Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
A second type of resource that is typically mentioned in ergonomics
relates to the possibility for participants in collective work to
cognitively
synchronize
with one another (e.g. Darses et al., 2001) - that is, to construct,
maintain and update a set of 'shared knowledge' that allows the partners
of collective work to manage the dependencies connecting their individ-
ual activities. This knowledge is based on a set of situations experienced
together, and on trade-speciic knowledge and beliefs that are historically
and culturally constructed (Salembier and Zouinar, 2004).
Two types of knowledge appear to be essential for effective collec-
tive work:
• On the one hand, participants must be able to construct shared
knowledge regarding their field of activity (technical rules, objects
of the field and their properties, problem-solving procedures, etc.).
This shared knowledge is also termed common frame of reference
(COFOR). This framework comprises the 'functional representations
shared by operators, that guide and control the activity which they
carry out as a collective'
(Leplat, 1991; Hoc and Carlier, 2002). In order
to construct the COFOR, the agents of collective work must be able to
take part in activities geared toward clarification (Baker, 2009) and
explanation, in order to negotiate and construct a shared under-
standing of the situation (Salembier and Zouinar, 2004), but also to
conceptually adjust to one another (Karsenty and Pavard, 1998) and
to construct the more stable knowledge that is necessary for collec-
tive work. For example, the construction of a common frame of refer-
ence (Leplat, 1991) becomes crucial when dealing with failures of the
work system and when controlling hazards.
• On the other hand, in the 'here and now' of a particular task, par-
ticipants must be able to construct a representation of the current
state of the situation that they are involved in (knowledge of facts
related to the state of the situation, of the contributions of partners
involved in the task, etc.), also known as awareness (Carroll et al.,
2006; Schmidt, 2002). The construction of this awareness is sup-
ported by practices whereby participants, by cooperating and cop-
ing with their own emergencies and unforeseen events, are able to
'sense' what their colleagues are doing and to adjust their own activ-
ity accordingly (Schmidt, 2002). They must therefore 'remain sensi-
tive to each other's conduct' (Heath et al., 2002, p. 317). However, this
does not imply merely supervising the activity of one's partners, but
also making visible the elements of one's own activity that might
be relevant to others (Heath et al., 2002; Salembier and Zouinar,
2004; Schmidt, 2002). Therefore, the construction of awareness is
not just an opportunistic process resulting from the affordances
