Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Cooperative Advocacy: An Approach for Integrating Diverse Perspectives in Anomaly Response

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper contrasts cooperative work in two cases of distributed anomaly response, both from space shuttle mission control, to learn about the factors that make anomaly response robust. In one case (STS-76), flight controllers in mission control recognized an anomaly that began during the ascent phase of a space shuttle mission, analyzed the implications of the failure for mission plans, and made adjustments to plans (the flight ended safely). In this case, a Cooperative Advocacy approach facilitated a process in which diverse perspectives were orchestrated to provide broadening and cross-checks that reduced the risk of premature narrowing. In the second case (the Columbia space shuttle accident—STS-107), mission management treated a debris strike during launch as a side issue rather than a safety of flight concern and was unable to recognize the dangers of this event for the flight which ended in tragedy. In this case, broadening and cross-checks were missing due to fragmentation over the groups involved in the anomaly response process. The comparison of these cases points to critical requirements for designing collaboration over multiple groups in anomaly response situations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Branlat, M., S. Anders, D.D. Woods and E.S. Patterson (2008): Detecting an Erroneous Plan: Does a System Allow for Effective Cross-Checking? In E. Hollnagel, C. Nemeth and S.W.A. Dekker (eds): Resilience Engineering: Remaining Sensitive to the Possibility of Failure., Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 247–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Columbia Accident Investigation Board (2003): Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Keyser, V. and D.D. Woods (1990): Fixation Errors: Failures to Revise Situation Assessment in Dynamic and Risky Systems. In A.G. Colombo and A. Saiz de Bustamante (eds): Systems Reliability Assessment (pp. 231–251). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elm, W., S. Potter, J. Tittle, D.D. Woods, J. Grossman and E.S. Patterson (2005): Finding decision support requirements for effective intelligence analysis tools. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

  • Fischer, U. and J. Orasanu (2000): Error-challenging strategies: Their role in preventing and correcting errors. In Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association 14th Triennial Congress and Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 44th Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, August 2000.

  • Flin, R. and K. Arbuthnot (eds) (2002): Incident Command: Tales from the Hot Seat. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • Flin, R., G. Slaven and K. Stewart (1996): Emergency decision making in the offshore oil and gas industry. Human Factors, vol. 38, pp. 262–277. doi:10.1518/001872096779048110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaba, D.M., M. Maxwell and A. DeAnda (1987): Anesthetic mishaps: breaking the chain of accident evolution. Anesthesiology, vol. 66, pp. 670–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, S.K. and B.S. Caldwell (2002): Mission Control Knowledge Synchronization: Operations To Reference Performance Cycles. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.

  • Gettys, C.F., R.M. Pliske, C. Manning and J.T. Casey (1987): An Evaluation of Human Act Generation Performance.

  • Hong, L. and S.E. Page (2002): Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-ability Problem Solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: Economic Sciences, vol. 101, pp. 16385–16389.

  • Johnson, P.E., K. Jamal and R.G. Berryman (1991): Effects of framing on auditor decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, pp. 75–105. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90035-R.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G., R. Pliske, B. Crandall and D. Woods (2005): Problem detection. Cognition Technology and Work, vol. 7(1), pp. 14–28. doi:10.1007/s10111-004-0166-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G., B. Moon and R.R. Hoffman (2006): Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 21(5), pp. 88–92. doi:10.1109/MIS.2006.100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (2007): Flexecution 1: flexible execution as a paradigm for re-planning. IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22(5), pp. 79–83. doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.4338498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, G. (2002): Extreme collaboration. Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, pp. 89–93. doi:10.1145/508448.508453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Militello, L.G., E.S. Patterson, L. Bowman and R. Wears (2007): Information flow during crisis management: challenges to coordination in the emergency operations center. Cognition Technology and Work, vol. 9, pp. 25–31. doi:10.1007/s10111-006-0059-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, S.E. (2007): The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E.S. and D.D. Woods (2001): Shift changes, updates, and the on-call model in space shuttle mission control. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 10, pp. 317–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E.S., J.C. Watts-Perotti and D.D. Woods (1999): Voice loops as coordination aids in space shuttle mission control. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 8, pp. 353–371. doi:10.1023/A:1008722214282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E.S., E.M. Roth and D.D. Woods (2001): Predicting vulnerabilities in computer-supported inferential analysis under data overload. Cognition Technology and Work, vol. 3(4), pp. 224–237. doi:10.1007/s10111-001-8004-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E.S., R.I. Cook, D.D. Woods and M.L. Render (2004): Examining the complexity behind a medication error: generic patterns in communication. IEEE SMC Part A, vol. 34, pp. 749–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Return to Flight Task Group (2005): Return to Flight Task Group Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J.W., J.B. Morrison and J.S. Carroll. The Dynamics of Action-Oriented Problem Solving: Linking Interpretation and Choice. Academy of Management Review, (2008) in press.

