Abstract
Previous analyses of the working activity of professionals in charge of safety in industrial companies, also called preventionists, have shown that the purpose of this activity consists of establishing a process of “pragmatization of regulations.” This is an adaptation of the regulations, relative to processes from the texts of law of general order towards their implementation in a context [1]. We have analyzed these processes according to the instrumental approach of Rabardel [2]. In this perspective, we focus on the safety workers’ systems of instruments [3–8]. These resources, developed according to the workers’ experience, render their activity more reliable. They are also of heterogeneous character: simultaneously material, symbolic or of cognitive order. The systems of instruments present certain properties, in particular being structured according to the experience and skills of the workers, but also characterized by the complementarities and redundancies of their functions, following the example of a security system; this takes into account the elements of the context, the constraints and the resources of the activity [3]. In the following case study, we present the system of instruments of a preventionist, in which the regulations function as a “pivot instrument” of this system. It is from the regulations that the worker establishes the diagnosis of the safety level of his or her company and develops his or her preventive and formative actions [9]. To conclude, we develop a discussion about the design of the preventionists’ training.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The translation is from the authors of the chapter.
- 2.
See [14] for details.
- 3.
Schemes are invariant organizations of action for a class of situations [23].
- 4.
Catachresis: “the use of a tool on the place of another one or a use for which it is not designed” ([2], p. 11).
- 5.
The test button generates an electric fault that must be automatically detected by the circuit breaker and then the cut-off must be achieved.
- 6.
Here “resource” is synonymous to instrument.
- 7.
Translated from French.
- 8.
INRS: « Institut national de la recherche en sécurité » or French Research Institute of Safety.
- 9.
Interaction number 62 in the interview.
- 10.
It refers to an ergonomic grid of workstation observation developed in another firm.
- 11.
Method of Failure and Substitution of Resources.
- 12.
FMEA: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, as a method of evaluation of the criticality of the consequences of the failures.
References
Munoz, G. (2007a). Champs conceptuels et champs d’activités chez les fonctionnels de sécurité. In M. Merri (Ed.), Activité humaine et conceptualisation. Questions à Gérard Vergnaud (pp. 527–538). Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail.
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies: approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris: Armand Colin.
Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 665–691.
Bourmaud, G. (2006). Les systèmes d’instruments : méthodes d’analyse et perspectives de conception. Thèse de psychologie ergonomique. Saint-Denis: Université Paris 8 (http://buparis8.bu.inv-paris8.fr/web/collections/Page_theses_&_maitrises.php).
Bourmaud, G. (2007). L’organisation systémique des instruments : méthodes d’analyse, propriétés et perspectives de conception ouvertes. Proceedings of ARCo’07: “Cognition, Complexité”, Acta-Cognitica (pp. 61–75). (http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/19/11/28/PDF/061-076_Bourmaud.pdf).
Bourmaud, G. (2010). Proposition d’une méthode d’analyse anthropocentrée de la fiabilité et de l’adaptabilité des systèmes de travail. In A-S. Nyssen (Ed.), SELF’2010, Ergonomics international congress: “Fiabilité, Adaptation et Résilience”. Liège, Belgique (http://www.ergonomie-self.org/media/media56015.pdf).
Vidal-Gomel, C. (2002a). Systèmes d’instruments des opérateurs. Un point de vue pour analyser le rapport aux règles de sécurité. Pistes, 4(2), (http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v4n2/articles/v4n2a2.htm).
Vidal-Gomel, C. (2002b). Systèmes d’instruments: un cadre pour analyser le rapport aux règles de sécurité. In J.-M. Évesque, A.-M. Gautier, C. Revest, Y. Schwartz & J.-L. Vayssière (Eds.), Proceedings du 37th Congrès de la SELF : Les évolutions de la prescription (pp. 133–143). Aix-en-Provence: 25–27 septembre 2002, GREACT-SELF.
Munoz, G. (2007b). L’analyse de quelques « mouvements » entre les différentes formes de la connaissance : repères pour la formation. Recherche en éducation, 4, 39–50 (http://www.cren-nantes.net/spip.php?article72).
Viet, V., & Ruffat, M. (1999). Les choix de la prévention. Paris: Economica.
De la Garza, C., & Fadier, E. (2004). Sécurité et prévention: repères juridiques et ergonomiques. In P. Falzon (Ed.), Ergonomie (pp. 159–174). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Dekkers, S. (2006). Resilience engineering: chronicling the emergence of a confused consensus. In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Wood, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 77–92). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hollangel, E. (2006). Resilience: the challenge of unstable. In E. Hollnagel, D., Woods & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 9–17). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Daniellou, F. & Rabardel, P. (2005). Oriented approaches to ergonomics: sometraditions and communities. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, Vol. 6–5, 353–357.
Faverge, J.-M. (1970). L’homme, agent d’infiabilité et de fiabilité du processus industriel. Ergonomics, 13, 301–327.
Munoz, G. & Bourmaud, G. (2007). Conceptualisation et pragmatisation de la réglementation comme instrument. In proceedings of the Congrès of the Société Française de Psychologie 2007 and 4th Journées d’Etudes en Psychologie Ergonomique (EPIQUE’07). Nantes: 11–13 septembre 2007 (http://www.sfpsy.org/spe-grape/epique-2007/EPIQUE2007.pdf).
Leplat, J. (1998). About implementation of safety rules. Safety Science, 29, 189–204.
Hale, A. R., & Swuste, P. (1998). Safety rules: Procedural freedom or action constraint? Safety Science, 29, 163–177.
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leplat, J. (2003). Questions autour de la notion de risque. In R. D. Kouabenan & M. Dubois (Eds.), Les risques professionnels: évolutions des approches, nouvelles perspectives (pp. 37–52). Toulouse: Octarès.
Hale, A. & Boris, D. (2012, in press). Working to rule or working safely ? Part 1: A state of the art review. Safety science (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.011).
Mayen, P., & Savoyant, A. (1999). Application de procédures et compétences. Formation Emploi, 67, 77–92.
Vergnaud, G. (1990). La théorie des champs conceptuels. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, Vol. 10–2.3, 133–170.
Faverge, J.-M. (1977). Analyse de la Sécurité du Travail en Termes de Facteurs Potentiels d’Accidents. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles (Laboratoire de Psychologie Industrielle).
Folcher, V., & Rabardel P. (2004). Hommes-Artefacts-Activités : Perspective instrumentale. In P. Falzon (Ed.) L’ergonomie (pp. 251–268). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Bannon, L., & Bødker, S. (1991). Beyond the Interface, encountering artifacts in use. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychological theory of the human-computer interface (pp. 227–253). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaptelinin, V., & Kuutti, K. (1999). Cognitive tools reconsidered: From augmentation to mediation. In J. Marsh, B. Gorayska & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Humane interfaces: questions of methods and practice in cognitive technology (pp. 145–160). Amsterdam, North-Holland: Elsevier.
Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication and cognition. Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lefort, B. (1982). L’emploi des outils au cours de tâches d’entretien et la loi de Zipf-Mandelbrot. Le Travail Humain, 45(2), 307–316.
Minguy, J.-L. (1995). Concevoir pour aider à l’action située. Le travail en passerelle de navires de pêche : rôle de la carte de pêche comme représentation. Thèse d’Ergonomie. Paris: Concervatoire national des arts et métiers.
Minguy, J.-L. (1997). Concevoir aussi dans le sillage de l’utilisateur. International Journal of Design and Innovation Research, 10, 59–78.
Zanarelli, C. (2003). Caractérisation des stratégies instrumentales de gestion d’environnements dynamiques : Analyse de l’activité de régulation du métro. Thèse de psychologie ergonomique. Saint-Denis: université Paris 8 (http://www.bu.univ-paris8.fr/web/collections/theses/zanarelli_catherine.pdf).
Vidal-Gomel, C., & Samurçay, R. (2002). Qualitative analysis of accidents and incidents to identify competencies. The electrical system maintenance case. Safety Science, 40(6), 479–500.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leplat, J. (1997). Regard sur l’activité en situation de travail. Contribution à la psychologie ergonomique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Bruno, S., & Munoz, G. (2007). Développement et conversion en psychologie cognitive: possibilité d’une zone d’invariance minimale. In J. Baillé (Ed.), Du mot au concept: Conversion (pp. 47–73). Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
Munoz, G. & Bourmaud, G. (2011). De la conceptualisation des risques: le choix de l’argumentation des chargés de sécurité en fonction de leurs interlocuteurs. In the proceedings of 46 th Congrès de la SELF: “L’ergonomie à la croisée des risques” (Part 3, pp. 375–382). Paris: 14–16 septembre 2011 (http://www.ergonomie-self.org/media/media58466.pdf).
Mayen, P., & Vidal-Gomel, C. (2005). Conception, formation et développement de règles au travail. In P. Pastré & P. Rabardel (Eds.), Modèles du sujet pour la conception, dialectiques activités-développement (pp. 108–128). Toulouse: Octarès.
Leplat, J. (2008). Repères pour l’analyse de l’activité en ergonomie. Paris: Presses univeritaires de France.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Munoz, G., Vidal-Gomel, C., Bourmaud, G. (2015). The Operators’ System of Instruments: A Risk Management Tool. In: Mercantini, JM., Faucher, C. (eds) Risk and Cognition. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol 80. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45704-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45704-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45703-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-45704-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)