Abstract
This paper discusses the potential advantages of developing cognitive diversity within the process of safety-critical systems design. Two broad approaches to achieving diversity are identified. The first requires diversity to be created within the task environment. The second relies on individual differences in task performance that can be used to engineer diversity Empirical evidence is presented to support the potential of both methods, and implications for future progress in this field are discussed.
Keywords
Mental Model Error Detection Spatial Ability Verbal Ability Cognitive Diversity
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- [Adelson 84]Adelson, B. “When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of a task may increase with expertise”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1984;10: 483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Avizienis 84]Avizienis, A.A. & Kelly, J.P.J. “Fault tolerance by design diversity: Concepts and experiments”. IEEE Computer, 1984; 17: 67–80.Google Scholar
- [Avizienis 95]Avizienis, A.A. “The methodology of N-version programming”. In M.R. Lyu (Ed.), Software Fault Tolerance. Wiley, 1995. pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
- [Basili87]Basili, V.R. & Selby, R.W. “Comparing the effectiveness of software testing strategies”. JEFF Transactions on Software Engineering, 1987; 13: 1278–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Carroll 88]Carroll, J.M. & Olson, J.R. “Mental models and human-computer interaction”. In M. Hellander (Ed.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. North Holland, 1988. pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
- [Cooke 94]Cooke, N.J. “Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1994; 41: 801–849.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Coury 92]Coury, B.G., Weiland, M.Z., & Cuqlock-Knopp, V.G. “Probing the mental models of system state categories with multidimensional scaling”. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1992; 36: 673–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Cronbach 81]Cronbach, L.J. & Snow, R.E. “Aptitudes and Instructional Methods”. Irvington, 1981.Google Scholar
- [Egan 88]Egan, D.E. “Individual differences in human-computer interaction”. In M. Hellander (Ed.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. North Holland, 1988. pp. 543–569.Google Scholar
- [Fagan 76]Fagan, M.E. “Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development”. IBM Systems Journal, 1976; 3: 182–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Fagan 86]Fagan, M.E. “Advances in software inspections”. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1986; 12: 744–751.Google Scholar
- [Federico 95]Federico, P-A. “Individual differences in metacognitive decision making and situation assessment”. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting. HF&ES, 1995. pp. 878–881.Google Scholar
- [Hunt 78]Hunt, E. “Mechanics of verbal ability”. Psychological Review, 1978; 85: 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Katz 88]Katz, I.R. & Anderson, J.R. “Debugging: An analysis of bug location strategies”. Human-Computer Interaction, 1988; 3: 351–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Lee 93]Lee, J.M. & Kim, J.H. “An integration of heuristic and model-based reasoning in fault diagnosis”. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 1993; 6: 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Leveson 95]Leveson, N.G. “Safeware: System Safety and Computers”.Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
- [Lyu 92]Lyu, M.R. & Avizienis, A. “Assuring design diversity in N-version software: A design paradigm for N-version programming”. In J.F. Mayer & R.D. Schlichting (Eds.) Dependable Computing for Critical Applications 2. Springer-Verlag: New York, 1992. pp. 192–218.Google Scholar
- [Norman 86]Norman, D.A. & Draper, S.W. “Cognitive engineering”. In D.A. Norman & S.W. Draper (Eds.) User Centered System Design - New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Erlbaum, 1986. pp. 31–61.Google Scholar
- [Norusis 92]Norusis, M.J. “SPSS for Windows: Professional Statistics. Release 5”. SPSS: Chicago, IL., 1992.Google Scholar
- [Pallant 96]Pallant, A., Timmer, P. & McRae, S. “Cognitive mapping as a tool for requirements capure”. In S.A. Robertson (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, 1996. pp. 495–500.Google Scholar
- [Rasmussen 86]Rasmussen, J. “Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction”. North Holland. 1986.Google Scholar
- [Reason 90]Reason, J. “Human Error”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990.Google Scholar
- [Senders 91]Senders, J.W. & Moray, N.P. “Human Error: Cause, Prediction, and Reduction”. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1991.Google Scholar
- [Shimeall 91]Shimeall, T.J. & Leveson, N.G. “An empirical comparison of software fault tolerance and fault elimination” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1991; 17: 173–182, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Vessey 86]Vessey, I. “Expertise in debuggin computer programs: An analysis of the content of verbal protocols”. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1986; 16: 621–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [Westerman 94]Westerman, S.J., Shryane, N.M., Crawshaw, C.M., Hockey, G.R.J., & Wyatt-Millington, C.W. “Task analysis of the solid state interlocking design process”. Report No. SCS-01. Department of Psychology, University of Hull, 1994.Google Scholar
- [Westerman 95]Westerman, S.J., Shryane, N.M., Crawshaw, C.M., Hockey, G.R.J., & Wyatt-Millington, C.W. “Cognitive Diversity: A structured approach to trapping human error”. In G. Rabe (Ed.), SafeComp ‘95: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security, Belgirate, Italy, 11–13 October, 1995. pp. 142–155.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1997