Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 229–246 | Cite as

Evaluating the generalizability of the Organizational Constraints Analysis framework: a hospital bed management case study

Original Article

Abstract

Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) provides useful tools for analyzing and modeling work constraints that can inform the development of systems design requirements. However, it does not provide effective tools for analyzing and modeling organizational constraints that can inform the development of organizational design requirements. By integrating organizational theories with the CWA approach, we developed the Organizational Constraints Analysis framework, a formative approach to the analysis, modeling, and design of the organization of work. In this paper, we test the generalizability of the framework by using its two analytical templates—the Organizational Constraints model and Work Possibilities diagram—to analyze the hospital bed management work domain. The research findings suggest that the concepts, investigative probes, and notations from the analytical templates can be applied to complex work domains beyond those in which it was initially developed. We conclude with suggestions for how the Organizational Constraints Analysis framework can complement CWA methods by helping researchers and practitioners develop a broader organizational perspective on the constraints that drive how work can be done in organizations.

Keywords

Cognitive Work Analysis Organizational constraints Temporal work Systems design Health care 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Australian Research Council Grant DP0880920 to Sanderson and Venkatesh. The authors thank the staff members in the Princess Alexandra Hospital Hospital Bed Management Unit for their time and support. Finally, the authors acknowledge the help from members of the Cognitive Engineering Research Group (CERG) at The University of Queensland and National ICT Australia (NICTA) for their comments on the research.

References

  1. Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1:83–99MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashoori M, Burns C (2012) Team cognitive work analysis: structure and control tasks. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. Available from: http://edm.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/03/1555343412445577.abstract [accessed 20 Sep 2012]
  3. Bardram J (2000) Temporal coordination: on time and coordination of collaborative activities at a surgical department. Comput Suppprt Co-op Work 9:157–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blandford AE, Hyde JK, Green TRG, Connell I (2008) Scoping analytical usability evaluation methods: a case study. Hum Comput Interact 23:278–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crowston K, Rubleske J, Howison J (2006) Coordination theory: a ten-year retrospective. In: Zhang P, Galletta D (eds) Human–computer interaction in management information systems. M. E. Sharpe, Inc, Armonk, NY, pp 120–138Google Scholar
  6. Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2009) Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Adm Sci Q 54:413–452Google Scholar
  7. Euerby A, Burns CM (2012) Designing for social engagement in online social networks using communities-of-practice theory and cognitive work analysis: a case study. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 6(2):194–213Google Scholar
  8. Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm Sci Q 48:94–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flach JM (2012) Complexity: learning to muddle through. Cogn Technol Work 14:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gersick CJG, Hackman JR (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ Behav Hum Dec Process 47:65–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hajdukiewicz JR, Vicente KJ (2004) A theoretical note on the relationship between work domain analysis and task analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 5:527–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hajdukiewicz JR, Vicente KJ, Doyle DJ, Milgram P, Burns CM (2001) Modeling a medical environment: an ontology for integrated medical informatics design. Int J Med Inf 62:79–99Google Scholar
  13. Hayes GR, Lee CP, Dourish P (2011) Organizational routines, innovation, and flexibility: the application of narrative networks to dynamic workflow. Int J Med Inform 80:161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffman RR, Crandall B, Shadbolt N (1998) Use of the critical decision method to elicit expert knowledge: a case study in the methodology of cognitive task analysis. Hum Factors 40:254–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holland JH (1995) Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz D, Kahn RL (1966) The social psychology of organizations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organisations. Adm Sci Q 12:1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 26:87–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83:340–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  21. Naikar N, Pearce B, Drumm D, Sanderson PM (2003) Designing teams for first-of-a-kind, complex systems using the initial phases of cognitive work analysis: case study. Hum Factors 45:202–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nemeth CP (2012) Adapting to change and uncertainty. Cogn Technol Work 14:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielsen J (1994) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  24. Quinn RE, Rohrbaugh J (1983) A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Manag Sci 29:363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rasmussen J, Pejtersen A, Goodstein L (1994) Cognitive systems engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Reddy M, Dourish P, Pratt W (2006) Temporality in medical work: time also matters. Comput Supp Co-op Work 15:29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: towards safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  29. Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organizing. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  30. Xiao T, Sanderson P, Neal A, Clayton S (2013) The organizational constraints analysis framework: a formative approach to the analysis, modelling and design of organizations (in preparation)Google Scholar
  31. Zerubavel E (1979) Patterns of time in hospital life. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations