CONTEXT
The construction sector in Israel is among the most dangerous industries in the country. Every year thousands of workers are injured and dozens lose their lives, often from accidents that could have been prevented. Regulation and inspections alone had limited success in changing work culture or reducing accidents at scale.
SFI, in partnership with Tidhar Construction, sought to test a new path: one that would not rely only on compliance and enforcement, but on behavioral design and evidence-based interventions. They turned to Q to design and lead the process.
CHALLENGE
Despite regulation, inspections, and company initiatives, accident rates in Israel’s construction sector remain high. Sites are temporary and fast-changing, with frequent worker turnover and cultural gaps that make consistent safety practices hard to sustain. The challenge was not to replace existing efforts, but to add a behavioral layer: understanding everyday barriers to safe work and testing practical interventions that could complement regulation and training.
OUR APPROACH
The project unfolded in several stages, each building on the previous one:
1. Knowledge Map: We reviewed 144 local and international studies to create a structured map of the causes of accidents, the behavioral and organizational drivers of unsafe practices, effective interventions, and metrics for measuring safety. This knowledge map became the shared foundation for all later work.
2. Intervention Design Workshop: Building on the knowledge map, we facilitated a workshop with project partners to design and agree on interventions. Using behavioral models such as the ABC framework and Behavior-Based Safety, combined with SIT creativity tools, the workshop established practical principles that guided the work: focus on observable behaviors, adapt to site conditions, and emphasize positive reinforcement.
3. Qualitative Study: We conducted observations and interviews across several construction sites to map incentives and barriers to safe behavior. This highlighted the decisive role of safety managers, as well as cultural diversity, time pressure, and organizational constraints.
4. Field Experiments: The final stage was to translate research and design into practice through controlled pilots in active construction sites. Each intervention was designed according to the behavioral framework, ensuring it was grounded in proven mechanisms of change, and adapted to local realities through insights from our qualitative research and consultations with partners.
- In one site, we piloted a housekeeping competition, using positive reinforcement to reward teams for keeping their work areas orderly and safe. This intervention built on evidence that visible cues and peer comparison can shift norms quickly, and was tailored to site culture with the active involvement of team managers.
- In another site, we introduced a “red flag” system, where workers could raise a whistle and visual flag to alert others to unsafe practices. This created peer-based accountability and addressed cultural barriers to speaking up, which had been flagged in the qualitative study.
- A third intervention tested a safety film in elevators, aimed at reinforcing the use of harnesses when working at height. It was implemented in high-traffic areas to maximize exposure, following best practices for habit reinforcement, though its impact proved limited.
- Finally, we piloted personal emergency buttons for scaffolding workers, allowing them to signal hazards in real time. This combined technological tools with behavioral insights about timely feedback and empowerment, showing early promise but requiring refinement to sustain.
Across all sites, interventions were monitored with rigor: baseline and follow-up observations, multilingual surveys, and close coordination with site managers ensured both scientific validity and practical feasibility.
RESULTS
The project demonstrated that low-cost, behaviorally informed interventions can improve safety behaviors on construction sites, while also highlighting the conditions required for success.
In practice, results varied across sites but offered clear lessons. The housekeeping competition and red flag system were the most effective, producing noticeable improvements in site tidiness and in workers’ willingness to call out hazards — especially in sites where managers were actively engaged. The safety film had little impact, reinforcing the evidence that information alone rarely changes behavior. The emergency buttons showed early promise as a technological tool for real-time reporting, but required further refinement to integrate smoothly into work routines.
Perhaps the most important finding was that intervention outcomes depended heavily on the commitment of site safety managers. Where managers were proactive and empathetic, interventions gained traction and workers adopted safer behaviors. Where safety was treated as a formality, effects were limited.
INSIGHTS
- Safety managers are decisive: Where managers were engaged and empathetic, interventions gained traction; where safety was treated as a formality, effects were limited.
- Behavioral design works: Interventions grounded in observable behaviors, positive reinforcement, and daily routines proved the most effective.
- Scalability depends on context: Behavioral tools can reduce accidents and complement regulation, but their success requires organizational commitment and careful local adaptation.
- Information alone is not enough: Simply providing information or reminders does little to change behavior unless the root problem is lack of knowledge. Lasting improvements require shifting incentives, habits, and site culture.