Supporting productive thinking: The semiotic context for Cognitive Systems Engineering (CSE)

Flach, John M.

doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.09.001

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, an interpretive stance is taken toward conducting fieldwork while incorporating the various insights the work sites present which may not be currently captured by CWA, for example, emotionality and work. In addition, as mentioned before, both CWA and SI have their roots in American Pragmatist thought, CWA through ecological psychology (Bennett & Flach, ; Flach, ), and SI through George Herbert Mead (Blumer, ; Hammersley, ). Therefore, along with modeling tools, comprehensive linkage for the theory is also possible, making the intellectual apparatus of CWA even stronger for further extensions.…”

Section: Foundational Basis For Extending Cwamentioning

confidence: 90%

“…As such, its pragmatist roots present the possibilities of extension and convergence with CWA. Currently, CWA draws from the pragmatist thought through its linkage with ecological psychology (see Heft, for linkages between pragmatism and ecological psychology; also see Bennett & Flach, ; Flach, ). In complement, SI draws from the pragmatist thought of George Mead .…”

Section: Si and Ethnography (And Its Basis In Hermeneutics)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Varieties of being “social”: Cognitive work analysis, symbolic interactionism, and sociotechnical systems

Kant

2018

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive work analysis (CWA) is a prominent framework for analyzing and modeling cognitive work in sociotechnical systems. It derives from both engineering-and psychological-based approaches for the study of human knowing and acting in technological contexts. Nonetheless, in its current form, the social dimension of CWA is underdeveloped. This study extends CWA as a requirements gathering framework for sociotechnical systems in terms of a broader meaning of "social," derived from interpretive sociology. Specifically, this is achieved by providing convergence to the approaches of CWA, symbolic interactionism (SI) and sociotechnical systems. To achieve this convergence, CWA is extended in two significant ways. First, deriving from a hermeneutic (interpretive) viewpoint of SI, the ethnographic analysis is conducted. Along with this first extension, the fourth phase of CWA, Social, Organizational and Cooperation Analysis, is also extended using a hermeneutic mesh.These various concepts are demonstrated using an example of research in the work domain of small-scale (micro and nano) robotics. K E Y W O R D S cognitive work analysis (CWA), ethnography, hermeneutic mesh (HM), hermeneutics, small-scale (micro and nano) robotics, sociotechnical systems, symbolic interactionism (SI)

show abstract

Section: Foundational Basis For Extending Cwamentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Si and Ethnography (And Its Basis In Hermeneutics)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of being “social”: Cognitive work analysis, symbolic interactionism, and sociotechnical systems

Kant

2018

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The abstraction hierarchy tool was first described as part of cognitive work analysis (Vicente, ). However, many different and more recent descriptions of this approach exist (Flach, ; Naikar, Moylan, & Pearce, ). In this study, however, the work domain has been restricted to a single task, with the final goal to make recommendations for the interface of a simulation tool.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revealing misleading schemes through operator activity analysis: A factory case study

Hoarau

Charron

Mars

2018

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an activity analysis carried out in an aeronautical factory. The representation of the real process and the operators' representations were identified. The representation of the real process was elaborated using an abstraction hierarchy, as described by the ecological interface design framework. The operators' representations were extracted through interviews and observations and described in terms of schemes. The analysis revealed that operators in the studied factory used misleading schemes (i.e., false representations) to organize their activities, resulting in poor performance. We conclude by offering possible remedies, including training aimed at inhibiting the misleading scheme and a simulation tool to convey a more accurate representation. K E Y W O R D Sactivity analysis, aeronautical factory, misleading scheme

show abstract

“…We refer the interested reader to the four original articles by Rasmussen and Vicente mentioned earlier and the following core literature that has expanded the theoretical foundations of EID since its advent in 1989. This includes a number of books (Bennett & Flach, 2011; Burns & Hajdukiewicz, 2004; Flach, Hancock, Caird, & Vicente, 1995; Hancock, Flach, Caird, & Vicente, 1995; Rasmussen et al, 1994; Vicente, 1999) and reviews (Bennett, Flach, Edman, Holt, & Lee, 2015; Borst, Flach, & Ellerbroek, 2015; Burns, 2013; Flach, 2017; McIlroy & Stanton, 2015; Rasmussen, 1999; Read, Salmon, & Lenné, 2012; Vicente, 1996, 2002).…”

Section: Theoretical Overview Of Eidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological Interface Design: Thirty-Plus Years of Refinement, Progress, and Potential

Bennett

Flach²

2019

Hum Factors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective is to provide a review of ecological interface design (EID), to illustrate its value to human factors/ergonomics, and to identify areas for future research and development. Background: EID uses mature interface technologies to provide decision making and problem solving support. A variety of theoretical concepts and analytical tools have been developed to meet the associated challenges. EID provides support that is simultaneously grounded in the practical realities of a work domain and tailored to human capabilities and limitations. Method: EID’s theoretical foundation is discussed briefly. Concrete examples of ecological and traditional interfaces are provided. Different categories of work domains are described, as well as the associated implications for interface design. A targeted literature review is conducted and the experimental outcomes are summarized. A representative evaluation is discussed, and interpretations of performance are provided. Results: The evidence reveals that EID has been remarkably successful in significantly improving performance for work domains with constraints that are law driven (e.g., process control). In contrast, work domains that are intent-driven (e.g., information retrieval) have, by and large, been ignored. Also, few studies have addressed nonvisual displays. Conclusion: EID has not yet realized its potential to improve safety and efficiency across the entire continuum of work domains. Application: EID provides a single integrated framework that is (a) sufficiently comprehensive to deal with complicated work domains and (b) capable of producing innovative support that will generalize to actual work settings.

show abstract

Supporting productive thinking: The semiotic context for Cognitive Systems Engineering (CSE)

Cited by 19 publications

References 28 publications

Varieties of being “social”: Cognitive work analysis, symbolic interactionism, and sociotechnical systems

Varieties of being “social”: Cognitive work analysis, symbolic interactionism, and sociotechnical systems

Revealing misleading schemes through operator activity analysis: A factory case study

Ecological Interface Design: Thirty-Plus Years of Refinement, Progress, and Potential

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About