Working Equipment Design: Comparison of Safety Modalities Integration in Two Design Departments

  • Cecilia De la Garza
  • Elie Fadier
Conference paper


This paper is based on the analysis of the design activity undertaken in a manufacturer of web presses and on the analysis of work situations in printing shop that use this type of equipment. From a cognitive point of view, the aim was to analyze the integration of safety criteria by different design actors. From a practical point of view, the aim is to bring tools and to enrich design processes in order to develop a“proactively safety” approach.


Test Stage Individual Knowledge Safety Criterion Risk Accident Hand Control 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    De la Garza C. A cognitive analysis of safety integration into design in the printing sector. Workshop on Human Factors and MMI. 3rd International Conference of Industrial Automated Systems, SIAS, 13-15 October, Nancy, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fadier E., Neboit M., Ciccotelli J. Intégration des conditions limites d’utilisation des équipements de travail, pour la prévention des risques associés, dès la conception des systèmes de production. Rapport de synthèse du projet, décembre 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fadier E., De la Garza C., Didelot A. Safe design and human activity: construction of a theoretical framework from an analysis of a printing sector. Safety Science 2003; 41(9): 759–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fadier E., De la Garza C., Neboit M., Safety integration into the design process: how to exceed the normative and sequential approach? In Luczak H., Zink K.J. (Ed.) Human factors in organizational design and management VII. IEA Press, Santa Monica 2003, pp 353–358.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rabardel P. Les hommes et les technologies. Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Armand Colin, Paris, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richard J.-F. Logique du fonctionnement et logique de l’utilisation. Rapport de recherche, 202, INRIA, Roquencourt, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rasmussen J. (1997). Risk Management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Safety Science 1997; 27(2-3): 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia De la Garza
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elie Fadier
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Ergonomie InformatiqueUniversité Paris 5Paris CedexFrance
  2. 2.Département Homme au TravailInstitut National de Recherche et de Sécurité, Laboratoire Ergonomie et Psychologie Appliquées à la PréventionVandoeuvre Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations