Advertisement

Multitasking and Interruption Management in Control Room Operator Work During Simulated Accidents

  • Jari LaarniEmail author
  • Hannu Karvonen
  • Satu Pakarinen
  • Jari Torniainen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9736)

Abstract

Our everyday life is full of interruptions, which cause problems in different situations. Therefore, efficient management of interruptions is a natural part of our daily activity, and we humans are experts at managing task switching and interruptions. Efficient management of interruptions is required in many tasks and domains such as in health care, aviation, car driving and office work. This paper focusses on control room (CR) operator work in nuclear power plants. CR operators have to manage interruptions in various plant states, and sometimes interruptions cause problems in their work. This paper is divided into two major parts: the first part is a short literature review of effects of multitasking and interruptions in work settings; the second part presents some experimental results of multitasking and interruption management during simulated accidents. Some suggestions are given to improve interruption and multitasking management in safety-critical domains.

Keywords

Multitasking Interruption management Nuclear power plant Control room operator 

References

  1. 1.
    Chisholm, C.D., Dornfeld, A.M., Nelson, D.R., Cordell, W.H.: Work interrupted: a comparison of workplace interruptions in emergency departments and primary care offices. Ann. Emerg. Med. 38, 146–151 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paoli, P., Merllié, D.: Third European Survey on Working Conditions 2000. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BAuA: Factssheet 01. Zeitdruck und Co-Arbeitsbedingungen mit hohem Stresspotenzial, Dortmund (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baethge, A., Rigotti, T., Roe, R.A.: Just more of the same, or different? An integrative theoretical framework for the study of cumulative interruptions at work. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 24, 308–323 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., Wilhite, S.A: Diary study of task switching and interruptions. In: Proceedings of CHI 2004, Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forsberg, H.H., Muntlin, Å., von Thiele Schwarz, U.: Nurses’ perceptions of multitasking in the emergency department: effective, fun and unproblematic (at least for me): - a qualitative study. Int. Emerg. Nurs. (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grundgeiger, T., Sanderson, P.: Interruptions in healthcare: theoretical views. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78, 293–307 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weigl, M., Müller, A., Vincent, C., Angerer, P., Sevdalis, N.: The association of workflow interruptions and hospital doctors’ workload: a prospective observational study. BMJ Qual. Saf. 21, 399–407 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sykes, E.R.: Interruptions in the workplace: a case study to reduce their effects. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 31, 385–394 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hollnagel, E.: Barriers and Accident Prevention. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carayon, P., Wetterneck, T.B., Hundt, A.S., Ozkaynak, M., DeSilvey, J., Ludwig, B., Ram, P., Steven, S.: Evaluation of nurse interaction with bar code medication administration technology in the work environment. J. Patient Saf. 3, 34–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, B.C., Duffy, V.G.: The effects of task interruption on human performance: a study of the systematic classification of human behaviour and interruption frequency. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 25, 137–152 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dismukes, K., Young, G., Battelle, R.S.: Cockpit Interruptions and Distractions: Effective Management Requires a Careful Balancing Act. ASRS Directline 10 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monk, C.A., Boehm-Davis, D.A., Trafton, J.G.: Recovering from interruptions: implications for driver distraction research. Hum. Factors 46, 650–663 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G.: Memory for goals: an activation-based model. Cogn. Sci. 26, 39–83 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iqbal, S.T., Bailey, B.P.: Leveraging Characteristics of Task Structure to Predict Costs of Interruption. In: Proceedings of the ACM CHI, Montreal, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oulasvirta, A., Saariluoma, P.: Surviving task interruptions: investigating the implications of long-term working memory theory. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64, 941–961 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Speier, C., Valacich, J.S., Vessey, I.: Information overload through interruptions: an empirical examination of decision making. Decis. Sci. 30, 337–360 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chishom, C.D., Collison, E.K., Nelson, D.R., Cordell, W.H.: Emergency department workplace interruptions: are emergency phycisians “interrupt-drive” and “multitasking”? Acad. Emerg. Med. 7, 1239–1243 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalisch, B.J., Aebersold, M.: Interruptions and multitasking in nursing care. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 36, 126–132 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Janssen, C.P., Gould, S.J.J., Li, S.Y.W., Brumby, D.P., Cox, A.L.: Integrating knowledge of multitasking and interruptions across different perspectives and research methods. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. (in press)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farrimond, S., Knight, R.G., Titov, N.: The effects of aging on remembering intentions: performance on a simulated shopping task. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 20, 533–555 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mark, G., Gudith, D., Klocke, U.: The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. In: Proceedings of CHI 2008, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beaman, C.P.: Auditory distraction from low-intensity noise: a review of the consequences for learning and workplace environments. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 19, 1041–1064 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones, D.M., Macken, W.I.: Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevant speech effect: implications for phonological coding in working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. 19, 369–381 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Colle, H.A.: Auditory encoding in visual short-term recall: effects of noise intensity and spatial location. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 19, 722–735 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tremblay, S., Jones, D.M.: The role of habituation in the irrelevant sound effect: evidence from the effects of token set size and rate of transition. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. 24, 659–671 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clark, W.W., Bohne, B.A.: Effects of noise on hearing. JAMA 281, 1658–1659 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spooner, A.J., Corley, A., Chaboyer, W., Hammond, N.E., Fraser, J.F.: Measurement of the frequency and source of interruptions occurring during bedside nursing handover in the intensive care unit: an observational study. Aust. Crit. Care 28, 19–23 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hodgetts, H.M., Vachon, F., Tremblay, S.: Background sound impairs interruption recovery in dynamic task situations: procedural conflict? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 28, 10–21 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boehm-Davis, D.A., Remington, R.: Reducing the disruptive effects of interruption: a cognitive framework for analysing the costs and benefits if intervention strategies. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41, 1124–1129 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Griffon-Fouco, M., Ghertman, F.: Recueil de Données sur les Facteurs Humains à Electricité de France [Collection of data on the human factors with Electricity of France]. In: Operational Safety of Nuclear Power Plants, pp. 157–172. Vienna International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria (1984)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mumaw, R.J., Roth, E.M., Vicente, K.J., Burns, C.M.: There is more to monitoring a nuclear power plant than meets the eye. Hum. Factors 42, 36–55 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Carvalho, P.V.R.: Ergonomic field studies in a nuclear power plant control room. Prog. Nucl. Energ. 48, 51–69 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Carvalho, P.V.R., Vidal, M.C.R., de Carvalho, E.F.: Nuclear power plant communications in normative and actual practice: a field study of control room operators’ communications. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 17, 43–78 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Furniss, D., Back, J., Blandford, A., Hildebrandt, M., Broberg, H.: A resilience markers framework for small teams. Rel. Eng. Sys. Saf. 96, 2–10 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jari Laarni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hannu Karvonen
    • 1
  • Satu Pakarinen
    • 2
  • Jari Torniainen
    • 2
  1. 1.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandEspooFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations