Smart Planning - Approaching the Characteristics of a Valid, Balanced Transport Round

  • Virginie GovaereEmail author
  • Liên Wioland
  • Julien Cegarra
  • Didier Gourc
  • Antoine Clément
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 819)


Road Freight Transport (RFT) companies represent 37,200 companies and roughly 420,000 employees. This sector is confronted by strong competition and growing pressure from customers and suppliers, tight delivery times, exacerbated flexibility, etc. In parallel, they are required to fulfill performance duties in terms of preventing risks of occupational accidents and diseases. In 2016, CNAM statistics reports 70 deaths per year, 3,000,000 work days lost, an average 6 work days lost per employee, an index of frequency (73‰). The planner builds the transport rounds by integrating at best all dimensions (regulation, economic, environmental and prevention of health and safety of their employees). In this context, the Smart Planning project aims to develop a computer system to help create more balanced planning. The purpose of this paper is to present the first results. It proposes, with an ergonomic analysis, to identify the prescribed and tacit constraints manipulated by the planners in two companies. A questionnaire is drawn up to validate and enrich the data on the health and safety dimension.

This study is not a business case; it is ergonomic analysis to validate different determinants identified (health and safety) and investigates the assessment of these determinants and their possible consideration during planning.


Prevention of health and safety Balanced planning Compromise 


  1. 1.
    Camman C, Fiore C, Livolsi L, Querro P (2017) Supply chain management and business performance: the VASC model, 1st edn. Wiley-ISTE, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joling C, Kraan K (2008) Use of technology and working conditions in european union. European foundation for improvement of living and working conditions, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bilan de l’Observatoire social des transports (2013) Commissariat général du développement durable, service de l’observatoire et des statistiquesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wioland L (2013) Ergonomic analyses in the transport and logistics sector. Reflection on developing a new prevention approach: “Act Elsewhere”. Accid Anal Prev 59:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apostolopoulos Y, Shattell MM, Soenmez S, Strack R, Haldeman L, Jones V (2012) Active living in the trucking sector: environmental barriers and health promotion strategies. J Phys Act Health 9:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virginie Govaere
    • 1
    Email author
  • Liên Wioland
    • 1
  • Julien Cegarra
    • 2
  • Didier Gourc
    • 3
  • Antoine Clément
    • 3
  1. 1.INRS, Working Life DepartmentVandoeuvre CedexFrance
  2. 2.Université de Toulouse, INU1 Champollion, SCoTE EA7420AlbiFrance
  3. 3.Université de Toulouse - IMT Mines Albi 2Albi Cedex 09France

Personalised recommendations