Documents Garrigou, Alain 5 results

"Most ergonomic publications from French-speaking countries refer to Activity Analysis as the core of their rationale and their methodological approach (De Keyser, 1991; Wisner, 1989). On the other hand, the same ergonomists are increasingly involved in the participatory approaches to industrial design processes.

The aim of this paper is to discuss some questions, or even some paradoxes, raised by this development: (1) To what extent can any reference to Activity Analysis be useful when design is concerned, since activity in future situations cannot be observed? (2) Is ergonomic Activity Analysis necessary when a participatory approach is involved, assuming the fact that the workers involved know everything about their own work? (3) Is there no contradiction between Activity Analysis as a bottom-up approach, and systemic design, which is more a top-down process (Hendrick, 1993)?

This contribution is based on two long-term participatory interventions in the design of complete plants that are fully presented and discussed elsewhere (Daniellou and Garrigou, 1990; Daniellou et al., 1990). Section 1 discusses the role of Activity Analysis in a participatory design process. Section 2 presents the results of an a posteriori analysis of the participatory process in one of the two interventions."

"Après un rappel des enjeux en œuvre dans le champ de la prévention du risque chimique, nous présentons les éléments fondateurs ainsi que l'évolution historique de la démarche ergotoxicologique. Cette démarche pluridisciplinaire vise à construire et à évaluer de nouvelles approches de prévention du risque chimique.
Nous décrivons le modèle dominant de prévention du risque chimique en milieu de travail, que nous désignons par «  modèle par écrans  ». Nous proposons une lecture critique de chacun de ces écrans. Nous définissons ensuite l'ergotoxicologie et envisageons les perspectives de son développement."

"Personal protection equipment (PPE) holds a privileged position in safety interventions in many countries, despite the fact that they should only be used as a last resort. This is even more paradoxical because many concerns have arisen as to their actual effectiveness under working conditions and their ability to provide the protection attributed to them by certain occupational safety strategies and marketing authorisation procedures. Are these concerns justified? This article is intended to provide an update on what we know of the issue based on a critical analysis of the literature to date.
Analysis focuses on the assessment of the effectiveness of coveralls used to protect from plant protection products in OECD countries. All forms of assessment were retained: discussion of the observed effectiveness of PPE in relation to the underlying assumptions of marketing authorisation procedures, laboratory tests of equipment, practical field tests in which PPE-wearing practices were controlled and uncontrolled, analyses of the efficiency of preventive instructions based on wearing such coveralls.
Findings show that recommending the use of PPE is key to the granting of marketing authorisation. Some dangerous products only get marketing authorisation because it is assumed that wearing PPE will considerably limit exposure. They would be banned if it were not for this assumption of protection. However the actual effectiveness of PPE in working conditions may be over-estimated. In addition many factors (cost, availability, thermic and mechanical discomfort) may make instructions to wear PPE inapplicable. Advising the use of PPE does not always mean effective protection."