Approach to analyse hazardous situations tied to recurrent production dysfunctions, by observing the work situation

References

• European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Safety of machinery – general principles for design – risk assessment and risk reduction. Brussels: CEN; 2010. Standard No. EN ISO 12100:2010.
   Google Scholar
• Bluff E. Safety in machinery design and construction: performance for substantive safety outcomes. Saf Sci. 2014;66:27–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinniah Y. Analysis and prevention of serious and fatal accidents related to moving parts of machinery. Saf Sci. 2015;75:163–173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apfeld R. Stop defeating the safeguards of a machine. Paper presented at 6th international conference on safety of industrial automated; 2010 June 14–15; Tampere, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Charpentier P. Safety of machinery: experience feedback on automated accidents from the EPICEA database. Paper presented at 4th international conference on safety of industrial automated; 2005 Sep 26–28; Chicago (IL), USA.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw S. Machinery accidents – contributory factors. Paper presented at 6th international conference on safety of industrial automated; 2010 June 14–15; Tampere in Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci. 1997;27(2–3):183–213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Saf Sci. 2003;41(9):759–789. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00022-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fadier E, De La Garza C. Towards a proactive safety approach in the design process: the case of printing machinery. Saf Sci. 2007;45(1-2):199–229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De la Garza C, Fadier E. Le retour d’expérience en tant que cadre théorique pour l’analyse de l’activité et la conception sûre [Experience feedback as a theoretical framework for activity analysis and safe design]. Activites. 2007;4:188–197. French. doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1485
   Google Scholar
• Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Wieringa PA. Theory of safety-related violations of system barriers. Cogn Technol Work. 2002;4(3):171–179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s101110200016
   Google Scholar
• Polet P. Modélisation des franchissements de barrières pour l'analyse des risques des systèmes Homme-Machine [Barrier crossing modelling for risk analysis of human-machine systems] [dissertation ]. Valenciennes: Université de Valenciennes et Hainaut-Cambrésis; 2002. French.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderhaegen F, Zieba S, Enjalbert S, et al. A benefit/cost/deficit (BCD) model for learning from human errors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2011;96(7):757–766. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast). OJ. 2006;L157:24–86.
   Google Scholar
• Costella MF, Saurin TA, Cambraia FB, et al. Violation or resilience? A comparison between two frameworks for making sense of work-as-done. Paper presented at: 6th Resilience Engineering International Symposium; 2015 Jun 22–25; Lisbon.
   Google Scholar
• Saurin TA, Guimarães L, Costella MF, et al. An algorithm for classifying error types of front-line workers based on the SRK framework. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38(11):1067–1077. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amalberti R, Auroy Y, Aslanides M. Understanding violations and boundaries. Paper presented at: Canadian Healthcare Safety Symposium; 2004 Oct 14–16; Edmonton (AB).
   Google Scholar
• Morel C. Les décisions absurdes (Tome 2) – Comment les éviter [Absurd decisions (Volume 2) – how to avoid them]. Paris: Editions Gallimard; 2012. French.
   Google Scholar
• Aslanides M, Valot C, Nyssen A-S, et al. The evolution of errors and violation descriptions in French Air Force accident reports: the impact of human factors education. Hum Factors Aerosp Saf. 2007;6(1):51–70.
   Google Scholar
• Daniellou F, Boissières I, Simard M. Les facteurs humains et organisationnels de la sécurité industrielle: un état de l'art [The human and organizational factors of industrial safety: a state of the art]. Toulouse: Fondation pour une culture de la sécurité industrielle; 2010. (Cahiers de la sécurité industrielle; no. 2010–02). French.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnet C, Ghiglione R, Richard JF. Traité de psychologie cognitive 1 [Cognitive psychology treatise 1]. Paris: Dunod; 1989. French.
   Google Scholar
• Newell A, Simon HA. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Erlbaum; 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Haghighi A, Chinniah Y, Jocelyn S. Literature review on the incentives and solutions for the bypassing of guards and protective devices on machinery. Saf Sci. 2019;111:188–204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.07.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamy P, Tissot C. Analyse de récits d'accidents du travail pour identifier des dérives d'usage et apport des TAL [Analysis of accounts of work accidents to identify drifts in the use and contribution of NLP ]. Proceedings of the 20th Lambda Mu; 2016 Oct 11–13; Saint Malo. France: IMdR (Institut de Maîtrise des Risques). French.
   Google Scholar
• Leplat J. L'analyse du travail en psychologie ergonomique [Work analysis in ergonomic psychology]. Vol. 2. Toulouse, France: Octares Editions; 1993. French.
   Google Scholar
• Wisner A. La cognition et l'action située: conséquences pour l'analyse ergonomique du travail et l'anthropotechnologie [Cognition and situated action: implications for ergonomic work analysis and anthropotechnology ]. Proceedings of the 12th congress of the International Ergonomics Association, IEA; 1994 August 15–19; Toronto (ON). Thonex, Switzerland: IEA. Vol. 1. p. 80–96. French.
   Google Scholar
• Lacomblez M, Bellemare M, Chatigny C, et al. Ergonomic analysis of work activity and training: basic paradigm, evolutions and challenges. In: Meeting diversity in ergonomics. Oxford: Elsevier Science; 2007. P. 129–142.
   Google Scholar
• Del Fabbro E, Santarossa D. Ergonomic analysis in manufacturing process: a real time approach. Procedia CIRP. 2016;41(Suppl C):957–962. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.12.056
   Google Scholar
• Schatzman L, Strauss AL. Field research: strategies for a natural sociology. Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1973.
   Google Scholar
• Theureau J. Le cours d'action: analyse sémio-logique. Essai d'une anthropologie cognitive [The course of action: semio-logical analysis. Essay of a cognitive anthropology]. Bern: Peter Lang; 1992. French.
   Google Scholar
• Theureau J. Le cours d'action. Méthode développée [The course of action – method developed]. Toulouse, France: Octares Edition; 2006. French.
   Google Scholar
• Peretti J-M. Ressources humaines. 16ième édition [Human resources. 16th edition]. Paris: Vuibert; 2017. French.
   Google Scholar
• Lux A, De Bikond J M, Etienne A, et al. FMEA and consideration of real work situations for safer design of production systems. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2016;22:557–564. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2016.1180856
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar