1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0925-7535(99)00027-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stress and team performance: principles and challenges for intelligent decision aids

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
30
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We have grouped them together in several categories: dysfunctions linked to problems of communication, to understanding the situation, to managing emotions and stress, as well as to organisational issues. Seppänen et al, 2013Weick, 1995Vaughan, 1996Lagadec, 2012Crichton & Flin, 2004Orasanu, 2010 Dysfunctions linked to stress Denial, incapacity to act, feeling of invulnerability Shock and awe Disorientation of unit members Kouabenan et al, 2006 Crocq et al, Heiderich, 2010 Decreased caution and memory capacities Kontogiannis & Kossiavelou, 1999 Organisational dysfunctions Collapse of coordination measures Poor division of tasks, leadership undermined Blindly following procedures or applying them poorly Internal tension, conflicts Weick, 1995;Lagadec, 2012Kanki, 2010Crichton & Flin, 2004 van Vliet & van Amelsfoort, 2008 The identification of these dysfunctions confirms that many of them are linked to technical issues, but also that many others are related to human factors and non-technical skills. Whereas the principal risky activities (military, medical, aeronautics, and aerospace) have managed to adapt their training to include technical and non-technical skills, crisis management training for major risks has lagged behind.…”
Section: Dysfunctions Identified In Crisis Unitsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have grouped them together in several categories: dysfunctions linked to problems of communication, to understanding the situation, to managing emotions and stress, as well as to organisational issues. Seppänen et al, 2013Weick, 1995Vaughan, 1996Lagadec, 2012Crichton & Flin, 2004Orasanu, 2010 Dysfunctions linked to stress Denial, incapacity to act, feeling of invulnerability Shock and awe Disorientation of unit members Kouabenan et al, 2006 Crocq et al, Heiderich, 2010 Decreased caution and memory capacities Kontogiannis & Kossiavelou, 1999 Organisational dysfunctions Collapse of coordination measures Poor division of tasks, leadership undermined Blindly following procedures or applying them poorly Internal tension, conflicts Weick, 1995;Lagadec, 2012Kanki, 2010Crichton & Flin, 2004 van Vliet & van Amelsfoort, 2008 The identification of these dysfunctions confirms that many of them are linked to technical issues, but also that many others are related to human factors and non-technical skills. Whereas the principal risky activities (military, medical, aeronautics, and aerospace) have managed to adapt their training to include technical and non-technical skills, crisis management training for major risks has lagged behind.…”
Section: Dysfunctions Identified In Crisis Unitsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most modern technical systems are still reliant on human skills and cognitions (Badham, 1991;McEwan & Sackett, 1998;MacCarthy et al, 2001;Kontogiannis and Kossiavelou, 1999). Productivity, efficiency and safety outcomes have been considered greatly influenced by human interaction (Tepas, 1994;Das, 2001) and even the successful implementation of advanced technology itself has been found to be reliant on the organisation and motivation of workers (Majchrzak, 1997).…”
Section: The Impact Of Workers On Manufacturing System Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the early 80s, research has tried to create effective digital decision support systems, or Intelligent Decision Aids (IDAs) (Kontogiannis and Kossiavelou 1999). Early support systems were designed to create decisions without biases.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These systems provided limited options for the users to assess system's outcome: the users could merely accept or reject the decision made for them. This might have been a reason that the users had problems accepting these kinds of decisions and support systems (Kontogiannis and Kossiavelou 1999). Other problems were that the decision tools, even when focussed on naturalistic decisions, rarely showed decision improvement because individuals using them were often ahead of the tool (Cohen 1993), and the tool designers cannot anticipate all possible scenarios that might occur (Reason 1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation