China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Performance Analysis in Sport
Published in Paul M. Salmon, Scott McLean, Clare Dallat, Neil Mansfield, Colin Solomon, Adam Hulme, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Sport, 2020
Scott McLean, Paul M. Salmon, Adam D. Gorman, Colin Solomon
Cognitive Work Analysis is a framework which is used to support the design, analysis, and evaluation of behaviour in complex sociotechnical systems (Naikar, 2013; Vicente, 1999). CWA provides a detailed analysis of the system under investigation via five phases (Vicente, 1999). These include (1) an initial model of the system, (2) an analysis of the control tasks that are undertaken in the system, and the constraints imposed on these activities during different situations, (3) a description of how work in the system is and can potentially be achieved, (4) a description of how activities are and can be distributed among human and non-human agents in the system, and (5) an analysis of the cognitive competencies that an ideal worker should exhibit (Jenkins et al., 2008; Naikar, 2013; Vicente, 1999).
It’s a Complex World
Published in Daniel P. Jenkins, Neville A. Stanton, Paul M. Salmon, Guy H. Walker, Cognitive Work Analysis: Coping with Complexity, 2017
Daniel P. Jenkins, Neville A. Stanton, Paul M. Salmon, Guy H. Walker
CWA has particular applicability to product designers as it allows the modelling of ‘first of a kind’ systems. The Work Domain Analysis phase in particular, leads the designer to focus in a structured way on the reason for developing the system/product. The framework encourages the designer to work based on the constraints of the system, whilst focusing on the key criteria by which the system/product will be evaluated. The process of considering the functions in abstract terms allows for creative thinking and problem solving. This encourages the designer to consider the need they are addressing, rather than jumping straight in to solving the problem. The different phases and tools within the CWA framework can be applied throughout the design life cycle. CWA applications have previously been used for purposes ranging from the design of novel systems to the analysis of operational systems. This chapter has highlighted the differences between formative approaches, such as CWA, and normative approaches; it is contended that CWA is better equipped to cope with the levels of flexibility within complex sociotechnical systems. According to Naikar (in press) the highly dynamic nature of network-centric warfare means that the goals and work requirements of participating systems, and the humans operating those systems, are frequently changing – often in ways that were not, or even cannot be, anticipated by engineering designers or by professional, trained workers. Furthermore, rapid developments in the information and communication technologies that enable network-centric warfare means that the nature of human work is continually evolving. Standard techniques for work or task analysis are not well suited for modelling activity in network-centric operations. Instead, a formative approach is necessary and CWA provides such an approach. Lintern et al (2004) state that the constraint-based approach of Cognitive Work Analysis is one that can cope comfortably with the scale-up problem. Indeed, the potential benefits from a Cognitive Work Analysis grow as systems become larger, more technologically sophisticated, and more complex.
Designing Human–Automation Interaction
Published in Guy A. Boy, The Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction, 2017
This broader viewpoint of work is useful for addressing fairly fundamental design decisions—given an understanding of the work required to meet goals in a given environment, the abstraction of work is useful for examining “what needs to happen” and “who will do what.” Descriptions of work can inform answers to such questions while remaining unbiased by the specific mechanisms currently used to perform such work, and while capturing the multiplicity of tasks and goals that may need to be met simultaneously. How do we represent work? Two cognitive engineering methods are worth mentioning here. First, cognitive work analysis provides a progression of modeling approaches, starting with a work-domain analysis of the successively detailed abstract functions, general functions and physical functions that need to happen in the environment for work goals to be achieved (see, for example, Vicente, 1999). Subsequent strategies analysis examines potential patterns of activity required for a human or automation to initiate and regulate those functions. These are valuable insights, although in our experience there are also some limitations. In terms of modeling, cognitive work analysis is well-suited to modeling the physical environment in terms of the affordances and constraints it provides, but it is not well-established how to capture the affordances and constraints created by the organizational and procedural aspects of the environment. For example, a typical analysis of driving a car would recognize the physical constraint of a curb demarcating the shoulder of the road but not the procedural constraint restricting crossing a solid painted line; depending on how shallow the curb is and whether a police car is driving just behind, the former physical constraint might be considered a lesser constraint than the latter procedural one. Second, organizational analysis within cognitive work analysis generally represents different actors as acting on different “parts” of the environment—this is useful when their functions are so divided, but doesn’t provide insight into function allocations where multiple actors (human and automated) inter-leave activities on shared aspects of the environment.
Determining the prerequisites for effective workplace inspection by the occupational safety and health regulatory authority using cognitive work analysis
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2022
The cognitive work analysis framework identifies the purposes and constraints of the work. By looking into constraints, cognitive work analysis attempts to understand and support workers’ needs for improved efficiency and safety [22] and promotes adaptation design [19]. According to Naikar [20,p.5], constraints are defined as ‘limits on behaviour which must be respected for a system to perform effectively’. Further, despite limiting the courses of actions possible, constraints allow for a degree of freedom of behaviour, enabling adaptation within effective performance limits to situational eventualities not always a priori predictable [23]. Thus, cognitive work analysis allows for an understanding of how workers interact with their environment and reduce errors, and how changes in the work process can improve productivity [24].
The scope for adaptive capacity in emergency departments: modelling performance constraints using control task analysis and social organisational cooperation analysis
Published in Ergonomics, 2022
E. Austin, B. Blakely, P. Salmon, J. Braithwaite, R. Clay-Williams
Cognitive Work Analysis is a structured framework for analysing and designing complex sociotechnical systems (Jenkins et al. 2007; Naikar 2016; Stanton et al. 2017; Vicente 1999). Five phases within the framework facilitate the examination of the constraints that manifest within a particular system and how they influence behaviour. The phases focus on why the system exists (i.e. Work Domain Analysis; WDA), what activities can be conducted within the system and where (Control Task Analysis; ConTA), how the activities within the system can be achieved (Strategies Analysis; STrA), who (humans or non-human) can perform them (Social Organisational Cooperation Analysis; SOCA) and the differing levels of cognition required (Worker Competencies Analysis; WCA) (Jenkins et al. 2007; Naikar et al. 2003; Stanton et al. 2017; Vicente 1999). A key feature of the framework is that it is formative in nature and identifies and describes constraints that limit or control systems performance. Consequently, CWA can support an examination of how things are currently executed as well as how they could potentially be done within current and potential system constraints. This aspect is particularly useful for redesigning activities that seek to support adaptive capacity (Read, Salmon, Lenné, and Stanton 2015). The current study involved the use of the ConTA and SOCA phases of the CWA framework.
Development of Rasmussen’s risk management framework for analysing multi-level sociotechnical influences in the design of envisioned work systems
Published in Ergonomics, 2022
The value of cognitive work analysis for design has been demonstrated by a large body of experimental studies (Vicente 2002) and several industrial case studies (Naikar 2013). In addition, cognitive work analysis has previously been applied to envisioned world problems (e.g. Bisantz et al. 2003; Elix and Naikar 2021; Militello et al. 2019; Naikar and Sanderson 2001), with tangible impact on practice in industrial cases. However, in all of these applications, specific technological innovations were under consideration, and their consequences within the workplace were relatively straightforward. Furthermore, there was no clear need to consider consequences beyond the workplace explicitly, as the resulting designs did not have revolutionary implications for organisational practices or society more generally. For example, in one case, cognitive work analysis was used to develop a team design for a first-of-a-kind military aircraft (Naikar et al. 2003), but, as the focus was on human crews, there were no radical implications for broader societal matters such as ethical frameworks, education curricula, or regulatory frameworks setting industry standards, which become more pressing when designing teams or workforces with humans and artificial intelligence, especially on a large scale.