Simulation in Diagnosing and Redesigning Knowledge Transfer Systems in the Offshore Oil Industry

  • Carolina ConceiçãoEmail author
  • Ole Broberg
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 821)


How can simulations help diagnosing and redesigning knowledge transfer (KT) systems? This paper addresses this research question and discusses how simulations carried out over a set of workshops helped diagnosing and redesigning KT from operations to engineering design in a study involving an offshore oil company. During three simulation activities, end-users participated in a multi-voiced diagnosis of KT challenges and in a cross-organizational development of new solutions for KT systems. The participatory and interactive approach on the workshops brought participants of different professional worlds together to discuss and negotiate the possible solutions for improving the existing KT from offshore rigs’ operation to onshore engineering design of new rigs. Participatory simulations helped (1) validating a conceptual model for KT from operations to engineering design and (2) developing a set of requirements for redesigning these KT systems. The outcome was a KT model based on the main challenges and presenting practical solutions to face them.


Participatory simulation Knowledge transfer Ergonomics 


  1. 1.
    Van Belleghem L (2017) What are the design requirements for an organisational simulation support? In: Proceedings of the 48th annual conference of the association of Canadian ergonomists & 12th international symposium on human factors in organisational design and management, pp 400–406, BanffGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen S, Broberg O (2016) Participatory ergonomics simulation of hospital work systems: the influence of simulation media on simulation outcome. Appl Ergon 51:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barcellini F, Van Belleghem L, Daniellou F (2014) Design projects as opportunities for the development of activities. In: Falzon P (ed) Constructive Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, pp 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daniellou F, Le Gal S, Promé M (2014) Organisational simulation: anticipating the ability of an organization to cope with daily operations and incidents. In: Broberg O, Fallentin N, Hasle P, Jensen P, Kabel A, Larsen M, Weller T (eds) 11th International Symposium on Human Factors in Organisational Design and Management & 46th Annual Nordic Ergonomics Society Conference. IEA, Copenhagen, pp 781–785Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniellou F (2007) Simulating future work activity is not only a way of improving workstation design. @ctivités 4(2):84–90 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barcellini F, Prost L, Cerf M (2015) Designers’ and users’ roles in participatory design: What is actually co-designed by participants? Appl Ergon 50:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garrigou A, Daniellou F, Carballeda G, Ruaud S (1995) Activity analysis in participatory design and analysis of participatory design activity. Int J Ind Ergon 15(5):311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broberg O, Andersen V, Seim R (2011) Participatory ergonomics in design processes: the role of boundary objects. Appl Ergon 42:464–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yin R (2009) Case study research: design and methods, 4th edn. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DTU Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations