## 4 Discussion
Among the indicators, the experts highlighted the efficiency of OHS resource management (\(w_{O2}\) = 0.085), the frequency of coordinating activities with contractors (\(w_{E4}\) = 0.074), the degree of communication capacity of employees (\(w_{K2}\) = 0.074), the analysis of the results of external OHS controls (\(w_{O1}\) = 0.071), and the number of external funds for improving the OHS system (\(w_{E2}\) = 0.068). Limited resources in small companies and inadequate safety management can lead to poor outcomes in the OHS system. Experts emphasised the need for significant communication with contractors, especially because window- and door-fitting activities are only one part of the construction process, as shown in Figure 3. Employees may also be exposed to hazards related to some other activities performed in parallel with the installation of doors and windows such as the setup of electrical installations. Work permits, which include the approval of the OHS officers of both the contractor and subcontractor, can help prevent undesirable outcomes in these situations. Regarding the final weights, the highest-ranked indicators included representatives from all groups describing the influential factors. Certain conclusions can also be drawn from the analysis of the local weights of the indicators, considering their relation to the specific factors they describe. In the group of indicators reflecting organisational influence, the effectiveness of OHS resource management (\(O_{2}\)) and the analysis of external OHS control results (\(O_{1}\)) stood out, while the other indicators had significantly lower weights. Among the indicators related to worker influence, expert evaluations suggested that the communication competence of employees (\(K_{2}\)) had a slightly higher local weight, while the others had very similar values. The selection of key indicators in this group was characterised by the lowest coefficient of group satisfaction, which was at the threshold of acceptability (\(\rho\) = 0.750). For the indicators describing the impact of the environment, the frequency of activity coordination with contractors (\(E_{4}\)) and the use of external funds for improving the OHS system (\(E_{2}\)) had the highest local weights, whereas the remaining indicators had significantly lower values. Finally, among the indicators describing the technological factor, only the number and severity of incidents (\(T_{4}\)) stood out. In all of the analysed scenarios, some technological improvements were implied, as the weight of \(w_{T}\) was increased relative to the value determined by the experts (\(w_{T}\) = 0.147). This is due to the constant development of technologies, especially artificial intelligence (AI), and their possible application in the analysis of available OHS data, advanced monitoring of the working environment, and more precise detection of hazards. Scenarios \(S_{1}\) to \(S_{4}\) describe situations in which one factor dominates over the others. These scenarios were used to determine how indicators from a specific group dominate in comparison to indicators from other groups. In contrast, scenarios \(S_{5}\) to \(S_{10}\) represent situations in which two factors have a slightly more significant influence than the others. For example, technological changes may be accompanied by changes in legislation (scenario \(S_{5}\)) or improvements in working conditions (scenario \(S_{10}\)). The following indicators were in the top ten in all of the analysed scenarios: \(E_{2}\), \(E_{4}\), \(T_{4}\), \(O_{1}\), \(O_{2}\), and \(K_{2}\). This highlights the importance of external, additional sources of information, additional funds for improving the OHS system, and organisational capacity for the effective management of OHS resources. Networking within communities of practice or knowledge communities and sharing data with related companies of similar size were identified as potentially very significant impetuses for improving the OHS system. Of course, employees are essential.