The Operators' System of Instruments: A Risk Management Tool

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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 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.

[1]  J M Faverge,et al.  [The operator's reliability and safety in industry]. , 1970 .

[2]  G. Bourmaud Les systèmes d'instruments : méthodes d'analyse et perspectives de conception , 2006 .

[3]  Liam J. Bannon,et al.  Beyond the Interface: Encountering Artifacts in Use , 1989 .

[4]  James V. Wertsch,et al.  Culture, communication, and cognition : Vygotskian perspectives , 1987 .

[5]  P. Rabardel,et al.  15. Hommes, artefacts, activités : perspective instrumentale , 2004 .

[6]  Christine Vidal-Gomel,et al.  Qualitative analyses of accidents and incidents to identify competencies. The electrical systems maintenance case , 2002 .

[7]  Paul Swuste,et al.  SAFETY RULES: PROCEDURAL FREEDOM OR ACTION CONSTRAINT? , 1998 .

[8]  G. Vergnaud La théorie des champs conceptuels , 1989 .

[9]  G. Bourmaud L'organisation systémique des instruments : méthodes d'analyse, propriétés et perspectives de conception ouvertes , 2007 .

[10]  Jacques Leplat,et al.  Repères pour l’analyse de l’activité en ergonomie , 2008 .

[11]  Jean-Luc Minguy Concevoir pour aider a l'action situee. Le travail en passerelle de navires de peche : role de la carte de peche comme representation , 1995 .

[12]  Jacob L. Mey,et al.  Humane Interfaces: Questions of Method and Practice in Cognitive Technology , 1999 .

[13]  Catherine Zanarelli Caractérisation des stratégies instrumentales de gestion d'environnements dynamiques : analyse de l'activité de régulation du métro , 2003 .

[14]  P. Rabardel,et al.  Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: some traditions and communities , 2005 .

[15]  David Woods,et al.  Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts , 2006 .

[16]  A. Hale,et al.  Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review , 2013 .

[17]  J. Creswell Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[18]  Gaëtan Bourmaud,et al.  From computer to instrument system: a developmental perspective , 2003, Interact. Comput..

[19]  P. Rabardel Les hommes et les technologies; approche cognitive des instruments contemporains , 1995 .

[20]  Alain Savoyant,et al.  Application de procédures et compétences , 1999 .

[21]  Christine Vidal-Gomel Systèmes d'instruments des opérateurs. Un point de vue pour analyser le rapport aux règles de sécurité. , 2002 .

[22]  J Leplat,et al.  About implementation of safety rules , 1998 .