From cognitive reliability to competence? An evolving approach to human factors and safety

Abstract

When reviewing the research path of an author, we are inevitably influenced by our own background and approach. Tracing back the converging and diverging assumptions of the authors with respect to Erik Hollnagel's research path, the paper focuses on the evolution of cognitive psychology as resulting from an original distinction between two models of human cognition: the first one more in line with the behaviourist tradition and the latter with the cybernetic and ecological approach. The former, which becomes dominant in the development of cognitive psychology, marginalizes some aspects that prove crucial in the latter. The concepts of anticipation and of intentional behaviour, together with the notion of variability of normal performance, are traditionally part of the cybernetic and ecological approach to cognitive psychology. These concepts have also been central in the development of the ergonomic analysis of work activities. Throughout the Resilience Engineering perspective, the two models of human cognition are brought closer, while the concept of competence is sketched as a possible mediator to a ''positive'' approach to Human Factors and Safety.

On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review

“…Similarly Wilson et al [56] state that "the increasing complexity in highly technological systems such as process industries is leading to potentially disastrous failure modes and new kind of safety issues" (p.787). De Carvalho [57] as well as Re and Macchi [58] make the same construction of resilience as the capability to compensate for risky variability.…”

“…[39,53]). Alternatively, a few papers construct resilience as the competence and know-how of people in an organisation [38,45,58].…”

Bridging the Macro and the Micro by Considering the Meso: Reflections on the Fractal Nature of Resilience

“…However, when actually conducting studies the empirical focus often seems to be on the individual operators, the activities that they engage in (Nemeth et al 2007, Patterson et al 2007, Gomes et al 2009, Grote et al 2009, or the skills that they have (Morel et al 2008, Re and Macchi 2010. Although some studies seem to simply move the subject of resilience from the sharp end operators to the blunt end managers (Miller and Xiao 2007, Paltrinieri et al 2012, Carmeli et al 2013, others do address connections between different organizational levels to understand or improve resilience.…”

“…The defining scholars of resilience engineering, some 20 years before coining the notion, lay the basis for another paradigm in the safety sciences. The paradigm, called Joint Cognitive Systems Theory (JCS; Hollnagel and Woods 1983, Rasmussen et al 1994, Woods and Hollnagel 2006, also coined 'the second cognitive revolution,' rests on the same cybernetic approach to human cognition as does the social-ecological field (Re and Macchi 2010). The studies of organizational safety can serve as an inspiration to the studies of human resilience at different spatial scales, by its holistic reconstruction of the notion of cognition as an emergent phenomenon in itself.…”

Is there still a need for CTW?

“…In particular, attention has been placed on ''new'' methods and techniques of relevance for CTW. Therefore, in addition to the ''typical'' focus on joint-cognitive modelling and human reliability Dekker and Hollnagel 2004;Healey and Benn 2009;Cacciabue 2010), special attention has been dedicated to theories and methods associated to Cognitive Work Analysis (Turner and Turner 2001;Miller et al 2006;Xiao andSanderson 2013), Ethnography (Farrington-Darby andWilson 2009) and Resilience Engineering (Woods and Cook 2002;Re and Macchi 2010;Nemeth et al 2011;Nemeth 2012;Hollnagel 2012).…”