Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complexity of Proceduralized Tasks

  • Chapter
The Complexity of Proceduralized Tasks

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Reliability Engineering ((RELIABILITY))

Abstract

As raised at the end of Sect. 1.3, it is necessary to construct a novel framework that contributes to the development of a good procedure. In order to understand this necessity more clearly, it may be helpful to review why people show a degraded performance when they are following a poor procedure in real-life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arend I, Colom R, Botella J, Contreras MJ, Rubio V, Santacreu J (2003) Quantifying cognitive complexity: evidence from a reasoning task. Personal Individ Differences 35:659–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Brito G (2002) Towards a model for the study of written procedure following in dynamic environments. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 75:233–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Brune RL, Weinstein M (1983) Checklist for evaluating emergency operating procedure used in nuclear power plants. NUREG/CR-2005, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DJ, Gingrich KF (1986) The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: a field experiment. Organizat Behav Hum Decis Processes 38:162–180

    Google Scholar 

  • De Carvalho PVR (2006) Ergonomic field studies in a nuclear power plant control room. Prog Nuclear Energy 48:51–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Degani A, Wiener EL (1990) Human factors of flight-deck checklists: the normal checklist. NASA/CR-177549

    Google Scholar 

  • Degani A, Wiener EL (1997) Procedures in complex systems: the airline cockpit. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 27(3):302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dien Y (1998) Safety and application of procedures, or ‘how do they have to use operating procedures in nuclear power plants?’ Saf Sci 29:179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Guidance for preparing standard operating procedures. EPA/240/B-01/004, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Frostenson CK (1995) Lessons learned from occurrences involving procedures at LOS ALAMOS National Laboratory in 1994. In: Proceedings Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) Annual Meeting, 39:1033–1037

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs F, Engelschall J, Imlay G (1981) Evaluation of emergency operating procedures for nuclear power plants. NUREG/CR-1875, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosdeva T, Montmollin M (1994) Reasoning and knowledge of nuclear power plant operators in case of accidents. Appl Ergonom 25(5):305–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross RL (1995) Studies suggest methods for optimizing checklist design and crew performance Flight Saf Dig 14(5):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Guesnier G, Heßler C (1995) Milestones in screen-based process control. Kerntechnic 60(5/6):225–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale AR (1990) Safety rules O.K? J Occupat Accid 12:3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HSE (1995) Improving compliance with safety procedures reducing industrial violations. http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/comah/improvecompliance.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • HSE (2005) Inspection toolkit – human factors in the management of major accident hazards. www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/comah/toolkitintro.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • HSE (2007) Revitalising procedures. www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/comah/procinfo.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich RL (2000) On error management: lessons from aviation. British Med J 320:781–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang JJ, Klein G (2000) Side effects of decision guidance in decision support systems. Interact Comput 12:469–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson EJ, Payne JW (1985) Effort and accuracy in choice. Manage Sci 31:395–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen DH (2000) Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educat Technol Res Develop 48(4):63–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis T (1999a) Applying information technology to the presentation of emergency operating procedures: implication for usability criteria. Behav Inf Technol 18(4):261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauber JK (1989) NORTHWEST 255 at DTW: anatomy of a human error accident. Hum Factors Aviat Med 30(4):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind M (1982) The use of flow models for design of plant operating procedures. RISØ-M-2341, Risø

    Google Scholar 

  • Long AB (1984) Computerized operator decision aids. Nuclear Saf 25(4):512–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Macwan A, Mosleh A (1994) A methodology for modeling operator errors of commission in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 45:139–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden P (1996) Procedures in the nuclear industry. In: Stanton N (ed) Human Factors in Nuclear Safety. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris NM, Rouse WB (1985) Review and evaluation of empirical research in troubleshooting. Hum Factors 27(5):503–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1984) Normal accident: living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason J, Parker D, Lawton R (1998) Organizational controls and safety: the varieties of rulerelated behavior. J Occupat Organizat Psychol 71:289–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth EM, Mumaw RJ, Lewis PM (1994) An empirical investigation of operator performance in cognitively demanding simulated emergencies. NUREG/CR-6208, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse WB, Rouse SH (1983) Analysis and classification of human error. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-13(4):539–549

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Russo JE, Dosher B (1983) Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. J Exp Psychol: Learn, Mem Cognit 9:676–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shugan SM (1980) The cost of thinking. J Consumer Res 7(2):99–111

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sintchenko V, Coiera E (2002) Which clinical decision benefit from automation? a task complexity approach. In: Surjan G, Engelbrecht R, McNair P (eds) Proceeding of MIE2002:639–648, IOS Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Spurgin AJ, Orvis DD, Cain DG, Yau CC (1988) Testing an expert system: Testing the emergency operating procedures tracking system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 4th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, Monterey, CA, pp.137–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Stassen HG, Johannsen G, Moray N (1990) Internal representation, internal model,human performance model and mental workload. Automatica 26(4):811–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1982) Guidelines for the preparation of emergency operating procedures. NUREG-0899, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmann DA, Shappell SA (2001) A human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents using human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). DOT/FAA/AM-01/3, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieringa D, Moore C, Barnes V (1998) Procedure Writing Principles and Practices, 2nd edn. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams JC (1988) A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 4th Conference on Human Factors in Power Plants, Monterey, CA, pp.436–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood RE (1986) Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organizat Behav Hum Decis Processes 37:60–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods DD (1990) On taking human performance seriously in risk analysis: comments on Dougherty. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 29:375–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods DD, Roth EM, Pople, HE Jr. (1990) Modeling operator performance in emergencies. In: Proceedings on the 34th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, pp.1132–1136

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright P, McCarthy J (2003) Analysis of procedure following as concerned work. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 679–701

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2009). Complexity of Proceduralized Tasks. In: The Complexity of Proceduralized Tasks. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-791-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-791-2_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-790-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-791-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation