Marlot Kuiper

263 Conclusion artefactual arrangements consisting of different artefacts that have different possibilities and limitations for use. Moreover, these artefactual arrangements are constantly changing because artefacts are added or altered. They therefore allow for various (contesting) understandings of what the checklist is, rather than one collective understanding. Besides the artefactual representations of the checklist, other artefacts influence the checklist routine. Equipment, furniture, and the physical setting influence how artefacts can be used, for example by putting up a physical barrier. Besides, there are artefacts that represent some of the ostensive aspects at the frontline, for instance that the checklist is there to control professionals. By visualizing these ideas in a document, they become more easily shared and feed into the collective understanding. Still, how all these various ideas translate into practice is not a matter of mere ideas, but actually mostly a matter of practical circumstances. The checklist routine is introduced as ‘hub’ that connects various professional routines, but these connections do not come easily. Various standard problems and unexpected events cause conflicts in performing routines, for example because professionals are expected to be at two places at the same time or have to wait for one another. In dealing with these complex demands, professionals have to prioritize, construct emergencies and negotiate responsibilities. The idea that the checklist is a burden (on the ostensive dimension) thus does not originate in fundamental resistance, but in practicalities. The performances of the checklist routine are recognizable as a routine, though their individual occurrences varied. Some performances involved all team members, while others didn’t. Some performances systematically covered all items, while others didn’t. Some performances incorporated one or more artefacts, while others didn’t. These performances of the checklist are a product of the ostensive dimension (as guiding principle) and practical considerations of what is feasible and safe in complex performance-oriented environments. Three behavioural strategies reflect the varying performances: work on it, work around it, work without it. Some individuals are more powerful in translating their guiding principle into practices than others. Role taking, hierarchy, and connections are important explanatory mechanisms for performances. 8