# Improvements of Design for Safety in Construction through Multi-Participants Perception Analysis
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Relative Importance of the DfS Improvement Alternatives from the Overall Respondents' Perspectives  
To identify the top priority among the eight aforementioned DfS improvement alternatives, the relative importance of each of the alternatives as perceived by the 27 respondents was analyzed using F-AHP. A comparative analysis of the relative importance of each of the alternatives as perceived by the construction project participants and based on the career level was performed using F-AHP. It was found that all CRs were less than 0.1, which provides evidence of the consistency of the responses. The results of the F-AHP analysis are presented in Figure 4 and Table 7.  
Figure 3: Result of absolute importance of DfS alternatives. Figure 4: Results of importance’s fuzzy-analytical hierarchy process (F-AHP) analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Overall** & **Client** & **Designer** & **Contractor** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Construction** \\ **Manager** \\ \end{tabular} & **Researcher** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Less than 10** \\ **Years** \\ **Experience** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **More than 10** \\ **Years** \\ **Experience** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Application of extended coverage & 0.089 (8) & 0.160 (1) & 0.121 (4) & 0.047 (8) & 0.065 (7) & 0.101 (5) & 0.117 (6) & 0.077 (8) \\ Adjustment of the application phase & 0.094 (6) & 0.110 (6) & 0.107 (6) & 0.077 (7) & 0.044 (8) & 0.134 (4) & 0.095 (7) & 0.029 (7) \\ Application of the design alternative & 0.109 (5) & 0.127 (4) & 0.147 (2) & 0.126 (4) & 0.077 (5) & 0.056 (7) & 0.126 (5) & 0.100 (5) \\ Development of a collaboration program & 0.090 (7) & 0.087 (8) & 0.081 (8) & 0.117 (5) & 0.070 (6) & 0.064 (6) & 0.083 (8) & 0.092 (6) \\ Development of a training program for experts & 0.133 (4) & 0.1165 (5) & 0.117 (5) & 0.104 (6) & 0.140 (3) & 0.178 (2) & 0.133 (3) & 0.129 (3) \\ Involvement of the contract in the & 0.152 (2) & 0.1106 (0) & 0.097 (7) & 0.149 (3) & 0.250 (1) & 0.173 (3) & 0.139 (2) & 0.156 (2) \\ \multicolumn{10}{c}{pre-construction phase} \\ Development of a decision support system & 0.137 (3) & 0.138 (3) & 0.144 (3) & 0.215 (1) & 0.129 (4) & 0.049 (8) & 0.178 (1) & 0.117 (4) \\ Assignment of responsibility for DIS to the client & 0.196 (1) & 0.150 (2) & 0.186 (1) & 0.164 (2) & 0.225 (2) & 0.245 (1) & 0.129 (4) & 0.237 (1) \\ \hline CR & 0.008 & 0.090 & 0.048 & 0.047 & 0.066 & 0.079 & 0.026 & 0.015 \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{* Remarks} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of the F-AHP analysis of the importance of the DIS improvement alternatives. Relative Importance of DfS Improvement Alternatives from the Construction Project Participants' Perspective  
3.1 Relative Importance of DfS Improvement Alternatives from the Construction Project Client's Perspective  
As shown in the construction project client graph in Figure 4, the clients accorded greater importance to the 'Application of extended coverage' (0.160) compared to all other respondents. As mentioned earlier, the application of DfS can reduce the number of accidents at construction sites. In South Korea, however, DfS is supposed to be implemented only in public construction projects. Therefore, the client who is responsible for construction safety management seeks to expand the application range of DfS and reduce the number of deaths when delivering the construction project. In addition, the clients accorded less importance to the 'Assignment of responsibility for DfS to the client' (0.138) compared to all other respondents. This suggests that the client who is responsible for the safety of the construction project is not enthusiastic about the strengthening of his responsibility for DfS. This finding is consistent with the result of the study carried out by [PERSON] et al. (2016) [25].