Use of visual scenarios to understand and improve engineering work on the UK railway

Contemporary Ergonomics 2008

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 564-569

  Schock, Alex ^a   Ryan, Brendan ^a   Wilson, John R ^a,c   Clarke, Theresa ^b   Dingwall, Patricia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b NETWORK RAIL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; RAILROADS;

DIFFERENT STAGES; ENGINEERING WORKS; HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENT; INDUSTRY PROJECT; MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES; OPERATIONAL STAFF; SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS; VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS;

ERGONOMICS;

EID: 68349144184     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1201/9780203883259.ch90     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (5)

1. Carroll, J. M. (2000). Five Reasons for Scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers 13: 43-60.
2. Carroll, J. M. and Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting Around the Task-Artifact Cycle: How to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 10(2): 181-212.
3. Pickup, L., Wilson, J. R., Norris, B. J., Mitchell, L. and Morisroe, G. (2005). The Integrated Workload Scale (IWS): A new self-report tool to assess railway signaller workload. Applied Ergonomics 36: 681-693. (Pubitemid 41501661)
4. Potts, C. (1995). Using schematic scenarios to understand user needs. Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States ACM NewYork, NY, USA.
5. Ryan, B., Wilson, J. R., Schock, A. B., Lowe, E. and Kenvyn, F. (2007). Human Factors in the Management of Engineering Possessions: The Roles of the Engineering Supervisor and PICOP. People and Rail Systems: Human Factors at the Heart of the Railway, (Ashgate Publishing Ltd), 331-341.