Year: 1997
Type: report
Abstract: Technical development and new organizational solutions have given rise to changed demands on operators as handlers of disturbances in modern industrial production. This thesis is concerned with learning in relation to the management of disturbances at automated machines. Its main purpose is to contribute to theoretical development in the arena of individual learning by, on the basis of empirically founded analyses, understanding, conceptualizing and illustrating the learning of the individual in relation to a specific work task. The task is one that is both complex and complicated, and is strongly linked to modern production technology. It arises suddenly, or at least apparently so, and imposes immediate demands for action. It is not determined in advance : with regard to time, place or accomplishment. What is deviant or normal in the task is dependent on whose perspective it is viewed from. This thesis can be regarded as both a journey of discovery and a generator of theory: the study of learning in relation to a specific work task is designed to provide a basis for understanding and discussing learning-related inferences at a more general level. A subordinate purpose is to describe how operators in modern manufacturing relate to and handle disturbances to production. Accidents as a point of departure Over a decade of conducting accident research (Backström and Döös, 1996; Döös and Backström, 1993), I have learned that undisturbed production is the exception rather than the rule. Dealing with deviations from how production is envisaged to function is a quite normal work task, and thereby forms part of the everyday working life of the machine operator. However, in occupational-accident research, attention is seldom explicitly directed at the normal situation. For natural reasons, albeit not out of necessity, the concentration is on deviations. The concepts of disturbance and deviation are closely related. They occupy a central position in the field of accident and safety research in that, in many contexts, disturbances/deviations have been demonstrated to be significant to accident occurrence (Faverge, 1967; Kjellén, 1983). Disturbance to production is an early occurrence in the chain of events leading to an automation accident (Backström and Döös, 1997, in press). In focusing on disturbances as normal and everyday phenomena, the intention here is also to make a contribution to accident research. My study of learning in relation to production disturbances represents a different kind of initial analysis than that which has been customarily performed in the field of occupational-accident research. From previous research, there has emerged an image of operators as actors dealing with symptoms and not causes; the operator has appeared as a "fixer" of immediate problems, rather than a devisor of long-term solutions to production problems. Such an image prompts questions concerning how operators handle disturbances to production, and how learning in relation to this task can be understood. This gave rise to ideas concerned with a learning-related qualitative dimension to the handling of production disturbances : a dimension where unskilled casual fixing "on the spur of the moment" contrasts with the qualified devising of durable solutions. In this context, I speculated on the problematic tension that I had perceived between accident research on the one hand and qualification research on the other. We, in the accident-research field, had tended to regard disturbance as a negative risk that should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Indeed, some accident researchers have seen both variation and autonomy at work as safety risks (Saari and Lahtela, 197). By contrast, qualification researchers have regarded disturbances as providing opportunities for interesting and personally developing problem-solution, i.e. as offering a task that enhances operators' knowhow and enriches their job content (Nemitz, 1983). Desires for extended occupational tasks and richer job content appeared to come into conflict with requirements of safety. Development work on the risk-analysis method known as Riv (performed in this specific context by myself and a colleague in Sweden) showed how operators were involved in the identification of hazards and in finding permanent solutions to disturbance problems. Enriching work tasks and work for the promotion of safety seemed to go hand in hand. Production disturbances could be handled in a manner that promoted development and learning for operators, while, at the same time, safety remained in focus (Backström and Döös, Accepted, Döös and Backström, 1993). A recent paper presents empirical support for there being a positive relationship between safety initiatives and complexity/autonomy in work tasks (Simard and Marchand, Accepted). Theoretical frame of reference Through this study, I have attempted to investigate and demonstrate how everyday learning is built up in connection with a specific work task : seen from the horizon of operators, in their eyes, and in terms of how they think. The kind of learning under study is experiential by nature : "in which the learner is directly in touch with the realities being studied" (Keeton and Tate, 1978). The study is founded on the perspective of contextual didactics, within which constructivism, action theory and the concept of affordance constitute the essential points of departure (Löfberg, 1994; Piaget, 1947 and 1981, 1974 and 1980; Reed, 1993). This is a perspective in accordance with which the individual constructs knowledge on the basis of his interpretation of the conditions afforded by the surrounding environment. In other words, the environment, as also the task and the situation, cannot be regarded as purely and objectively true, predetermined and fixed, but is perceived and given meaning by each individual. Action, both as doing and as reflection, emerges as a precondition for task-related learning to take place. It links the individual and the situation in a specific context. From the theory originally emanating from Piaget (1947 and 1981, 1974 and 1980) and further developed by neo-Piagetians such as Basseches (1984,1986) and Kegan (1982,1994), I have utilized the fundamental ideas of the individual as an active constructor of knowledge and expertise, and of there being two stages to the adaptation process (assimilation and accommodation); further, I have made use of neo-Piagetian ideas concerning cognitive structures and their development during adulthood (especially in relation to work), the subject-object balance, of embeddedness in the self-evident, and of intrinsic stage imbalance. For me, conceptualization of these stages has offered an opportunity to view the learning process. Kolb (1984) also builds further on Piaget, as too on Dewey and Lewin. Like Kolb, I see knowledge as a result of the combination of apprehending experience and of transforming it. In his or her learning process, a person moves, in varying degrees, from actor to observer, and from specific involvement to general analytical seclusion. Concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation constitute, on Kolb's view of the learning process, a cyclical movement between doing and thinking. The four adaptive learning modes make up two dimensions: prehension and transformation. The prehension dimension is represented by the dialectic between the concrete and the abstract. The transformation dimension represents two ways in which experience is re-molded: by inner reflection (intention), and by actively dealing with the external world (extension). Intention and extension can just as well be applied to concrete apprehension of the world via the senses as to symbolic comprehension. In Kolb's view, the two dimensions make an equal contribution to the learning process. From action theory I have taken, above all, the model of hierarchically ordered levels of regulations of action (Frese and Zapf, 1994; Rasmussen, 1982). These are important for understanding the preconditions for and results of learning. In some parts of action theory, a distinction is made between the result of an action and its consequences, and I have found this fruitful. Given the increasing cognitive demands that are imposed on operators in modern industrial production, it becomes necessary to develop a "theoretical" conceptualizing approach : one that is abstracted from the immediate, concrete apprehension-experience, i.e. that which is perceived directly by the senses and has been traditionally linked to the practice of an occupation. To an increasing extent, it is essential for operators (and others) to construct their own generalizations and concepts in order to be able to manage occupational practice, and continually to learn and develop. Tools, in the form of concepts, are needed, both to conceptualize and to enable the posing of relevant task-related questions. Method The study was conducted at a large company within the Swedish engineering industry. It covered two production lines for the manufacture of vehicle-transmission shafts and the 14 operators who worked there. Each line contained ten to twelve computer-controlled, automated items of machining equipment. Data were gathered in case-study form (Westlander, 1991; Yin, 1989). The methodological approach is qualitative, and data have been acquired in stages by means of abductive inference (Fann, 1970). In the selection of methods, the idea of triangulation has been employed. Data have been gathered using interviews and observations, supplemented by questionnaires, disturbance-reporting and shop-floor conversations. Some statistical information has also been utilized. I do not regard data analysis as a separate, narrowly demarcated task to be performed after field work and data collection are completed. Rather, on the approach to the research process I chose to adopt, analysis was embarked upon eve
Author: Marianne Döös
Language: Swedish
Subfield: Human Factors and Ergonomics
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1482740202