Practitioner versus analyst methods: A nuclear decommissioning case study

Applied Ergonomics

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1622-1633

  Walker, Guy ^a   Cooper, Mhairi ^b   Thompson, Pauline ^a   Jenkins, Dan ^c  

^a HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b ABBOTT LABORATORIES   (United Kingdom)

^c DCA DESIGN INTERNATIONAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CWA; Hazard identification; SWIFT

Indexed keywords

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; HAZARDS; LIFE CYCLE; PONDING;

COGNITIVE WORK ANALYSIS; CWA; HAZARD IDENTIFICATION; HIGH DOSE RATE; NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING; OPERATIONAL PHASE; SWIFT; SYSTEM LIFECYCLE;

DECOMMISSIONING (NUCLEAR REACTORS);

FUEL;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; COGNITIVE WORK ANALYSIS; CONTROL TASK ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COOLING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING; NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY; RADIATION HAZARD; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; SLUDGE DISPOSAL; SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONAL AND COOPERATION ANALYSIS; STRATEGIES ANALYSIS; STRUCTURED WHAT IF; WASTE DISPOSAL; WORK DOMAIN ANALYSIS; WORKER COMPETENCY ANALYSIS; ADVERSE EFFECTS; BIOENGINEERING; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PROCEDURES; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SAFETY; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED KINGDOM;

GREAT BRITAIN; HUMAN ENGINEERING; HUMANS; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SAFETY MANAGEMENT; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84905023120     PISSN: 00036870     EISSN: 18729126     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.017     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ahlstrom U. Work domain analysis for air traffic controller weather displays. J. Saf. Res. 2005, 36:159-169.
2. Bisantz A.M., Roth E., Brickman B., Gosbee L.L., Hettinger L., McKinney J. Integrating cognitive analyses in a large-scale system design process. Int. J. Human-Comp. Stud. 2003, 58:177-206.
3. BS EN 31010 Risk Assessment Techniques 2010, British Standard, London.
4. Crone D., Sanderson P., Naikar N., Parker S. Selecting Sensitive Measures of Performance in Complex Multivariable Environments 2007, 4-7. Proceedings of the 2007 Simulation Technology Conference (SimTec 2007), Brisbane, Australia.
5. Crone D.J., Sanderson P.M., Naikar N. Using Cognitive Work Analysis to Develop a Capability for the Evaluation of Future Systems 2003, 1938-1942. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Denver, CO.
6. DSCH S-259 Decommissioning Safety Case Handbook Issue 1 March 2011 2011, Internal Report.
7. Fidel R., Pejtersen A.M. Cognitive work analysis. Theories of Information Behavior: a Researcher's Guide 2005, Information Today, Medford, NJ. K.E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, E.F. McKechnie (Eds.).
8. Gleick J. Chaos: Making a New Science 1987, Sphere, London.
9. Hajdukiewicz J.R. .Development of a Structured Approach for Patient Monitoring in the Operating Room. Masters Book 1998, University of Toronto.
10. Halley J.D., Winkler D.A. Classification of Emergence and Its Relation to Self-organization 2008, Complexity.
11. Jenkins D.P., Stanton N.A., Salmon P.M., Walker G.H. Cognitive Work Analysis: Coping with Complexity 2009, Ashgate, Farnham.
12. Lintern G., Naikar N. The Use of Work Domain Analysis for the Design of Training Teams 2000, Proceedings of the joint 14th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association/44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES/IEA 2000), San Diego, CA.
13. Lundberg J., Rollenhagen C., Hollnagel E., Rankin A. .Strategies for dealing with resistance to recommendations from accident investigations. Acc. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45:455-467.
14. Naikar N. Beyond interface design: further applications of cognitive work analysis. Int. J. Indust. Ergon. 2006, 36:423-438.
15. Naikar N. An Examination of the Key Concepts of the Five Phases of Cognitive Work Analysis with Examples from a Familiar System 2006, 447-451. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting.
16. Naikar N., Sanderson P.M. Work domain analysis for training-system definition. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 1999, 9:271-290.
17. Naikar N., Sanderson P.M. Evaluating design proposals for complex systems with work domain analysis. Hum. Factors 2001, 43:529-542.
18. Naikar N., Saunders A. Crossing the boundaries of safe operation: a technical training approach to error management. Cogn. Technol. Work 2003, 5:171-180.
19. Naikar N., Pearce B., Drumm D., Sanderson P.M. Technique for designing teams for first-of-a-kind complex systems with cognitive work analysis: case study. Hum. Factors 2003, 45(2):202-217.
20. Rasmussen J. Skills, rules, knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 1983, 13:257-266.
21. Underwood P., Waterson P. Systemic accident analysis: examining the gap between research and practice. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 55:154-164.
22. Vicente K.J. Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-based Work 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
23. Walker G.H., Stanton N.A., Salmon P.M., Jenkins D.P., Rafferty L. Translating concepts of complexity to the field of ergonomics. Ergonomics 2010, 53(10):1175-1186.
24. Yu X., Lau E., Vicente K.J., Carter M.W. .Toward theory-driven, quantitative performance measurement in ergonomics science: the abstraction hierarchy as a framework for data analysis. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2002, 3(2):124-142.