Cognitive Engineering

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Recently, Norman (Living with complexity, 2011) wrote, “Machines have rules they follow. They are designed and programmed by people, mostly engineers and programmers, with logic and precision. As a result, they are often designed by technically trained people who are far more concentrated about the welfare of their machines than the welfare of the people who will use them. The logic of machines is imposed on people, human beings who do not work by the same rules of logic.” Isn’t it obvious? Nevertheless, this is what we observe everyday, and very little is being done in engineering to solve this recurring problem effectively. This kind of observation has been made for a long time by ergonomists who preached the adaptation of machines to people and not the opposite. What is new is the consideration of this requirement not as a post-development validation of machines (i.e., human factors and ergonomics, or HFE), but as a pre-design process, as well as a life cycle iterative process (i.e., human-centered design, or HCD). Cognitive engineering is about understanding people’s needs and experience along the life cycle of a product, and most importantly with influence during its high-level requirements definition.

Keywords

Human Factor Situation Awareness Function Allocation Commercial Aircraft Abductive Inference 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander, I. (2001). Visualizing requirements in UML. Telelogic Newsbyte, Issue 13, Sept–Oct, http://www.telelogic.com/newsbyte/article.cfm?id=0000201800032832. Accessed 15 April 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Amalberti, R. (2001). The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Safety Science, 37, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artman, H., & Garbis, C. (1998). Situation Awareness as Distributed Cognition. Proceedings of ECCE ’98, Limerick.Google Scholar
  4. Barthelemy, F., Hornus, H., Roussot, J., Hufschmitt, J. P., & Raffoux, J.F. (2001). Accident on the 21st of September 2001 at a factory belonging to the Grande Paroisse Company in Toulouse. Report of the General Inspectorate for the Environment, October.Google Scholar
  5. Beringer, D. B., & Hancock, P. A. (1989). Exploring situational awareness: A review and the effects of stress on rectilinear normalization. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 646–651). Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  6. Bernoulli, D. (1738). Exposition of a new theory of measurement of risk. Econometrica (The Econometric Society trans: Dr. L. Sommer, 1954 Vol. 22 (1), pp. 22–36).Google Scholar
  7. Billings, C. E., & Cheaney, E. (1981). Information transfer problems in the aviation system. NASA TP-1875. Moffett Field: NASA Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
  8. Billings, C. E. (1995). Situation awareness measurement and analysis: A commentary. Proceedings of the International Conference on Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness. Florida: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Billings, C. E. (1996). Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources in systems design. Human Computer Interaction, 11(3), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boy, G. A. (1986). An expert system for fault diagnosis in orbital refueling operations. AIAA 24th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno.Google Scholar
  12. Boy, G. A. (1987). Operator assistant systems. International journal of man-machine studies. In G. Mancini, D. D. Woods & E. Hollnagel (Eds.), Cognitive engineering in dynamic worlds (Vol. 27, pp. 541–554). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Boy, G. A. (1998). Cognitive function analysis. Ablex: Greenwood. ISBN 9781567503777.Google Scholar
  14. Boy, G. A. (2002). Theories of human cognition: To better understand the co-adaptation of people and technology, in knowledge management, organizational intelligence and learning, and complexity. In L. D. Kiel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of life support systems (EOLSS), developed under the auspices of the UNESCO. Oxford: Eolss. http://www.eolss.net.Google Scholar
  15. Boy, G. A. (2002). Procedural interfaces (in French). Proceedings of the National Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (AFIHM). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  16. Boy, G. A. (2011). Cognitive function analysis in the design of human and machine multi-agent systems. In G. A. Boy (Ed.), Handbook of human-machine interaction: A Human-centered design approach. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Boy, G. A., & Brachet, G. (2008). Risk taking. Dossier of the air and space academy. Toulouse: ASA.Google Scholar
  18. Cockburn, A. (2001). Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 1591394236.Google Scholar
  20. Disasters caused by ammonium nitrate (2010). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate_disasters. Accessed 16 Dec 2011.Google Scholar
  21. Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Operations Research Center, ORC-80–2. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  22. Endsley, M. R. (1988). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). Paper presented at the National Aerospace and Electronic Conference (NAECON), Dayton.Google Scholar
  23. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Endsley, M. R. (1996). Automation and situation awareness. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 163–181). Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Evans, J. (1990). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. FABIG (2011). Major accident listing: AZF (Azote de France) fertilizer factory. Toulouse. March. http://www.fabig.com/Accidents/AZF + Toulouse.htm. Accessed 17 Dec 2011.Google Scholar
  27. Fitts, P. M. (1951). Human engineering for an effective air navigation and traffic control system. Washington DC: National Research Council, Committee on Aviation Psychology.Google Scholar
  28. Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development organizations. In A. Namioka & D. Schuler (Eds.), Participatory design. Principles and practices (pp. 99–122). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Hollnagel, E. (1993). Human reliability analysis: Context and control. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Hollnagel, E. (1998). Cognitive reliability and error analysis method: CREAM. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Hollnagel, E., & Amalberti, R. (2001). The emperor’s new clothes, or whatever happened to “human error”? Invited keynote presentation at 4th International Workshop on Human Error, Safety and System Development. Linköping.Google Scholar
  32. Jacobsen, I. (1992). Object oriented software engineering: A use case driven approach. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  33. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica (Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 263–292 March).Google Scholar
  34. Kellert, S. H. (1993). In the wake of chaos: Unpredictable order in dynamical systems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-42976-8.MATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Klein, G. A. (1997). The recognition-primed decision (RDP) model: Looking back, looking forward. In C. E. Zsambok & G. A. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision-making. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein, G. A., & Klinger, D. (1991). Naturalistic decision-making. Human Systems IAC Gateway (Vol.  XI: No. 3, 2, 1, pp. 16–19) Winter.Google Scholar
  37. Kulak, D., & Guiney, E. (2000). Use cases: Requirements in context. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  38. Lilly, S. (1999). Use case pitfalls: Top 10 problems from real projects using use cases, proceedings of the technology of object-oriented languages and systems, IEEE.Google Scholar
  39. Llewellyn, D. J. (2003). The psychology of risk taking behavior. PhD Thesis, The University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar
  40. Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2009). The multitasking myth—Handling complexity in real-world operations. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN: 978-0-7546-7382-8.Google Scholar
  41. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis: The organization of the living. In H.R. Maturana & F.J. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (pp. 59–138). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meister, D. (1999). The history of human factors and ergonomics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0805827692.Google Scholar
  43. Mosco, V. & McKercher, C. (2007). Introduction: Theorizing knowledge labor and the information society. In C. McKercher, V. Mosco & M. D. Lanham (Eds.), Knowledge Workers in the Information Society (pp. vii–xxiv). Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  44. Mosier-O.Neill, K. L. (1989). A contextual analysis of pilot decision-making. In R. S. Jensen (Ed), Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Muller, M. J. (2007). Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), Handbook of HCI (2nd ed). Mahway: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. Norman, D. A. (2011). Living with complexity. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  49. Peirce, C. S. (1958). Science and philosophy: Collected papers of Charles S. Peirce (Vol. 7). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, knowledge; signals, signs and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 13, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosenbloom, P. S., & Newell, A. (1987). Learning by chunking, a production system model of practice. In D. Klahr, P. Langley, R. Neches (Eds.). Production system models of learning and de v elopment (pp. 221–286). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  53. Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., & Jenkins, D. P. (2009). Distributed situation awareness: Theory, measurement and application to teamwork. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN: 978-0-7546-7058-2.Google Scholar
  54. Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sheridan, T. B., & Verplank, W. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Cambridge: Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT.Google Scholar
  56. Sperber, D. (2005). Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Spirkovska, L. (2010). Intelligent automation approach for improving pilot Situational awareness. NASA Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
  58. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed. 1947, 3rd ed. 1953). Princeton: Princeton University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Wickens, C. D. (1987). Information processing, decision-making and cognition. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Centered Design InstituteFlorida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA
  2. 2.NASA Kennedy Space CenterOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Florida Institute for Human and Machine CognitionPensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations