Human Factors and Ergonomics’ Contribution to the Definition of a New Concept of Operations: The Case of Innovative Small Modular Reactors

  • Stanislas Couix
  • Julien Kahn
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)


Contributing to the earliest phases of design is an old challenge of Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF&E) experts. If HF&E contributions to Basic Design and Detailed Design of Nuclear Power Plants is acknowledge, HF&E experts’ contributions to earlier phase of design like Conceptual Design or pre-conceptual design (PCD) are not frequent. Therefore, if participation of HF&E experts to the earliest phase of systems design is not new, up to our knowledge, there is no already described, validated and structured HF&E method to contribute to a pre-conceptual design (PCD) phase. The aim of the PCD phase is to prepare and address the scientific issues of a proposed new design. From an HF&E point of view, the scientific issues are related to the concept of operations envisioned for the new system. The paper presents the approach we are currently leading at EDF R&D during the PCD phase of the design of innovative small modular reactors (ISMR) in order to define its concept of operations. This approach is based on several methods we propose to articulate in order to contribute to fill the lack of described and validated HF&E method to contribute to PCD. The theoretical foundations of our approach are based on work analyses in reference work situations [1] and operational analysis [2]. The paper describes each step of the approach developed and the organizational conditions for the participation of HF&E experts into PCD.


Human Factors and Ergonomics Systems engineering Conceptual design Concept of operations 


  1. 1.
    Daniellou F (2004) L’ergonomie dans la conduite de projets de conception de systèmes de travail. In: Falzon P (ed) Ergonomie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 359–373Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chapanis A (1996) Human Factors in Systems Engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hendrick HW (2008) Applying ergonomics to systems: some documented “lessons learned”. Appl. Ergon. 39:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanchard BS, Fabrycky WJ (2010) Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Hara JM, Higgins JC, Fleger SA, Pieringer PA (2012) Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model (NUREG-0711, rev.3), U.S. NRCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delbecq J (2012) Les Small Modular Reactors (SMR). Annales des mines – réalités industrielles (3):133–141.
  7. 7.
    NASA (2007) Systems engineering handbook (NASA/SP-2007-6105, rev 1). National Aeronautics and Space Industry, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daniellou F, Rabardel P (2005) Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: some traditions and communities. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 6:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leplat J (1990) Relations between task and activity: elements for elaborating a framework for error analysis. Ergonomics 33:1389–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hacker W (1985) Activity: a fruitful concept in industrial psychology. In: Frese Michael, Sabini John (eds) Goal Directed Behavior: The Concept of Action in Psychology. L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 262–284Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leplat J, Cuny X (1974) Les Accidents du Travail. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carroll JM (2000) Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human–Computer Interactions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EDF R&D, Human Factors GroupPalaiseauFrance

Personalised recommendations