Steven Rose explores the barriers preventing construction’s wider adoption of safety tech wearables
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
In UK construction, examples exist of wearable and smart safety technology being trialled or used in practice.
These examples differ in function, but they illustrate the wider use of wearable and smart safety technology in construction, even where the application is not limited to direct monitoring of personal health indicators.
It also suggests that current construction training routes do not sufficiently address this area.
That matters because workers are unlikely to support technology they do not understand. If wearable devices are introduced without clear explanation, the response is often scepticism.
Concerns about what is being monitored, how information is used and whether it might extend beyond personal health and safety go to the heart of whether the technology is trusted or resisted.
On a live site, that mistrust can translate into non-use, informal resistance or a belief that the technology is being imposed rather than being a benefit.
“Awareness needs to be built earlier and reinforced through the training routes that already shape construction behaviour and competence.”
Managers may support the concept without fully understanding what is needed to implement it well. In some higher-risk or more regulated environments, aspects of this technology may already be more familiar, but across general construction delivery, adoption still appears limited.
Education is the first step
If attitudes are to change, the first step is education. Not just one-off site briefings, but wider and more consistent education across the industry. If workers first encounter this technology on site, resistance is hardly surprising. Awareness needs to be built earlier and reinforced through the training routes that already shape construction behaviour and competence. That means apprenticeships, refresher training, supervisor development and CPD.
If the industry expects wider adoption, it has to explain what the technology is, how it works, why it may benefit workers, and how related information is collected, used, stored and managed. Workers also need reassurance that the intention is support, not surveillance.
There is also a response challenge. If a wearable device identifies a sign of concern in an operative, the value lies in early intervention: pausing work, checking the individual’s condition, providing appropriate support and preventing a more serious event from developing. That may mean stopping work, escalating the concern through the right supervision route and making sure the response is proportionate, timely and understood by those involved.
In practice, connected-worker systems may also combine alerts, location functions and communication tools so information can be relayed quickly to those able to respond. Unless site teams understand that response process, the technology risks being seen as intrusive rather than protective.
Adoption cannot, therefore, be treated as a procurement exercise alone. It is also a management, training and workforce-engagement issue.
There is also a competence gap. Wearable technology needs to be supported by people who understand how it should be introduced, explained and managed in practice.
Site teams need a level of understanding to support its use, integrate it into wider personal health and safety arrangements, and respond in a way that workers see as proportionate, credible and protective.
Without competence, even well-intentioned systems may be poorly applied and quickly lose workforce confidence.
The point is not the absence of a framework – existing health and safety and data protection duties already apply. †he key question is whether organisations explain clearly what information is being collected, why it is being collected, where it is stored, who can access it and how it will be used, so that workers understand and trust the arrangements in practice.
Without that transparency, wearable technology may be seen less as a personal health and safety tool and more as a mechanism for increased oversight. Concerns around personal data, privacy and control are therefore not secondary issues. They are central barriers to adoption.
The practical message is straightforward. If wearable safety technology is to gain wider acceptance, it must be introduced with clear benefit, proper explanation, transparent data arrangements and a credible response process when concerns arise.
It also needs support from the industry’s education and training structures, so familiarity is built before implementation on site. Poorly embedded systems risk mistrust, non-use and wasted investment. Properly embedded systems have a better chance of supporting earlier intervention, strengthening workforce confidence and improving the practical value of personal health and safety arrangements on site.
The technology may be advanced, but the barriers to adoption are familiar: people need to understand it, trust it and believe it is there to protect them.
Steven Rose FCIOB is director at PPS Associates
