Naturalistic decision making (NDM) methods have previously been applied to understand individual and group cognition. The systemic aspects of work that are unavailable through the study of individuals or a single group can be revealed by cognitive research at large scale, among and across groups. The papers in this symposium explore the use of NDM methods including cognitive systems engineering to reveal how groups of operators have developed ways to perform inter-group work in real world settings. Insights from such studies inform the development of system-level products, including safety countermeasures and information and communication technology (ITC) that is intended to support this work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChristoffersenK.WoodsD. (2002) How to Make Automated Systems Team Players. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research. Vol.2. 1–12.
2.
HeathC.LuffP. (2000). Technology in Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
KleinG. (2000). Sources of Power. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4.
KleinG.WoodsD.BradshawJ.HoffmanR.FeltovichP. (2004). Ten Challenges for Making Automation a “Team Player” in Joint Human-Agent Activity. Computer. 91–5.
5.
LuffP.HindmarshJ.HeathC. (Eds.) (2000). Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
NardiB.A.WhittakerS.SchwarzH. (2002). NetWORKers and their Activity in Intensional Networks. In NardiB.RedmilesD. (Eds.). Special Issue: Activity Theory and the Practice of Design. CSCW. 11:1–2. 205–42.
7.
NemethC. (2003). The Master Schedule: How Cognitive Artifacts Affect Distributed Cognition in Acute Care. Dissertation Abstracts International 64/08, 3990, (UMI No. AAT 3101124).
8.
NemethC. (2004) Human Factors Methods for Design. London: Taylor and Francis/ CRC Press.
9.
NemethC.CookR.WoodsD. (2004). The Messy Details: Insights from Technical Work in Healthcare. In NemethC.CookR.WoodsD. (Eds.). Special Issue on Studies in Healthcare Technical Work. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part A. 34:6. 689–92.
10.
ObradovichJ.SmithP. (2003). Design Concepts for Distributed Work Systems: An Empirical Investigation into Distributed Teams in Complex Domains. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting. 354–8.
11.
PotterS.RothE.WoodsD.ElmW. (2000). Bootstrap ping Multiple Converging Cognitive Task Analysis Techniques for System Design. In SchraagenJ.ChipmanS.ShalinV. (Eds.). Cognitive Task Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
WoodsD. (2000). Studying Cognitive Systems in Context: The Cognitive Systems Triad. Institute for Ergonomics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Retreived on 30 April 2005 from CSEL web site: <http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/productions/woodscta/>.
13.
WoodsD. (2005) Generic Support Requirements for Cognitive Work: Laws that Govern Cognitive Work in Action. Institute for Ergonomics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Retreived on 30 April 2005 from CSEL web site: <http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/productions/woodscta/>.
14.
WoodsD.CookR. (2002). Nine Steps to Move Forward from Error. Cognition, Technology and Work. 4:137–44.
15.
WoodsDRothE. (1988). Cognitive Systems Engineering. In HelanderM. (Ed.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 3–43.
