A great many maintenance works are described in precise written instructions. These instructions are related to a particular type of equipment/machine. In maintenance instructions, the repairs of equipment are described in a pattern of stability and normality where all operations occur in accordance with the expected, as if they were made at the workshop, as individual equipment. But actually, the repairs occur in complex environments. Quite often, the rules described in the instructions have to be adapted, or sometimes broken, to enable repair under real conditions. This paper is the result of a research conducted in the maintenance section of an automotive industry. The objective of this study is to understand the relevance of prescriptions for the execution of maintenance activities, either corrective or preventive. Based on the methodological assumptions of Ergonomic Work Analysis (EWA), centered on the distinction between prescribed work and real work and self-confrontation interviews, the activity actually performed was faced with the prescription, showing many sources of variability, constraints and contingencies that are managed by professionals during the course of action; mobilizing skills based on experience and know-how, as well as anticipation strategies for the control of situations and actions not always conscious, which indeed ensures effective commitment between production and safety. The results indicate that these prescriptions, even though developed with the effective participation of professionals, are inefficient for the live work. The constraints on the real work are the result of the logic of live activity, unavoidable gap between the works prescribed and the real ones.
Maintenance activity; Maintenance professionals; Ergonomic Work Analysis (EWA); Prescriptions; Automotive industry
