Uncertainty management at the core of system design

How an organization handles uncertainties stemming from its own production processes and from its environment, is a central characteristic of its functioning. Many organizations, foremost those which have to handle substantial health and safety risks, aim at minimizing uncertainties. This is in contrast with newer organization theory which argues for enabling local competence for coping with uncertainties. Both approaches with their advantages and disadvantages will be discussed and consequences for system design drawn. # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

[1]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[2]  J Leplat,et al.  About implementation of safety rules , 1998 .

[3]  M. P. de Looze,et al.  From Experience to Innovation , 1997 .

[4]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[5]  K. Weick.  Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability , 1987 .

[6]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Ironies of automation , 1982, Autom..

[7]  David D. Woods,et al.  Distant Supervision–Local Action Given the Potential for Surprise , 2000, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[8]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[9]  Gudela Grote,et al.  The STSD Tool IT-Support for Socio-Technical System Design , 2001 .

[10]  Rapid Thermal Multiprocessor,et al.  Supervisory Control of a , 1993 .

[11]  K. Weick.  Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[12]  Anton Wäfler,et al.  Planning and Scheduling in Secondary Work Systems. , 2001 .

[13]  Gudela Grote,et al.  Diagnosis of safety culture in safety management audits , 2000 .

[14]  Gudela Grote,et al.  KOMPASS: A Method for Complementary System Design. , 2003 .

[15]  Guy A. Boy,et al.  Cognitive function analysis for human-centered automation of safety-critical systems , 1998, CHI.

[16]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[17]  N. Jordan.  Allocation of functions between man and machines in automated systems. , 1963 .

[18]  Rainer Dietrich,et al.  Group interaction in high risk environments , 2004 .

[19]  A. J. Grimes.  Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies , 1985 .

[20]  Paul Swuste,et al.  SAFETY RULES: PROCEDURAL FREEDOM OR ACTION CONSTRAINT? , 1998 .

[21]  E. Trist,et al.  Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative management , 1976 .

[22]  T. Laporte,et al.  Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations” , 1991 .

[23]  S. Dekker.  Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. , 2003, Applied ergonomics.

[24]  J. Klein.  A Reexamination of Autonomy in Light of New Manufacturing Practices , 1991 .

[25]  J. E. Groves,et al.  Made in America: Science, Technology and American Modernist Poets , 1989 .

[26]  D. Parker,et al.  Organizational controls and safety: The varieties of rule‐related behaviour , 1998 .

[27]  Gudela Grote,et al.  KOMPASS: a method for complementary function allocation in automated work systems , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem , 1997 .

[29]  Gudela Grote,et al.  Autonomie und Kontrolle : zur Gestaltung automatisierter und risikoreicher Systeme , 1997 .

[30]  J. Hespanha,et al.  Forecasting COVID-19 cases based on a parameter-varying stochastic SIR model , 2019, Annual Reviews in Control.

[31]  P. Agre.  Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Commuinication (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987) , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[32]  E. Weitz,et al.  A Longitudinal Analysis of Technical and Organizational Uncertainty in Management Theory , 2000 .