Skip to main content
Log in

Operators’ orientations to procedure guidance in NPP process control

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieder C, Bourrier M (eds) (2013) Trapping safety into rules. How desirable or avoidable is proceduralization. Aschgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guldenmund FW (2000) The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Saf Sci 34(1–3):215–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale AR, Swuste P (1998) Safety rules: procedural freedom or action constraint. Saf Sci 29(3):163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Paries J, Woods D, Wreathall J (eds) (2011) Resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA (2000a) Operational limits and conditions and operating procedures for nuclear power plants. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA (2000b) Safety of nuclear power plants: operation. IAEA safety standards series. Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006a) Making sense of sense making 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell Syst 21(5):88–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006b) Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):70–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leont’ev AN (1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintyre A (1984) After virtue: study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leena Norros.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0274-2

Keywords