Investigating accident causation through information network modeling

Ergonomics

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 198-210

  Griffin, T G C ^a   Young, M S ^a   Stanton, N A ^b  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aviation accident; Communication; Complex systems; Distributed situation awareness; Networks

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT CAUSATION; COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AGENTS; COMPLEX DOMAINS; COMPLEX SYSTEMS; DESIGN STRATEGIES; EVENT ANALYSIS; HUMAN-SYSTEM INTERACTION; INFORMATION ELEMENTS; INFORMATION NETWORKS; MULTI-AGENT; NETWORK MODELS; NETWORKS; NEW MODEL; NOVEL APPLICATIONS; SITUATION AWARENESS;

AVIATION; COMMUNICATION; COMPLEXATION; INFORMATION SERVICES; LARGE SCALE SYSTEMS;

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS;

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT; ARTICLE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; INFORMATION SYSTEM; METHODOLOGY; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

ACCIDENTS, AVIATION; CAUSALITY; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 75649134562     PISSN: 00140139     EISSN: 13665847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00140130903125165     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Air Accident Investigation Branch, 1990. Aircraft Accident Report No: 4/90 (EW/C1095). Farnborough: AAIB.
2. Bedny, G. and Meister, D., 1999. Theory of activiy and situation awareness. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 3 (1), 63-72.
3. Bennett, S.A., 2004. The 1st July 2002 mid-air collision over Oberlingen, Germany: A holistic analysis. Risk Management, 6, 31-49.
4. Besnard, D., Greathead, D., and Baxter, G., 2004. When Mental models go wrong. co-occurrences in dynamic, critical systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 117-128.
5. Brusberg, A., et al., 2002. A framework for re-examining accident reports to support interaction design processes. In: C.W. Johnson, ed. Proceedings of the Workshop on Investigation and Reporting of Accidents (IRIA). GIST Technical Report G2002-2. Glasgow: Department of Computing Science, Glasgow University.
6. Busby, J.S. and Hibberd, R.E., 2002. Mutual misconceptions between designers and operators of hazardous systems. Research in Engineering Design, 13 (3), 132-138.
7. Carvalho, P.V.R., Vidal, M.C., and Carvalho, E.F., 2007. Nuclear power plant communications in normative and actual practice: A field study of control room operators' communications. Human Factors in Ergonomics and Manufacturing, 17 (1), 43-78.
8. Carvalho, P.V.R., et al., 2009. Normal people working in normal organizations with normal equipment: System Safety and cognition in a mid-air collision. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 325-340.
9. Connell, L., 1995. Pilot and controller communications issues. In: B.G. Kanki and O.V. Prinzo, eds. Proceedings of the Methods and Metrics of Voice Communication Workshop. Final Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-96/10. Washington DC: FAA.
10. Dekker, S.W.A., 2005. Ten questions about human error. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Gibson, W.H., et al., 2006. A taxonomy of human communication errors and application to railway track maintenance. Cognition, Technology and Work, 8 (1), 1435-5558.
12. Gorman, J.C., Cooke, N.J., and Winner, J.L., 2006. Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized command and control environments. Ergonomics, 49 (12-13), 1312-1325.
13. Gray, W.D. and Boehm-Davis, D.A., 2000. Milliseconds matter: an introduction to microstrategies and to their use in describing and predicting interactive behaviour. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 322-335.
14. Green, D.M. and Swets, J.A., 1966. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
15. Gregoriades, A. and Sutcliffe, A.G., 2006. Automated assistance for human factors analysis in complex systems. Ergonomics, 49, 1265-1287.
16. Heinrich, H.W., 1931. Industrial accident prevention. New York: McGraw Hill.
17. Hollnagel, E., 2004. Barriers and accident prevention. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
18. Hutchins, E., 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Jenkins, D.P., et al., 2008. Using cognitive work analysis to explore activity allocation within military domains. Ergonomics, 51, 798-815.
20. Johnson, C.W., McCarthy, J.C., and Wright, P.C., 1995. Using a formal language to support natural language in accident reports. Ergonomics, 38 (6), 1264-1283.
21. Johnson, C.W., 1997. The epistemics of accidents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 659-688.
22. Johnson, J.H., 2006. Can complexity help us better understand risk? Risk Management, 8 (4), 227-267.
23. Latour, B., 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
24. Latour, B., 1991. Technology is society made durable. In: J. Law, ed. A Sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination. London: Routledge, 129.
25. Leveson, N.G., 2004. A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science, 42, 237-270.
26. Morris, C.H. and Leung, Y.K., 2006. Pilot mental workload: How well do pilots really perform? Ergonomics, 49 (15), 1581-1596.
27. Reason, J., 1990. Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Reason, J., 1997. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
29. Salas, E., et al., 1995. Situation awareness in team performance. Human Factors, 37 (1), 123-126.
30. Salmon, P.M., et al., 2008. Representing situation awareness in collaborative systems: A case study in the energy distribution domain. Ergonomics, 51 (3), 367-384.
31. Salmon, P.M., et al., 2008a. What really is going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9 (4), 297-323.
32. Sarter, N.B. and Woods, D.D., 1991. Situation awareness - a critical but ill-defined phenomenon. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 45-57.
33. Stanton, N.A., et al., 2005. Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
34. Stanton, N.A., et al., 2006. Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics, 49, 12-13. 1288-1311.
35. Stanton, N.A., et al., 2006a. Work Package 1.1.4: Generic Process of C4I Activities. Alvington, Yeovil: Aerosystems International.
36. Stanton, N.A., Baber, C., and Harris, D., 2008. Modelling Command and Control: Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork. 1st ed. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
37. Stanton, N.A. and Baber, C., 2008. Modelling of human alarm handling response times: a case study of the Ladbroke Grove rail accident in the UK. Ergonomics, 51 (4), 423-440.
38. Stanton, N.A., et al., 2009. Genotype and phenotype schema and their role in distributed situation awareness in collaborative systems. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10 (1), 43-68.
39. Stanton, N.A., et al., 2010. Is situation awareness all in the mind? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11 (1-2), 29-40.
40. Walker, G.H., et al., 2006. Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork (EAST): A novel integration of ergonomics methods to analyse C4i activity. Ergonomics, 49, 1345-1369.
41. Walker, G.H., et al., 2009. Does advanced driver training improve situation awareness? Applied Ergonomics, 40 (4), 678-687.
42. Wiegmann, D.A. and Shappell, S.A., 2003. A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: The human factors analysis and classiffication system. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.