  • Shalin, V.L. (2005): The roles of humans and computers in distributed planning for dynamic domains. Cognition Technology and Work, vol. 7, pp. 198–211. doi:10.1007/s10111-005-0186-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck, L.G. and D.D. Woods (2000): Communication of Intent in Military Command and Control Systems. In Carol McCann and Ross Pigeau (eds): The Human in Command: Exploring the Modern Military Experience (pp. 279–292), New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.J., E. McCoy and C. Layton (1997): Brittleness in the design of cooperative problem-solving systems: the effects on user performance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 27, pp. 360–371. doi:10.1109/3468.568744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.J., M. Klopfenstein, J. Jezerinac and A. Spenser (2004): Distributed Work in the National Airspace System: Providing Feedback Loops Using the Post-Operations Evaluation Tool (POET). In B. Kirwan, M. Rodgers and D. Schaefer (eds): Human Factors Impacts in Air Traffic Management (pp. 127–152), London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.J., A.L. Spenser, C.E. Billings (2007): Strategies for designing distributed systems: Case Studies in the design of an Air Traffic Management System. Cognition Technology and Work, vol. 9, pp. 39–49.

  • Starbuck, W.H. and M. Farjoun (eds) (2005): Organization at the Limit: NASA and the Columbia disaster. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  • Watts-Perotti, J. and D.D. Woods (2007): How anomaly response is distributed across functionally distinct teams in space shuttle mission control. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, vol. 1(4), pp. 405–433. doi:10.1518/155534307X264889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D.D. (2005): Creating Foresight: Lessons for Resilience from Columbia. In W.H. Starbuck and M. Farjoun (eds): Organization at the limit: NASA and the Columbia Disaster (pp. 289–308), Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D.D. (2006): Essential Characteristics of Resilience for Organizations. In E. Hollnagel, D.D. Woods and N. Leveson (eds): Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts., Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D.D. and E.S. Patterson (2000): How Unexpected Events Produce an Escalation of Cognitive and Coordinative Demands. In P.A. Hancock and P. Desmond (eds.): Stress Workload and Fatigue (pp. 290--302), Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D.D. and E. Hollnagel (2006): Joint Cognitive Systems: Patterns in Cognitive Systems Engineering. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (first edition, pp. 1724–1770). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D.D., S.W.A. Dekker, R.I. Cook, L.L. Johannesen and N.B. Sarter (in press): Behind Human Error (Second Edition). Aldershot, Ashgate.

  • Zelik, D., E.S. Patterson and D.D. Woods (2007a): The Impact of Process Insight on Judgment of Analytic Rigor in Information Analysis. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting. October 1–5, Baltimore, MD.

  • Zelik, D., E.S. Patterson and D.D. Woods (2007b): Understanding Rigor in Information Analysis: The Role of Rigor in Professional Intelligence Analysis. In K. Mosier and U. Fischer (eds): Proceedings of Naturalistic Decision Making 8, June 2007.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    David D. Woods

  2. Xerox Innovation Group, Rochester, NY, USA

    Jennifer Watts-Perotti

Authors
  1. Jennifer Watts-Perotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. David D. Woods
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David D. Woods.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Watts-Perotti, J., Woods, D.D. Cooperative Advocacy: An Approach for Integrating Diverse Perspectives in Anomaly Response. Comput Supported Coop Work 18, 175–198 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-008-9085-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-008-9085-4

Key words