Designing for unpredictable uses: A case study on cargo handling

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Activity ergonomics aims to include work variability into design process to enable various dimensions of use in projects. As design evolves with use, understanding its characteristics is essential to decipher real working requirements. However, situated design can be pluralistic and may lead to different interpretations than initially intended.

OBJECTIVE:

This paper aims at understanding the relationship between the designing phase of work systems and the situated task design in high uncertainty operations.

METHODS:

In an ergonomic work analysis, cargo handling operations were observed at offshore platforms, followed by discussions with workers. Two case studies were selected for the intervention process to demonstrate how workers dealt with high uncertainty tasks on site.

RESULTS:

Situated task design exhibited three main characteristics: (1) the project emerges from the situation; (2) it has an intentional and original character; and (3) it is situated in time and space to solve local problems.

CONCLUSIONS:

This combination is the essence of a microproject, which is a concept proposed in this paper. The design must provide resources not only to execute work but also to redesign the task on site.

Keywords

Activity ergonomics unanticipated use situated design situated action material handling

1 Introduction

Reflection during the design process has a significant influence on the safety and effectiveness of future work [1, 2]. The technicist design model is a barrier to the integration of real work into the design process, and it leads to a minimization of the variability and uncertainty of technical systems, and therefore, it keeps a distance from reality [3 –5]. Thus, activity ergonomics emerge as an approach that seeks to overcome this deficiency through a constructive design process that focuses on the interaction between artifacts and their future users [6].

However, there is a class of situations in which the level of uncertainty is so high that use becomes unanticipated. In such cases, designers continue to envision future work; however, the operative modes and artifacts’ use are identified only during the operation of the technical system [7]. Therefore, the design for this type of work requires a design approach that complements the current logic of action of ergonomists in design.

Therefore, this study focuses on the development of knowledge and new concepts to understand relationships between the design phases of work systems and work situations during actual operations. It posits that a situated task design is observed under conditions of high uncertainty and insufficiency of the design process. Prescriptions defined in the design process move so far from reality that, in addition to the exercise of anticipation, the design process needs to consider the provision of material and immaterial resources to enable workers to design microprojects to use within their settings.

1.1 Action of activity ergonomics

Activity ergonomics emerged intending to provide an intervention approach focused on the real work that considers the difference between task and activity [8]. Thus, ergonomics is no longer a discipline that acts at the task level but instead analyzes work activity with direct observations in the field [9].

In industrial projects, ergonomics employs the idea that industrial variability makes production safety and effectiveness dependent on regulations set by workers during use [10 –12]. However, designers have limited understanding of operating practices and tend to minimize the importance of variability and focus on a theoretical view of the work; this approach systematically generates operational difficulties [10, 13].

Noticing this trend, Montmollin [14] turned his attention to task studies but with a different perspective compared to the experimental approaches used before the emergence of activity ergonomics [15]. Every task presents problems that workers must solve. This forces the workers to adapt perpetually to situations that are at least a little unfamiliar. They mobilize task intelligence from skills developed in previous situations, which allows them to interact with new situations. A worker detects, decodes, and represents tasks; further, he also solves problems and organizes strategies [14].

According to Daniellou and Béguin [16], ergonomics developed as an approach to work aimed at evaluating the extent to which decisions impact various possibilities of performing a future activity. Ergonomic action fills the gap between activity and representations that guide designers, which helps enhance efficiency and operational safety. Its function is to transform work representations involved in the design process [15]. More recently, considering the evolution of interventions in projects, Béguin [17] characterized three complementary methods of activity ergonomics during the design process: crystallization, plasticity, and development.

Crystallization implies that, during the design process, the designer mobilizes an incomplete representation of the worker and his activity. Hence, the ergonomist’s role in this context is to transform this representation based on knowledge built into work analysis in reference situations. This effort makes it possible to relate signs of maladaptation of means of labor and difficulties faced by workers with foreseeable consequences for health and production [9].

However, the ability to anticipate use is limited, and this leads to the plasticity concept. There is a gap between activity anticipation before a project and how this activity is eventually executed in actual work; thus, workers detect unexpected situations depending on industrial uncertainty [18]. Therefore, the design must include room for maneuvering that allows for the emergence of original actions. As a consequence, the concept of plasticity aims to offer degrees of freedom so that the operator can execute activities safely and efficiently [17].

Finally, the perspective of development introduces a nonteleological dimension which indicates that the activity is developed in conjunction with the development of the tool [17]. This is a dialogical process: while the understanding of the problem is constructed, solutions are designed; while solutions are tested, more information about the problem is discovered. The purpose of a nonteleological design model is to allow this dialogue within the design process so that learning achieved during the project helps guide design decisions [20]. Therefore, development can be considered a force that drives workers’ abilities to deal with changes in the work situation when they actively contribute to the design of such situations [21]. Every artifact is ultimately implemented by users who use their experience to ensure the artifact’s operation. New technologies often allow for solving old problems; however, they also change the nature of the task and can introduce new issues, which require new ways of acting [17].

