Philippe Fauquet-Alekhine

Risk assessment for subjective evidence-

based ethnography applied in high risk
environment

Article (Published version)

(Refereed)

Original citation:
Fauquet-Alekhine, Philippe (2016) Risk assessment for subjective evidence-based ethnography
applied in high risk environment. Advances in Research, 6 (2). pp. 1-13. ISSN 2348-0394

DOI: 10.9734/AIR/2016/21597

Reuse of this item is permitted through licensing under the Creative Commons:

© 2016 The Author

CC BY 4.0

This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65356/

Available in LSE Research Online: Online: February 2016

LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the
School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual
authors and/or other copyright owners. You may freely distribute the URL
(http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website.
 Advances in Research
6(2): 1-13, 2016, Article no.AIR.21597
ISSN: 2348-0394, NLM ID: 101666096

SCIENCEDOMAIN international
www.sciencedomain.org

Risk Assessment for Subjective Evidence-Based

Ethnography Applied in High Risk Environment
Philippe Fauquet-Alekhine1,2,3*
1
Nuclear Power Plant of Chinon, BP80, 37420 Avoine, France.
2
Lab. for Research in Science of Energy, Montagret, France.
3
Department of Social Psychology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton St.,
WC2A 2AE, London, UK.

Author’s contribution

The sole author designed, analyzed and interpreted and prepared the manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/AIR/2016/21597
Editor(s):
(1) Simone Domenico Scagnelli, Department of Management, University of Torino, Italy.
Reviewers:
(1) Hamidah Ibrahim, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.
(2) Koichi Kurita, Kinki University, Japan.
(3) Gevisa La Rocca, University of Enna “Kore”, Italy.
Complete Peer review History: http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/12082

th
Received 25 August 2015
Original Research Article Accepted 10th October 2015
rd
Published 3 November 2015

ABSTRACT

Subjective Evidence-Based Ethnography (SEBE) is a family of methods developed for investigation

in social science based on subjective audio-video recordings with a miniature video-camera usually
worn at eye-level (eye-tracking techniques are included). Despite its application to the analysis of
high risk professions (e.g. anesthetists, aircraft pilots, nuclear reactor pilots) and the potential
additional risks it induces, no suggestions regarding these concerns and no solutions helping
researchers to anticipate this kind of risks are available in the literature. Aiming at filling this gap, we
undertook a study of SEBE equipment applied to the analysis of workers’ activities on a nuclear
power plant. The method was divided in three phases: i) observations and discussions on full scale
simulators of activities undertaken by one or two workers (N=42) to characterize the consequences
of the SEBE equipment, ii) bibliographic research combined with results of first phase to elaborate a
risk assessment protocol, iii) analysis of its application in real operating situations (N=17). The
elaborated protocol gave satisfactory results in terms of risk prevention and time application: No
incident or accident occurred and the risk assessment took less than five minutes. The observations
highlighted however a risk of side-effect (using SEBE equipment to justify subjects’ mistake or
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: larsen.sciences@yahoo.fr;

 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

failure) giving greater importance to the necessity of this sort of risk assessment protocol. To date,
the protocol needs to be tested in other industrial contexts in order to be improved and/or to confirm
its robustness.

Keywords: Activity analysis; eye tracking; high risk industry; risk assessment; miniaturized camera;
video.

1. INTRODUCTION (SEBE). The SEBE is thus a family of methods

developed for investigation in social science
Using video recordings allows the researcher to based on subjective audio-video recordings with
access to the reality of work activities which is a miniature video-camera most of the time worn
one of the major concerns of work analysts. The at eye-level (the subcam), then confrontation of
use of video has almost become a necessity subjects with these subjective recordings to
because it pushes the limits of the classic collect their subjective experience, and finally
observation paper / pencil: Even with the help of discussion of findings and final interpretations
analysis grids, the researcher’s writing speed is between researchers and subjects. The use of a
often much slower than the performance of the subjective perspective brought interesting series
task by observed workers. In addition, taking of improvements on the quality of the explanation
notes entails the risk of not watching the scene by the subject's intentions when rendering in self-
for a while and so to miss important elements of confrontation interview with the subjective videos
activity. This could be corrected by replaying the [5].
activity but in the world of work, it is generally
inappropriate to ask to redo several times the The recent progress regarding miniaturized
activity observed while video allows for multiple cameras and camcorders helps new researchers
visualizations retrospectively, very useful in the to reach a deeper layer of analysis. For example,
case of complex situations. When the work the consumers’ behavior analysis through
analyst applies self-confrontation, the video subjective recordings avoiding disturbance due
recording is a main tool: observed subjects to heavy and bulky equipment was obtained [6,7].
seeing themselves in action can learn about Gobbo [8] applied the SEBE approach to shoes
themselves and thus correct or improve consumption (videos are available on line:
themselves. Thus, the video is both a source and ethnoshoes.com). Fauquet-Alekhine et al. [9]
a support: a data source for the researcher and a analyzed consumers’ behavior shopping wines in
support of expression (body, speech), of stores for marketing concerns. Similarly, these
mediation, which participates in the emergence devices allow researchers to access relevant
of meaning of the activities and of the co- data regarding work activity: examples of
production of knowledge through the triangle application are available for nuclear industry
operator-image-researcher [1]. [10-12].

As noticed by others, video analysis may help SEBE also includes eye-tracking systems (see
researchers “to reveal how activities are the reviews [13,14]). Researchers have used this
produced with respect to the contingencies and kind of devices to analyze and improve training
circumstances of the participants within [15-17], to analyze consumers’ behavior [18-20],
organizational settings, and examine how the to study high risk professions such as
technologies available in these domains are anesthetists [21], aircraft pilots [22-24], flight
utilized” [2]. fighters [25], air traffic controllers [26], nuclear
reactor pilots [27].
Amongst all the possible devices available for
such video recording of activities, the first person The use of SEBE metrology equipment does not
approach or subjective approach presents the present any special risks for the subjects
particularity to use a recording device embedded themselves. Conversely, SEBE equipment
on the subject in action. The point of view of the applied to the analysis of high risk professions
camera is then that of the subject: this might induce problems due for example to the
characterizes the first person or subjective point interaction between the SEBE equipment and the
of view. This kind of approach was work environment (cables may be trapped in the
conceptualized by Lahlou [3,4] under the name industrial equipment) or due to a disturbance of
of Subjective Evidence-Based Ethnography subjects’ actions (SEBE glasses might change

2
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

the subjects’ vision). Despite these potential safety (individual activity) or dealing with
additional risks induced by SEBE equipment, the periodical tests of the process (collective activity).
literature is void of suggestion regarding these Operating field workers were observed and then
concerns and of solutions helping researchers to interviewed in the field simulator. N=10 subjects
anticipate subsequent problems. (age: 25 to 45 yo.; professional experience:
several months to 15 years) were equipped with
This paper aims at providing a devoted risk SEBE equipment whilst configuring hydraulic
assessment for SEBE application for high risk circuit (individual or collective activity).
professions. Maintenance workers were observed and then
interviewed in one of the tap and valve
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS simulators. N=2 subjects (age: 45 yo.;
professional experience: 20 years) were
2.1 Design equipped with SEBE equipment whilst working
with valves and related actuator devices. All
The high risk professions chosen to undertake these activities lasted from several minutes to 2
this study was the professionals of nuclear hours. All simulators were located at the Training
industry at the nuclear power plant (NPP) of Center of the NPP of Chinon.
Chinon (Electricité de France). The analysis
frame was bounded by the analysis of their work For phase 3, reactor pilots were observed and
activity (see for example [12]). then interviewed in one of the control rooms. N=5
subjects (age: 25 to 45 yo.; professional
A first phase (first observations and discussions) experience: several months to 10 years) were
was undertaken on simulators to observe and equipped with SEBE equipment whilst evaluating
discuss with workers (N=42) the consequences safety (individual activity) or dealing with
of the SEBE equipment used. Three kinds of periodical tests of the process (collective activity).
professions were observed: Reactor pilot, Operating field workers were observed and then
operating field worker, and maintenance interviewed in the field. N=10 subjects (age: 25
technician. to 35 yo.; professional experience: 1 to 7 years)
were equipped with SEBE equipment whilst
A second phase (risk assessment elaboration) configuring electric or hydraulic circuits
was related to a bibliographic research regarding (individual or collaborative activity). Maintenance
possible risk assessment protocol in high risk workers were observed and then interviewed in
industries and to the development of the SEBE one of the electric premises. N=2 subjects (age:
risk assessment. 28 and 40 yo.; professional experience: 5 and 15
years resp.) were equipped with SEBE
A third and final phase (application) consisted in equipment whilst undertaking the test of a part of
applying the elaborated risk assessment of the control system of the installation. All these
phase 2 in real operating situations. Professions activities lasted from several minutes to 3 hours
concerned were the same as for phase 1 but and took place at the NPP of Chinon.
subjects (N=17) were other persons.
As the aim was to develop a SEBE risk
All studied situations involved one or two assessment for anyone of the staff, gender, age
subjects at the same time in a given work activity. and experience were not considered as variables
These situations were real operating situations to be analyzed, yet subjects were chosen so that
therefore exposing subjects to interactions with a large range of age and work experience could
the industrial environment in operation and to be represented by the sample.
interpersonal contacts with colleagues including
all constrains induced by their job and by 2.3 Apparatus
interactions with other jobs.
All simulators were of full scale type, reproducing
2.2 Subjects with a high degree of fidelity the real operating
material and environment of a NPP, as well as
For phase 1, reactor pilots were observed and the real kinetic of physical parameters.
then interviewed in the simulated control room.
N=30 subjects (age: 25 to 45 yo.; professional The SEBE equipment was made up of three
experience: several months to 13 years) were parts linked with cables: i) a micro audio digital
equipped with SEBE equipment whilst evaluating recorder DVR-500-HD2 self powered by internal

3
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

batteries, ii) a 4 mm diameter - 40 mm length In parallel, a bibliographic research was

miniaturized subcam mounted on safety glasses, undertaken to explore the risk assessment in
iii) a lavaliere microphone. This SEBE equipment high risk industries. Four industries were
was purchased at Active Media Concept. considered: Nuclear, aerospace, airline, and
medicine. The investigation focused on available
Reactor pilots were dressed with their own civil approaches, methods and protocols of risk
garments. Other professionals wore individual assessment of work activity in order to adapt it in
safety equipment including overalls, helmet, the case of the SEBE use.
shoes and gloves if needed.
3. RESULTS
2.4 Procedure
3.1 Results of Observations, Interviewers
Phases 1 (first observations and discussions) (Phase 1) and Additional Feedback
and 3 (application) required a prior discussion
The first observations from the researchers as
with the management of the teams (operating
well as the first remarks from the subjects
and training) in order to present the study,
concerned the interaction of the SEBE
negotiate hierarchical agreement, and identify
equipment with their body and with their worn
the possible subjects and activities. Then a
equipment: these resulted in comments (positive
preparation was undertaken with the subject(s) in
or negative) regarding the SEBE glasses over
order to explain the aim of the research, discuss
their own glasses, the way they had to adjust
of agreement and sign the ethical form. Only for
their own glasses whilst working (one of the pilot
phase 3, the preparation included the application
was used to pushing back his glasses on the
of the SEBE risk assessment protocol elaborated
nose (a tic) and another was used to pushing his
in phase 2. After equipping the subject(s), work
glasses up on his front when reading certain
activity was engaged by the subjects and /
indicators of the control panel). This led us to
researchers began making observations using
consider other possible interactions with
pencil and paper. No particular instruction was
prostheses (hearing aid, lenses) and to question
given to subjects: They just had to perform their
the relevancy and the adjustment of the
task as usual. Observations focused on
positioning of the SEBE equipment on the
interactions of the SEBE equipment with the
subjects.
environment and subjects. Immediately after the
end of the time planed for the experimentation, a The operating field workers were wearing
semi-structured interview was carried out by the overalls with a lot of pockets and a lot of things
researchers with the subject(s). Questions were inside. These led us to question the possible
asked regarding subjects’ perception of their own interaction between these objects and SEBE
safety and comfort whilst wearing SEBE equipment, especially with the cables. As a
equipment, their ability to act, to perform the task, consequence, the reliability of their movements,
constrains induced by the SEBE equipment on of their actions, as well as of their speed of action
their activity, the interaction between the SEBE was questioned. Observations pointed out
equipment and their garments or the industrial possible interactions between the SEBE
equipment. A final open question left place for equipment (especially the cables) and the
additional comments. The difference between industrial equipment in the case of operating field
phase 1 and phase 2 lied in the final interview: worker and maintenance worker.
for phase 1, the goal was to explore the risks, for
the phase 2, the goal was to complement the Finally, it appeared important to remind to the
protocol. subjects that the most important was to perform
their work activity and that, in case of discomfort
Phase 2 (risk assessment elaboration) began due to the SEBE equipment, this latter had to be
with a list of potential risks due to the SEBE taken away at once.
equipment elaborated from the material obtained
in phase 1, also fostered by feedback from 3.2 Results of the Risk Assessment
others studies [3,11,28,29]. These risks were Elaboration (Phase 2)
then categorized in order to identify families of
potential risks. It was here assumed that risks of The results of phase 1 led to a questionnaire for
a given family could be identified by the same set risk assessment divided in 5 categories
of questions. In these conditions, it would make addressing a specific field of the experiment for
the risk assessment more concise. work activity:

4
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

• Usual biotechnical constraints (including (§2.4) gave relevant results from nuclear and
concerns about individual's safety and aerospace industries.
comfort),
• Biotechnical constraints of the activity, The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
• Performance constraints, highlighted the necessity to have constant risk
• Equipment safety, assessment: “Nuclear safety undergoes constant
• Induced biotechnical constraints (including examination” is one of the 8 principles of a strong
concerns about individual's safety and nuclear safety culture [30]. “Insights from
comfort). probabilistic risk assessments are considered in
daily work activities and change processes” [31]
Each category was then broken down into promoting constant examination. This means that
several questions: risk assessment is more than one examination:
the risk assessment must be undertaken every
1-Usual biotechnical constraints time performing the activities as the context
1.1-Do you wear a hearing aid? and/or the actors are always new. For the SEBE,
1.2-Do you wear lenses? we applied this as the necessity to perform a
1.3-Do you wear glasses? systematic risk assessment before each
1.4-If Yes to any of the questions, is this application, even if we had the same subject
resulting in particular regular manipulations? and/or the same activity.

2-Biotechnical constraints of the activity The International Atomic Energy Association

2.1-Do you wear equipment that may interact (IAEA) provided a probabilistic approach of risks
with the SEBE equipment? (e.g. belt and promoted a method for risk assessment
metrology, helmet, ear plugs, prostheses) based on consequences and frequency (Fig. 1):
3-Performance constraints
The process of quantified risk assessment is
3.1-Can SEBE metrology reduce the reliability
probabilistic in nature. It recognizes that
of your movements?
accidents are rare and that possible events
3.2-Can SEBE metrology reduce the speed of
and risks cannot be entirely eliminated.
your movements?
Because major accidents may or may not
3.3-Can SEBE metrology mechanically interact
occur over the entire life of a plant or a
with your work environment, causing
process, it is not appropriate to base the
damage? (e.g. span, crawl, slip, climb)
assessment process on the consequences of
4-Equipment safety accidents in isolation. The probability of this
4.1-Could SEBE Metrology be damaged? kind of accidents actually occurring should
4.2-Could SEBE Metrology be infected, be taken into account. [32].
contaminated?
To operate this approach concretely, we applied
5-Induced biotechnical constraints (once SEBE the risk assessment matrix of the National
metrology in place). Do you feel a Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
particular discomfort for: [33], in full agreement with the recommendations
of IAEA, simple and quite clear. In this approach,
5.1-The field of vision? coherent with most of those applied in high risk
5.2-Listening? industries since the work of Farmer [34], gravity
5.3-The weight of the glasses? is evaluated in terms of consequences. The
5.4-The placement of the camcorder? matrix approach is a cross assessment of the
5.5-The placement of cables? probability and consequences which are both
5.6-The length of the cables? rated on a five step scale:
A final reminder was added: The reminder was Very low, low, moderate, high, very high
that the priority is the work activity carried out by
the workers. In case of discomfort felt by workers The definition of the steps is given in the Tables 1
due to SEBE equipment, workers must request and 2. They are presented according to four
its immediate withdrawal. domains: Safety, technical, cost, schedule.
The bibliographic research undertaken to explore
the risk assessment in four high risk industries For example, in Table 1, it is suggested that a
given space program may be concerned by very

5
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

high risks if an identified risk has a probability to appropriate scale of assessment was the second.
-1
occur during the program greater than 10 This led to the following association in Table 3.
(safety domain) or if the probability not to meet
the expected performance is greater than 50% Risks were then assessed in the 5x5 matrix
(technical domain) or if the probability of an over according to Fig. 2.
cost is greater than 75%.
The global aim of a risk assessment is to identify
risks for the activity and then implement remedial
Regarding the safety concern, as done by measures to reduce risks and return all of them
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for high in the green area (bottom left corner) of the 5x5
risks industries, we considered probability as a matrix if possible.
frequency related to the experiment. Yet, the
PRA of NASA as well as of INPO considered the On Fig. 2, we adopted a nomenclature to
probability of occurrence related to a whole designate:
space mission or a whole industrial unit operation
of which scale of assessment may be several • probability: p (in subscript on Fig. 2)
hours, weeks, months or years [32]. Regarding • consequence: c (in subscript on Fig. 2)
our experiment, we were interested in the impact • very low, low, moderate, high, very high:
of wearing the SEBE equipment. This was a VL, L, M, H, VH
permanent situation and we considered that the

Fig. 1. Overview of quantitative risk assessment procedure. Adapted from IAEA [32]

Fig. 2. Risk assessment in the 5x5 matrix Probability vs Consequence characterization

6
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

Table 1. Definition of the five steps scale for probability. Adapted from Alcom et al. [33]

Probability Safety (estimated Technical (estimated Cost/Schedule

probability of safety probability of not (estimated probability of
event occurrence) meeting not meeting cost or
performance) schedule commitment)
-1
VH: Very High ps > 10 pT > 50% pCS > 75%
H: High 10-2 < ps ≤ 10-1 25% < pT ≤ 50% 50% < pCS ≤ 75%
-3 -2
M: Moderate 10 < ps ≤ 10 15% < pT ≤ 25% 25% < pCS ≤ 50%
L: Low 10 < ps ≤ 10-3
-6
2% < pT ≤ 15% 10% < pCS ≤ 25%
-6
VL: Very Low ps ≤ 10 0.1% < pT ≤ 2% pCS ≤ 10%

Table 2. Definition of the five steps scale for consequences. Adapted from Alcom et al. [33]

Risk VL: Very L: Low M: Moderate H: High VH: Very High

Low
Safety Negligible or Could cause the May cause May cause May cause
No impact. need for only minor injury or severe injury or death or
minor first aid occupational occupational permanently
treatment. illness or minor illness or major disabling injury
property property or destruction of
damage. damage. property.
Technical No impact to Minor impact to Moderate Major impact to Minimum
full mission full mission impact to full full mission mission
success success criteria. mission success success criteria
criteria. success criteria. criteria. is not
Minimum Minimum achievable.
mission mission
success criteria success criteria
is achievable is achievable.
with margin.
Schedule Negligible or Minor impact to Impact to Major impact to Cannot meet
no schedule schedule schedule schedule schedule and
impact. milestones; milestones; milestones; program
accommodates accommodates major impact to milestones.
within reserves; within reserves; critical path.
no impact to moderate
critical path. impact. to
critical path.
Cost <2% Between 2% Between 5% Between 7% >10% increase
increase and 5% and 7% and 10% over allocated,
over increase over increase over increase over and/or can’t
allocated allocated and allocated and allocated, handle with
and can handle with cannot handle and/or exceeds reserves.
negligible reserve. with reserve. proper
impact on reserves.
reserve.

The definition of the steps is given Tables 1 and points from the safety and technical standpoints
2. They are presented according to four domains: only. Therefore, each question related to the five
Safety, technical, cost, schedule. Regarding the categories of risks listed in section 3.2 gave rise
SEBE method, cost and schedule are not to an assessment according to safety and
impacted domains provided that the SEBE performance domain, concretely achieved
equipment is not destroyed. This issue is through an assessment form presented in Figs. 3
addressed through the technical domain. Hence, and 4 as an example for question 1.1 of the
the protocol we elaborated below examined SEBE risk assessment protocol.

7
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

These forms (Figs. 3 and 4) were completed at the work activity. Then, turning the page, the first
the beginning of the document by an introduction question 1.1 (Fig. 3) was asked to the subject(s)
sheet explaining briefly how to apply the regarding safety domain and in case of answer
document and by three summarizing grids at the “YES”, consequence was identified clearly and
end of the document, each one related to the written in the box “1” under “consequence”, then
type of risks (red in upper right corner, green in characterized and probability evaluated. In case
bottom left corner, yellow in the middle, in the of several consequences, box “2” and “3” could
matrix Fig. 1). be used. The pairs (characterization; probability)
were then drawn on the matrix writing “1” for
Table 3. Appropriate scale of assessment for consequence #1 and so on. In case of ticking
safety probability or likelihood inside the yellow or red area, remedial had to be
written in the next box. Then the next page was
Probability Frequency considered (Fig. 4), asking the same question
-1 1.1 from the performance standpoint, and a
10 1/10 sec
10
-2
½ min similar analysis was carried out. This was then
10-3 1/15 min done for the next questions. In case of answer
“NO”, the page was turned without any comment.
10-6 1/10 j

The introduction sheet reminds the user the color At the end of the document, all identified
code associated to the risk level and what is an consequences were summarized in the last three
acceptable risk according to the matrix. It also summarizing grids and the total number of
presents a Table on which the designation of the consequences identified and reported in the grids
activity studied and the names of the performers was noted on the introduction sheet. Doing so, it
must be written by the analyst as well as the date was easy to consult the document later and know
of the risk assessment and the participants’ how many risks and remedial were identified and
names, complemented by the time and date of not forget any of them.
the activity performance and the performers’
names. This information is important because it Application of the SEBE risk assessment
helps the analyst to prove that people performing document with workers in real operating situation
the task were involved in the risk assessment. was indeed easy and quick. Most of the answers
The Table also offers the possibility to write down to the questions were negative and the protocol
the number of conclusions identified during the was applied in less than five minutes.
risk assessment. This information is relevant as it
helps analysts and workers to know whether or There was a recurrent positive answer to
not they have something to do to minimize the question #3.3: “Can SEBE metrology
risks by a quick look in case of activity realized mechanically interact with your work environment,
later than the time of the risk assessment: If the causing damage?” for the operating field workers
number of conclusions is “0”, no significant risk and maintenance workers. The systematic
was identified; otherwise the summarizing grids remedial action was to run the SEBE metrology
at the end of the document must be read. On cables inside the overalls.
these grids, the analyst writes the number of the
questions concerned by a risk identified, for There were no cases of subjects equipped with a
which domain (safety and/or technical) and what hearing aid. No case of possible infection or
must be done. contamination of the SEBE metrology equipment
was encountered.
3.3 Application of the SEBE Risk
Assessment in Real Operating Only one case of discomfort was reported
Situations (Phase 3) (questions of category #5) not during the risk
assessment but during the interview after
The whole document obtained was thus made up performing the activity. The subject was a reactor
of thirty-four pages (available for free on line at pilot.
http://www.hayka-kultura.org/larsen.html). Using
this document for SEBE risk assessment implies No case led to withdrawing the SEBE metrology
beginning by filling the Table on the introduction equipment.
sheet. This was achieved during the preparation
phase with the subject(s) just before performing No incident or accident was observed or reported.

8
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

Fig. 3. SEBE risk assessment form for question 1.1 related to safety domain

Fig. 4. SEBE risk assessment form for question 1.1 related to performance domain
characterization

9
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

4. DISCUSSION which the camcorder and/or the microphone are

integrated inside the glasses: In these cases, the
4.1 Contribution related questions are merely not applicable.

When obtaining the SEBE risk assessment 4.2 Quantitative Approach

protocol after phase 2, a worry came to our mind
regarding the time which would be necessary to Risk assessment addressing SEBE use is quite
apply it: Usually, additional tasks are never new and therefore suffers of a lack of experience
welcome in the course of industrial activities feedback on the contrary of space programs or
because they reduce efficiency by increasing the nuclear reactors operation. A long experience
time of work. We were pleased to demonstrate feedback helps analysts to make the risk
finally that this did not take more than about 5 assessment more accurate by fostering
minutes. probability data with the frequency of event
occurrences. For example, the repetitive failure
The fact that no problem was encountered and
of a given sensor m times over a ten year space
just one complaint was reported by the subjects
program including M launches of a rocket
whilst applying the SEBE equipment with prior
equipped with this sensor helps analysts to
risk assessment in real operating situations is
adjust the probability of failure of this sensor to
encouraging: It suggests that the developed
m/M. The SEBE unfortunately does not have any
protocol for SEBE risk assessment may be a
benefits of this kind as it has never been
relevant tool. Problem due to the dimensions of
considered from such a standpoint until today.
the device would perhaps have been different
Nevertheless, from the N=42 cases used to
with a bigger camera, especially for field workers
elaborate the protocol and then from the N=17
in narrow premises.
cases for application, we may conclude that the
The complaint regarding SEBE equipment thresholds suggested by the NASA to bound the
concerned just one case of discomfort reported technical levels (Table 1) and that the thresholds
during the interview after performing the activity selected to bound the safety levels (Table 3) are
(1 subject over 17 in the application phase 3). appropriate: indeed, applications in working
The subject was a student reactor pilot. However, situations led us to implement remedial actions
observations led to the assumption that this that avoided any problem in the considered
person was using any reason to justify his industrial domain. For example, while the
difficulties in achieving the tasks (lack of placement of the cables was not pointed out as
competencies). Yet, due to ethical concerns, this inducing a possible difficulty for reactor pilots,
point could not be discussed neither with his this was not the case for field workers for whom
managers nor with his colleagues for keeping the cables inside the vest was
confirmation or not. This highlighted a very recommended.
important point: if an individual may attempt to
hide a kind of lack of competencies by invoking 4.3 Limits
the effect of the SEBE equipment, we may
assume that, in case of accident occurring in Despite the fact that results of the present study
situation, the SEBE equipment might be suggest that the developed protocol for SEBE
designated by the subjects as a main factor risk assessment may be a relevant tool, the
contributing to the accident even though it would application as well as the exploratory phase
not be really the case. This finding gives even preceding the elaboration of the protocol
greater importance to the necessity of this sort of concerned only one industrial field. Furthermore,
risk assessment protocol. Indeed, in case of the no particular biotechnical constraint was met
occurrence of an accident whilst using the SEBE except wearing glasses: it should be interesting
equipment with risk assessment beforehand, to deal with subjects concerned by prostheses.
there are arguments to defend the absence of The same for equipment safety with infection or
contribution of the SEBE equipment to the contamination. It would be worth to test the
accident. Obviously, this does not prevent the application of the protocol in context of other high
workers to make by their side the risk analysis of risk industries in order to submit it to other fields
their own activity. of constraints and test its robustness and learn
whether or not the protocol needs improvement
This protocol may be applied to any kind of and complements.
SEBE, including wireless devices or systems for

10
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

5. CONCLUSION (LSE, London, UK) and has therefore been

performed in accordance with the ethical
A protocol for risk assessment regarding the standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of
application of SEBE metrology equipment was Helsinki.
validated for work activities in nuclear power
plant. This protocol was based on the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
recommendations and applications of the
International Atomic Energy Association, the The author thanks all participants from the
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and the Nuclear Power Plant and the Training Center of
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Chinon for their contribution. The author thanks
especially Fr. Daviet (Training Center) for help
The protocol gave satisfactory results in terms of and cooperation. Research was financially
risk prevention and time duration application. We supported by Electricité de France.
found important to add a reminder in the protocol
document for the subjects not to forget that the COMPETING INTERESTS
priority remains the work activity carried out by
them. In case of feeling any discomfort due to The author has declared that no competing
SEBE equipment, they must request its interests exist.
immediate withdrawal. Furthermore, recommend-
dations of INPO (§ 3.2) led us to highlight the REFERENCES
necessity to perform a systematic risk
assessment before each application, even if we 1. Falzon P. Travail et vidéo. In A. Borzeix, M.
had the same subject and/or the same activity. Lacoste, P. Falzon, M. Grosjean & D. Cru
(Eds.), Filmer le travail: Recherche et
The observations highlighted however a risk of réalisation: Champs visuels nº6, Paris:
side-effect: Workers who are not at ease in their L'Harmattan; 1997.
job due to lack of skills might say that the SEBE 2. Luff P, Jirotka M, Yamashita N, Kuzuoka H,
equipment was disturbing them to justify a Heath Ch, Eden G. Embedded Interaction:
problem and not to accept their own The accomplishment of actions in
responsibilities; moreover, in case of an accident, everyday and video-mediated
SEBE metrology equipment could be accused as environments. ACM Transactions on
disturbing workers even though it was not the Computer-Human Interaction.2013;20(1):
case. These findings gave greater importance to 6.1-6.22.
the necessity of this sort of risk assessment 3. Lahlou S. How we can capture the
protocol. subject’s perspective? An evidence-based
approach for the social scientist. Social
This protocol may be applied to any kind of Science Information. 2011;50(3-4):607-655.
SEBE, including wireless devices or systems 4. Lahlou S, Le Bellu S, Boesen-Mariani S.
with integrated camcorder and/or the microphone Subjective evidence based ethnography:
inside the glasses. Yet, the protocol needs to be Method and applications. Integrative
tested in other industrial contexts in order to be Psychological and Behavioral Science.
improved and/or to confirm its robustness. 2015;1-23.
Despite that, the SEBE risk assessment protocol 5. Lahlou S. L'activité du point de vue de
we obtained clearly fills a gap with efficiency for l'acteur et la question de l’inter-subjectivité :
researchers and analysts using SEBE Huit années d’expériences avec des
techniques. caméras miniaturisées fixées au front des
acteurs (subcam). Communications. 2006;
CONSENT (80):209-234.
6. Hui SK, Huang Y, Suher J, Inman JJ.
The author declares that written informed Deconstructing the "First Moment of Truth":
consent was obtained from subjects for Understanding unplanned consideration
publication of this paper. and purchase conversion using in-store
video tracking. Journal of Marketing
ETHICAL APPROVAL Research. 2013;445-462.
7. Saarela AM, Kantanen TT, Lapveteläinen
This study received ethical approval of the Ethics AT, Mykkänen HM, Karppinen HA,
Committee of the Dept. of Social Psychology Rissanen RL. Combining verbal analysis

11
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

protocol and wireless audiovisual learning. Learning and Instruction. 2010;

observation to examine consumers’ 20(2):95-99.
supermarket shopping behavior. 18. Graham DJ, Orquin JL, Visschers VH. Eye
International Journal of Consumer Studies. tracking and nutrition label use: A review of
2013;37:577-584. the literature and recommendations for
8. Gobbo A. The making of consumer label enhancement. Food Policy. 2012;
decisions: Revisiting the concept of utility 37(4):378-382.
by reconstructing consumer habits through 19. Khushaba RN, Wise C, Kodagoda S,
subject evidence based ethnography (a Louviere J, Kahn BE, Townsend C.
Department of Social Psychology of the Consumer neuroscience: Assessing the
London School of Economics PhD Thesis brain response to marketing stimuli using
in press); 2014. electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye
9. Fauquet-Alekhine Ph, Fauquet-Alekhine- tracking. Expert Systems with Applications.
Pavlovskaya E, Gobbo A. Innovative 2013:40(9):3803-3812.
subjective evidence-based ethnography 20. Reutskaja E, Nagel R, Camerer CF,
applied to food consumer’s behavior: The Rangel A. Search dynamics in consumer
case of wine. In Proceedings of the choice under time pressure: An eye-
International Interdisciplinary Business- tracking study. The American Economic
Economics Advancement Conference Review. 2011;900-926.
(IIBA 2014, Istanbul). 2014 ; 452-457. 21. Schulz CM, Schneider E, Fritz L,
10. Le Bellu S, Lahlou S, Nosulenko V. Capter Vockeroth J, Hapfelmeier A, Wasmaier M,
et transférer le savoir incorporé dans un Kochs EF, Schneider G. Eye tracking for
geste professionnel. Social Science assessment of workload: A pilot study in an
Information. 2010 ;49 :371-413. anaesthesia simulator environment. British
11. Le Bellu S, Le Blanc B. How to Journal of Anaesthesia. 2011;106(1):44-50.
characterize professional gestures to 22. Schnell T, Wu T. Applying eye tracking as
operate tacit know-how transfer? The an alternative approach for activation of
Electronic Journal of Knowledge controls and functions in aircraft. In
Management. 2012;10(2):142-153. Proceedings of the 5th International
12. Fauquet-Alekhine Ph, Daviet Fr.) Detection Conference on Human Interaction with
and characterization of tacit occupational Complex Systems. New York, NY: ACM;
knowledge through speech and behavior 2000.
analysis. International Journal of 23. Weibel N, Fouse A, Emmenegger C,
Innovation, Management and Technology. Kimmich S, Hutchins E. Let's look at the
2015;6(1):21-25. cockpit: exploring mobile eye-tracking for
13. Rosch JL, Vogel-Walcut JJ. A review of observational research on the flight deck.
eye-tracking applications as tools for In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye
training. Cognition, Technology & Work. Tracking Research and Applications. 2012;
2013;15(3):313-327. 107-114. ACM.
14. Xincan Z, Hongfu Z, Yongjun R. A review of 24. Hutchins E, Weibel N, Emmenegger C,
eye tracker and eye tracking techniques. Fouse A, Holder B. An integrative
Computer Engineering and Applications. approach to understanding flight crew
2006;12:118-121. activity. Journal of Cognitive Engineering
and Decision Making. 2013;
15. Boucheix JM, Lowe RK. An eye tracking
1555343413495547.
comparison of external pointing cues and
internal continuous cues in learning with 25. Wang HY, Bian T, Xue CQ. Experimental
complex animations. Learning and evaluation of fighter’s interface layout
Instruction. 2010;20(2):123-135. based on eye tracking. Electro Mechanical
Engineering. 2011;27(6):50-53.
16. Palinko O, Kun AL, Shyrokov A, Heeman
P. Estimating cognitive load using remote 26. Di Stasi LL, Marchitto M, Antolí A, Baccino
eye tracking in a driving simulator. In T, Cañas JJ. Approximation of on-line
Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on mental workload index in ATC simulated
Eye-Tracking Research & Applications. multitasks. Journal of Air Transport
(2010;141-144). ACM. Management. 2010;16(6):330-333.
17. Van Gog T, Scheiter K. Eye tracking as a 27. Stephane L. Advanced interaction media in
tool to study and enhance multimedia nuclear power plant control rooms. Work: A

12
 Fauquet-Alekhine; AIR, 6(2): 1-13, 2016; Article no.AIR.21597

Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Atlanta (USA); 2013.

Rehabilitation. 2012;41:4537-4544. Available:http://nuclearsafety.info/wp-
28. Heath C, Hindmarsh J. Analysing content/uploads/2010/07/Traits-of-a-
interaction: Video, ethnography and Healthy-Nuclear-Safety-Culture-INPO-12-
situated conduct. Qualitative Research in 012-rev.1-Apr2013.pdf
Action. 2002;99-121. 32. IAEA. Guidelines for integrated risk
29. Fauquet-Alekhine Ph, Maridonneau C. assessment and management in large
Using audio-video recording on simulator industrial areas. Report reference IAEA-
training sessions: Advantages, drawbacks, TECDOC-994, International Atomic Energy
and dangers. Socio-Organizational Factors Agency, Vienna (Austria); 1998.
for Safe Nuclear Operation. 2012;1:94-97. Available:http://www-
30. INPO. Principles for a strong nuclear pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_9
safety culture. Institute of Nuclear Power 94_prn.pdf
Operations, Atlanta (USA); 2004. 33. Alcom G, Scott S, Morrow G, Figueroa O.
Available:http://www.nrc.gov/about- Risk management reporting. NASA -
nrc/regulatory/enforcement/INPO_Principle Goddard Space Flight Center (Greenbelt,
sSafetyCulture.pdf USA). 2009;ref: GSFC-STD-0002.
31. INPO. Traits of a healthy nuclear safety 34. Farmer FR. Reactor safety and siting: A
culture. Report reference INPO 12–012, proposed risk criterion. United Kingdom
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Atomic Energy Authority, Risley, Eng; 1967.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2016 Fauquet-Alekhine; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/12082

13