Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adapting plans in progress in distributed supervisory work: aspects of complexity, coupling, and control

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Distributed supervisory control systems often rely on complex and centralized plans to cope with a variety of unanticipated situations. Replanning requires practitioners to forgo standard procedures in favor of making simple plans without simplifying, managing task coupling, and anticipating team needs to provide decentralized and elaborate plans. This article proposes a plan classification scheme to study what features of plans facilitate or hinder adaptation and a framework to examine how features of plans influence the cognitive processes of replanning. The plan features have been assigned to the categories of plan complexity, coupling, and control. Plans are task networks sharing similar features of complexity and coupling to technical systems. The proposed framework sets out to explore how plan features influence the processes of recognizing plan disruptions, reviewing challenges and different team stances, repairing plans to resolve new risks, and reacting by coordinating team efforts to execute plans. The framework draws on the Extended Control Model (ECOM) to integrate the four processes of replanning into a set of control loops. The benefits of this framework are illustrated in the context of operator training and decision support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyris C, Schon DA (1996) Organizational learning II: theory, method and practice. Addison-Wesley, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Artman H (1998) Team decision making and situation awareness in military command and control. In: Waern Y (ed) Cooperative process management. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 55–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Artman H (1999) Situation awareness and cooperation within and between hierarchical units in a dynamic decision making. Ergonomics 42:1404–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer B (1992) Dynamic decision making: human control of complex systems. Acta Psy 81:211–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer B (2005) The dynamic OODA loop: amalgmating Boyd’s OODA loop and cybernetic approaches to command and control. In: Proceedings of the 10th international C2 research and technology symposium, McLean, VA

  • Brehmer B, Svenmarck P (1995) Distributed decision making in dynamic environments: time scales and architectures of decision making. In: Cvarni JP, Bar-Hiller M, Barron FH, Jungermann H (eds) Contributions to decision making. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 155–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow R, Christoffersen K, Woods DD (2000) A model of communication in support of distributed anomaly response and replanning. In: Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 congress, human factors and ergonomics society, Santa Monica

  • Clarke DM (2005) Human redundancy in complex, hazardous systems: a theoretical framework. Saf Sci 43:655–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox MT, Zhang C (2007) Mixed initiative goal manipulation, AI Magazine 28(2):62–73

    Google Scholar 

  • de Brito G (2002) Towards a model for the study of written procedure following in dynamic environments. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75:233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker S (2006) The field guide to understanding human error. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker S, Hollnagel E (eds) (1999) Coping with computers in the cockpit. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorner D (1996) The logic of failure. Perseus Books, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthereau V, Hollnagel E (2005) Planning, control and adaptation: a case study. Eur Manage J 23:118–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopher P (1993) The skill of attention control: acquisition and execution of attention strategies. In: Meyer DE, Kolburn S (eds) Attention and performance XIV. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote G (2005) Understanding and assessing safety culture through the lens of organizational management of uncertainty. Saf Sci 45:637–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote G, Weighbrodt JC, Gunter H, Mezo EZ, Kunzle B (2009) Coordination in high risk organizations: the need for flexible routines. Cogn Tech Work 11:17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc JM (2006) Planning in dynamic situations: some Findings in complex supervisory control. In: van Wezel W, Jorna RJ, Meystel AM (eds), Planning in intelligent systems: aspects, motivations, and methods, Wiley, Blackwell, pp 57–98

  • Hoc JM, Lemoine MP (1998) Cognitive evaluation of human-human and human-machine cooperation modes in air traffic control. Int J Aviat Psy 8:1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (1992) Coping, coupling and control: the modeling of muddling through. In: Invited paper for ‘Mental models and everyday activities’ in second interdisciplinary workshop on mental models, March 23–25, 1992, Robinson College, Cambridge, UK

  • Hollnagel E (1993) Human reliability analysis: context and control. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (1995) The art of efficient man-machine interaction: improving the coupling between man and machine. In: Hoc JM, Cacciabue PC, Hollnagel E (eds) Expertise and technology: cognition and human computer cooperation. Laurence Erlbaum Ass, New York, pp 229–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (1998) Context, cognition and control. In: Waern Y (ed) Co-operation in process management-cognition and information technology. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2002) Time and time again. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 3(2):143–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2004) Barriers and accident prevention. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2009) The ETTO principle: efficiency—thoroughness trade-off. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods DD (2005) Joint cognitive systems. Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Taylor & Francis, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffroy J, Charron S (1997) From safety assessment to research in the domain of human factors: the case of operation with computerised procedures. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE conference on human factors and power plants, Orlando, Florida

