Advertisement

Cognitive, Intuitive and Educational Intervention Strategies for Behavior Change in High-Risk Activities - SARS

  • Salvador Ávila
  • Ivone Cerqueira
  • Edmara Drigo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 793)

Abstract

The scenario of global instability can be reflected in the inconsistency of worker behavior in risk activities. The need to adjust behaviors aiming at greater safety in industrial processes requires the discussion of new concepts and tools for the revision of organizational strategies. This work intends to present strategies of cognitive, intuitive and educational intervention to change behavior in high risk activities. These strategies are part of the SARS program (Safe, Alert, Resilient System) and involve the use of educational processes, rituals, internal intellectual capital, operating groups and play techniques with the purpose of minimizing social, environmental and organizational imbalances that generate behaviors inducing human error. The discussion revolves around intervention measures to minimize operational problems caused by stress and presents contributions to decision making. Reviewing the strategies could contribute to safe behavior for building a resilient organization.

Keywords

Human factors Behavior change Strategies 

References

  1. 1.
    Collins, J., Porras, J.: Construindo a visão da empresa. Revista HSM Manag. 7, 32–42 (1998). São PauloGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J.: A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 1, 61–89 (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hollnagel, E.: Risk + barriers = safety? Saf. Sci. 46(2), 221–229 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ávila, S.F., Pessoa, F.L.P., Andrade, J.C.S.: Social HAZOP at an Oil Refinery. Process Saf. Prog. 32, 17–21 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lees, F.P.: The hazard warnings structure of major hazards, vol. 60a, pp. 211–221. Trans IchemE, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campos, E.P., Santos, C., Sil, B.: Jogos de Empresas: Um Estudo sobre quem e como se utiliza no Brasil. Polêmica (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bastos, A.B.I.: Pichon Rivière’s operative groups technique and Henri Walon’s approach. Psicólogo inFormação. 14(14), 160–170 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pichon-Riviere, E.: El Proceso Grupal. Del psicoanálisis a la Psicología Social. Nueva Visión, Buenos Aires (1985)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reason, J.: Human error. Cambridge University Press, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rasmussen, J.: Information processing and human-machine interaction: an approach to cognitive engineering. Elsevier Science Publishing, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bazerman, M.H.: Negotiation, Decision Making, and Conflict Management. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bazerman, M., Moore, D.A.: Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 8th edn. Wiley, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muchinsky, P.M.: Psicologia organizacional, 7th edn. Pioneira Thomson Learning, São Paulo (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Embrey, D.: Preventing human error: developing a consensus led safety culture based on best practice. Human Reliability Associates, London (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hollnagel, E.: Human reliability analysis context and control. Computers and People Series. Academic Press Inc., San Diego (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cerqueira I., Avila S., Silva J.N., Mussolino C., Pimentel R., Fragoso C.M.: Analysis of competencies for decision crisis management in actions under progressive stress: a simulated case. In: 8th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Los Angeles (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ávila, S.F., Barroso, M.P.: Análise preliminar de risco sócio humano: exercício de aplicação indústria química. In: XXXIII Congresso Interamericano de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental. Salvador (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Avila, S.F.: Dependent Layer of Operation Decision Analyzes (LODA) to calculate Human Factor, a simulated case with PLG. In: 7th Global Congress on Process Safety CCPS, Chicago (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ávila, S.: Etiologia das Anormalidades Operacionais na Indústria: Modelagem para Aprendizagem. Tese de doutorado, Rio de Janeiro (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Àvila, S.F., Bittencourt, E.S.: Operator risk assessment in the oil and gas industry: dynamic tools to treat human and organization factors. In: Olson, K.F. (ed.) Petroleum refining and oil well drilling. New science Publishers, New York (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvador Ávila
    • 1
  • Ivone Cerqueira
    • 1
  • Edmara Drigo
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal da Bahia, Escola Politécnica (Polytechnic Institute), Programa de Engenharia Industrial (Industrial Engineering Program)SalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations