Security Design from Ergonomic Perspective: From “Total Security” to “Acceptable Security” Design for a Better Real Security

  • Ferdinand Monéger
  • Fabien Coutarel
  • Motak Ladislav
  • Patrick Chambres
  • Marie Izaute
  • Michel Dhome
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 876)


Our research team was included in an industrial project to design autonomous shuttles. For the first stages of the project, an escort was in the shuttle for legal reasons and to “ensure safety”: he can take control of the shuttle at any time. The prescription addressed to this escort was to intervene as little as possible. We analyzed the real activity and lived experiences of the escorts on four sites of experimentation of the shuttle in different European cities by different types of observations and interviews. Results show that respecting the prescription lead to a transport service with very little traffic. Most escorts have gradually adopted behaviors to improve the utility of the shuttle service, scarifying security value. Designing from a “total security” perspective can lead to useless services and prohibited behaviors. We argue that “acceptable security” model is ultimately more secure in the real world.


Acceptability Lived experience Ergonomics 



This work has been sponsored by the French government research program “Investissements d’avenir” through the IMobS3 Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-16-01), by the European Union through the programm Regional competitiveness and employment 2007–2013 (ERDF – Auvergne region), and by the Auvergne region.


  1. 1.
    Fagnant, D.J., Kockelman, K.: Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations for capitalizing on self-driven vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 77, 167–181 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nothdurft, T., Hecker, P., Ohl, S., Saust, F., Maurer, M., Reschka, A., Böhmer, J.R: Stadt-pilot: first fully autonomous test drives in urban traffic. In: International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 919–924 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cahour, B., Salembier, P., Zouinar, M.: Analyser l’expérience vécue de l’activité. Le Travail Humain 79, 259–284 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daniellou, F., Rabardel, P.: Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: some traditions and communities. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 6(5), 353–357 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falzon, P.: Constructive Ergonomics. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, London (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amalberti, R.: Piloter la sécurité: théories et pratiques sur les compromis et les arbitrages nécessaires. Springer, Paris (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mezzena, S., Stroumza, K., Kramer, N.: Un dilemme pratique à trancher depuis des valeurs logées dans l’activité. Activités 13, 2 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bobillier-Chaumon, M.E.: Conditions d’usage et facteurs d’acceptation des technologies dans l’activité: Questions et perspectives pour la psychologie du travail. Mémoire pour l’habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université de Grenoble 2 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mouchet, A., Vermersch, P., Bouthier, D.: Méthodologie d’accès à l’expérience subjective: entretien composite et vidéo. Savoirs 27, 87–105 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ogien, R.: Repenser les relations entre les faits, les normes et les valeurs. Les Sciences de l’éducation - Pour l’Ère nouvelle 45, 17–31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson, J.M., Kalra, N., Sytanley, K., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., Oluwatola, O.: Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferdinand Monéger
    • 1
  • Fabien Coutarel
    • 1
  • Motak Ladislav
    • 2
  • Patrick Chambres
    • 3
  • Marie Izaute
    • 3
  • Michel Dhome
    • 4
  1. 1.ACTé, EA 4281, Clermont Auvergne UniversityChamalièresFrance
  2. 2.PsyCLE, EA 3273, Aix Marseille UniversitéMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.LAPSCO, UMR 6024, CNRS, Clermont Auvergne UniversityChamalièresFrance
  4. 4.Institut Pascal, UMR 6602, Clermont Auvergne UniversityChamalièresFrance

Personalised recommendations