Misconception 1: “DfS Only Applies to Large Projects (Above S$10 Million)”
The Myth: Many believe that Design for Safety is only a concern for big construction projects (those above a S$10 million contract value), and that smaller projects need not implement DfS processes. This misconception likely arises because Singapore’s DfS regulation formally mandates DfS for projects meeting a specific size threshold. Stakeholders on small projects can assume they are exempt from considering safety in design, treating DfS as something optional for minor works.
The Reality: While it is true that the WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015 legally apply to projects with contract sums of S$10 million or more, this does not mean DfS is unimportant for smaller projects. In fact, the Workplace Safety and Health Council explicitly “encourages Developers, Designers and Contractors to apply DfS to all building projects,” regardless of size. The S$10 million threshold simply marks when DfS processes (like appointing a DfS Professional and maintaining a DfS Register) become a legal requirement. Hazards exist on construction sites of any scale, and smaller projects can still pose significant risks if safety is overlooked.
Even if a project is below the regulatory threshold, adopting DfS principles is considered good practice. The intent of the DfS framework is to instill a prevention mindset across all projects, identifying design-related risks “at the source” and addressing them early. A simple renovation or a modest building project can benefit from safer design choices just as much as a mega-project. Every project; big or small, stands to gain from designing for safety.
Misconception 2: “DfS Is Just Bureaucratic Red Tape with No Real Benefit”
The Myth: Another common misconception is that Design for Safety is merely a paperwork exercise, a “tick-the-box” compliance burden that adds cost and time, without tangible benefits. Some project teams can view DfS requirements (meetings, registers, documentation) as “bureaucratic red tape” imposed by regulators, believing it does little to improve outcomes on site. There is a fear that DfS might slow down the design process or increase project budgets, leading skeptics to question if it’s worth the effort.
The Reality: When implemented properly, DfS is far more than paperwork, it is a life-saving, cost-saving proactive approach. In Singapore’s experience, many projects have “benefited from [DfS], with designs that are safer for site personnel to construct, for occupants to use, and for owners to operate”. In other words, considering safety in design has real-world payoffs: it reduces accidents during construction, results in buildings that are safer to maintain and use, and can improve overall project quality. Far from being a mere formality, DfS can help avoid costly incidents (and their associated delays, insurance claims, and reputational damage) by addressing hazards upfront.
Industry leaders in Singapore emphasize that DfS actually adds value. Er. Chong Kee Sen, former President of the Institution of Engineers Singapore (IES), noted that addressing safety issues at the design stage not only mitigates risks early but also “brings value to a project.” By engaging engineers and architects in upfront risk management, projects can avoid downstream problems and even improve productivity. The goal of DfS is to be a “genuinely value-added process and not seen as just another red tape”, as a 2019 industry guide by REDAS puts it. Rather than costing money, DfS can save costs by preventing accidents, averting project stoppages, and ensuring smoother operations.
Bottom line: DfS is an investment in safety and efficiency, not a wasteful bureaucracy.
Misconception 3: “DfS Responsibility Lies Only with the DfS Professional or Safety Officer, Not with Designers/Engineers or Contractors”
The Myth: Some stakeholders mistakenly think that once a DfS Professional is appointed or a safety officer is on board, the rest of the project team can delegate all safety considerations to that individual. Designers assume that it’s the contractor’s job to handle construction safety, while contractors think all design-related safety issues were already handled by the designers or the DfS Professional before they arrived. This myth reflects an old mindset where designers and developers “leave the identification of workplace safety and health risks…to the contractors”, or a belief that DfS is a specialty task outside the core design and construction work.
The Reality: In truth, Design for Safety is a shared responsibility. A team sport involving every key stakeholder. The Design for Safety Professional (DfSP) is there to facilitate the process (by coordinating meetings and maintaining the DfS Register), but they are not a dumping ground for all safety duties.
- Developers (Clients) – The developer holds overarching responsibility to ensure DfS is implemented. Under the law, the developer must “ensure that all foreseeable design risks are eliminated if reasonably practicable” and that any remaining risks are mitigated to as low as reasonably practicable. The developer convenes DfS review meetings with the project team and must ensure that designers and contractors attend and contribute. Developers also must allocate sufficient time and resources for safety considerations and appoint competent people (including a DfS Professional) to assist. In short, the client sets the tone and ensures a DfS process is in place from the start.
- Designers (Architects, Engineers, etc.) – Every designer involved in the project has a legal duty to design out hazards within their scope. Regulation 9 of the WSH (DfS) Regulations requires designers to “prepare a design plan that eliminates, as far as reasonably practicable, all foreseeable design risks,” or if elimination isn’t possible, to reduce the risks and inform the party who engaged them of those residual risks. Designers must consider safe construction methods, maintenance access, material choices, every aspect of their design, with worker safety in mind. They are also expected to participate in DfS meetings and communicate crucial safety information (e.g. unusual hazards or required precautions) to other stakeholders. It is not acceptable for designers to say “safety is not my department”, the law makes safety a core part of the design scope.
- Contractors – The contractors (both main contractors and subcontractors) also carry DfS obligations. Even though they come in after much of the design is done, contractors must identify any design-related risks that emerge during construction planning and inform the developer (or the party that hired them) of these risks.
Misconception 4: “Design for Safety Can Be Done Later, It Doesn’t Need to Start at the Conceptual Stage”
The Myth: Some project teams treat DfS as an afterthought, a review to be done once the design is nearly finalized or just before construction. This misconception might manifest as “we’ll deal with safety in the shop drawings or method statements later” or “DfS review starts only when the DfS Professional comes on board, which is at tender/award stage.” In practice, this myth leads to late integration of safety, when design changes are difficult and costly. It stems from not appreciating that the earlier safety is considered, the more effective and easier it is to address.
The Reality: DfS is meant to begin at the conceptual and planning phases of a project, right from the earliest stages of design. The whole philosophy of “safety by design” or “prevention through design” is to implement safety into the project from day one. If architects and engineers think about how to eliminate hazards while they are laying out the concept, they have the greatest flexibility to come up with inherently safer designs. Waiting until later (detailed design or construction stage) to consider safety often means you’re stuck with mitigating hazards that could have been designed out.
Practically, early DfS involvement means the developer and designers conduct preliminary hazard identification during concept design, and again at various design development milestones. For instance, during concept layout, the team might decide to avoid an atrium design that would be hard to scaffold safely, or choose prefabrication methods to reduce work-at-height during construction. By contrast, if such decisions are left until after contracts are awarded, it can be too late to change course. Recognizing this, the WSH (DfS) Regulations also expect the developer to give designers and contractors “sufficient time and resources” to incorporate safety implying that rushed, last-minute DfS is not acceptable.
A compelling insight comes from industry experts: Er. Chong Kee Sen of IES highlighted that “addressing safety issues at design stage” ensures risks in construction and maintenance are mitigated early”. For example, designing a barrier is more reliable than hoping a worker remembers to tie his safety harness later. By the time construction starts, if these hazards weren’t considered, one can only rely on administrative controls or PPE, which are less effective than design solutions.
Misconception 5: “DfS Only Concerns Construction Safety, Not Maintenance or Future Users”
The Myth: Some think Design for Safety is purely about protecting construction workers on the jobsite, and that once the project is built, DfS has served its purpose. According to this view, considerations for maintenance, repair, or end-user safety are outside the scope, those can be dealt with after handover. This myth overlooks the full breadth of DfS, assuming it ends when construction ends.
The Reality: DfS is holistic and lifecycle-oriented. It absolutely extends beyond the construction phase, encompassing the safety of those who will operate, maintain, clean, renovate, and eventually demolish the structure. The Singapore regulations make this clear: the DfS process is meant to result in designs that are safer “for site personnel to construct, for occupants to use, and for owners to operate.” In fact, the law’s definition of an “affected person” (one who should not be put at risk by design) includes anyone working on the completed building as a workplace, such as maintenance workers, cleaners, and even persons involved in future demolition of the structure. In other words, if a window cleaner or a technician servicing the air-conditioning could be endangered by a design decision, that risk should be considered during design development and recorded in the DfS Register.
Maintenance safety is a key part of DfS reviews. For example, designers should ask: How will facilities management staff replace that high ceiling light years from now? Is there safe roof access for repairs? Are there anchor points for façade cleaning? If the answer is no, the design needs improvement now, not later.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) even promotes Design for Maintainability as a complement to DfS, encouraging features that reduce maintenance risks (and effort). Singapore’s DfS Guidelines require that upon project completion, the DfS Register handed over to the building owner must contain information critical to “ensure safety and health during any subsequent work such as maintenance, cleaning, Addition & Alteration, refurbishment or demolition.” This register is essentially a living document of design risks and assumptions that future stakeholders (facility managers, contractors doing renovation, etc.) need to know. Owners are obliged to keep this DfS Register and “communicate all foreseeable risks to persons carrying out maintenance and future works,” and to pass the register to the next owner if the property changes hands. This legal requirement underscores that safety considerations carry on throughout the building’s life cycle.
Conclusion
Design for Safety (DfS) in Singapore marks a shift from reactive to proactive construction safety. While misconceptions like thinking it’s only for large projects or just paperwork still persist, understanding DfS correctly enables stakeholders to prevent accidents and improve outcomes. DfS is a shared responsibility that starts at the design stage and continues throughout a building’s life cycle. By embracing it fully, project teams support Singapore’s broader goal of reducing workplace fatalities. In the end, DfS isn’t just about compliance, it’s about designing safer projects from the start.
References
Feo, E. (2023, November 11). Design for safety: a vital imperative in the modern world. Medium. https://medium.com/design-bootcamp/design-for-safety-a-vital-imperative-in-the-modern-world-9eda2d1f4ac0
NewsWire. (2016, January 19). Inaugural “Design for Safety” Seminar to Support New Workplace Safety and Health Regulations. NewsWire. https://www.newswire.com/news/inaugural-design-for-safety-seminar-to-support-new-workplace-safety-and-7410446
REDAS. (2019). DFS & WSH GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE. https://www.redas.com/assets/files/good%20practice%20guide/DfS%20Good%20%20Practice%20Guide%20(Final)_%207%20Sept%2019.pdf
Summers, A. E. (2012). Don’t Fall for Safety System Myths. In SIS-TECH Solutions (pp. 2–8). https://sis-tech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Dont-Fall-for-Safety-System-Myths1.pdf
Workplace Safety and Health Council. (2016). Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines Design for safety. https://designforconstructionsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/wsh_guidelines_design_for_safety1.pdf
