Using cognitive work analysis and the strategies analysis diagram to understand variability in road user behaviour at intersections

In this article, an application of cognitive work analysis (CWA), using the strategies analysis diagram (SAD) method, to model performance variability in road transport, is presented. Specifically, the method was used to describe performance variability across four road user groups (drivers, cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians) when turning right at an urban signalised intersection. The analysis demonstrated that the method was able to identify a comprehensive range of strategies that road users can potentially use while turning right at an intersection, thereby describing a range of performance variability within intersection systems. Furthermore, the method identified constraints, disturbances, changes in circumstances and other influences on road user performance variability. It is concluded that the CWA/SAD approach was able to describe both the different ways in which activities can be executed and disturbances, situations and constraints that create performance variability. The implications of these findings for road design and intersection safety are discussed along with the benefits and drawbacks of the methodology used. Practitioner Summary: Recently, the strategies analysis diagram was proposed as a method to support the cognitive work analysis framework in modelling performance variability. This article evaluated this method within a complex sociotechnical system, namely road transport. The application provided insight into performance variability across road user groups when turning right at intersections.

[1]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  A new approach for designing cognitive artefacts to support disaster management , 2010, Ergonomics.

[2]  M Jessurun,et al.  Effect of road layout and road environment on driving performance, drivers' physiology and road appreciation. , 1995, Ergonomics.

[3]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Understanding accidents-from root causes to performance variability , 2002, Proceedings of the IEEE 7th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.

[4]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Analysis of unconventional arterial intersection designs (UAIDs): state-of-the-art methodologies and future research directions , 2013 .

[5]  K. J. Vicente,et al.  Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work , 1999 .

[6]  A. R. Hale,et al.  Human error models as predictors of accident scenarios for designers in road transport systems , 1990 .

[7]  Penelope M Sanderson,et al.  State-space and verbal protocol methods for studying the human operator in process control. , 1989, Ergonomics.

[8]  Liz England,et al.  THE ROLE OF ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION IN ROAD SAFETY , 1981 .

[9]  N. Stanton,et al.  What could they have been thinking? How sociotechnical system design influences cognition: a case study of the Stockwell shooting , 2011, Ergonomics.

[10]  P M Salmon,et al.  Changing drivers' minds: the evaluation of an advanced driver coaching system , 2007, Ergonomics.

[11]  David Woods,et al.  Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts , 2006 .

[12]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Cognitive Systems Engineering , 2022 .

[13]  Donald G. Gardner,et al.  Maximal and typical measures of job performance: An analysis of performance variability over time ☆ , 2008 .

[14]  DP Jenkins,et al.  Using cognitive work analysis to explore system flexibility , 2010 .

[15]  Claes Tingvall,et al.  The need for a systems theory approach to road safety , 2010 .

[16]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Hierarchical task analysis vs. cognitive work analysis: comparison of theory, methodology and contribution to system design , 2010 .

[17]  R. S. Garden,et al.  The war of the roads. , 1972, Injury.

[18]  Paul M. Salmon,et al.  Same but different? Understanding road user behaviour at intersections using cognitive work analysis , 2013 .

[19]  Z. Khachaturian,et al.  Future Research Directions , 1997, International Psychogeriatrics.

[20]  A. E. K. R. Risø-M.  The human data processor as a system component. Bits and pieces of a model , 2007 .

[21]  Bhagwant Persaud,et al.  Safety effectiveness of converting signalized intersections to roundabouts. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[22]  M. Lenné,et al.  A structured approach to the strategies analysis phase of cognitive work analysis , 2013 .

[23]  D. E. Embrey,et al.  SHERPA: A systematic human error reduction and prediction approach , 2013 .

[24]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Road transport in drift? Applying contemporary systems thinking to road safety , 2012 .

[25]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Resilience : The challenge of the unstable , 2006 .

[26]  Roberta Calderwood,et al.  Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[27]  Vaughan W Inman.  Evaluation of Signs and Markings for Partial Continuous Flow Intersection , 2009 .

[28]  Christopher Durugbo,et al.  Work domain analysis for enhancing collaborations: a study of the management of microsystems design , 2012, Ergonomics.

[29]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing: Social, , 1987 .

[30]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Verbal reports as evidence of the process operator's knowledge , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  D. M. Clarke,et al.  The ETTO Principle: Efficiency‐Thoroughness Trade‐Off—Why Things That Go Right Sometimes Go Wrong by Erik Hollnagel , 2010 .

[32]  Tom Kontogiannis,et al.  A contemporary view of organizational safety: variability and interactions of organizational processes , 2010, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[33]  H. C. Lee,et al.  Error mode prediction. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[34]  N. Naikar,et al.  Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis , 2006 .

[35]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Following the cognitive work analysis train of thought: exploring the constraints of modal shift to rail transport , 2013, Ergonomics.

[36]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Cognitive compatibility of motorcyclists and car drivers. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[37]  Jason C. Allaire,et al.  Intraindividual variability may not always indicate vulnerability in elders' cognitive performance. , 2005, Psychology and aging.

[38]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Barriers And Accident Prevention , 2004 .

[39]  Neelam Naikar.  A Methodology for Work Domain Analysis, the First Phase of Cognitive Work Analysis , 2005 .

[40]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Using the Decision-Ladder to Add a Formative Element to Naturalistic Decision-Making Research , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[41]  D O'Hare,et al.  Cognitive task analyses for decision centred design and training. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[42]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Cognitive Work Analysis for safe and efficient driving , 2012 .

[43]  Jalil Shahi,et al.  Modelling the operational effects of unconventional U-turns at a highway intersection , 2009 .

[44]  C. Dolea,et al.  World Health Organization , 1949, International Organization.

[45]  Penelope M. Sanderson,et al.  A formative approach to the strategies analysis phase of cognitive work analysis , 2014 .

[46]  Nsw Roads and Maritime Services.  Safety and rules , 2014 .

[47]  Neelam Naikar,et al.  Designing safe and effective future systems: A new approach for modelling decisions in future systems with Cognitive Work Analysis , 2008 .

[48]  Wolfgang Fastenmeier,et al.  Driving Task Analysis as a Tool in Traffic Safety Research and Practice , 2007 .

[49]  Jacques Leplat,et al.  Hollnagel, E. (2009). The ETTO Principle: Efficiency - Thoroughness Trade - Off. Why things that go right sometimes go wrong? . Farnham (U.K.): Ashgate , 2009 .

[50]  Teemu Reiman,et al.  Understanding maintenance work in safety-critical organisations – managing the performance variability , 2011 .