Lind (2003) has offered a critical analysis of Work Domain Analysis as executed in Cognitive Work Analysis. I review his critique and conclude that relatively few of his arguments have merit. Work Domain Analysis has a unique role to play within Cognitive Engineering. Although only some of the issues raised by Lind require resolution, consideration of those selected issues would be useful for the development of Cognitive Work Analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurnsCatherine M.VicenteKim J. (2001). Model-Based Approaches for Analyzing Cognitive Work: A Comparison of Abstraction Hierarchy, Multilevel Flow Modeling, and Decision Ladder Modeling. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(3), 357–366.
2.
ElmBill (2002). Applied Cognitive Work Analysis: Applied Cognitive Work Analysis (A virtual workshop: What puts the “applied” in Applied Cognitive Work Analysis?). Pittsburgh PA: Cognitive Systems Engineering Center (CSEC), ManTech Aegis Research Corporation.
3.
ElmW.C.PotterS.S.GualtieriJ.W.RothE.M.EasterJ.R. (2003), Applied cognitive work analysis: A pragmatic methodology for designing revolutionary cognitive affordances, in Handbook for Cognitive Task Design, HollnagelE., Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.
4.
ElmW. C.RothE. M.PotterS. S.GualtieriJ. W.EasterJ. R. (2005). Applied Cognitive Work Analysis (Applied Cognitive Work Analysis). In StantonNevilleHedgeAlanBrookhuisKarelSalasEduardoHendrickHal (Eds.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. (pp. 36-1–36-9) Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
5.
MifflinHoughton (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company.
6.
LindM (2003). Making sense of the abstraction hierarchy in the power plant domain. Cognition, Technology & Work, 5: 67–81.
7.
LindM (1999). Plant modelling for human supervisory control. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement & Control, 21. 4/5, 177–180.
8.
LindM.1994. Modelling Goals and Functions of Complex Industrial Plant. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence, 8, 259–283.
9.
LinternGavan (2006). A functional workspace for military analysis of insurgent operations. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36 (5), 409–422.
10.
MillerA.SandersonP. (2000) Modelling “deranged” physiological systems for ICU information system design. In: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society (HFES/IEA 2000), San Diego, CA. 30 Jul–4 August.
11.
NaikarNeelamHopcroftRobynMoylanAnna (2005). Work Domain Analysis: Theoretical Concepts and Methodology. (DSTO-TR-1665). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Aeronautical & Maritime Research Laboratories, Defence Science & Technology Organisation.
12.
NaikarN.PearceB.DrummD.SandersonP. M. (2003). Technique for designing teams for first-of-a-kind complex systems with cognitive work analysis: Case study. Human Factors, 45(2), 202–217.
13.
NaikarN.SandersonP. M. (2001). Evaluating designs proposals for complex systems with work domain analysis. Human Factors, 43, 529–542.
14.
NaikarN.SaundersA. (2003). Crossing the boundaries of safe operation: A technical training approach to error management. Cognition Technology and Work, 5, 171–180.
15.
RandAyn (1979/1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; Expanded2nd Edition. BinswangerHarryPeikoffLeonard (eds). New York: Meridian.
16.
RasmussenJens (1986). Information processing and human machine interaction: an approach to cognitive engineering. New York: Science publishing, North Holland series in system science and engineering, volume 12. ISBN 0-444-00987-6.
17.
RasmussenJ.PetjersenA. M.GoodsteinL. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: John Wiley.
18.
VicenteK. J. (2002). Ecological Interface Design: Progress and Challenges. Human Factors, 44, 62–78.
19.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Towards safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
