Principles of adjustable autonomy: a framework for resilient human–machine cooperation

Zięba, S.; Polet, Philippe; Vanderhaegen, Frédéric; Debernard, Serge

doi:10.1007/s10111-009-0134-7

Cited by 55 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(p. 88) Furniss et al as well as Benn, Healey and Hollnagel locate the risk in the system environment, such as poor design, systems and processes [48] or as a "range of risks to safety posed by close proximity to potentially hazardous processes, medicines and equipment" [49] in a patient's journey through the healthcare system. Zieba et al [50] have a joint cognitive theory-heritage in their location of risk in the complex interactions between human-machine agents. Bruyelle et al [51] also introduce resilience as a concept able to mitigate the risks of antagonistic threats.…”

Section: Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review

Bergström

Winsen

Henriqson

2015

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

212

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resilience is becoming a prevalent agenda in safety research and organisational practice. In this study we examine how the peer-reviewed safety science literature (a) formulates the rationale behind the study of resilience; (b) constructs resilience as a scientific object; and (c) constructs and locates the resilient subject. The results suggest that resilience engineering scholars typically motivate the need for their studies by referring to the inherent complexities of modern sociotechnical systems; complexities that make these systems inherently risky. The object of resilience then becomes the capacity to adapt to such emerging risks in order to guarantee the success of the inherently risky system. In the material reviewed, the subject of resilience is typically the individual, either at the sharp end or at higher managerial levels. The individual is called-upon to adapt in the face of risk to secure the continuous performance of the system. Based on the results from how resilience has been introduced in safety sciences we raise three ethical questions for the field to address: (1) should resilience be seen as people thriving despite of, or because of, risk?; (2) should resilience theory form a basis for moral judgement?; and finally (3) how much should resilience be approached as a trait of the individual?

show abstract

Section: Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review

Bergström

Winsen

Henriqson

2015

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

212

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, if this treatment produces serial other dissonances and may fail, then it contributes to the vulnerability of the controlled system. The frequency of perturbations such as dissonances may have an impact of the system resilience or vulnerability (Westrum 2006;Zieba et al 2010). The management of a regular dissonance increases knowledge about it and may converge to a high stable knowledge level, whereas a new dissonance can provoke instability that needs to modify, refine or create knowledge.…”

Section: Dissonance Control and Knowledge Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, dispositional dissonance relates to opposite knowledge about the same facts, epistemic dissonance concerns different beliefs about the sources of knowledge, and ontological dissonance is different or opposite meanings of the same knowledge (Hunter and Summerton 2006). The last example of dissonance concerns the affordances that are based on relations between objects and possible new actions by using these objects (Gibson 1986;Zieba et al 2010). Therefore, the dissonance discovery process consists in creating new relationships between objects and actions and this process can concern several groups of users.…”

Section: Taxonomy Of Dissonancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here cognitive dissonance can have a positive effect in terms of safety. Users who are pressured (Gibson 1986;Zieba et al 2010) into behaviour change or rule compliance may adjust their attitudes to conform to their new behaviour, so that rather than resisting, they grow to accept the new reality and become conformists.…”

Section: Risk Analysis Process Of Dissonancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can dissonance engineering improve risk analysis of human–machine systems?

Vanderhaegen

Carsten

2017

Cogn Tech Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses dissonance engineering and its application to risk analysis of human-machine systems. Dissonance engineering relates to sciences and technologies relevant to dissonances, defined as conflicts between knowledge. The richness of the concept of dissonance is illustrated by a taxonomy that covers a variety of cognitive and organisational dissonances based on different conflict modes and baselines of their analysis. Knowledge control is discussed and related to strategies for accepting or rejecting dissonances. This acceptability process can be justified by a risk analysis of dissonances which takes into account their positive and negative impacts and several assessment criteria. A risk analysis method is presented and discussed along with practical examples of application. The paper then provides key points to motivate the development of risk analysis methods dedicated to dissonances in order to identify the balance between the positive and negative impacts and to improve the design and use of future human-machine system by reinforcing knowledge.

show abstract

“…More recently, resilience-or vulnerability-based methods consider the analysis of the success or the failure of the recovery control of the system stability, respectively (Hollnagel et al 2006;Zieba et al 2010;Ouedraogo et al 2013). These approaches aim at identifying the technical, human and organisational factors that make a system resilient or vulnerable in the face of particular situations such as unpredictable or unprecedented events.…”

Section: What Are the Future Challenges For Risk Analysis?mentioning

confidence: 99%