Skip to main content

Conceptual Principles as Intermediary Object: Case of an Industrial Unit

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (IEA 2018)

Abstract

In the participatory design, an intermediary object is a hybrid object, as well as a modeling of our future desire and an instrument to mediate the design process among all the work teams. This article discusses and takes the design process as the object of analysis, and the use of conceptual principles as an intermediary object, based on the authors’ participation in the development of a new Sulphur Recovery Unit. One important point to be considered as a determining factor of functional mismatches in large industrial projects is the growing gap between operational and project teams, even when there is an expressed willingness to promote the participation of operators in the projects. The consequences of this are predominantly organizational, creating obstacles that must be overcome to make the operators’ integration into the project process more effective. Beginning from the conceptual project, the ergonomic design appears early, identifying the need to promote a social intervention together with the technical specifications, using one or more intermediary objects to organize and mediate the interactions between actors of the design process. This conceptual guidance creates a place where the solution to each design conflict should be discussed and resolved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • BĂ©guin P (2012) When users and designers meet each other in the design process. In: Owen C, Wackers G, BĂ©guin P (eds) Risky work environments: reappraising human work within fallible systems. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • BĂ©guin P (2003) Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interact Comput 15(5):709–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BĂ©guin P (2007) Taking activity into account during the design process. @ctivitĂ©s 4(2):115–121. http://www.activites.org/v4n2/v4n2.pdf

  • Broberg O (2007) Integrating ergonomics into engineering: empirical evidence and implications for the ergonomists. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 17(4):353–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli LL (2003) Engineering philosophy. Delft University Press, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniellou F (2005) The French-speaking ergonomists’ approach to work activity: cross-influences of field intervention and conceptual models. Theoret Issues Ergon Sci 6(5):409–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte F, Lima F, Remiro R, Maia N (2009) Settings of usage for the design process. In: Proceedings of the 17th world congress on ergonomics, Beijing, China

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima FPA, Resende AE, Duarte FMC (2014) The social construction of design processes in complex organizations. In: Proceedings of human factors in organizational design and management – ODAM XI, vol 1. DTU Library, Copenhague, pp 919–924

    Google Scholar 

  • Star SL, Griesemer J (1989) Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star SL, Ruhleder K (1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Inf Syst Res 7(1):111–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theureau J (2003) Course-of-action analysis and course-of-action-centered design. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 55–82

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan D (1996) The challenger launch decision. Chicago UP, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinck D, Blanco E (eds) (2003) Everyday engineering: an ethnography of design and innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Trompette P, Vinck D (2009) Retour sur la notion d’objet-frontière. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 3(1):5–27. https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.006.0005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trompette P, Vinck D (2010) Retour sur la notion d’objet-frontière (2) » FĂ©conditĂ© de la notion dans l’analyse Ă©cologique des objets innovants. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 4(1):11–15. https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.009.0011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinck D (2011) Taking intermediary objects and equipping work into account in the study of engineering practices. Eng Stud 3(1):25–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adson Eduardo Resende .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Resende, A.E., de P. A. Lima, F., Moura Duarte, F.J.C. (2019). Conceptual Principles as Intermediary Object: Case of an Industrial Unit. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 824. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_196

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics