Advertisement

Conceptual Principles as Intermediary Object: Case of an Industrial Unit

  • Adson Eduardo Resende
  • Francisco de P. A. Lima
  • Francisco J. C. Moura Duarte
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

In the participatory design, an intermediary object is a hybrid object, as well as a modeling of our future desire and an instrument to mediate the design process among all the work teams. This article discusses and takes the design process as the object of analysis, and the use of conceptual principles as an intermediary object, based on the authors’ participation in the development of a new Sulphur Recovery Unit. One important point to be considered as a determining factor of functional mismatches in large industrial projects is the growing gap between operational and project teams, even when there is an expressed willingness to promote the participation of operators in the projects. The consequences of this are predominantly organizational, creating obstacles that must be overcome to make the operators’ integration into the project process more effective. Beginning from the conceptual project, the ergonomic design appears early, identifying the need to promote a social intervention together with the technical specifications, using one or more intermediary objects to organize and mediate the interactions between actors of the design process. This conceptual guidance creates a place where the solution to each design conflict should be discussed and resolved.

Keywords

Ergonomics design Participatory design Intermediary object Design concept 

References

  1. Béguin P (2012) When users and designers meet each other in the design process. In: Owen C, Wackers G, Béguin P (eds) Risky work environments: reappraising human work within fallible systems. Ashgate Publishing, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  2. Béguin P (2003) Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interact Comput 15(5):709–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Béguin P (2007) Taking activity into account during the design process. @ctivités 4(2):115–121. http://www.activites.org/v4n2/v4n2.pdf
  4. Broberg O (2007) Integrating ergonomics into engineering: empirical evidence and implications for the ergonomists. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 17(4):353–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bucciarelli LL (2003) Engineering philosophy. Delft University Press, DelftGoogle Scholar
  7. Daniellou F (2005) The French-speaking ergonomists’ approach to work activity: cross-influences of field intervention and conceptual models. Theoret Issues Ergon Sci 6(5):409–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duarte F, Lima F, Remiro R, Maia N (2009) Settings of usage for the design process. In: Proceedings of the 17th world congress on ergonomics, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  9. Lima FPA, Resende AE, Duarte FMC (2014) The social construction of design processes in complex organizations. In: Proceedings of human factors in organizational design and management – ODAM XI, vol 1. DTU Library, Copenhague, pp 919–924Google Scholar
  10. Star SL, Griesemer J (1989) Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Star SL, Ruhleder K (1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Inf Syst Res 7(1):111–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Theureau J (2003) Course-of-action analysis and course-of-action-centered design. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 55–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vaughan D (1996) The challenger launch decision. Chicago UP, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Vinck D, Blanco E (eds) (2003) Everyday engineering: an ethnography of design and innovation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Trompette P, Vinck D (2009) Retour sur la notion d’objet-frontière. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 3(1):5–27.  https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.006.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Trompette P, Vinck D (2010) Retour sur la notion d’objet-frontière (2) » Fécondité de la notion dans l’analyse écologique des objets innovants. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 4(1):11–15.  https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.009.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vinck D (2011) Taking intermediary objects and equipping work into account in the study of engineering practices. Eng Stud 3(1):25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adson Eduardo Resende
    • 1
  • Francisco de P. A. Lima
    • 1
  • Francisco J. C. Moura Duarte
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations