Copyright © 1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cognitive ergonomics is the study of cognition in the workplace with a view to design technologies, organizations, and learning environments. Cognitive ergonomics analyzes work in terms of cognitive representations and processes, and contributes to designing workplaces that elicit and support reliable, effective, and satisfactory cognitive processing. Cognitive ergonomics overlaps with related disciplines such as human factors, applied psychology, organizational studies, and HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION.
The emergence of cognitive ergonomics as a unitary field of research and practice coincides with the rapid transformation of the workplace following the growth of complex technological environments and the widespread introduction of information technologies to automate work processes. The computerized workplace has generalized flexible and self-directed forms of work organization (Zuboff 1988; Winograd and Flores 1986). These transformations have raised a set of psychological, social, and technological issues: the development of competencies to master work processes through the new technology, the cognitive shift involved in the transition from controlling a process to monitoring automated systems (Bainbridge 1987; Sarter and Woods 1992), the acquisition of skills to use interactive tools, the transfer of knowledge and skills from the old to the new workplace. Technological innovation has also opened the possibility of improving human performance by aiding, expanding, and reorganizing human cognitive activities through the design of advanced tools, a challenge addressed by cognitive engineering and usability (Hollnagel and Woods 1983; Norman and Draper 1986; Nielsen 1993).
Cognitive ergonomics approaches these issues, on the one hand, by developing models of the knowledge structures and information-processing mechanisms that explain how individuals carry out their work tasks (doing PLANNING, PROBLEM SOLVING, DECISION-MAKING, using tools, and coordinating with other people); on the other, by developing methods for redefining the engineering process of workplace design. The two activities are tightly coupled because the integration of user needs and requirements in the design of systems and organizations is seen as the only possible answer for successful transformation of the workplace. User-centered design grounds the design process on general and domain-specific models of cognitive activity and is characterized by extensive investigation of user's goals, tasks, job characteristics, and by continual iterations of design and user testing of solutions. User-centered design encompasses a variety of methods to collect and analyze data about tasks and context of use, and of techniques to test and measure interactions between users and computer systems (Helander 1988).
General models of cognitive work-oriented activity have been developed to account for the complexity of human behaviors produced in work situations (Rasmussen 1986), to explain erroneous action (Norman 1981; Reason 1990), and to conceptualize human-computer interaction (Card, Moran, and Newell 1983; Norman and Draper 1986). Rasmussen's model of work activity distinguishes between automatic, automated, and deliberate behaviors, controlled respectively by skills, rules, and knowledge. Whereas skills and rules are activated in familiar situations, the elaboration of explicit understanding of the current situation and of a deliberate plan for action is necessary to deal with unfamiliar or unexpected situations. This framework has spurred several specific models of process control activities in, among others, fighter aircraft (Amalberti 1996), nuclear power plants (Woods, O'Brien, and Hanes 1987), steel plants (Hoc 1996), and surgical units (Cook and Woods 1994; De Keyser and Nyssen 1993).
The distinction between levels of cognitive control has also been the key to apprehend the reliability of the human component of the workplace. Reason's model (1990) of human error identifies slips and lapses caused respectively by ATTENTION and WORKING MEMORY failures at the skill-level of control; rule-based and knowledge-based mistakes caused by the selection/application of the wrong rule or by inadequate knowledge; and violations that account for intentional breaches of operational procedures.
Norman (1986) formulates a general model of human-computer interaction in terms of a cycle of execution and evaluation. The user translates goals into intentions and into action sequences compatible with physical variables, and evaluates the system state with respect to initial goals after perceiving and interpreting the system state. Bridging what Hutchins, Hollan, and Norman (1986) have named the Gulf of Execution and the Gulf of Evaluation, interaction can be facilitated by providing input and output functions for the user interface that match more closely the psychological needs of the user, building in AFFORDANCES that constrain the interpretation of the system state, and by providing coherent and clear design models that support users in building mental models of the system.
The bulk of the research in cognitive ergonomics has been carried out on domain-specific work processes. Viewed from an organizational perspective, work processes can be decomposed into sets of tasks, of which explicit descriptions exist in the form of procedures. Task analysis methods combine operational procedure analysis and interviews with experts to describe the cognitive requirements, i.e., demands on MEMORY, attention, understanding, and coordination for realizing each step of the task (Diaper 1989). Leplat (1981) points out the gap that exists between normative accounts of work and actual practice, and argues for activity analysis of work to be carried out in the field, using techniques derived from ethnography. Viewed from an activity perspective, work processes involve problem setting, problem solving, troubleshooting, and collaborating. Roth and Woods (1988) see the work process as problem solving and combine a conceptual analysis of what is required to solve the problem, in terms of EXPERTISE, CAUSAL REASONING, DEDUCTIVE REASONING, decision making, and resource management, with empirical observation of how agents solve the problem in practice. Their study provides options for better meeting the cognitive demands of the task and gives rise to proposals for the design and development of new information displays that enhance agents' ability to anticipate process behavior.
A new perspective on work is emerging from Hutchins's research on distributed cognition. Hutchins (1995) takes the work process as problem solving that is dealt with by the workplace as a whole: a culturally organized setting, comprising individuals, organizational roles, procedures, tools, and practices. The cognitive processes necessary to carry out tasks are distributed between cognitive agents and COGNITIVE ARTIFACTS. Hutchins (1991) shows, for instance, that aircraft are flown by a cockpit system that includes pilots, procedures, manuals, and instruments. This view, while keeping within the information processing paradigm of cognition, recognizes fully the social and cultural dimensions of the workplace, counteracting a tendency to overestimate the cognitive processes at the expense of environmental, organizational, and contextual factors.
Amalberti, R. (1996). La Conduite des Systèmes à Risque. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Bainbridge, L. (1987). Ironies of automation. In J. Rasmussen, K. D. Duncan, and J. Leplat, Eds., New Technology and Human Error. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 271-284.
Card, S. K., T. P. Moran, and A. Newell. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carroll, J. M., Ed. (1991). Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, R. I., and D. D. Woods. (1994). Operating at the sharp end: the complexity of human error. In M. S. Bogner, Ed., Human Error in Medicine. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Keyser, V., and A. S. Nyssen. (1993). Les erreurs humaines en anesthésie. Le Travail Humain 56:243-266.
Diaper, D., Ed. (1989). Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. New York: Wiley.
Helander, M., Ed. (1988). Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. New York: Elsevier.
Hollnagel, E., and D. D. Woods. (1983). Cognitive systems engineering: new wine in new bottles. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 18:583-600.
Hoc, J. M. (1996). Supervision et Contrôle de Processus: la Cognition en Situation Dynamique. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Hutchins, E. (1991). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engstrom and D. Middleton, Eds., Communication and Cognition at Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hutchins, E., J. Hollan, and D. A. Norman. (1986). Direct Manipulation Interfaces. In D. A. Norman and S. Draper, Eds., User Centered System Design: New Perspectives in Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leplat, J. (1981). Task analysis and activity analysis in field diagnosis. In J. Rasmussen and W. B. Rouse, Eds., Human Detection and Diagnosis of Systems Failure. New York: Plenum Press.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston, MA: Academic Press.
Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review 88:1-15.
Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman and S. Draper, Eds., User Centered System Design: New Perspectives in Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Norman, D. A., and S. Draper, Eds. (1986). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives in Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roth, M., and D. D. Woods. (1988). Aiding human performance I: cognitive analysis. Le Travail Humain 51:39-64.
Sarter, N., and D. D. Woods. (1992). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: operational experiences with the Flight Management System. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 2:303-321.
Winograd, T., and F. Flores. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Corp.
Woods, D. D., J. O'Brien, and L. F. Hanes. (1987). Human factors' challenges in process-control: the case of nuclear power plants. In G. Salvendy, Ed., Handbook of Human Factors/Ergonomics. New York: Wiley.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. Basic Books.
Button, G., Ed. (1993). Technology in Working Order. London: Routledge.
Carroll, J. M. (1997). Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design. Annual Review of Psychology 48:61-83.
Carroll, J. M., Ed. (1987). Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engestrom, Y., and D. Middleton, Eds. (1991). Communication and Cognition at Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gallagher, J., R. Krant, and C. Egido, Eds. (1990). Intellectual Teamwork. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenbaum, J., and M. Kying, Eds. (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hollnagel, E., G. Mancini, and D. D. Woods, Eds. (1986). Intelligent Decision Support in Process Environments. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Norman, D. A. (1987). The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books.
Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that Make Us Smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Shneiderman, B. (1982). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Suchman, L. A., Ed. (1995). Special section on representations of work. Communications of ACM 38:33-68.
Woods, D. D., and M. Roth. (1988). Aiding human performance II: from cognitive analysis to support systems. Le Travail Humain 51:139-159.
Copyright © 1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology