4.7 Article

Utilizing Six Sigma to develop standard attributes for a Safety for Facilities Management (SFFM) framework

Journal

SAFETY SCIENCE
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 355-368

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.010

Keywords

Facilities management; Safety; Six Sigma; Framework; Facility lifecycle

Funding

  1. Virginia Tech Department of Building Construction
  2. Cunningham Doctoral Scholarship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Repair and maintenance personnel in the field of facilities management (FM), have a much higher rate of injury and illness than the national average. Research has shown that a major contributing factor to these high incidence rates is the disorganization and fragmentation of relevant safety information, coupled with the often time sensitive nature of FM tasks. Practical application: In order to improve worker's safety during the FM phase, a BIM-based Safety for Facilities Management (SFFM) framework is being developed to categorize, consolidate, process, and efficiently present job specific, relevant safety information to FM personnel. Method: In order to properly develop the SFFM, the safety information that is applicable to FM staff must first be identified, organized, and categorized. This is executed through a number of research methods, structured within the theoretical framework of Six Sigma's Define-Measure-Analyze-Design-Verify (DMADV). Results: By systematically collecting, analyzing, and categorizing data within the Define Phase of DMADV, an iterative process with validation steps provides a rigorous and a comprehensive evaluation of the data. Conclusion: This paper describes the data collection and analysis methods, known as the Define Phase, of Six Sigma's Define-Measure-Analyze-Design-Verify (DMADV) methodology, in order to develop safety properties that are utilized within the BIM-based SFFM framework. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available