software risk management. In: Ghezzi, C., McDermid, J.A. (eds.) European Software Engineering Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 387, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dudarev, A., Karnachev, I., Odland, J.: Int. J. Circumpolar Health 72, 20458 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilbert, T.F.: Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance, p. 88. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (1978)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ishekenova, M.: A Brief Overview of the Construction Industry in the USA, Turkey, China and the EU, p. 2. RFCA Ratings, Almaty, Kazakhstan (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robertson, L.: Injury Epidemiology. Lulu Books, Raleigh (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Passmore, D., Bennett, J., Radomsky, M., Saperstein, L.: Am. J. Public Health 80, 1134 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borkovskaya, V.G.: The concept of innovation for sustainable development in the construction business and education. Appl. Mech. Mater. Eng. Manag. 475–476(15), 1703–1706 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.475-476.1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borkovskaya, V.G.: Environmental and economic model life cycle of buildings based on the concept of “Green Building”. In: Materials Science and Mechanical Engineering. Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 467, pp. 287–290 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.467.287. Chapter 2: Building Materials and Construction TechnologiesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borkovskaya, V.G.: Post bifurcations of the concept of the sustainable development in construction business and education. Adv. Mater. Res. Eng. Educ. 860–863(26), 3009–3012 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.860-863.3009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borkovskaya, V.G.: Complex models of active control systems at the modern developing enterprises. Manuf. Manag. Eng. Manag. 945–949(22), 3012–3015 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.945-949.3012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    March, J.G.: Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell J. Econ. 1, 587–608 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braun, C., Wortmann, F., Hafner, M., Winter, R.: Method construction-a core approach to organizational engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, vol. 13, pp. 1295–1299. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abdelhamid, T.S., Everett, J.G.: Identifying root causes of construction accidents. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 126(1), 52–60 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clancey, W.J.: Model construction operators. Artif. Intell. 53(1), 1–15 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borkovskaya, V.G., Passmore, D.: Application of failure mode and effects analysis in ecology in Russia. In: MATEC Web of Conference, vol. 193, p. 05026 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baker, T., Nelson, R.E.: Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Adm. Sci. Q. 50(3), 329–366 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doniec, A., Mandiau, R., Piechowiak, S., Espié, S.: A behavioral multi-agent model for road traffic simulation. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 21(8), 1443–1454 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laker, K.R., Sansen, W.M.: Design of Analog Integrated Circuits and Systems. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zeigler, B.P., Praehofer, H., Kim, T.G.: Theory of Modeling and Simulation: Integrating Discrete Event and Continuous Complex Dynamic Systems. Academic Press, San Diego (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borkovskaya, V.G., Degaev, V.N., Burkova, I.V.: Environmental economic model of risk management and costs in the framework of the quality management system. In: MATEC Web of Conference, vol. 193, p. 05027 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lochau, M., Oster, S., Goltz, U., Schürr, A.: Model-based pairwise testing for feature interaction coverage in software product line engineering. Softw. Qual. J. 20(3–4), 567–604 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deshpande, A.A., Huang, S.H.: Simulation games in engineering education: a state-of-the-art review. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 19(3), 399–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Milly, P.C., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R.M., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lettenmaier, D.P., Stouffer, R.J.: Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319(5863), 573–574 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ku, K., Mahabaleshwarkar, P.S.: Building interactive modeling for construction education in virtual worlds. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITcon). 16(13), 189–208 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D., Leifer, L.J.: Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J. Eng. Educ. 94(1), 103–120 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sevastianov, A.A., Korovin, K.V., Zotova, O.P., Solovev, D.B.: Forecasting methods applied to oil production deposits at Bazhe-nov formation. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 463, Part 1, Paper № 022005 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/463/2/022005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Moscow State University of Civil EngineeringMoscowRussia
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations