China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Doing Normal Work – Processes at Level 1
Published in Norman MacLeod, Crew Resource Management Training, 2021
In the next two sections, I want to look at decision-making in terms of actions associated with the active goal state and then decision-making as adopting a new goal. Having just looked at information processing, the other two components in the cognitive load model, time on task and task switching, relate to the activity associated with the current, active task. Doing work involves individuals engaging with the world and making interventions appropriate to the needs of the task. Because of the inherent variability of normal operations – non-ergodicity – individuals have to adapt their performance within the framework of policies and procedures. Selecting the most appropriate action, therefore, is an act of decision-making. Task management involves making decisions about initiating, sequencing and controlling actions. Task switching is the act of shifting between specific target activities depending upon an assessment of priorities. Crucial in all of this, of course, is the timing of interventions: delay reduces downstream opportunity, which is what we mean by margins being eroded.
Minimize distractions
Published in Michael Wiklund, Kimmy Ansems, Rachel Aronchick, Cory Costantino, Alix Dorfman, Brenda van Geel, Jonathan Kendler, Valerie Ng, Ruben Post, Jon Tilliss, Designing for Safe Use, 2019
Michael Wiklund, Kimmy Ansems, Rachel Aronchick, Cory Costantino, Alix Dorfman, Brenda van Geel, Jonathan Kendler, Valerie Ng, Ruben Post, Jon Tilliss
Dealing with distractions can be considered a form of “multi-tasking,” which, despite what the name implies, is typically the act of switching attention between tasks, rather than attending to many things simultaneously. Unfortunately, task switching often degrades performance because the more a competing task (e.g., a distraction) attracts our attention, even for a moment, the less attention we can apply to one primary task. As might be expected, research suggests that switching between tasks might increase the chance of error.1
An Experiment Assessing the Sequential Difficulty Effect on IT Tasks
Published in Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2022
Matthew J. Liberatore, William P. Wagner
Cognitive Load Theory is one possible way of explaining the SDE because of the cognitive “switching costs” that may impact IT user performance. Originally, cognitive psychologists focused on what they called “task mixing costs”; i.e., the costs of moving between tasks of varying type and difficulty.7 This phenomenon eventually became known as “task switching costs.” Using a checklist can be viewed as one technique for routinizing a task and thus reducing the amount of task switching that must occur. Researchers have long known that task switching leads to performance inefficiencies. This finding appears to hold true the more switching that is required and the greater the dissimilarity of the tasks.13 Whereas with very similar tasks, the task mixing or switching costs are demonstrably less. The reasoning is that the process of switching entails the use of more cognitive resources that may not be available for completing the subsequent task.7 This concept of task switching has been applied to studies of multitasking behavior with different computer media and its effect has been shown to hold in this case as well.4 To our knowledge, this important concept in cognitive psychology has not been applied to explaining the behavior of subjects in performing more complex IT tasks.
The role of reward and effort over time in task switching
Published in Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2019
Robert S. Gutzwiller, Christopher D. Wickens, Benjamin A. Clegg
Basic paradigms provide experimental control, but to address the cognitive tunnelling issues in the type of complex, real-world environments described above, they need to feature drastically different tasks (see Gutzwiller, Wickens, and Clegg 2014, Figure 2.1, and the meta-analysis of this literature by Wickens, Gutzwiller, and Santamaria 2015). Real-world environments feature a greater number and variety of tasks, and include complex tasks which create more mental load to manage, and costs to resuming and interrupting task performance (Trafton and Monk 2007; Monk, Trafton, and Boehm-Davis 2008). Real world task switching is usually not mandated, with its timing prescribed, but is freely voluntary. Unlike task-switching paradigms, in environments such as the cockpit of the Minneapolis flight, there is a cost to not performing a task for a period of time.
Why Some People Multitask Better Than Others: Predicting Learning
Published in Information Systems Management, 2019
Lakshmi Goel, Oliver Schnusenberg
Multitasking has received a lot of mostly negative attention. In recent years, the popular press is full of articles warning about the dangers of multitasking (Lapowsky, 2013). The concept of multitasking is not new and predates computer usage. On the work front, multitasking has been likened to task-switching, which reduces productivity (MacMillan, 2013). In this study, we focus on one type of multitasking within the context of IS use; i.e., IS multitasking as “the simultaneous use of applications on the Internet” (Gerow, Galluch, & Thatcher, 2010, p. 10). Based on this definition, IS multitasking is distinct from task-switching, fragmented work, or interruptions, since these may involve tasks beyond the simultaneous use of applications on the internet.