Functional situation models in analyses of operating practices in complex work

Motivation -- In safety critical work it is common to evaluate human activity based on the concrete outcomes it produces. But, in order to understand more thoroughly the possible implications for safety, also profound perspectives concerning the mechanisms producing the outcome are needed. In this paper we introduce a model of control situations that connects human actions with the purposes rising from the domain. This model, labelled functional situation model (FSM) enables analysis of operating activity from the perspective of way of acting i.e. work practice. Analysis of work practices complements the analysis of outcome of activity (e.g. task completeness, errors, time). The aim is to promote adoption of resilient work practices by analysing which ways of acting in a given situation are aiming for the general objective of safety. Research approach -- Research approach is constructive: a formative modelling technique has been created which draws from theoretical roots of functional domain modelling. The exploitation of the models in analyses of operating activity draws from the pragmatist conception of habit. Design -- A FSM denotes a control situation from the point of view of critical functions which are endangered in a situation. The human actions are also depicted in the model, and connected to the critical functions which are aimed to maintain. Implications -- The practical implication of an FSM is that it enables analyses (and evaluation) of operating practices and characterisation of them according to how they take the critical functions and the general objectives of the domain into account. Take away message --Resilience in operating practice assumes that actors are able to make the connection between situational goals of actions and the general objectives of the domain. FSM makes this connection explicit and thus enables analyses of resilience features in practices.

[1]  Johannes Petersen,et al.  Control situations in supervisory control , 2004, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[2]  Kjell Ivar Øvergård,et al.  Control situations in high-speed craft operation , 2007, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[3]  J. Hoopes Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic by Charles Sanders Peirce , 2014 .

[4]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engineering , 1986 .

[5]  Paula Savioja,et al.  Hidden roles of the train driver: A challenge for metro automation , 2011, Interact. Comput..

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

[7]  J. Hoopes Peirce on Signs , 2014 .

[8]  Paula Savioja,et al.  European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Designing beyond the Product --- Understanding Activity and User Experience in Ubiquitous Environments , 2009 .

[9]  R.I.A. Mercuri,et al.  Technology as Experience , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[10]  Paula Savioja,et al.  Systems usability framework for evaluating tools in safety–critical work , 2013, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[11]  Lucy Suchman Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[12]  Leena Norros,et al.  Performance-based usability evaluation of a safety information and alarm system , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Paula Savioja,et al.  Using operating procedures in NPP process control , 2009, ECCE.

[14]  J. Rassmusen,et al.  Information Processing and Human - Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engineering , 1986 .

[15]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[16]  M. Mulder,et al.  The Concept of the ‘Situation” in Psychology , 2004 .

[17]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Contextual design , 1997, INTR.