  • Johannesen LJ, Cook RI, Woods DD (1994) Cooperative communications in dynamic fault management. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 38th annual meeting, Santa Monica, CA, pp 225–229

  • Klein GA (1998) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein GA, Miller TE (1999) Distributed planning teams. Int J Cogn Ergon 3:203–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein GA, Pierce LG (2001) Adaptive teams. In: Proceedings of the 6th ICCRTS collaboration in the information age track 4: C2 decision making and cognitive analysis. Retrieved from: http://www.dodccrp.org/6thICCRTS

  • Klein G, Pliske R, Crandall B, Woods DD (2005a) Problem detection. Cogn Tech Work 7:14–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein GA, Feltovich PJ, Bradshaw JM, Woods DD (2005b) Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In: Rouse WB, Boff KR (eds) Organizational simulation. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 139–184

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klein GA, Phillips JK, Rall E, Peluso A (2007) A data-frame theory of sensemaking. In: Hoffman RR (ed) Expertise out of context. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 113–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis T, Hollnagel E (1998) Application of cognitive ergonomics to interface design of advanced technologies. Int J Cogn Ergon 2(3):243–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Koros A, Della Roco PS, Panjwani G, Ingurgio V, D’Arcy JF (2006) Complexity in airport traffic control towers: a field study. Part 2. Controller strategies and information requirements. Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-06/22 (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia

  • Layton C, Smith PJ, McCoy E (1994) Design of a cooperative problem solving system for en-route flight planning: an empirical evaluation. Hum Factors 36:94–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Leveson N (2002) System safety engineering: back to the future. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://sunnyday.mit.edu/book2.pdf

  • Means B, Salas E, Crandall B, Jacobs TO (1993) Training decision makers for the real world. In: Klein GA, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok CE (eds) Decision making in action: models and methods. Ablex Publishing, New Jersey, pp 306–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller A, Xiao Y (2007) Multi-level strategies to achieve resilience for an organization operating at capacity: a case study of trauma centre. Cogn Tech Work 9:51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumaw RJ, Roth EM, Vicente KJ, Burns CM (2000) There is more to monitoring a nuclear power plant than meets the eye. Hum Factors 42:36–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orasanu J, Martin L, Davison J (2001) Cognitive and contextual factors in aviation accidents: decision errors. In: Salas E, Klein GA (eds) Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson ES, Woods DD (2001) Shift changes, updates, and the on-call model in space shuttle mission control. Comp Sup Coop Work 8:353–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson ES, Watts-Perotti J, Woods DD (1999) Voice loops as coordination aids in space shuttle mission control. Comp Sup Coop Work 8:353–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: living with high risk technologies, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J, Pejtersen AM, Schmidt K (1990) Taxonomy for cognitive work analysis, RISO Report, RISO-M-2871, RISO National Laboratory, Denmark

  • Riley JM, Endsley MR, Bolstad CA, Cuevas HM (2006) Collaborative planning and situation awareness in army command and control. Ergonomics 49:1139–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts KH (1993) Cultural characteristics of reliability enhancing organizations. J Manage Issues 5:165–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth EM, Mumaw RJ, Lewis PM (1994) An empirical investigation of operator performance in cognitively demanding simulated emergencies. NUREG/CR-6208. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothrock L, Harvey CM, Burns J (2005) A theoretical framework and quantitative architecture to assess team task complexity in dynamic environments. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 6:157–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA, Johnston JH (1997) How can you turn a team of experts into an expert team ? In: Zsambok CE, Klein GA (eds) Naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoiates, New Jersey, pp 359–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Serfaty D, Entin EE (1996) Team adaptation and coordination training. In: Flin R, Salas E, Strub M, Martin L (eds) Decision making under stress: emerging themes and applications. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp 170–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck LG, Woods DD (2000) Communication of intent in military command and control systems. In: McCann C, Pigeau R (eds) The human in command: exploiting the modern military experience. Kluwer, New York, pp 279–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan TB (1992) Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods DD, Hollnagel E (2006) Joint cognitive systems: patterns in cognitive systems engineering. Taylor & Francis, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao Y, Hunter WA, MacKenzie CF, Jeffries NJ, Horst R (1996) Task complexity in emergency medical case and its implications for team coordination. Hum Factors 38:636–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, University Campus, 73100, Chania, Crete, Greece

    Tom Kontogiannis

Authors
  1. Tom Kontogiannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Kontogiannis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kontogiannis, T. Adapting plans in progress in distributed supervisory work: aspects of complexity, coupling, and control. Cogn Tech Work 12, 103–118 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-010-0150-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-010-0150-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation