Abstract
Resilience in nuclear power plant (NPP) process control depends, among other things, on balance between operators’ autonomy in online decisions and pre-defined guidance for operations. Striking balance between these inherent demands of process control belongs to the strategic decisions by the management, but finally balancing takes place at the sharp end, by the operating personnel. We studied operators’ basic assumptions about the role of operating procedures in action. Conceptions of 62 control room operators at two Finnish NPPs were queried. Answers were classified into theory-based categories, i.e., interpretative, confirmative or reactive orientations. Orientation is an epistemic attitude to work that influences the process and content of sense making in situations that require action. In both NPPs, the confirmative orientation, emphasising the importance of acting according to rules, prevails, which corresponds to the expectations set by the organisations. It was also found that orientations reflect the operator roles and their demands: Among turbine operators, the interpretative orientation is significantly more prevalent than among the reactor operators as regards control of action. All operators consider interpretative orientation as a characteristic of a “good operator”. It is concluded that interpretative orientation represents an epistemic attitude to NPP operator work, in which autonomy based on operators’ professional competence and procedure usage is not seen opposite to each other, but intertwined into a practice. Identification interpretativeness as an epistemic attitude relevant in action extends the notion of “intelligent use of procedures” proposed earlier, by elaborating the inherent logic and ethos of operators’ procedure usage. It is recommended that appropriation of interpretative orientation should be actively supported as a means to facilitate resilience in NPP activity.








Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Becker MC (2004) Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Ind Corp Change 13(4):643–677
Bieder C, Bourrier M (eds) (2013) Trapping safety into rules. How desirable or avoidable is proceduralization. Aschgate, Farnham
Bourrier M, Bieder C (2013) Trapping safety into rules: an introduction. In: Bieder C, Bourrier M (eds) Trapping safety into rules. How desirable or avoidable is proceduralization. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 1–9
Clot Y, Fernandez G, Carles L (2002) Crosses self-confrontation in the “clinic of activity”. The 11th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Catania
Dien Y (1998) Safety and application of procedures, or how do “they” have to use operating procedures in nuclear power plants. Saf Sci 29(3):179–187
Filippi G (2006) Studying computerized emergency operating procedures to evaluate the impact of strong procedure guidance on operators’ work practices. American Nuclear Society international topical meeting on nuclear plant instrumentation, controls, and human–machine interface technologies (NPIC&HMIT), Albuquerque, New Mexico
Grote G (2012) Safety management in different high-risk domains—All the same? Saf Sci 50:1983–1992
Guldenmund FW (2000) The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Saf Sci 34(1–3):215–257
Hale AR, Borys D (2013) Working to rule, or working safely. In: Bieder C, Bourrier M (eds) Trapping safety into rules. How desirable or avoidable is proceduralization. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 43–68
Hale AR, Swuste P (1998) Safety rules: procedural freedom or action constraint. Saf Sci 29(3):163–177
Hale AR, Heijer T, Koornneef F (2003) Management of safety rules: the case of railways. Saf Sci Monit 7(1):Article III-2, 1–11
Hale A, Guldenmund FW, Van Loenhout PLCH, Oh JIH (2010) Evaluating safety management and culture interventions to improve safety: effective intervention strategies. Saf Sci 48(8):1026–1035
Hollnagel E (2006) Resilience—the challenge of the unstable. In: Hollnagel E, Woods D, Leveson N (eds) Resilience engineering. Concepts and precepts. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 9–17
Hollnagel E, Paries J, Woods D, Wreathall J (eds) (2011) Resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook. Ashgate, Farnham
IAEA (2000a) Operational limits and conditions and operating procedures for nuclear power plants. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
IAEA (2000b) Safety of nuclear power plants: operation. IAEA safety standards series. Vienna
Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006a) Making sense of sense making 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell Syst 21(5):88–92
Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006b) Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):70–73
Klemola U-M, Norros L (1997) Analysis of the clinical behaviour of anaesthetists: recognition of uncertainty as basis for practice. Med Educ 31:449–456
Leont’ev AN (1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Macintyre A (1984) After virtue: study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Norros L (2004) Acting under uncertainty. The core-task analysis in ecological study of work. Espoo, VTT. http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2004/P546.pdf
Norros L (2012) Analysis of work practices from the resilience engineering perspective. Nucl Saf Simul 3(4):on-line
Papin B (2010) Operator guidance in plant operation: characterization and orientations for better team performance and socio-technical systems resilience. Enlarged Halden Programme Group Meeting, Storefjell, Norway
Pariès J (2011) Resilience and the ability to respond. Resileince engineering in practice. In: Hollnagel E, Pariès J, Woods D, Wreathall J (eds) A guidebook. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 3–8
Peirce CS (1998) The Peirce edition project. Introduction. The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings. Project, T. P. E. Indiana University Press, Bloomington 2:XVII–XXXVIII
Pélegrin C (2013) The never-ending story of proceduralization in aviation. In: Bieder C, Bourrier M (eds) Trapping safety into rules. How desirable or avoidable is proceduralization. Aschgate, Farnham, pp 13–25
Pezzullo L, De Filippo R (2009) Perceptions of industrial risk and emergency management procedures in hazmat logistics: a qualitative mental model approach. Saf Sci 47:537–541
Reiman, T. (2007). Assessing organizational culture in complex sociotechnical systems. Methodological evidence from studies in nuclear power plant maintenance organizations. Faculty of Behavioral Sciences. Helsinki and Espoo, University of Helsinki/VTT Publications 627:136
Savioja P, Norros L, Salo L (accepted) Identifying resilience in proceduralised accident management activity. Saf Sci
Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner. Basic Books, New York
Schulman P (2013) Procedural paradoxes and management of safety. In: Bieder C, Bourrier M (eds) Trapping safety into rules. How desirable or avoidable is proceduralization. Aschgate, Farnham, pp 243–255
Weick K (1995) Sense making in organisations. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norros, L., Liinasuo, M. & Savioja, P. Operators’ orientations to procedure guidance in NPP process control. Cogn Tech Work 16, 487–499 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0274-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0274-2