Activity ergonomics articulates these three ways of acting in projects [17]. The idea is to increasingly develop work systems that allow or facilitate intelligent situated action, creative improvisation, and problem solving [18].

1.2 Design for unanticipated use

The three concepts developed by Béguin [17] explain why the design continues during operation: (1) user representation by designers (crystallization) is imperfect and therefore requires adjustments during operation; (2) users define how to fill in gaps left by designers for the adaptation of activities (plasticity); and (3) users’ inventiveness has intrinsic origins built from work practice (development). However, situated design cannot be explained through a single meaning or a single function. The characteristics, methods, and motivations of design may lead to different interpretations of its nature and relevance to the design process and its use.

Darses [22], for example, studied “continuous design” in a factory manufacturing steel tubes for developing a system for the continuous redesigning of operational tools. This is typical of situations wherein conception comes from an external influence aimed at keeping operations updated and competitive. The author proposes that systematics executed by the methods department should undergo joint decisions between designers and operators.

Similarly, in a study relating to the process of tool incorporation in operation tasks, Aanestad [23] examined the introduction of new technology in surgery rooms. The correct way to use the technology was unspecified, and the project was developed as a collective situated design process. During use, actors adapted operational practices. As a result of innovations in ergonomic design activity, different connections between various elements of the actor-network system were imagined, tested, and redesigned.

Darses [22] and Aanestad [23] demonstrated two processes with distinct characteristics; however, both start from the appropriation of new artifacts by the work system. This concept of appropriation is defined by Mendes et al. [24] and Rabardel and Béguin [25] as the opportunity to obtain a new work resource generated by the adaptation of operating modes. However, situated design does not always start with this logic.

In these contexts, novice users tend to be more constrained by prescribed rules. Meanwhile, experienced users are continually working on modeling the environment in which they operate, providing clues, and eliminating physical constraints to perform work on future situations [26]. Experts have a more excellent capability to identify risks and opportunities, mentally reconstruct problems, and focus on genuinely relevant actions [27 –29]. This capability leads them to increase or modify available technological properties, thereby adopting or developing the artifact to meet specific needs or interests. Thus, deliberately or inadvertently, they may use it in ways that were unanticipated by designers [30]. Situated design, therefore, can also begin with local demand, resulting from the recognition of problems or from the opportunity of improvements related to the activity itself.

To conceptualize operators’ capabilities, Rabardel and Béguin [25] identified two dimensions of work activity: productive and constructive. The productive dimension is directed at achieving objectives in situ, as well as situation configurations so that subjects can exploit their power to act. The constructive dimension is focused on increasing, maintaining, and reconfiguring the power to act. It represents the subjects’ appropriate artifacts, uses, development of instruments, and individuals. The constructive dimension is responsible for developing resources for action (skills, conceptualizations, representations) and conditions for accomplishing the productive activity. Therefore, these two dimensions are dialectically related, given that difficulties or failures faced in productive activity lead to new developments in a constructive activity that in turn modify productive activities and their conditions.

Brandes [31] defines “non-intentional design” (NID) as a form of a daily redesign of artifacts and technical systems through their unplanned uses. It describes all actions, processes, and methods of dealing with situations in which people change the environment around them through minor or major interventions. Examples cited included glasses used to store pens in offices and bottles used as watering cans to irrigate plants. The goal of this type of redesign, therefore, is to find a solution to a situational problem. The idea of the subject developing NID is not to design something but to eliminate a temporary or continuous problem. In the traditional design process, the designer thinks about the form the artifact must have to fulfill its function. In contrast, with the case of NID, similar structures are used for the same purpose, even if they were not created to accomplish the same function.

Situated design can also include adjustments and objects imbued with intentionality; that is, maintaining the original function of artifacts but adapting them to the practice of work. Narimoto and Camarotto [32] observed several projects of improvement developed in the production of sugarcane; for instance, the change in the area of the basket used to deposit billets in the tractor. As the shape of the base caused materials to fall on the ground, operators designed two side flaps to fill in gaps and increase maneuvering efficiency and safety.

1.3 Task design for use or design in use

Folcher [33] differentiated between the concepts of design for use and design in use. The design for use concept involves a desire for change and concretization based on specific statutes and competencies that involve multiple experiences and current and future points of view on work activity. Further, it involves the definition of the problem, exploration of solutions, and execution. “Designers for use” have expertise and follow rules specific to their profession and the function they perform.

In contrast, the design in use concept involves the mobilization and implementation of what was imagined and then designed. This is when the technical system is tested against the reality of users. Given the variability and diversity of scenarios inherent to technical systems, the activity cannot be anticipated entirely, and therefore, users can identify methods to act with the given resources.

Studies on situated action [34] report the importance of the context for the action of the subjects that reorganize the way of viewing and conceiving work [9]. Therefore, Leplat [35, 36] argues that the prescribed task should be redefined based on the user’s activity. The author differentiates between the prescribed task and the redefined task accordingly. The prescribed task corresponds to a model conceived from the representation that the designer constructs based on the characteristics of the operator; it integrates the definition of operating modes, procedures, and standards. The redefined task is one that users define for themselves based on local circumstances [35]. Although it may be a concrete method to understand the work for increasing productivity [3], the prescribed task is not an adequate model of the activity because of the gap between the design of the task caused by the designer and the real work. The redefined task modifies this model, thereby bringing it closer to operational reality [36].

These principles indicate that the situated task design for use is employed for task redefinition on-site, based on the operational context, and before the activity is started. Conversely, the solution of the problems that arise during the action, which are not foreseen by the design of the task, are covered by the design in use concept.

1.4 Research purpose

The previous examples demonstrate how situated design assumes different characteristics based on different motivations. Besides them and their productive sector, the building industry also has changeable realities in the construction phase that make it impossible to anticipate everything [37 –39]. The consequence is that specific structures for the organization of work may arise from such characteristics of nonanticipatory dimensions of the task [40]. Nevertheless, the distance between design and reality can be a result of technical impossibility, i.e., the unpredictability of events [14]. Thus, when activity is very open, specific dimensions of use become unanticipated a priori, making it challenging to provide ergonomic contributions to the design process based on the actual work.

In such situations, the awareness of the unpredictable characteristics of activity is central to the ability of the design process as it needs to provide resources for action. Based on this, the research assumes that the design process must complement the ergonomic action. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to conceptualize this type of situated design by identifying its main characteristics, thereby revealing how ergonomic action is impacted in these situations. Such a design approach to environments for evolutionary and open situations is discussed via case studies.

2 Material and methods

Exploratory case studies were conducted in an Oil and Gas company from Brazil for research on cargo handling operations. The adopted method follows the six stages described by Yin [41] (i.e., plan, project, preparation, evidence collection, evidence analysis, and reporting), which are explained in the subsections below.

2.1 Study design

Considering the first stage, the case study method is appropriated to understand how operators consider the situated design concept for solving situational problems in high uncertainty operations and how activity ergonomics could adapt tools in order to improve results. As task design dynamics are based on interactions of workers in the field, the combination of observation and other evidences becomes essential for this research characteristics. This reinforces that case studies are adequate for posing “how” questions about a contemporary phenomenon outside experimental control [41].

The design stage embraces the identification of theoretical references related to the concept of situated design. To this end, four situations [22 , 32] were described in the Introduction section because they represent different types of situated design observed in the literature. Thus, as indicated in the research purpose (subsection 1.3), the research enabled to identify, detail and define different variables for differing “situated design” types.

The third stage of the case study—preparation—comprised detailing a research protocol. To this end, the research details the procedures for direct observations, followed by open interviews with users [3], and document analysis. The purpose of direct observations was to identify, analyze, and discuss typical real work situations and determine how field workers dealt with inherent operational uncertainty and design solutions.

The purpose of interviews was to gain insight into the operators’ perceptions of their activity. Through a procedure named auto-confrontation [42], operators could face themselves with their own tasks and describe their reasoning line during constructive activity development. Therefore, interviews were used to understand activity aspects that cannot be observed in the field.

The company documents (e.g., unit plants, material handling philosophy and procedures) were considered to identify organizational design decisions related to the technical system. The idea was to understand the handling plans and resources. This information was essential to differentiate real tasks designed on the field from those original plans and procedures developed in the design process.

2.2 Material

The fourth stage—evidence collection—considered a total of eight onboard journeys performed in the oil platform between 2013 and 2017, that consists of 32 days. Along with these journeys, 18 real situations were considered in an oil production company to understand the nature of cargo handling work conducted at an offshore platform and its relation to the design process. Among them, the current research presents two typical work situations to illustrate the detailed characteristics of situated design in cargo handling activities.

The formal operation organization is illustrated in Fig. 1. Only the parts of the organization relevant to the study are shown. The cargo handling team responds to the marine coordinator, and it is led by a logistics technician; the team is responsible for inspecting cargo handling work and for tracking and controlling cargos arriving and leaving the oil platform. He also participates in risky and critical tasks design. The crane operator is the only one responsible for crane usage, which is the main cargo handling resource in the field. He participates of all cargo entry and exit, and of internal maneuvers using this device. Assistants, led by a supervisor, are responsible for the entry and exit of cargo on the platform and for any internal handling that weighs over 25 kg. They perform services for all platform teams; however, main demands arise from the maintenance team as capital-intensive production warrants automated processes. In all cases observed, the cargo handling team was composed only by men. Assistants were especially young (25–45 years old) due to the physical work demands. The supervisor was usually the most experienced team member (sometimes older than 45 years). The cargo handling field team observed in both cases of this study is composed of eleven members, shown in Table 1.

Fig. 1

Material handling team organization.

Table 1

Cargo handling team composition

Team	Day	Night
Supervisor	1	1
Assistants	4	2
Crane operator	1	1
Total	7	4

Interviews were guided by decisions made by operators in the field. Important actions undertaken by the supervisor or the assistant had its motivations questioned to understand non-observable activity aspects. Situated design has a strong cognitive dimension, which cannot be understood if not by confronting users with his constructive activity.

2.3 Evidence analysis

The fifth stage of the case study is evidence analysis. It follows a deductive and inductive nature simultaneously as discussion elements are based on the pattern matching technique. According to Yin [41], this is a technique based on a comparison between an empirically based pattern with a predicted one made before data collection. This technique comprises developing different theoretical propositions articulated in operational terms and identifying independent variables. The study analyzes the behavior of these variables in empirical cases.

In this study, three main variables were identified in the literature of situated design: (1) incorporation of a technology, (2) originality and intentionality, and (3) ephemerality. These variables were analyzed in a context of unpredictable uses. The idea was to observe how these variables behave in the two cases selected to represent the observations in the field and to compare this empirical case to ones observed in the literature. This comparison result was a classification of different sorts of situated design, pointing out eventual specific features of the empirical cases and its relevance to ergonomic interventions and to design.

The last step of the case study methodology—reporting—is observed within this paper.

3 Results

Results are divided into three main parts: (1) analysis of case studies, (2) analysis of working conditions, and (3) conceptualizing specific situated task design.

3.1 Analysis of case studies

The first case deals with the movement of a flange on the second floor of a production module that should be moved to boilerworks. The boilerworks team sanded, brushed, and poured a penetrating liquid to examine cracks and other damage and checked if the equipment was reliable to perform its function.

The supervisor of the cargo handling team arrived on-site, observed the situation, and drew up an action plan with an assistant. There was no support device or clear route to bring equipment down to the plant’s first floor. After navigating the area, the supervisor identified a caged ladder alongside a pillar. He internally processed the information and realized that, along with a cable, these unit structures, which were not intended for cargo handling, could be used as resources to accomplish the task.

They manually dragged the material (weighing 40 kg) close to the pillar. Assistants supplied necessary tools to perform the maneuver: a cable and a platform trolley to position the flange. Two teams were created. While the first team performed the descent of the flange using stairs, the second waited to receive the equipment and move it with a trolley.

Supervisor and assistant tied the guide cable into holes in the workpiece and subsequently skirted the pillar with the guide cable. The intention was to create friction between the cable and the pillar to reduce the effort required to descend the flange steadily to the trolley on the lower floor. While the supervisor was gradually releasing the cable, the assistant was responsible for directing the flange and communicating with assistants on the lower level. Simultaneously, an assistant used a guide cable to direct the cargo and avoid pendular movement. After moving the flange to the first floor, workers who received the flange manually moved the equipment to the workshop. Figures 2 3 illustrate this case.

Fig. 2

Workers wind the cable around the beam and descend the flange.

Fig. 3

Representation of maneuver.

The second case involved handling the trolley on rails responsible for removing the heat exchanger bundle during a maintenance campaign. After inspecting the heat exchanger on the top floor of a process plant module, it is necessary to go down with the equipment and move it to another module of the plant to inspect another heat exchanger.

The handling system for both modules provided the use of a trolley on rails (weighing 2 tons) for movement to the main companion of the module. At this point, the handling of the process plant to the first floor was performed with a fixed high-capacity hoist. However, the hoists of both modules were not available because of the expired certification.

This restriction prevented the original handling plan, and therefore, a new plan was developed to circumvent local problems. The solution involved not only the cargo handling team but also the leadership of the unit’s main teams and the team responsible for the maintenance campaign.

Those in charge of the maneuver checked for available high-capacity mobile devices and beams that could be installed without structural compromises. From this information, drafts were prepared with a handling plan divided into three central parts: (1) a pulley was installed in the central portion of the companion to lower the equipment with the aid of a manual tirfor, (2) a second safety pulley was used as a backup in case the first was unable to withstand the maneuver, and (3) an auxiliary hoist was used to provide stability to the cargo and avoid sudden pendular movements, at least initially. The entire system was assembled using industrial climbers. Figures 4 –6 illustrate this activity.

Fig. 4

Assembly of the hoist and tirfor system.

Fig. 5

Representation of tirfor and hoist system.

Fig. 6

Handling trolley to the first floor.

Fig. 7

Scaffold cut.

Considering the activity of handling the tirfor, six workers were allocated in rotational groups to allow rest periods for the team; workers made several adjustments during the maneuver. The use of guide cables to avoid shocks in structures helped pass the equipment to different locations. An adjustment was also made to the scaffolding that had been mounted for painting the module. Figure 6 illustrates this final adjustment.

Table 2 presents the main material resources used by the operators to design the handling plan.

Table 2

Resources and uses designed by operators

Case	Resource	Use designed by operators
1	Caged ladder	Created a feasible vertical route to handle the flange to the first floor.
	Cable	Mean for conducting the flange to the first floor.
	Pillar	Reduced the effort required to descend the flange and dictated the pace of the maneuver, by creating friction with the cable.
	Guide cable	Avoided pendular movement by improving stability.
	Trolley	Means of handling the flange to the workshop.
2	Module structures	Means of installing the pulleys, tirfors, and hoist.
	Main tirfor	Reduced the effort required to descend the flange and dictated the pace of the maneuver.
	Main pulley	Created a feasible route to the first floor.
	Safety system	Backup tirfor-pulley system, developed for the case of failure in the main system.
	Auxiliary hoist	Avoided pendular movement by improving stability.

Besides these resources, other resources of immaterial nature were added including (1) competencies developed by operators that allowed them to identify opportunities and execute maneuvers, (2) plans for handling critical equipment, and (3) designing resources such as standards, technical specifications, and other documents that could be consulted and referenced and are often incorporated by experienced operators.

3.2 Analysis of working conditions

In the cases analyzed, the work comprised a set of conditions that were inherent to the activity and amplified existing uncertainty in the operational context, thus making the design challenging. These conditions are summarized as follows:

The offshore environment, which exposes equipment and structures to rainfall and salinity, increases demands for maintenance and the need to build alternatives when some resource of the cargo handling system is not available.

The occurrence of nonroutine events onboard, such as maintenance and scheduled shutdowns, significantly increases the number of people and materials on board. In such cases, in addition to a demand for agility in execution, there are blocking areas and escape routes that impact the method of material handling.

There is a dependence on the work of other teams since the planning and development of the cargo handling team’s activities are subject to changes caused by occasional events and the accomplishment of tasks of other teams (assembling the scaffolding, for example).

Adverse weather conditions such as rain, wind, and strong waves can make it challenging or even impossible to perform maneuvers.

In case 1, a maneuver was presented without a clear solution developed by the design process. In case 2, the first three conditions mentioned were noted. First, the fixed hoist designed for the execution of the maneuver was unavailable. Second, the maneuver needed to be performed urgently because the platform was experiencing a scheduled shutdown. Finally, it was necessary to rely on the support of industrial climbers for assembling the pulley system and the hoist.

Climatic conditions have direct consequences on all cargo handling activities, especially in cases where there is vertical movement. The cases presented here fit this profile. Extra care was thus taken during both maneuvers. In case 1, a guide cable was used. In case 2, an auxiliary hoist was used.

Uncertainty, thus, in this context, leads to the fact that every maneuver has its particularities. In this field, each execution is singular, evolutionary, and very open because it is highly dependent on local conditions. Since the worker action begins with task design, equipping this process becomes the key to approximating reality.

3.3 Microproject activity

In the case of cargo handling, most designers are never onboard, and only a few workers participate in the project’s initial stages. This problem is frequent as the lack of knowledge about the reality of use is one of the main reasons cited by engineers for the nonintegration of work in design [43]. Thus, the oil platform design as a physical structure is not integrated into the work system design. The project is essentially techno-centered, with few reflections on future work during project stages. Such integration would help to adapt structures to anticipatory uses.

The case studies, however, reveal situations marked by unforeseen events and randomness. The work of cargo handling is unpredictable because it is subject to high levels of uncertainty, and workers redefine their tasks during the operation, when a situated design for use is undertaken. They analyze the environment, confront it with available resources, and seek alternatives until a feasible approach of accomplishing the task has been envisaged. Thus, the cases presented a particular type of situated design, which is conceived as a “microproject” due to three main characteristics: (1) the design emerges from the situation, (2) it has an intentional and original character, and (3) it is ephemeral, with application situated in time and space.

In case 1, workers did not envisage a clear alternative as foreseen by the design. They analyzed the area to seek alternatives and managed to develop a microproject with resources that did not originally incorporate the handling plan. The caged ladder is not, in its design, a route for material handling. A less experienced team, therefore, could have more difficulty adopting conventional means.

In case 2, when confirming the lack of resources provided by the design, a new task microproject was designed on-site. Workers, with the help of onboard leaders, analyzed the actual situation and structural data to design a feasible plan for executing the task at hand.

However, unlike situations presented by Darses [22] and Aanestad [23], the cases analyzed do not deal with the incorporation of new technology. On the contrary, the concept presented here is part of a problem emerging directly from the field and requires the mobilization of the constructive dimension of activity to develop the solution [25].

The “microproject” activity is already incorporated in the work of cargo handling. In this case, the categories of knowledge and expertise mobilized for design are categories of workers’ experience as acknowledged by the manager of the work: “When operators arrive, the first area they approach is cargo handling. They know that they are going to have to get that valve out. They may not even know what it is used for but always asks themselves, ‘How do I take that off?”’.

Task design is also essentially original and intentional. When faced with a problem, users apply their skills and experiences to develop an instrument system; that is, the integration of artifacts with their usage schemes, aimed at solving problems [25]. These microproject characteristics differ from Brandes’ [31] proposal; however, it is possible to use NIDs in such design types. In these cases, experience and skills acquired by operators become vital to solution construction, as they allow the operators to see possible resources in non-obvious objects and create interactions between them.

Case 1 discusses a move in which (a) the ladder was not designed as a means to move materials, and (b) the pillar of the module was not designed to support this maneuver. Both can be considered NIDs within the task design. Still, other resources have not experienced a change of function, such as the cart and the cable. In case 2, artifacts (hoists and tirfors, in particular) were used according to the function foreseen by designers: to move loads. The module beams used for the installation of hoists and tirfors are NIDs.

A more extensive analysis may lead to the idea that, as the material handling process performed was unimaginable for the designer, it is an NID of the task. Nevertheless, this is not confirmed in practice because this design is not about using “similar forms for the same purpose”. Owing to high uncertainty, the design of microprojects takes original forms. Designers have not anticipated many tasks of this nature, and others are performed in completely different ways from the way they were designed, as observed in the cases presented.

Finally, “microprojects” differ from Narimoto and Camarotto’s [32] proposal for its ephemerality. While designs presented by them are enduring and promote improvement that can be observed over time in the productive process, “microprojects” are, by their nature, contingent. They are developed to solve specific problems with unique applications in time and space. If the same problem reappears, the experience of the previous microproject can be reused, but all stages of implementation should be reviewed since local conditions impact use.

Table 3 presents the comparison of different types of situated design based on variables identified in the literature. It shows how task microproject activity behaves differently from other types of situated design identified in the literature review.

Table 3
Resources and uses designed by operators

Design . . . Darses [22] and Aanestad [23] Brandes [31] Narimoto and Camarotto [32] Microproject

. . . emerges from the situation? No Yes Yes Yes

. . . has an intentional and original character? Yes No Yes Yes

. . . is ephemeral? No Indifferent No Yes

Design . . .	Darses [22] and Aanestad [23]	Brandes [31]	Narimoto and Camarotto [32]	Microproject
. . . emerges from the situation?	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
. . . has an intentional and original character?	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
. . . is ephemeral?	No	Indifferent	No	Yes

Task redefinition, however, does not eliminate the need for a design in use. Even the users cannot predict everything, so part of the problems are still solved in action. In the first case, the communication between actors was central for adjusting the maneuver in action and moving the flange safely to the trolley. In the second case, a design in use was observed when an operator has cut the scaffolding, which was on the equipment path.

4 Conclusion

The cases discussed in this research belonged to a type of situation where the relevant dimensions of use cannot be anticipated, because of industrial uncertainty, which imposes unpredictability in real work. In these situations, tasks to be performed undergo extensive transformations in time and space, and therefore, they will only be apparent after their design on-site from the intelligent actions of workers.

This type of activity is not specific of material handling operations at offshore platforms. Material handling in process industries, in general have these characteristics because they are capital intensive industries, and in consequence they have high uncertainty and high maintenance demands. Further, it could be observed in high-dimension construction projects, such as those observed in building industry [33 –35] and shipyards.

While constructive ergonomics provides several design mechanisms to deal with uncertainty during the operation, the nonanticipation of certain dimensions of use calls for complementing the current approach. Thus, the design process must consider the on-site design and provide such task intelligence with resources for developing the design activities labeled as “microprojects.”

As reported by Béguin [17], design always continues during operation. Users are constantly inventing new approaches to solve problems and reach their goals. Therefore, microprojects are not developed exclusively in scenarios of high uncertainty. They can be required in any industrial environment. However, when use is unpredictable, microprojects are routine and an essential part of the users’ daily activity.

In these circumstances, the design process should provide versatile resources for action (spaces, flows, and equipment) that can be easily used in multiple scenarios. Further, one can think of immaterial resources [44] for microprojects.

Through the study of real work, activity ergonomics allows to diagnose operators’ work that involves identifying the typical work situations, material resources used, operational practices undertaken, and applied knowledge.

When mediating between design and operation, ergonomics offers insight into real work that allows designers to consider the set of competencies necessary for operators to design and execute plans developed on-site. These competencies permeate the entire work process from the identification of opportunities for designing plans to the use of available resources.

The case studies presented in this paper indicate how the combination of material resources with users’ skills allows for solving problems. In the first case, the user developed a solution involving a cable, pillar, and caged ladder. Using his skills, he envisioned that the cable would be a material resource that can integrate the existing resources in the environment. Similarly, in the second case, the users’ skills allowed them to construct a system of hoist, pulleys, and mechanical winches, thereby exploiting the resources present in the environment such as a vertical corridor and module structures.

These resources are mobilized by workers who process information, analyze the environment, and confront it with expertise developed over time. This expertise allows for the transformation of available resources in a feasible system to solve problems.

Scenarios of high uncertainty pose an important challenge for the design of oil platforms. How to support design tasks that are not known? In this context, designers must provide varied resources to operators such as roads, vertical corridors, transfer areas, monorails, cables, trolleys, hoists, and mechanical winches. They must equip the intelligence of the task [14] for the situated design based on knowledge about the real work.

In this regard, the design process requires an extension of three contributions of activity ergonomics. For crystallization, the designer must consider a model of workers who, in addition to execution, are also subjects who design microprojects or tasks performed by them. This representation of workers is the starting point to approach the reality of work because it will identify the need and the best way to support task intelligence. Plasticity assumes that the prescribed task will be unable to predict everything, and thus, a certain flexibility of the system will be necessary. However, in designing microprojects, there is prior demand: the worker will first need tools to design the task itself. This situated design will require additional room for maneuvering, which should be discussed during the design process. Finally, the development will also have an expansion of scope. In addition to the design of the work activity, the activity of task design must also be constructed. This dialogic construction of the development of design activity will allow for task intelligence. There is thus a demand for complementing the design process in which the definition of necessary resources to enable workers to design microprojects is highlighted.

It can be concluded that the microproject, a situated design for use, is performed before task execution. However, it does not eliminate the need for a design in use, carried out during the action. This is a result of the impossibility of predicting everything that will be done during the work because of the uncertainty of the technical systems. The task design does not eliminate uncertainties and contingencies inherent in use.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to CAPES (Higher Education Personnel Improvement Coordination) in Brazil for the financial support received. They are also grateful to the workers who allowed and participated in this study.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Daniellou

. Métodos em ergonomia de concepção: Aanálise de situações de referência e asimulação do trabalho, In: Duarte, F, editor. Ergonomia &Projeto: Na industria de processo contínuo. Rio de Janeiro: Ed.Lucerna. 2002.

Naweed

, Ward

, Gourlay

, Dawson

. Can participatory ergonomics process tactics improve simulator fidelity and give rise to transdiciplinarity in stakeholders? A before-after case studyInt J Ind Ergonom. 2017;65:1–14.

Guérin

, Laville

, Daniellou

, Duraffoug

, Kerguelen

. Comprendre le travail pour le transformer: La pratique de l’ergonomie. Lyon: ANACT. 2001.

Béguin

. L’activité de travail: Facteur d’integrationdurant les processus de conception. In: Bossard P, Chanchevrier C,Leclair P, editors. Ingéniere Concourante: De la techinique ausocial. Paris: Ed. Economica. 1997.

Gaspar

, Teixeira

, Santos

, Soares

, Golyshev

, Kähler

. Human centered design methodology: Case study of a ship-mooring winch. Int J Ind Ergonom. 2019;74:1–11.

Bourmaud

. From use analysis to the design of artifacts: The development of instruments. In: Falzon, P, editor. Constructive ergonomics. Boca Raton: Taylor& Francis Group; 2015.

Robinson

. Design for unanticipated use. . . Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Milan. 1993.

Karnas

, Salengros

. A análise do trabalho trinta anosapós Ombredane e Faverge. Laboreal. 2014;10:92–97.

Wisner

. inteligência do trabalho: Textos selecionados de ergonomia. São Paulo: Fundacentro. 1994.

10.

Wisner

. Ergonomía y Condiciones de Trabajo. Buenos Aires: HVMANITAS. 1988.

11.

Cuvelier

, Falzon

. The collective construction of safety: A trade-off between “understanding” and “doing” in managing dynamic situations. Appl Ergon. 2014;47:117–126.

12.

Rocha

, Mollo

, Daniellou

. Work debate spaces: A tool for developing a participatory safety management. Appl Ergon. 2015;46:107–114.

13.

Sznelwar

, Silva

, Mascia

. Working in public healthy services in Brazil: The relationship between different rationalities. Appl Ergon. 2008;39:500–508.

14.

Montmollin

. L’intelligence de la tâche: Élémentsd’ergonomie cognitive. Berna: Éditions Peter Lang SA. 1986.

15.

Garrigou

, Daniellou

, Carballeda

, Ruaud

. Activity analysis in participatory design and analysis of participatory design activity. Int J Ind Ergonom. 1995;15(5):311–327.

16.

Daniellou

, Béguin

. Méthodologie de l’action ergonomique:approches du travail réel. In: Falzon, P. Ergonomie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 2004.

17.

Béguin

. The design of instruments as a dialogical process of mutual learning. In: Falzon P. Constructive ergonomics. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group. 2015.

18.

Béguin

. Acting within the boundaries of work systemsdevelopment. Hum Factor Ergon Man. 2010;21:543–554.

19.

Daniellou

. Questions épistémologiques soulevées parl’ergonomie de conception. In: Daniellou, F. L’ergonomie enquête de ses principes: Débats épistémologiques.Toulouse: Octares Editions. 1996.

20.

Bittencourt

, Duarte

, Béguin

. From the past to the future:Integrating work experience into the design process. Work. 2017;57:379–387.

21.

Barcellini

, Van Belleghem

, Daniellou

. Design projects as opportunities for the development of activities. In: Falzon, P. Constructive ergonomics. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. 2015.

22.

Darses

. A framework for continuous design of production systems and its application in collective redesign of production line equipment. Hum Factor Ergon Man. 2002;12:55–74.

23.

Aanestad

. The camera as an actor: Design-in-use of telemedicine infrastructure in surgery. Comp Support Coop W. 2003;12:1–20.

24.

Mendes

, Pueyo

, Béguin

, Duarte

. Innovation, Systemicappropriation and prevention in granite mining sector: the case ofhumidification. Work. 2017;57(3):1–11.

25.

Rabardel

, Béguin

. Instrument mediated activity: From subjectdevelopment to anthropocentric design. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2005;6(5):429–461.

26.

Kirsh

. The intelligent use of space. Artif Intell. 1995;73:31–68.

27.

Bruder

, Hasse

. What the eyes reveal: Investigating the detection of automation failures. Appl Ergon. 2020;82:1–11.

28.

Bruder

, Hasse

. Differences between experts and novices in the monitoring of automated systems. Int J Ind Ergonom. 2019;72:1–11.

29.

Chase

, Simon

. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychol. 1973;4:55–61.

30.

Orlikowski

. Using technologies and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organisations. Organ Sci. 2000;11:404–428.

31.

Brandes

, Stich

, Wender

. Design by use: The everyday metamorphosis of things. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag AG. 2009.

32.

Narimoto

, Camarotto

. How do users design? The case of sugar cane harvester machines. Work. 2017;57:421–432.

33.

Folcher

. Conception pour et dans l’usage, la maitrise d’usage en conduite de projet. RIHM. 2015;16(1):1–20.

34.

Suchman

. Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated action. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006.

35.

Leplat

. Relations between task and activity: elements for elaborating a framework for error analysis. Ergonomics. 1990;33(10-11):1389–1402.

36.

Leplat

. Quelques aspects de la complexité en ergonomie. In:Daniellou, F. L’ergonomie en quête de ses principes: Débatsépistémologiques. Toulouse: Octares Editions. 1996.

37.

Penaloza

, Saurin

, Formoso

. Monitoring complexity and resilience in construction projects: The contribution of safety performance measurement systems. Appl Ergon. 2020;82:1–18.

38.

Fonseca

, Lima

, Duarte

. From construction site to design: The different accident prevention levels in the building industry. Safety Sci. 2014;70:406–418.

39.

Duc

. Le travail en chantier. Toulouse: Octares Editions. 2002.

40.

Pekkola

. Designed for unanticipated use: Common artefacts as design principle for CSCW applications. Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work. Sanibel Island. 2003.

41.

Yin

. Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage. 1989.

42.

Mollo

, Falzon

. Auto-and allo-confrontation as tools for reflective activities. Appl Ergon. 2004;35(6):531–540.

43.

Broberg

. Integrating ergonomics into engineering: Empirical evidence and implications for the ergonomists. Hum Factor Ergon Man. 2007;17:353–366.

44.

Agre

, Chapman

. What are plans for? Robot Auton Syst 1990;6:17–34.