Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluating the generalizability of the Organizational Constraints Analysis framework: a hospital bed management case study

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

Abstract

Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) provides useful tools for analyzing and modeling work constraints that can inform the development of systems design requirements. However, it does not provide effective tools for analyzing and modeling organizational constraints that can inform the development of organizational design requirements. By integrating organizational theories with the CWA approach, we developed the Organizational Constraints Analysis framework, a formative approach to the analysis, modeling, and design of the organization of work. In this paper, we test the generalizability of the framework by using its two analytical templates—the Organizational Constraints model and Work Possibilities diagram—to analyze the hospital bed management work domain. The research findings suggest that the concepts, investigative probes, and notations from the analytical templates can be applied to complex work domains beyond those in which it was initially developed. We conclude with suggestions for how the Organizational Constraints Analysis framework can complement CWA methods by helping researchers and practitioners develop a broader organizational perspective on the constraints that drive how work can be done in organizations.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1:83–99

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ashoori M, Burns C (2012) Team cognitive work analysis: structure and control tasks. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. Available from: http://edm.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/03/1555343412445577.abstract [accessed 20 Sep 2012]

  • Bardram J (2000) Temporal coordination: on time and coordination of collaborative activities at a surgical department. Comput Suppprt Co-op Work 9:157–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blandford AE, Hyde JK, Green TRG, Connell I (2008) Scoping analytical usability evaluation methods: a case study. Hum Comput Interact 23:278–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowston K, Rubleske J, Howison J (2006) Coordination theory: a ten-year retrospective. In: Zhang P, Galletta D (eds) Human–computer interaction in management information systems. M. E. Sharpe, Inc, Armonk, NY, pp 120–138

  • Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2009) Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Adm Sci Q 54:413–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Euerby A, Burns CM (2012) Designing for social engagement in online social networks using communities-of-practice theory and cognitive work analysis: a case study. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 6(2):194–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm Sci Q 48:94–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flach JM (2012) Complexity: learning to muddle through. Cogn Technol Work 14:187–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick CJG, Hackman JR (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ Behav Hum Dec Process 47:65–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajdukiewicz JR, Vicente KJ (2004) A theoretical note on the relationship between work domain analysis and task analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 5:527–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajdukiewicz JR, Vicente KJ, Doyle DJ, Milgram P, Burns CM (2001) Modeling a medical environment: an ontology for integrated medical informatics design. Int J Med Inf 62:79–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes GR, Lee CP, Dourish P (2011) Organizational routines, innovation, and flexibility: the application of narrative networks to dynamic workflow. Int J Med Inform 80:161–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman RR, Crandall B, Shadbolt N (1998) Use of the critical decision method to elicit expert knowledge: a case study in the methodology of cognitive task analysis. Hum Factors 40:254–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland JH (1995) Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz D, Kahn RL (1966) The social psychology of organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organisations. Adm Sci Q 12:1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 26:87–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83:340–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Naikar N, Pearce B, Drumm D, Sanderson PM (2003) Designing teams for first-of-a-kind, complex systems using the initial phases of cognitive work analysis: case study. Hum Factors 45:202–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth CP (2012) Adapting to change and uncertainty. Cogn Technol Work 14:183–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen J (1994) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn RE, Rohrbaugh J (1983) A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Manag Sci 29:363–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J, Pejtersen A, Goodstein L (1994) Cognitive systems engineering. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy M, Dourish P, Pratt W (2006) Temporality in medical work: time also matters. Comput Supp Co-op Work 15:29–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: towards safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organizing. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiao T, Sanderson P, Neal A, Clayton S (2013) The organizational constraints analysis framework: a formative approach to the analysis, modelling and design of organizations (in preparation)

  • Zerubavel E (1979) Patterns of time in hospital life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Australian Research Council Grant DP0880920 to Sanderson and Venkatesh. The authors thank the staff members in the Princess Alexandra Hospital Hospital Bed Management Unit for their time and support. Finally, the authors acknowledge the help from members of the Cognitive Engineering Research Group (CERG) at The University of Queensland and National ICT Australia (NICTA) for their comments on the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tania Xiao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xiao, T., Sanderson, P. Evaluating the generalizability of the Organizational Constraints Analysis framework: a hospital bed management case study. Cogn Tech Work 16, 229–246 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-013-0260-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-013-0260-0

Keywords

Navigation