A Maturity Model for Resilient Safety Culture Development in Construction Companies

: A resilient safety culture is characterized by the capability of addressing the changing and unforeseen safety risks associated with the increasingly complex nature of sociotechnical systems, and creating an ultrasafe organization. An assessment of the maturation of resilient safety culture helps organizations to evaluate their capabilities of managing safety risks and achieving a consistently high safety performance. This study aims to present a maturity model developed to measure and improve resilient safety culture in the construction environment. The research was conducted in two stages. The ﬁrst stage consisted of a review of the literature on the concepts of a resilient safety culture and the capability maturity model for the development of a maturity model. In the second stage, the developed model was evaluated using the Delphi technique. The model deﬁnes ﬁve maturity levels that can be used to measure resilient safety culture of a construction organization. It presents a set of descriptions of 19 aspects of resilient safety culture at each maturity level. The assessment procedure and the way of using the model are further discussed. Theoretically, this study provides insights into the maturity characteristics of a resilient safety culture. In practical terms, it offers guidance for benchmarking and encouraging the enhancement of organizations’ capabilities to manage safety risks.


Introduction
In recent years, despite substantial effort by many parties, the construction industry has been acknowledged as having inherent safety risks with high levels of change and uncertainty due to the increasing complexity of construction projects in terms of its technical, organizational and environmental factors [1].For examples, a study by Albert et al. [2] conducted on diverse projects in the United States revealed that more than 50% of construction hazards remain unidentified.In the United Kingdom, Carter and Smith [3] revealed that up to 33% of hazards remain unrecognized in work method statements.Thus, the changing and unforeseen nature of safety risks poses challenges for construction organizations to ensure a state of workplace safety [4].
Over the past four decades of the evolution of occupational health and safety management, safety culture has been recognized as a crucial approach for improving the safety performance of construction organizations [5][6][7][8].Safety culture reflects the ability of individuals or organizations to deal with risks and hazards so as to avoid damage or losses but still achieve their goals [9].To promote a high level of safety culture, construction organizations have adopted diverse and holistic safety strategies, which emphasize (1) creating a safety knowledge database; (2) assuming that all accidents are preventable and unacceptable; (3) improving safety management systems to identify, assess and control hazards; (4) extending safety management matters to the entire supply chain and involving all stakeholders; (5) promoting a strong commitment to safety among management; (6) establishing explicit accountability and authority for safety and rewarding safe behavior; and (7) shaping beliefs, attitudes and commitment of employees to achieve safe behavior [10].These strategies are generally developed based on previous experiences and incident reports and the assessment of historical data about safety risks, thereby taking precautions against the accidents that have previously happened [11].
Although beneficial, traditional safety management and safety culture approaches have not completely addressed all types of safety risks encountered on construction sites.In fact, traditional approaches are institutionalized through plans, processes, procedures and policies for safety management, which are not readily and easily adaptable to the natural and inevitable changes in work being conducted, and the emerging and unforeseen safety risks being encountered [12].They tend to become obsolete or deteriorate over time as a consequence of changes and uncertainties and thus leave organizations vulnerable to potentially disastrous failure modes and unforeseen kinds of safety risks [13].
While researchers and practitioners have grappled with these challenges, it is recommended that construction organizations should not only look to the past and set up safety measures to prevent known risks from appearing again but also establish the capability to address potential new forms of safety risks.In light of the above, building upon resilience engineering principles, a resilient safety culture has been recognized as a promising concept to address the changing and somewhat unpredictable forms of safety risks associated with the increasingly complex nature of sociotechnical systems and achieve an ultrasafe organization [4,14,15].Trinh et al. [4] defined resilient safety culture as an organization's psychological, behavioral, and contextual capabilities to "anticipate, monitor, respond and learn" to manage safety risks and create an ultra-safe organization (p.06018003-2).Previous studies indicated that the development of a resilient safety culture can enhance the organization's capabilities of addressing project hazards, human errors of workers and unexpected events, thereby allowing the organization to achieve consistently high safety performance in the construction industry [4,16].Thus, it is necessary for organizations to obtain a clear understanding of the mechanisms by which a resilient safety culture can be created and assess their current maturity of resilient safety culture.
The maturity of a resilient safety culture reflects the sophistication of the way that safety management practices are implemented in order to address safety risks in the organization [4].Therefore, to achieve a "desirable", resilient safety culture in an organization, a starting point can be the identification and assessment of its current safety management practices.Based on such assessment results, recommendations for improvement measures can be derived and prioritized to reach higher maturity levels of a resilient safety culture.Although a number of studies have been conducted to investigate resilient safety culture in order to conceptualize the concept of a resilient safety culture in aviation organizations [14], identify the indicators of a resilient safety culture in petrochemical plans [15] and examine the impact of a resilient safety culture in construction safety management [17], few have focused on the processes that an organization should have to achieve a mature or advanced status with regard to a resilient safety culture.Against this background, this study aims to assess the maturity of resilient safety cultures in the construction environment.Based upon the capability maturity theory and the theory of resilient safety culture, the specific objectives are (1) to determine and define the maturity levels of a resilient safety culture, (2) to identify the key processes for enhancing resilient safety culture and (3) to develop a model for construction organizations to assess their resilient safety culture maturity.
The next section presents the methods for the development of the model.The findings pertaining to the three objectives are then discussed to clarify the contribution to knowledge and practical implications.The article ends with a discussion of limitations and recommendations for future research.

Methods
Maturity models involve defining maturity stages or levels that assess the completeness of the analyzed organizations or processes through various sets of multi-dimensional criteria [18].Based on many existing maturity models, it has been recognized that the maturity model of resilient safety culture should comprise various measurable components, which include: the criteria and subcriteria, maturity levels and rubrics.Therefore, the present research was conducted in two stages, as shown in Figure 1.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Methods
Maturity models involve defining maturity stages or levels that assess the com ness of the analyzed organizations or processes through various sets of multi-dime criteria [18].Based on many existing maturity models, it has been recognized that turity model of resilient safety culture should comprise various measurable comp which include: the criteria and subcriteria, maturity levels and rubrics.Therefore, t sent research was conducted in two stages, as shown in Figure 1.In the first stage, the literature review was conducted to (1) determine the crite their subcriteria, (2) select the number of maturity levels and (3) design the rubrics model of the maturity of resilient safety culture.A recent publication by Trinh et a used as the starting point for the literature selection process.Trinh et al. [4] reco that a resilient safety culture can be created in a construction organization by deve strategies and action plans following the principles of hazard prevention practic management practice and mindful organizing practice.Accordingly, hazard prev error management and mindful organizing are identified as the three main criteri maturity model of resilient safety culture in this study.To determine the subcri each main criterion, the Scopus search engine was then used to identify scholarl pertaining to such three criteria in the area of construction safety management.W gard to hazard prevention, the terms "hazard prevention", "construction" and " were input in the title/abstract/keyword field of the Scopus search engine.In terms management practice, the terms "error management", "construction" and "safety used.In terms of mindful organizing practice, the terms "mindful organizing", "co tion" and "safety" were used.Capability maturity theory and existing empirically v maturity models were reviewed to determine the number of maturity levels and th of the model.Finally, a detailed content review of the safety literature pertaining definitions and characteristics of each subcriterion was conducted to design the ru the model.
To verify the developed model, the second stage of this study involves a method.The Delphi method is typically designed to collect the most reliable view a group of experts through several rounds of intensive questionnaires intersperse feedback in the form of controlled opinions [19].In this study, the Delphi method In the first stage, the literature review was conducted to (1) determine the criteria and their subcriteria, (2) select the number of maturity levels and (3) design the rubrics for the model of the maturity of resilient safety culture.A recent publication by Trinh et al. [4] is used as the starting point for the literature selection process.Trinh et al. [4] recognized that a resilient safety culture can be created in a construction organization by developing strategies and action plans following the principles of hazard prevention practice, error management practice and mindful organizing practice.Accordingly, hazard prevention, error management and mindful organizing are identified as the three main criteria of the maturity model of resilient safety culture in this study.To determine the subcriteria of each main criterion, the Scopus search engine was then used to identify scholarly work pertaining to such three criteria in the area of construction safety management.With regard to hazard prevention, the terms "hazard prevention", "construction" and "safety" were input in the title/abstract/keyword field of the Scopus search engine.In terms of error management practice, the terms "error management", "construction" and "safety" were used.In terms of mindful organizing practice, the terms "mindful organizing", "construction" and "safety" were used.Capability maturity theory and existing empirically verified maturity models were reviewed to determine the number of maturity levels and the form of the model.Finally, a detailed content review of the safety literature pertaining to the definitions and characteristics of each subcriterion was conducted to design the rubrics of the model.
To verify the developed model, the second stage of this study involves a Delphi method.The Delphi method is typically designed to collect the most reliable views from a group of experts through several rounds of intensive questionnaires interspersed with feedback in the form of controlled opinions [19].In this study, the Delphi method is applied for the following reasons: (1) experts remain anonymous to one another; (2) it reduces the potential for influence or bias throughout the rounds; (3) it suits groups that are geographically distant; (4) information and opinions are gained from a wide range of experts; and (5) the process ensures that experts are involved from the beginning, which can assist future policies or programs that may be developed from the results [20].According to Ludwig [21], in order to obtain good research results, the majority of Delphi studies involve a panel of 15-20 respondents.In this study, two rounds of Delphi questionnaires with 15 experts were conducted.All participants were (1) actively working within the Australian construction industry with a minimum of 10 years' experience; (2) in a senior management or safety-management role; and (3) directly involved in safety management on construction projects.In the first round of the Delphi survey, respondents were asked to (1) provide their opinion on the selected criterion and its subcriteria and maturity levels and ( 2) answer open-ended questionnaires pertaining to the designed rubrics, which were specified in the first stage of this research.Accordingly, the survey was initiated by verifying the experts' designation, area of practice, qualifications, years of experience and any further details relevant to their industry experience.Then, the experts were required to rate, on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), the comprehensiveness of the model, the objectivity of the model, the practicality of the model, the replicability of the model, the reliability of the model and the overall suitability of the model.Following the rating, respondents were requested to provide further comments on the model.The model was revised based on experts' feedback.In the second round of the Delphi survey, experts were asked to reassess the revised maturity model in light of the consolidated results obtained in the first round of the survey.

Experts' Views Regarding the Maturity Model of Resilient Safety Culture
Regarding the comprehensiveness of the model, all experts shared the view that the model is clear, concise and easily understandable (4.6 out of 5).Experts commented that "the model is comprehensive and covers all key aspects required to measure measuring safety resilience within a construction organization", and "the model is thorough, detailed and adequate to describe levels of maturity, and thus can be adopted to provide an accurate assessment of an organization's maturity status".In relation to objectivity, there was a consensus that the model provided neutral and impartial statements (5 out of 5).Some points of feedback were that "this model will enable results which are objective and without influence from beliefs, values or experiences" and that "the model was clear, succinct and without ambiguity, which would allow for use by smaller builders through to tier one contractors".A common view amongst the experts in regard to practicality of the model was that both upper management and employees are able to use it in order to follow and provide an evaluation (4.6 out of 5).An example is "the practicality of the model in enabling it to be used by not only upper managers to assess where the business scores in relation to safety, it is also practical enough for employees to follow, which in turn enables them to assess and provide feedback to the business in relation to its resilience of safety culture and where they feel it is heading".With respect to the replicability of the maturity model, a mutual agreeance was made by the experts (4.6 out of 5).Some of the experts' ideas included that of "the ability to use the model as an effective monitoring tool, the ability for its use as a constant monitoring tool of organizations growth" and the fact that "the model could be used as an audit tool, and went further to specifically comment on its ability to perform well as a live document to which amendments and additions can be made at any time as an organization matures".With regard to the reliability of the model, the experts considered the criteria and subcriteria to have good detail, ensuring that reliable results are obtained (4.6 out of 5).Accordingly, all experts expressed their belief in the reliability of the model based on its ability to demonstrate to organizations what areas require improvement and how these improvements can be obtained.Taken together, the overall evaluation of the conceptual maturity model is positive in the evaluation of the model's suitability for assessment, profiling and benchmarking capabilities for construction work safety (4.8 out of 5).Some experts added that "the model will prove an excellent tool for benchmarking, with the ability to actively oversee and monitor safety within organizations", "the model will provide assistance and understanding of what is necessary and required to improve resilient safety culture within the organization", "model can be incorporated into organizations in varying ways, as a wholistic assessment on an organization or assessment of individual projects", and "the model can be adopted into safety management within other industries".These results indicate that the model would be an effective tool for benchmarking and encouraging the enhancement of organizations' capabilities to manage safety risks.The validated model is presented in the next section.

