Abstract
If computer systems are to be designed to foster resilient performance it is important to be able to identify contributors to resilience. The emerging practice of Resilience Engineering has identified that people are still a primary source of resilience, and that the design of distributed systems should provide ways of helping people and organisations to cope with complexity. Although resilience has been identified as a desired property, researchers and practitioners do not have a clear understanding of what manifestations of resilience look like. This paper discusses some examples of strategies that people can adopt that improve the resilience of a system. Critically, analysis reveals that the generation of these strategies is only possible if the system facilitates them. As an example, this paper discusses practices, such as reflection, that are known to encourage resilient behavior in people. Reflection allows systems to better prepare for oncoming demands. We show that contributors to the practice of reflection manifest themselves at different levels of abstraction: from individual strategies to practices in, for example, control room environments. The analysis of interaction at these levels enables resilient properties of a system to be ‘seen’, so that systems can be designed to explicitly support them. We then present an analysis of resilience at an organisational level within the nuclear domain. This highlights some of the challenges facing the Resilience Engineering approach and the need for using a collective language to articulate knowledge of resilient practices across domains.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D.: Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2005)
Dekker, S.: Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. Applied Ergonomics 34(3), 233–238 (2003)
Perrow, C.: Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Basic Books (1999)
Back, J., Furniss, D., Blandford, A.: Cognitive Resilience: Reflection-in-action and on-action. In: Proc. Resilience Workshop, pp. 1–6. Linköping University (2007)
Masino, G., Zamarian, M.: Information technology artefacts as structuring devices in organizations. Interacting with Computers 15(5), 693–707 (2003)
Back, J., Blandford, A., Furniss, D., Curzon, P.: Avoiding Slips. Submitted for journal publication (2008)
Wright, P.: The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 59, 555–561 (1974)
Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., Zsambok, C.E.: Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods. Ablex Publishing Co., Norwood (1993)
Kirsh, D.: Adapting the environment instead of oneself. Adaptive Behaviour 4(3/4), 415–452 (1996)
Spillers, F., Loewus-Deitch, D.: Temporal attributes of shared artifacts in collaborative task environments. In: Proc: HCI 2003 workshop on temporal aspects of tasks (2003)
Furniss, D., Blandford, A.: Understanding Emergency Medical Dispatch in terms of Distributed Cognition: a case study. Ergonomics Journal 49(12/13), 1174–1203 (2006)
Bardram, J.E.: Temporal coordination: On time and coordination of collaborative activities at a surgical department. Computer Suppoted Cooperated Work 9, 157–187 (2000)
Nathanael, D., Marmas, N.: The interplay between work practices and prescription: a key issue for organisational resilience. In: Proc. 2nd Resilience Eng. Symp., pp. 229–237 (2006)
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D.: Epilogue: Resilience engineering precepts. In: Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., Leveson, N. (eds.) Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts, pp. 347–358. Ashgate (2006)
Byrne, M.D., Bovair, S.: A working memory model of a common procedural error. Cognitive Science 21, 31–61 (1997)
Back, J., Cheng, W.L., Dann, R., Curzon, P., Blandford, A.: Does being motivated to avoid procedural errors influence their systematicity? In: Proc. HCI 2006, pp. 151–157 (2006)
Ertmer, P.A., Newby, T.J.: The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science 24, 1–24 (1996)
Blandford, A., Furniss, D.: DiCoT: A methodology for applying Distributed Cognition to the team working systems. In: Gilroy, S.W., Harrison, M.D. (eds.) DSV-IS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3941, pp. 26–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., Kirsh, D.: Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7(2), 174–196 (2000)
Perin, C.: Shouldering Risks. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2004)
Ujita, H., Kubota, R., Ikeda, K.: Development and Verification of a Plant Navigation System. Cognition, Technology & Work 3, 22–32 (2001)
Halden Work Report 844. The International HRA empirical study – Pilot phase report. OECD Halden Reactor Project. Halden, Norway (2008)
Cook, R.I., Woods, D.D.: Operating at the Sharp End: The Complexity of Human Error. In: Bogner, M.S. (ed.) Human Error in Medicine, pp. 255–310. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1994)
Rochlin, G.: Safe operation as a social construct. Ergonomics 42, 1549–1560 (1999)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Back, J., Furniss, D., Hildebrandt, M., Blandford, A. (2008). Resilience Markers for Safer Systems and Organisations. In: Harrison, M.D., Sujan, MA. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5219. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87698-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87698-4_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-87697-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-87698-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)