Humans in work have a remarkable ability to cope with complex environments, by inventing clever strategies that did not match what work planners considered ‘rational behavior.’ Support systems therefore cannot be based on task analysis. Instead we should identify the natural constraints of the work-space so that we can support human adaptation through the design of interfaces and work organizations that leave actors free to explore all degrees of freedom available.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FlachJ.M.DominguezC.O. (1995). Use-centered design. Ergonomics in Design, July, 19–24.
2.
HopkinsA. (1999): Managing Major Hazards: The Lessons of the Moura Mine Disaster. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
3.
RigneyJ. W.TowneD. M.MasonA. K., 1968, An analysis of struoture and errors in corrective maintenance work. University of Southern Galifornia, Electronics Personnel Research Group, Tech. report-55, pp. 1–79.
4.
RasmussenJ. (1993): Market Economy, Management Culture and Accident Causation: New Research Issues? Invited lecture; Proceedings Second International Conference on Safety Science. Budapest: Meeting Budapest Organizer Ltd.
5.
RasmussenJ.JensenA. (1974): Mental Procedures in Real-Life Tasks: A Case of Electronic Trouble Shooting. Ergonomics17, 1974, pp-293–307.
6.
RasmussenJ. (1997): Risk management in a Dynamic Society: A Modelling Problem. In Safety Science27/2-3 (1997), pp. 183–213.
7.
RochlinG. I.La PorteT. R.RobertsK. H., (1987): The Self Designing High Reliability Organization: Aircraft Carrier Flight Operations at Sea, Naval War College Review, Autumn 1987, pp. 76–90.
8.
SennettR. (1998): The Corrosion of Character. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