Criteria and Subcriteria
The criteria and subcriteria that identify the stages of maturity of resilient safety cultures in organizations were chosen based on a review of the literature pertaining to the concept of a resilient safety culture.According to Trinh et al. [16], the concept of a resilient safety culture had its theoretical foundation in safety culture theory and resilience engineering theory.Since the early 1980s, "culture" has been recognized as an essential concept to provide insights into the complex features of an organization.Organizations own their history and shared leadership and learning, which shape the attitudes and behaviors of their members [22].Organizational culture reflects shared behaviors, beliefs, attitudes and values [23].It also facilitates shared interpretations of situations and renders coordinated actions and interactions possible and meaningful [24].
Schein [22] theorized that an organizational culture progresses in three stages of evolution: Founding and Early Growth (e.g., the assumptions are created by founders of the organization), Midlife (e.g., the assumptions are socialized) and Maturity/Decline (e.g., the shared assumptions are continually held strongly within organizations) [22].In line with Schein's [22] study, Westrum [25] developed a typology model, which characterizes three stages of advancement of organizational culture, namely pathological, bureaucratic and generative.At the pathological level, information is hidden, messengers are "shot", responsibilities are shirked, bridging is discouraged, failure is covered up and new ideas are actively crushed.At the bureaucratic level, information may be ignored, messengers are tolerated, responsibility is compartmentalized, bridging is allowed but neglected, organization is just and merciful and new ideas create problems.At the generative level, information is actively sought, messengers are trained, responsibilities are shared, bridging is rewarded, failure causes inquiry, and new ideas are welcomed [25].The work of Westrum [25] was further extended by Hudson's [26] study, in which the "bureaucratic" stage is replaced by the "calculative" stage, and two extra stages (i.e., "reactive" and "proactive") are introduced.This innovation is favorable for providing more accurate classification and increasing the accessibility of the framework to industrial practitioners [27].
Organizational culture can be used as a framework to understand how values, attitudes and beliefs about safety work are expressed and how they might influence directions that organizations take with respect to safety culture [28].Safety culture is therefore often acknowledged as a subset of organizational culture, where the beliefs and values refer specifically to matters of health and safety [29].A review of the safety culture literature by Wiegmann et al. [30] identified a set of critical features regardless of the particular industry from the various definitions of safety culture.These critical features include the following: (1) shared values; (2) concern with formal safety issues and the management and supervisory systems; (3) involvement of all members; (4) impacts on employees' work behavior; (5) the safety culture being reflected in the organization's policies, procedures and systems; (6) the safety culture being reflected in an organization's willingness to learn from errors, incidents and accidents; and (7) endurance, stability and resistance to change [30].
Resilience engineering has been proposed as a potential solution to address the limitation of traditional safety management and safety culture approaches in responding to the changing and somewhat unpredictable forms of safety risks related to the increasingly complex nature of sociotechnical systems [31].A review by Bergström et al. [13] summarized two interconnected lines of reasoning for resilience engineering: (1) resilience engineering is an increasingly adopted concept to cope with the growing complexity of socio-technical systems, and (2) resilience engineering is considered as an approach to address inherent risks and hazards that emerge from this increasing complexity.The growing complexity in these systems leads to potentially disastrous modes of failure and new shapes of safety risks, thereby forming a need for resilience engineering [13,32,33].The proponent of resilience engineering recognizes that an accident can be prevented by developing an organization's capability to create foresight and recognize and anticipate the changing forms of risks before adverse consequences occur [34].A resilient organization, therefore, manages safety risks proactively and creates safety based on four principles (or capabilities): anticipating, monitoring, responding and learning [35].
Based on safety culture theory and resilience engineering theory, studies [14,15,36,37] have advocated the concept of resilient safety culture for safety management.A number of researchers have characterized various theoretical approaches and methods to assess the resilient safety culture in different sectors [15,36,37].Shirali et al. [15] viewed culture as "an engineered organization" and thereby support the inclusion of several aspects of an organization to describe the components of a resilient safety culture.As a result, thirteen indicators representing the resilient safety culture were identified: competency, involvement of staff, accident investigation, safety management system, awareness, flexibility, management commitment, reporting culture, preparedness, risk assessment, learning culture, management of change and just culture.The results of Shirali et al.'s [15] study enable the managers and policymakers to identify current weaknesses relating to resilient safety culture in their organizations.The study by Trinh et al. [4] also indicates that a resilient safety culture could be created in a construction organization by systematically responding to the potential threats against which resilience protects.They include project hazards (regular threats), human errors (irregular threats) and unexpected failures (unexampled events) in the construction environment.Accordingly, it is suggested that a resilient safety culture can be developed by implementing hazard prevention, error management and mindful organizing practices [4].A review of safety literature by Trinh [38] further identified 19 safety interventions with regard to hazard-prevention practice (10 safety interventions), error management practice (4 safety interventions) and mindful organizing practice (5 safety interventions) to enhance a resilient safety culture.These three key safety practices and their corresponding safety interventions also underwent assessment to ensure their internal consistency, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity in a recent study by Feng and Trinh [39].
In this study, hazard prevention, error management and mindful organizing practices, along with the corresponding safety interventions, were used as three key criteria and subcriteria for the maturity model of resilient safety culture and were further confirmed through the Delphi technique.The analyses of the Delphi study indicate that (1) all experts agreed that the three main criteria are sufficient to characterize resilient safety culture in the construction environment and (2) all experts believed that the subcriteria pertaining to its main criteria were acceptable.

Maturity Levels
In this study, the maturity levels for a model of maturity of a resilient safety culture were determined based on capability maturity theory and a review of existing empirically verified maturity models to assess safety issues.The concept of a capability maturity model was developed in the software industry by Philip Crosby, as referenced in Wendler [18].Crosby theorized that software organizations undergo five successive stages of quality maturity in order to achieve the maximum level of quality, namely uncertainty, awakening, enlightenment, wisdom and certainty [18].While the management in the uncertainty stage has no comprehension of quality as a management tool, there are transformations in management to achieve quality in the intermediate stages with respect to (1) how quality appears within an organization, (2) how organizational problems are handled, (3) the cost of quality as a percentage of sales, (4) quality improvement actions taken by management and (5) how management summarizes the organization's quality problems.The certainty stage recognizes quality management as a vital part of the company [18].Accordingly, a capability maturity model is developed to provide guidance for organizations in choosing process improvement strategies through the determination of current process maturity and the identification of the most critical issues for the process improvement [40].Paulk et al. [41] summarized the five capability maturity levels as follows: 1 Initial (level 1): The process is described as ad hoc and is occasionally chaotic.Few processes are defined, and success depends on individual effort.2 Repeatable (level 2): The project management process is developed to track cost, schedule and functionality.The process disciplines are used to assist a repeatable success on similar projects.3 Defined (level 3): Both management and engineering activities are documented, standardized and integrated into a standard process.The standard organization processes are then applied to all projects.4 Managed (level 4): The process and product quality are collected and measured in order to be quantitatively understood and controlled.5 Optimizing (level 5): The process is continuously improved through quantitative feedback and innovative ideas, skills and technologies.
Capability maturity theory has been adopted to develop maturity models to assess safety issues across a wide range of industries (e.g., construction, oil and gas and healthcare).A review by Goncalves Filho and Waterson [40] indicated that the majority of maturity models in occupational health and safety research were formulated based on the combination of capability maturity theory and Westrum's [25] "Typology of Organizations".Westrum [25] theorized that one method to distinguish between organizational cultures was according to the way that safety-related issues were handled in the organization and that the introduction of a revised safety management or top leadership might present increasing levels of advancement of organizational culture.Consequently, it has been observed that five-level models have been proposed and tested the most frequently.In level 1 (Pathological), safety is a problem caused by workers, and the main drivers are the business and a desire not to be caught by the regulator.In level 2 (Reactive), organizations start to take safety seriously but there is the only action after incidents.In level 3 (Calculative), safety is driven by management systems, with much collection of data.Safety is still primarily driven by management and imposed rather than looked for by the workforce.In level 4 (Proactive), with improved performance, the unexpected is a challenge.Workforce involvement starts to move the initiative away from a purely top-down approach.In level 5 (Generative), there is active participation at all levels of the organization.Safety is perceived to be an inherent part of the business.Organizations are characterized by chronic unease as a counter to complacency [42].Accordingly, the five-level maturity model of resilient safety culture in this study was theoretically supported by the literature review and further confirmed through the Delphi study.

Rubrics
Rubrics mainly contain evaluative criteria, quality definitions for those criteria at particular levels of achievement and a scoring strategy described in a table format and used for assessment [43].Rubrics are the core of the maturity model of resilient safety culture because they present a set of instructions, which can be used to measure the detailed subcriteria in terms of their different maturity levels.In this study, the rubrics were developed based on the review of safety literature pertaining to the definitions of each subcriterion and previous maturity models on health and safety [27,42,[44][45][46][47][48].The rubrics were then refined by conducting two rounds of Delphi questionnaires.The analyses of the Delphi study indicate that (1) all experts approved of descriptions of the resilient safety culture at five maturity levels, and (2) most experts believed that, as an organization may not assert that it has a specific maturity level of resilient safety culture without having passed through appropriate criteria of maturity of safety culture, it is acceptable that all subcriteria exert an equal effect in improving resilient safety culture.The results are presented in Tables 1-3.All employees on site feel free to share errors with others and report to the organization so that the same mistakes do not occur again.To examine the resilient safety culture of a particular construction organization (i.e., a project), each subcriterion referring to a case study can produce a score.In this study, as the weights or relative importance of criteria and their subcriteria have not been examined, the equal weights method [70], which requires minimal knowledge of the decision-maker's priorities and minimal input from the decision-maker, was employed.The final score for error management criteria is then determined as an average score of all its subcriteria (Equation ( 1)).Using the rubric of error management criteria as an example, for a specific subcriterion, if the rubric of a case study falls in the Pathological level, it scores 1; if it falls in the Reactive level, it scores 2; and so on.An example of Project A could be scored using Equation (1) and shown in Table 4. Accordingly, with regard to error management criteria, as the final score of Project A is 3.5, Project A is in the Proactive level.
Final score of error management criteria : where S(E i ) is the score of the subcriteria E i .The overall score of the maturity of resilient safety culture for a construction project can be determined as an average score of all three key criteria (Equation ( 2)).Accordingly, if the overall score of a resilient safety culture falls between 1 and 2, the maturity of resilient safety culture is at the Reactive level; if it falls between 2 and 3, the maturity of the resilient safety culture is at the Calculative level, and so forth.The maturity model of a resilient safety culture is illustrated in Figure 2.
Overall score of resilient safety culture : where S(H) and S(M) are the final scores of hazard prevention and mindful organizing, respectively.Furthermore, once the same procedures are repeated in multiple projects for the company, it is possible to sum them up and perceive the maturity level of the re safety culture at a company level.It has been noted that although there are variou Furthermore, once the same procedures are repeated in multiple projects for the same company, it is possible to sum them up and perceive the maturity level of the resilient safety culture at a company level.It has been noted that although there are various projects within the same company, such projects could have different levels of resilient safety culture maturity in terms of hazard prevention, error management and mindful organizing.This enables resources to be allocated more efficiently to achieve an advanced status with regard to resilient safety culture.Likewise, it is possible to obtain the maturity level of a group of similar companies or the whole industry.It therefore offers a means of benchmarking for resilient safety culture maturity and allows the required actions to be identified before the higher maturity can be achieved.

Discussion
This study expands the existing literature relating to resilient safety culture by proposing a quantitative maturity model of a resilient safety culture for construction organizations, thereby facilitating an understanding of developing the concept of a resilient safety culture in the construction industry.The model presented in this paper has the following key features: 1 It integrates three related concepts, namely hazard prevention, error management and mindful organizing practices, and uses these concepts as three main criteria to assess resilient safety culture.Three key criteria, therefore, allow the resilient safety culture to be observed and enhanced in different aspects when making an assessment. 2 It employs a five-level capability maturity model to measure resilient safety culture, thus allowing the level of resilient safety culture to be assessed through the proposed level in a range of "1 = Pathological" to "5 = Generative".
In practical terms, the maturity model of a resilient safety culture has two applications.The first application is to provide the employees with the perceptions with regard to its current safety management practices and the maturity level of resilient safety culture.It is therefore intended to be used in safety meetings or workshops to offer participants a clear view of the status quo, strengths and weaknesses of their organizations' capabilities to manage safety risks.Within the same company, managers can also use the model as a tool to compare construction projects with regard to their resilient safety culture maturity.The second application of the model is to provide guidance for the enhancement of resilient safety culture maturity.Based on the proposed model, it is clear that an organization can obtain different scores in terms of hazard prevention, error management and mindful organizing.Based on the assessment results of the proposed model, it is suggested that organizations can better recognize the specific areas and the safety practices required, and thereby allocate resources efficiently in order to achieve an advanced status with regard to resilient safety culture.

Conclusions
Resilient safety culture has been recognized as a promising concept to establish an ultrasafe organization.This paper reports the development of a maturity model for a resilient safety culture in the construction environment.Based on an extensive review of pertinent literature, the components for the maturity model were identified.The Delphi method was then employed to verify the model.As a result, the developed model consists of 5 maturity levels, 3 assessment criteria, and 19 detailed assessment subcriteria.Detailed descriptions of each assessment subcriterion at five different maturity levels are also presented.The proposed model is useful because it enables organizations to benchmark their current level of resilient safety culture maturity and identify the actions required before the higher maturity can be achieved.
This research has several limitations.First, the key criteria and their subcriteria for assessing and enhancing resilient safety culture have not been prioritized, and thus it is assumed that all subcriteria have the same weight.The organization using this maturity model could either apply the equations provided in this study or develop a scale of their importance.Future research can focus on calculating the overall score of resilient safety cultures considering the weighted value of assessment subcriteria.The second limitation is that the proposed model was not tested using empirical data.It would be worthwhile to conduct a case study in order to demonstrate the application of the proposed model.For example, several construction projects under construction stage by a contractor can be selected for assessment and comparison.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Structure of the maturity model of resilient safety culture and research process.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Structure of the maturity model of resilient safety culture and research process.

Table 1 .
Rubric of hazard prevention.

Table 2 .
Rubric of error management.

Table 4 .
Example of using the maturity model of resilient safety culture in Project A (error management criteria).