The Occupational Risk Assessment Method: A Tool to Improve Organizational Resilience in the Context of Occupational Health and Safety Management

  • Gael MorelEmail author
  • Manikam Pillay
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 969)


The resilience engineering (RE) approach driven by Hollnagel, Woods and Leveson [1] focuses on the ability of organizations to cope with disturbances. The notion of “control of operations” is essential to the concept of resilience. Hollnagel [2, 3] proposes a regulatory model of the operational control function, broken down into four essential abilities: to anticipate, monitor, respond, and learn. Within the domain of occupational health and safety (OHS) management, the risk assessment method “DIARBENN” was developed through a French approach to contribute to the development of the four resilience abilities of an organization. This method places the analysis of operators’ activity at the center of the risk assessment process. The aim of this paper is to present the DIARBENN method as a tool that contributes to the development of organizational resilience in the context of OHS management.


Resilience engineering Occupational health and safety management Organization Occupational risk assessment method 


  1. 1.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D., Leveson, N.: Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hollnagel, E.: The four cornerstones of resilience engineering. In: Nemeth, C., Hollnagel, E., Dekker, S. (eds.) Resilience Engineering Perspectives: Preparation and Restoration, vol. 2, pp. 117–133. Ashgate, Burlington (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hollnagel, E.: RAG-the resilience analysis grid. In: Hollnagel, E., Paries, J., Woods, D.D., Wreathall, J. (eds.) Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook, pp. 275–296. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morel, G., Chauvin, C.: La résilience des systèmes: historique et cadrage conceptuel. In: Actes du 45ième congrès de la Société d’Ergonomie de Langue Française, Liège, pp. 290–295 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morel, G., Amalberti, R., Chauvin, C.: Articulating the differences between safety and resilience: the decision-making process of professional sea fishing skippers. Hum. Factors 50(1), 1–16 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morel, G., Amalberti, R., Chauvin, C.: How good micro/macro ergonomics may improve resilience, but not necessarily safety. Saf. Sci. 47(2), 285–294 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woods, D.D., Branlat, M.: Basic patterns in how adaptive systems fail. In: Pariès, J., Wreathall, J. (eds.) Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook, pp. 127–144. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woods, D.D., Branlat, M.: How human adaptive systems balance fundamental tradeoffs: Implications for polycentric governance architectures. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium, Sophia Antipolis, France (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daniellou, F., Rabardel, P.: Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: some traditions and communities. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 6(5), 353–357 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guérin, F., Laville, A., Daniellou, F.: Comprendre le travail pour le transformer: la pratique de l’ergonomie. Anact, coll Outils et méthodes, Lyon (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Keyser, V.: Work analysis in French language ergonomics: origins and current research trends. Ergonomics 34(6), 653–669 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leplat, J., Cuny, X.: Introduction à la psychologie du travail, vol. 68. Presses universitaires de France, Paris (1977)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leplat, J., Hoc, J.-M.: Tâche et activité dans l’analyse psychologique des situations. Cahiers de psychologie cognitive 3(1), 49–63 (1983)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falzon, P.: Pour une ergonomie constructive. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falzon, P.: Des objectifs de l’ergonomie. In: Daniellou, F. (ed.) L’ergonomie en quête de ses principes. Débats épistémologiques, pp. 233–242. Octares, Toulouse (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coutarel, F., Caroly, S., Vézina, N., Daniellou, F.: Marge de manœuvre situationnelle et pouvoir d’agir: des concepts à l’intervention ergonomique. Le travail humain 78(1), 9–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Bretagne SudLorientFrance
  2. 2.The University of Newcastle (UON)Callaghan, NewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations