Error and distributed cognition in design

Abstract In this study of the errors made in the design of complex process plant, 75 cases were analysed as failures of distributed cognition. Error arose in the interactions of different designers, of designers and design tools, designers and the formal organisation, and designers and the environment beyond the immediate organisation. The analysis attempted to describe the failures of each type of interaction, but there were some patterns of error that emerged in all types. For example, many errors arose from absent cues or inattention to cues. Many also arose from problems with norms (in the form of codes, standards and procedures)—including, ironically, norms that had been implemented in the light of earlier errors. One of the main practical implications of these findings is that designers could benefit from thinking about their tasks in terms of distributed cognition since this suggests several heuristics which, among practitioners, seem to be frequently neglected.

[1]  Colin B. Brown,et al.  Incomplete Design Paradigms , 1986 .

[2]  Henry Petroski.  Paconius and the pedestal for Apollo: A case study of error in conceptual design , 1991 .

[3]  Eswaran Subrahmanian,et al.  Shared memory in design: A unifying theme for research and practice , 1992 .

[4]  Henry Petroski,et al.  GALILEO'S CONFIRMATION OF A FALSE HYPOTHESIS: A PARADIGM OF LOGICAL ERROR IN DESIGN , 1992 .

[5]  Jeremy Busby.  Human error in the engineering design process , 2000 .

[6]  Mark G. Stewart.  Simulation of human error in reinforced concrete design , 1992 .

[7]  Ken M. Wallace,et al.  Decision-making in Engineering Design: Observations from Design Experiments , 1995 .

[8]  Chris W. Clegg,et al.  Psychology and information technology: The study of cognition in organizations , 1994 .

[9]  Colin B. Brown,et al.  Errors in Structural Engineering , 1988 .

[10]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Task analysis for error identification: a methodology for designing error-tolerant consumer products , 1994 .

[11]  Chris A McMahon,et al.  A classification of errors in design , 1997 .

[12]  Neville Moray.  The Role of Attention in the Detection of Errors and the Diagnosis of Failures in Man-Machine Systems , 1981 .

[13]  Edwin Hutchins,et al.  Organizing Work by Adaptation , 1991 .

[14]  B Brehmer,et al.  Variable errors set a limit to adaptation. , 1990, Ergonomics.

[15]  Ray Fuller.  Learning to make errors: evidence from a driving task simulation , 1990 .

[16]  D I Blockley,et al.  Analysis of Structural Failures , 1977, Building Bridges.

[17]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  The role of error in organizing behaviour* , 1990 .

[18]  Am Muir Wood,et al.  STRUCTURAL FAILURES AND THE GROWTH OF ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE. , 1980 .

[19]  B. Chandrasekaran,et al.  Natural and Social System Metaphors for Distributed Problem Solving: Introduction to the Issue , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[20]  E. Hutchins.  Cognition in the wild , 1995 .

[21]  Kyung S. Park,et al.  Considering performance shaping factors in situation-specific human error probabilities , 1996 .

[22]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[23]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Design principles for cognitive artifacts , 1992 .

[24]  Henry Petroski,et al.  Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering , 1994 .

[25]  Dietrich Doerner,et al.  On the Difficulties People Have in Dealing With Complexity , 1980 .

[26]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .