Safety Science 92 (2017) 225–231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Methodology of improving occupational safety in the construction

industry on the basis of the TWI program
Katarzyna Misiurek a,⇑, Bartosz Misiurek b
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Plac Grunwaldzki 11, 50-377 Wroclaw, Poland
b
Leantrix sp. z o.o., Hubska 60/3, 50-502 Wroclaw, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The article presents the way of using the Training Within Industry (TWI) program, derived from manu-
Received 12 July 2016 facturing processes, in the construction industry in order to improve occupational safety. The origin and
Received in revised form 23 September meaning of the TWI program and its relation to the philosophy of Lean Management is also described. The
2016
article shows how a preventative approach to ensuring safety has developed over the years. It has been
Accepted 30 October 2016
Available online 9 November 2016
proved that human errors, and not technical problems, have the greatest impact on the occurrence of
accidents. After literature surveys, three main root causes of human errors were defined and include: a
lack of or poorly led training, badly defined and developed work standards and also a lack of supervision
Keywords:
Training Within Industry
of employees. The statistics of fatal accidents in construction and manufacturing industries over several
Construction site recent years in the UK were analyzed. It has been noted that in the construction industry the average
Lean Management accident level is much higher than in the manufacturing industry. Conclusions were used to develop a
Occupational safety methodology of improving occupational safety in the construction industry. The developed methodology
is based on the selected components from the TWI program and contributes to the elimination of prob-
lems associated with the three main root causes of human errors.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Bullet Problems with machines or apparatus (Machine).

Accidents are a major problem in various industries as well as in
everyday life. Ensuring occupational safety is a problem that is
widely described in literature. Accidents have an impact not only
on the victims themselves, but also on their adjacent surroundings
(Hallowel, 2010). Moreover, accidents contribute to economic
losses for the employer in the form of additional costs and
employee absences from work. Accidents are a significant problem
in the construction industry. The report presented by the National
Safety Council (Injury Facts, 2015) of the US shows that in 2014
about 5% of all employees in the US worked in the construction
industry. This sector is thus responsible for approximately 20% of
all fatal accidents at work in this country.
The root causes of accidents in all fields of human activity can
be categorized into 4 main areas (4 Ms) (Lewandowski, 2000;
Runkiewicz, 2006; Spath, 2011):
Bullet Bad work methods (Method).
Bullet The use of bad materials or components (Material).
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: katarzyna.misiurek@pwr.edu.pl (K. Misiurek), bartosz.misiur-
ek@leantrix.com (B. Misiurek).
Bullet Human error (Man).
It is widely considered that the stabilization of processes is
achieved by the elimination of the 4 M problems (Eaton, 2009, p.
82; Birolini, 2004, p. 76; Pascal, 2007, p. 29; Gopalakrishnan,
2005, p. 204). This stabilization also refers to occupational safety,
and the problems that occur in such a situation can be seen as
hazards.
A pioneer in the field of research in the area of occupational
safety was Heinrich (1959), who assigned the causes of accidents
to two main categories:
Bullet Human error (Man).
Bullet Technical and organizational problems (Method, Mate-
rial and Machine – 3 M’s).
Heinrich stated that in the category of human error (Man), the
most important factors which cause accidents are associated with:
physical or mental unsuitability, a lack of attention or carelessness,
a lack of appropriate training and also supervision. Petersen
(1982), when conducting extensive research in the field of safety,
which was based on earlier works of Heinrich, proved that people
are the direct cause of most accidents. However, the main respon-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.10.017
0925-7535/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
226 K. Misiurek, B. Misiurek / Safety Science 92 (2017) 225–231
sibility in the prevention of accidents lies with the management
site. Moore (2004a,b, p. 180) noted that management, in order to
improve safety, should focus mainly on improving work organiza-
tion through, among others:
Bullet Education and training of employees;
Bullet Employee involvement in self-improvement;
Bullet Defining standards and procedures;
Bullet The process of auditing;
Bullet Elimination of the root causes of problems;
Bullet The process of continuous improvement;
Bullet Building of a culture orientated on occupational safety.
Nowadays, technological solutions are more and more often
assumed to be able to effectively prevent the occurrence of human
errors. In the area of industrial production, fault-resistant solutions
known as Poka Yoke (in Japanese it means preventing uninten-
tional human errors) (Misiurek, 2016) are being created. These
solutions aim to implement tools and methods into the manufac-
turing process that protect against the occurrence of a human
error, which thereby result in both the reduction of the accident
rate and also improved quality. Liker (2004) notes, however, that
such measures only reduce the possibility of mistakes; therefore
companies should primarily be focused on building an organiza-
tional culture by increasing employee awareness of safety. Rother
(2009) emphasizes that the organizational culture in the area of
assuring occupational safety should be primarily focused on the
development of the consciousness of employees and not only on
the implementation of Poka Yoke solutions. However, Rother also
admits that such solutions bring measurable benefits. They should
be considered as a supplement to the system, and not the main
part. Likewise says Dekker (2002), who believes that technical
solutions do not eliminate the possibility of error, but just move
them to another location or change their form. In his work he con-
siders the difference between categorizing root causes of accident
events to one of the following areas: human error or system error.
He clearly states that human error is a symptom of trouble deeper
inside a system. Dekker (2002) calls this approach as: ‘‘New view of
human error”. He also notes that a statement of human error is not
the end and that it is just the beginning of a search for a root cause
of an accident event. In a similar vein, this problem is raised by
Hansen (2001). He wrote that it is crucial that the reduction of
human errors from processes takes place with the identification
and elimination of their root causes. As a result of literature
research, the three main root causes of losses occurring in the area
of human errors (Man) were listed as follows (Wilson et al., 1993;
Hansen, 2001; Dekker, 2002; Montillaud-Joyel, 2006; Beke, 2011;
Hill, 2012; Chiarin, 2013; Mukherjee, 2006; Conner, 2011;
Misiurek, 2016):
Bullet Non-compliance with the work standard by an operator
due to the bad design of the method of performing work
(e.g. a lot of hazards, bad ergonomics, etc.), despite the
fact that the sequence of work (method) was deter-
mined correctly;
Bullet A lack of or poorly conducted employee training;
Bullet A lack of the process of monitoring and auditing of
employees after conducted on-the-job training.
In literature it is also stated that a bad attitude of an employee
to work can be the cause of losses in the area of Man. Studies pub-
lished by Clayton (1919, p. 140) show that out of all the losses that
arise as a result of actions in the area of Man, only 10% may result
from the bad attitude of an employee to work. Nevertheless, Clay-
ton notes that in many cases the bad attitude of an employee may
stem from a lack of commitment of superiors, which results from
the three root causes outlined above. It can therefore be assumed
that an employee’s bad attitude to work is not the root cause but
is only an indirect cause.
In considerations regarding the provision of occupational safety,
the issue of automation should be raised as it nowadays occurs in
both the manufacturing and construction industry. Modern auto-
mated machines intend to replace the work of a man. Regarding
the ensuring of occupational safety, the risk of human error is
reduced because a human’s work is replaced by the work of a
machine. On the other hand, a man has to operate complicated
automated processes, which changes the places of potential acci-
dent events. This problem is dealt with by Leveson (2004), who
believes that a lot of accidents blamed on human error could more
accurately be labeled as resulting from a flawed system and inter-
face design. These conclusions are relevant to one of the root
causes of human error defined in this article - the bad design of
the method of performing work. Leveson (2004) notes in her article
that the problem of safety in the man - machine relationship is a
challenge for engineers, who when designing machines should
not only pay attention to the setting of the operating parameters,
but also take into account the organizational aspects related to
the operation of such machines by operators.
2. The analysis of the accident rate in manufacturing and
construction industries
Manufacturing and construction industries are the main
branches that contribute, to a large extent, to the revenues of
most countries in the world (United Nations Department, 2007).
Both of them are vulnerable to accidents due to their scale, num-
ber of employees and also difficult working conditions. Therefore,
it is crucial to improve safety in these industries. Monitoring and
analyzing trends in the rate of fatal injuries is helpful in assessing
the safety improvement process. Such statistical analysis is car-
ried out by the Healthy and Safety Executive (HSE). Since 1981
the HSE has continuously analyzed the rate of fatal injuries (per
100,000 people) in enterprises in the UK. Fig. 1 shows how its
value changed in the period from 1981 to 2013 among employees
hired in companies from manufacturing and construction
industries.
It can be concluded from Fig. 1 that in both the presented indus-
tries the rate of fatal injuries has a downward trend. However, this
ratio is still significantly higher in the construction industry. The
conducted analysis is confirmed by literature studies, in which it
is widely recognized that in most countries the construction indus-
try is a branch of industry in which the largest number of accidents
occur (Abudayyeh et al., 2003; Mohan and Zech, 2005; Fredericks
et al., 2005; Fang et al., 2006; Carter and Smith, 2006; Hinze
et al., 2006).
The reason for the difference in the value of the accident rate
ratio which is shown in Fig. 1 is not associated with a higher com-
plexity of processes in the construction industry. However, manu-
facturing processes include operations mainly related to: welding,
casting, thermo-chemical treatment, work in very high tempera-
tures etc. These operations are commonly considered to be danger-
ous. In the construction industry accidents are most commonly a
direct cause of (Ministerråd, 2003):
Bullet Slipping, stumbling or falling of an employee;
Bullet An employee being hit by an object falling from above;
Bullet A victim falling from a height;
Bullet A man being hit by an object from the same height level;
Bullet An employee falling down a hole;
Bullet Etc.
 K. Misiurek, B. Misiurek / Safety Science 92 (2017) 225–231
Fig. 1. The rate of fatal injuries (per 100 people) in the years 1981–2013 from manufacturing and construction industry companies in Great Britain. Source: Redrawn from
Wright (2014).
The causes of these accidents are related to poor organization of
work but do not result from the complexity of their operations.
These incidents can be prevented by the identification of threats
and then an attempt to eliminate them. Therefore, it should not
be assumed that the higher value of the rate of fatal injuries in
the construction industry results from the complexity of opera-
tions occurring there.
The construction industry is commonly identified with prob-
lems such as:
Bullet a constantly changing situation in the workplace,
Bullet turnover of workers,
Bullet a rapidly changing relevance of risks,
Bullet etc.
The root causes of these problems should be especially associ-
ated with a low level of management and organization of work.
The TWI program was originally implemented in companies that
produced military equipment during World War II. At that time
the manufacturing industry struggled with similar organizational
problems as the construction industry currently does. Implementa-
tion of the TWI program in those years in the production area gave
spectacular results as there was a number of problems to solve.
Currently, the manufacturing industry is widely recognized as
the most effective branch of industry (Aziz and Hafez, 2013).
Nowadays, the efficiency index of manufacturing processes is at
a level of 85% (i.e. World Class Overall Equipment Efficiency) and
is achieved over a long period of time by many manufacturing
companies (Misiurek, 2015). Standardization of work, which is
the foundation of most of the production systems in the world,
e.g. the Toyota Production System, translates into stability, and this
affects e.g. the reduction in the absenteeism level (Liker and Meier,
2007). The implementation of methods and tools that improve
organization of work in the construction industry should result
in the elimination of the root causes of many problems, as was
the case with the production area.
3. Causes of the lower level of the rate of fatal injuries in the
manufacturing industry in relation to the construction industry
The difference between the ratios of the accident rate can result
mainly from the fact that manufacturing companies are much
more focused on improving their processes (including processes
which ensure occupational safety). Koskela (1992), in a published
report, emphasizes that construction companies should implement
227
modern methods of managing manufacturing enterprises in their
processes. Among these methods Koskela mentions, among other
things, Lean Management which is currently the most popular
approach to the management and organization of manufacturing
processes in the world (Yogesh et al., 2012). The term ‘‘Lean Man-
agement” was first used by Womack et al. (1990) in order to
describe the Toyota Production System (TPS). This system is cur-
rently considered to be the leading system of managing organiza-
tions in the world (Moore, 2004a,b). Literature research proves that
the TPS system was based on the American program of Training
Within Industry (TWI) (Dinero, 2005, 2011; Wrona and Graupp,
2006; Kato and Smalley, 2011).
The genesis of the TWI program dates back to World War II. The
TWI program was directed mainly to masters, foremen and experi-
enced operators. Originally its objective was to master the skills of
instructing employees, improve current working methods and
maintain good relationships with employees. After World War II,
the TWI Job Safety program (Wrona and Graupp, 2006) started as
an additional program. The main idea of Lean Management philos-
ophy and the TWI program was that processes, and not people,
should be blamed for problems and accidents (Balestracci and
Barlow, 1996). This is consistent with the approach promoted by
Heinrich in the area of occupational safety, according to whom
the management is responsible for the establishment of processes
in companies and the supervision over their compliance.
The TWI program aims to reduce human errors in the areas of
manufacturing processes and it also trains operating employees
the four main following skills (Dinero, 2005; Wrona and Graupp,
2006):
Bullet How to transmit knowledge effectively while discussing
what to do and how and why it should be done in such a
way as opposed to other ways (TWI Job Instruction);
Bullet How to improve work using a series of questions
included in 5W1H1 methodology (TWI Job Methods);
Bullet How to build relationships and solve problems in a team
(TWI Job Relations);
1
5W 1H methodology relies on the asking of questions in a sequence (Shingo,
1989, p. 82):Why?, What is the purpose?, Where?, When?, Who? and How?. An
approach, which is consistent with 5W 1H analysis, has been fully adopted by Toyota
and was included in the TPS system as the main method for building the kaizen
approach (from Japanese - continuous improvement) (Kato and Smalley, 2011).
228 K. Misiurek, B. Misiurek / Safety Science 92 (2017) 225–231

Table 1 understood human errors - including problems in the field of occu-

The impact of methods included in the TWI program on the elimination of the root pational safety.
causes of losses ascribed to human errors. Source: Own work. Explanation: X indicates
that the method can affect the elimination of a specific root cause.
The TWI program can have an impact on the elimination of all
the root causes of human errors. It therefore influences the reduc-
Methods Root causes of losses ascribed to human errors tion of the level of the accident rate of which human errors are
included in the
TWI program
Non-compliance with A lack of or A lack of a direct causes. The TWI program is universal because it can be used
the work standard due to poorly supervising in any area of human activity, and thus also in the construction
its bad design executed process
industry (Dinero, 2005). However, its implementation in the area
training
of the construction industry requires appropriate modification.
TWI Job X X X
Instruction
TWI Job X 4. The developed methodology of improving occupational
Methods safety in the construction industry which operates on the basis
TWI Job X X
Relation
of the TWI program
TWI Job Safety X X
In a preventative approach to safety management it is most
important to identify hazards (Heinrich, 1959). When a hazard is
Bullet How to identify and eliminate hazards in a workplace identified, it should be eliminated. It is the most effective preven-
and how to safeguard against them using technical mea- tative measure (see Fig. 2). If the elimination of a hazard is not pos-
sures if it is not possible to eliminate them (TWI Job sible, a technical measure, which will secure the hazard, should be
Safety). developed. The next action should be the designating of the speci-
fic hazard with a warning and the training of employees on meth-
Each of these skills were developed by a separate method of the ods of dealing with it. The least effective preventative tool,
TWI program. This program is a very effective way to eliminate the although important and reasonable, is seen to be personal protec-
root causes of human errors (see Table 1), and thus effectively tive equipment (PPE).
influence the reduction of accidents. The developed methodology of improving occupational safety is
The TWI program has been implemented in thousands of man- presented in Table 2. It is orientated to the reaction on hazards in
ufacturing companies around the world (Graupp et al., 2014). The accordance with the hierarchy of the effectiveness of remedial
program is universal because it is oriented to describe the work of measures shown in Fig. 2 and built on the basis of the TWI pro-
a man, not processes (Misiurek, 2016). The TWI program can thus gram. Each method from the TWI program is a separate tool. The
be implemented in all areas where there is human labor, including developed methodology extracts from these methods the most
the construction industry. The TWI program effectively translates important points that have an impact on improving occupational
into an improvement of all the key performance indicators of a safety, and can also be used in the construction industry.
company, as was demonstrated by research conducted after the The way of preparing a JBS is described in the second main step
Second World War among the 600 companies that implemented of the methodology (see Fig. 3). Regarding occupational safety, the
this program (Wrona and Graupp, 2006). For example, the Ameri- describing of key points in the JBS is crucial. Each key point is an
can Shipbuilding Company - Consolidated Steel Corp. from Orange identified hazard. The fewer key points in an operation, the less
in Texas attributed the following result to the TWI program over a chance of the occurrence of human error. It is important to elimi-
four year period (War Manpower Commission, 1945): nate key points, and if this is not possible, to facilitate their
implementation.
Bullet Reduction in accidents 70%,
Bullet Increase in production 45%, 5. Conclusions
Bullet Reduction in tool breakage 75%,
Bullet Reduction in training time 78%, A preventative approach should prevail in the process of ensur-
Bullet Savings in manpower 45%, ing safety (Reis et al., 1999; Schneid, 2011). It is associated with an
Bullet Reduction of scrap 69%. early identification and prevention of accidents, and not a reaction
to accidents that have already occurred. Accidents are usually a
These studies show that the TWI program effectively translates direct result of human error. The key is to eliminate the root causes
into the elimination of most of the problems related to broadly of problems, as they generate direct causes. The three root causes

Fig. 2. Hierarchy of the effectiveness of remedial measures. Source: Own work on the basis of Heinrich (1959).

Table 2
Methodology of improving occupational safety on the basis of the TWI program. Source: Own work on the basis of Heinrich (1959), Rother and Harris (2001), Dinero (2005, 2011),
Wrona and Graupp (2006) and Kato and Smalley (2011).
Major steps of the methodology
1. Selection of an operation to be
applied in the methodology
2. Creation of a Job Breakdown Sheet
(see Fig. 3)
3. Conducting the process of
eliminating and improving key
points (the method of performing
work)
4. Preparation of warnings for each
safety related key point
5. Identification of necessary
personal protective equipment
6. Preparation of a JBS for a new
method of performing an
operation
7. Training of employees in the new
standard of work
8. Maintaining the methodology.
a
Cost-Benefit Analysis – the investment/project’s efficiency assessment method taking into consideration all projected benefits and costs. Helps to predict if benefits
exceed costs (Brent, 2006).
Fig. 3. Job breakdown used in a TWI Job Instruction. Source: Based on Wrona and Graupp (2006) and Misiurek (2016).
K. Misiurek, B. Misiurek / Safety Science 92 (2017) 225–231
Key points in the methodology
1. Operations which are significant in terms of potentially
existing hazards (with many incidents potentially accidental)
and complications (difficult operations) should be chosen first
1. Specification of major steps in an operation
2. Determination of key points in an operation
3. Specification of reasons for key points
1. Use of the 5W1H approach
2. Use of the following questions: Why? and What is the
purpose? for each key point
3. Use of the following questions: Where ?, When ?, Who? and
How? for the key points for which there were no generated
ideas for their removal
4. Writing down ideas generated from the question session
included in the 5W1H approach
5. The implementation of the generated solutions in the
method of performing an operation
1. Use of the One Point Lesson (OPL)
1. Depending on demand in a specific operation
1. Taking into account the new standard of work, OPL and
personal protective equipment
1. Use of the TWI Job Instruction method
1. Conducting regular audits
229
Reasons for key points
1. For these operations there is a greater probability of human
errors occuring
1. Major steps describe the method of work - what should be
done. It is important to write down the procedure of an
operation in a major step (see Key Point no. 2.1)
2. The way work is performed depends on its key points - how
a major step should be performed. Every key point informs
employees about a potential human error, and thus about the
risk of accidents
3. Justification for the implementation of a specific key point
has an influence on the creation of an employee’s awareness.
When people understand why they have to do something in a
particular way, they pay more attention to the procedure
1. This approach initially focused on the elimination of key
points (including hazards), and then on their improvement
2. These questions aim to find ideas of how to eliminate key
points
3. These questions are focused on finding ideas of how to
improve key points by changing the following: the place of
their execution, time, people and procedure
4. Generated ideas are not yet solutions. They need to be
written down in order not to be forgotten. They should be
submitted for CBAa analysis
5. After the conducted CBA analysis, ideas that do not require a
lot of effort and improve occupational safety should be
implemented
1. OPLs are a graphic method of presenting a correct and
incorrect procedure. They should be written next to an
operation in order to continuously inform employees about
the most important hazards
1. There should be individually selected personal protective
equipment for each operation
1. The JBS should comprehensively describe the method of
work, but also contain warnings and information about
hazards. It is a document that will be used for on-the-job
training (see Major Step no. 7)
1. This method is widely recognized as the most effective
method of transferring practical knowledge. Training
according to it requires a prepared JBS. The method is based on
the transmission of knowledge in small enough parts for a
man to be able to remember
1. Regular audits in the area of work are one of the most
effective tools to maintain labor standards. Moreover, an audit
is a tool to identify problems and can be used as an
improvement tool because, on the basis of non-compliance,
remedial measures which influence the improvement are
determined
230 K. Misiurek, B. Misiurek / Safety Science 92 (2017) 225–231
Table 3
The impact of the developed methodology of improvement. Source: Own work. Explanation: X indicates that the specific step of the methodology can affect the elimination of a
specific root cause.
The major steps of the developed methodology Root causes of losses ascribed to human errors
Non-compliance with the standard of work
due to its bad design
1. Selecting operations to apply in the methodology X
2. Preparation of a Job Breakdown Sheet X
3. Conducting the process of eliminating and improving key points X
(the way of performing work)
4. Preparation of warnings in the location of the occurrence of each X
key point related to safety
5. Identification of necessary personal protective equipment X
6. Formulation of the JBS for the new way of performing operations X X
7. Training of employees in a new standard of work X X
8. Maintaining of methodology
of human errors which are described in the article must be consid-
ered as the main area which, in order to improve, should have all
preventative measures directed on it. The elimination of problems
in this area will certainly have an impact on the reduction of haz-
ards, and thus the number of accidents. The methodology which is
described in the article aims to eliminate the root causes of human
errors (see Table 3).
The presented methodology can be applied in every area where
man labor and hazards occur. It can therefore be successfully used
in the construction industry. The next step of research should be
the implementation of the methodology in a selected pilot project
in the area of the construction industry and its verification. When
supervising results of implementation in the construction industry
the main attention should be paid to the monitoring of the level of:
Bullet Accidents.
Bullet Absenteeism.
Bullet Productivity.
The developed methodology, due to the fact that it is mainly
based on the assumptions of the TWI program, should not only
lead to improved occupational safety but also to an increase of
other key indicators in a company.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Stephen Wright from the
Health and Safety Executive for providing source statistical data
of fatal accidents in the construction and manufacturing industries.
References
Abudayyeh, O., Federicks, T., Palmquist, M., Torres, H.N., 2003. Analysis of
occupational injuries and fatalities in electrical contracting industry. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 129 (2), 152–158.
Aziz, R.F., Hafez, S.M., 2013. Applying lean thinking in construction and
performance improvement. Alexandria Eng. J. 52 (4), 679–695.
Balestracci Jr., D., Barlow, J.L., 1996. Quality Improvement: Practical Applications for
Medical Group Practice. Center for Research in Ambulatory Health Care
Administration, 25.
Beke, I., 2011. Proceedings of the XV International Scientific Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Management. University of Novi Sad, pp. 344–349.
Birolini, A., 2004. Reliability Engineering: Theory and Practice. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 76.
Brent, R.J., 2006. Applied Cost-Benefit Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
Cheltenham, pp. 3–10.
Carter, G., Smith, S.D., 2006. Safety hazard identification on construction projects. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 132 (2), 197–205.
Chiarin, A., 2013. Lean Organization: From the Tools of the Toyota Production
System to Lean Office. Springer-Verlag, Italia, pp. s.18–s.19.
Clayton, C.T., 1919. Training Labor: A Necessary Reconstruction Policy, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 81. A Reconstruction
Labor Policy, pp. 140.
A lack of or poorly A lack of a
executed training supervision process
X
Conner, G., 2011. Catapult the Cow, Create Space Independent Publishing Platform,
pp. 156.
Dekker, S., 2002. The Field Guide to Understanding ’Human Error’. Ashgate
Publishing, USA.
Dinero, D., 2005. Training Within Industry: The Foundation of Lean. Productivity
Press, pp. 229, 238, 244–250.
Dinero, D., 2011. TWI Case Studies. Standard Work, Continuous Improvement and
Teamwork. Productivity Press, p. s.xiii.
Eaton, M., 2009. Lean for Practitioners: An Introduction to Lean for Healthcare
Organisations. Ecademy Press, p. 82.
Fang, D., Chen, Y., Wong, L., 2006. Safety climate in construction industry: a case
study in Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 132 (6), 573–584.
Fredericks, T., Abudayyeh, O., Choi, S., Wiersma, M., Charles, M., 2005. Occupational
injuries and fatalities in the roofing contracting industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
131 (11), 1233–1240.
Gopalakrishnan, P., 2005. Handbook of Materials Management. Prentice-Hall of
India Private Limited, Eight Printing, Delhi, p. 204.
Graupp, P., Jakobsen, G., Vellema, J., 2014. Building a Global Learning Organization:
Using TWI to Succeed With Strategic Workforce Expansion in the LEGO Group.
Productivity Press, New York.
Hallowel, M., 2010. Cost-effectiveness of construction safety programme elements.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 28 (1), 25–34.
Hansen, R., 2001. Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE): A Powerful Production/
Maintenance Tool For Increased Profits. Industrial Press Inc., New York, p. 2.
Heinrich, H.W., 1959. Industrial Accidents Prevention. Mc Graw Hill Book Company,
Inc, 7–21.
Hill, A., 2012. The Encyclopedia of Operations Management: A Field Manual and
Glossary of Operations Management Terms and Concepts. Person Education,
Inc., New Jersey, p. 63.
Hinze, J., Devenport, J., Giang, G., 2006. Analysis of construction worker injuries that
do not result in lost time. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 132 (3), 321–326.
Injury Facts, 2015. National Safety Council, Itasca, IL.
Kato, I., Smalley, A., 2011. Toyota Kaizen Methods. Productivity Press, vol. 5, pp. 50–
51.
Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction.
Technical Report, Number 72, Stanford Universtity.
Leveson, N., 2004. A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf. Sci. 42
(4), 237–270.
Lewandowski, J., 2000. Work Safety Management in Company. Lodz Polytechnic
Publishers (in Polish).
Liker, J.K., 2004. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles From the World’s
Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill Education, USA.
Liker, J.K., Meier, D., 2007. Toyota Talent: Developing Your People the Toyota Way
Kindle Edition. McGraw-Hill Education, USA.
Ministerråd, N., 2003. Safety in Building and Construction Industries: State of the
Art and Perspectives on Prevention. National Institute of Occupational Health,
Copenhagen.
Mohan, S., Zech, W., 2005. Characteristics of worker accidents on NYSOD
construction project. J. Safe. Res. 36 (4), 353–360.
Montillaud-Joyel, S., 2006. Greening shops and saving costs. A Practical Guide for
Retailers, United Nations Environment Programme, India, pp. 26.
Misiurek, B., 2015. Methodology for Standardization of Autonomous Operation
Processes Oriented Towards Improvement of Effectiveness of Automated
Machines PhD Thesis. University of Technology in Wroclaw (in Polish).
Misiurek, B., 2016. Standardized Work with TWI: Eliminating Human Errors in
Production and Service Processes. Productivity Press, New York.
Moore, R., 2004a. Making Common Sense Common Practice: Models for
Manufacturing Excellence. Elsevier Science, pp. 180–182.
Moore, R., 2004b. Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Tools: What
Tool? When? Elsevier Ltd., pp. 7–13.
Mukherjee, P.N., 2006. Total Quality Management. Pretntice – Hall of India, New
Dehli, p. 78.
Pascal, D., 2007. Lean Production Simplified: A Plain-Language Guide to the World’s
Most Powerful Production System. Productivity Press, pp. 95–98. vol. 29.
 K. Misiurek, B. Misiurek / Safety Science 92 (2017) 225–231
Petersen, D., 1982. Human Error - Reduction and Safety Management. STPM Press,
New York.
Reis, C., Soeiro, A., Santos, F., 1999. Economic overview of construction safety. In:
Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 235–243.
Rother, M., Harris, R., 2001. Creating Continuous Flow. Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc.
Rother, M., 2009. Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness
and Superior Results. McGraw-Hill Education.
Runkiewicz, L., 2006. On construction failures and disasters in Poland in years
1962–2004. Eng. Build. 4, 193–195 (in Polish).
Schneid, T.D., 2011. Legal Liabilities in Safety and Loss Prevention. Jones and Battlett
Publishers, LLC, Canada.
Shingo, S., 1989. Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial Eng.
Viewpoint. Productivity Press, Oregon.
Spath, P., 2011. Error Reduction in Health Care: A Systems Approach to Improving
Patient Safety. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, San Francisco.
231
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2007. Industrial
Development for the 21st Century: Sustainable Development Perspectives,
Publishing by United Nations.
War Manpower Commission, 1945. The Training Within Industry Report, Bureau of
Training, Washington, D.C., pp. 94.
Wilson, P., Dell, L., Anderson, G., 1993. Root Cause Analysis: A Tool for Total Quality
Management. ASQ American Society for Quality, USA, pp. 196–197.
Womack, J., Jones, D., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine That Changed the World: The
Story of Lean Production. A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc, p. 10.
Wright, S., 2014. Health and Safety in Construction in Great Britain. Health and
Safety Executive, Great Britain.
Wrona, B., Graupp, P., 2006. The Twi Workbook: Essential Skills for Supervisors.
Productivity Press, New York.
Yogesh, M., Chandramohan, G., Arraka, R., 2012. Application of Lean in a Small and
Medium Enterprise (SME) segment-A case study of electronics and electrical
manufacturing industry in India. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 3 (8:1).