Distant Supervision–Local Action Given the Potential for Surprise

Woods, David D.; Shattuck, Lawrence G.

doi:10.1007/pl00011516

Cited by 62 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, they should be seen as the two facets of the same coin. In the end, as Woods and Shattuck (2000) suggest, the design options range from a centralised control inhibiting actors' adaptation to variability, to local actors' complete autonomy disconnecting the hierarchy from any decision taking. Obviously, the final safety of a system will rely on the right balance between these two extreme points.…”

Section: Ad Hoc Reconfigurationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive approach to safe violations

Besnard

Greathead²

2003

Cognition, Technology & Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classically, humans have been perceived as a source of faults in systems. Modern ergonomic views are promoting a somewhat different idea according to which humans are a factor of safety in unexpected situations. The safety of a system cannot be achieved without taking into account these two sides of cognition which compose what is called cognitive flexibility. In this paper, we will consider the cases of a nuclear accident and a plane crash-landing where human cognitive flexibility has impacted on the final safety of the system. We aim to discuss the violations that humans have performed in these cases with the assumption that they do not always deteriorate system safety. The discussion gravitates around a core argument according to which violations per se do not inform on the safety impairments in a system. Some other dimensions have to be taken into account. Among these, we are of the opinion that the accuracy of the operators' mental model plays a key role, allowing some violations to improve system safety in emergency situations.

show abstract

Section: Ad Hoc Reconfigurationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive approach to safe violations

Besnard

Greathead²

2003

Cognition, Technology & Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending on organizational and situational contingencies, more direct forms of coordination like mutual adjustment may be appropriate Van de Ven et al, 1976). Especially in non-routine situations, where strong but also flexible guidance is needed, strict procedures may actually hinder safe coordinated operation (Dekker, 2003;Woods and Shattuck, 2000).…”

Section: The Allurement Of Writing Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In unexpected events, quick and sound decision making is inevitably necessary, particularly in high-risk organizations (Dekker, 2003;Woods and Shattuck, 2000).…”

Section: Individual Decision-making Versus Rule-followingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there has also been a growing concern in the field of safety science that such an approach to safety may be flawed and that rules in the actual organizational context do not work in such a simplistic way (Amalberti, 2001;Dekker, 2003;Grote et al, 2009;Iszatt-White, 2007;Lawton, 1998;Rasmussen, 1997;Reason et al, 1998;Weichbrodt and Grote, 2008;Woods and Shattuck, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safety rules as instruments for organizational control, coordination and knowledge: Implications for rules management

Weichbrodt

2015

Safety Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The adaptive capacity of complex systems has been found to depend on the balance between the distribution of authority and autonomy across local control centres and the capacity to avoid a fragmented response to disruptions (Woods and Branlat 2011a, b;Woods and Shattuck 2000). In the literature on resilience engineering, the answer to this trade-off is sought in polycentric control Ostrom 1999;Woods and Branlat 2010).…”

Section: Leadership In a Multiteam Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges to multiteam system leadership: an analysis of leadership during the management of railway disruptions

Schipper

2017

Cogn Tech Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rail traffic is controlled by operators working in multiple control centres. Although each of these control centres enjoy quite some autonomy and authority, their activities are highly interdependent. This is especially the case during the management of disruptions. In this study, we look at the role of leader teams with system-wide responsibilities and the task of synchronizing the control centres' activities. Research on leadership in this multiteam setting of networked control centres, which operate in a dynamic and time-compressed environment, is limited. Hence, this study explores the behaviours and functions of these leader teams during the management of two largescale disruptions in the Dutch railway system. We will show how various factors influence the ability to provide leadership within this specific real-world context. This study demonstrates that combining insights from the literature on multiteam systems and resilience engineering can contribute to our knowledge of the critical challenges of control in polycentric adaptive systems.

show abstract

Distant Supervision–Local Action Given the Potential for Surprise

Cited by 62 publications

References 16 publications

A cognitive approach to safe violations

A cognitive approach to safe violations

Safety rules as instruments for organizational control, coordination and knowledge: Implications for rules management

Challenges to multiteam system leadership: an analysis of leadership during the management of railway disruptions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About