The vulnerability of rules in complex work environments: dynamism and uncertainty pose problems for cognition

Many complex work environments rely heavily on cognitive operators using rules. Operators sometimes fail to implement rules, with catastrophic human, social and economic costs. Rule-based error is widely reported, yet the mechanisms of rule vulnerability have received less attention. This paper examines rule vulnerability in the complex setting of airline transport operations. We examined ‘the stable approach criteria rule’, which acts as a system defence during the approach to land. The study experimentally tested whether system state complexity influenced rule failure. The results showed increased uncertainty and dynamism led to increased likelihood of rule failure. There was also an interaction effect, indicating complexity from different sources can combine to further constrain rule-based response. We discuss the results in relation to recent aircraft accidents and suggest that ‘rule-based error’ could be progressed to embrace rule vulnerability, fragility and failure. This better reflects the influence that system behaviour and cognitive variety have on rule-based response. Practitioner Summary: In this study, we examined mechanisms of rule vulnerability in the complex setting of airline transport operations. The results suggest work scenarios featuring high uncertainty and dynamism constrain rule-based response, leading to rules becoming vulnerable, fragile or failing completely. This has significant implications for rule-intensive, safety critical work environments.

[1]  M. Johnstone,et al.  The ethics and practical importance of defining, distinguishing and disclosing nursing errors: a discussion paper. , 2006, International journal of nursing studies.

[2]  Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos,et al.  Naturalistic Heuristics for Decision Making , 2010 .

[3]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  A methodology for collection and analysis of human error data based on a cognitive model: IDA , 1997 .

[4]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Automated and Interactive Real‐Time Systems , 2008 .

[5]  Gary Klein,et al.  Naturalistic Decision Making , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Jennifer A. Cowley,et al.  Subjective Response Differences between Visual Analogue, Ordinal and Hybrid Response Scales , 2009 .

[7]  F. Glen.  The social psychology of organizations , 1976 .

[8]  P. Carayon,et al.  Human errors and violations in computer and information security: the viewpoint of network administrators and security specialists. , 2007, Applied ergonomics.

[9]  Barnes.  Discussion of the Paper , 1961, Public health papers and reports.

[10]  F Dexter,et al.  Analysis of Statistical Tests to Compare Visual Analog Scale Measurements among Groups , 1995, Anesthesiology.

[11]  Corinne Bieder,et al.  Trapping Safety into Rules: How Desirable or Avoidable is Proceduralization? , 2013 .

[12]  Jeffrey K Aronson,et al.  Medication errors: definitions and classification. , 2009, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

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

[14]  J. Finch.  The Vignette Technique in Survey Research , 1987 .

[15]  F. Arnstein.  Catalogue of human error. , 1997, British journal of anaesthesia.

[16]  M. Wise.  The Multitasking Myth: Handling Complexity in Real-World Operations , 2012 .

[17]  Rhona Flin,et al.  Safety at the Sharp End: A Guide to Non-Technical Skills , 2008 .

[18]  J. Shaoul.  Human Error , 1973, Nature.

[19]  D. Fisher,et al.  Error identification and recovery by student nurses using human patient simulation: opportunity to improve patient safety. , 2010, Applied nursing research : ANR.

[20]  David Harris.  Human Performance on the Flight Deck , 2011 .

[21]  M. Huby,et al.  The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. , 2002, Journal of advanced nursing.

[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]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Joint Cognitive Systems , 2006 .

[24]  Claire Pélegrin.  The Never-Ending Story of Proceduralization in Aviation , 2017 .

[25]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Translating concepts of complexity to the field of ergonomics , 2010, Ergonomics.

[26]  B K Philip,et al.  Parametric statistics for evaluation of the visual analog scale. , 1990, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

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

[29]  György Ézsöl,et al.  Nuclear Engineering and Design , 2008 .