International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Cognitive work analysis to comprehend operations and organizations

in the mining industry
Serenay Demir, Elie Abou-Jaoude, Mustafa Kumral ⇑
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal H3A 0E8, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Complex industrial systems, including mining, have a prominent challenge in understanding the interre-
Received 25 December 2016 lationship among the cognitive processes, working environment and available equipment. The concept of
Received in revised form 18 January 2017 cognitive work analysis (CWA) transcends the traditional analytic methods of evaluating human tasks
Accepted 9 March 2017
solely based on perceptual and physical traits, and rather implements the notions of behavioral and cog-
Available online xxxx
nitive awareness indispensable for the intricacy of modern technology. In the last few decades, academic
and industrial settings employ this type of analysis to set a suitable standard for a system’s safety feasi-
Keywords:
bility, and as a result reduce human-based errors. This research paper analyzes current CWA methods and
Cognitive work analysis
Mining operations
proposes a five-level quantification model portraying the overall cognitive quality of a mining operation.
Cognitive awareness Ó 2017 Published by Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
Work domain This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
Human behavior nd/4.0/).
Safety

1. Introduction requirements. A socio-technical system has a special focus in func-

A dynamic relationship among human, environment and tech-
nology exists in various industries. In this relationship, the unpre-
dictability of human decision raises a wide number of concerns,
leaving room for improvement in the coordination of engineering
complexes such as mining, nuclear, aerospace and other hazardous
systems. In a workplace, being a social organization, supervisory
activities and coordination among individuals and teams are
implemented through cognitive transactions. Given that cognitive
constraints and capabilities determine work efficiency of individu-
als and work group, analytic investigation of cognitive states and
processes in a work place could enhance work conditions. Ergo-
nomic principles of understanding the interactions between
humans and other elements of the system could increase the over-
all system performance, improve human well-being and aware-
ness, and thus reduce safety problems.
Human error factors, as will be seen further in this paper, con-
sequently make the mining industry exceedingly vulnerable to
accidents, which are generally related to human factors. To reduce
and control safety problems, hazard identification and emergency
management approaches are required. In this context, cognitive
work analysis (CWA) can be seen as a guide for a complex socio-
technical system such as mining and a strong potential for these
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mustafa.kumral@mcgill.ca (M. Kumral).
tionality on the social processes in terms of communication and
cooperation. This approach focuses on designing systems which
personal, social, technological, and organizational aspects in a
workplace are considered, and then convert them into system
design [1,2]. Therefore, CWA classifies those factors in a thorough
structure in which it derives the peculiar design process of a min-
ing system and its uncertainties by concentrating design on the
constraints [3]. In engineering context, it detects and analyses
complicated work capabilities and constraints such that a func-
tional work atmosphere will be created in a robust manner.
Initially defined as a conceptual framework for analyzing the
forces that shape human-information interaction, the CWA faces
a perplexing challenge. The psychological aspects of a working
individual play a crucial role in the approach of a machinery task,
sometimes beyond the formal training [4]. The cognitive aware-
ness could be described in this context as a decisive procedure of
both conscious (perceptions, logical reasoning, and training knowl-
edge) and unconscious (emotional health, social conditioning, and
thoughts) nature, and the singularity of each human cognitive pro-
cess may easily induce biases. Combined with the complexity of
technological design and the entanglement of environmental fac-
tors, the necessary question to ask is what strategy should specif-
ically be used to assess the interconnectedness between those
three prevailing forces (Fig. 1).
To solve this problem having dilemmatic nature, it is required
that a rectification of those three forces into multiple and precise

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.008
2095-2686/Ó 2017 Published by Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article in press as: Demir S et al. Cognitive work analysis to comprehend operations and organizations in the mining industry. Int J Min Sci
Technol (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.008
2 S. Demir et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Interconnectedness between the three prevailing forces in the CWA.
factors, and then forming an elaborated quantitative model, be
made. The CWA is divided into a five-step analysis, each of which
linearly focuses on a more detailed aspect of the general mining
system. Extensive data collection, through observation, documen-
tation and direct communication with working individuals, is usu-
ally conducted by a handful of experts in the field, which could
paradoxically result in biased results due to their own set of cogni-
tive thoughts. However, given the interaction between the pro-
posed 11 factors, and considering each factor itself as composed
of many characteristics, adding up to 35 in total, the model shows
a fair representation on the cognitive quality of the mine and its
safety feasibility, as shown in Table 1.
In this paper, a five-level quantification approach is presented
to assess the overall cognitive quality of a mining operation in such
a way as to put a specific emphasis on safety issues. Given that
human errors is a significant source of mining accident, the pro-
posed approach has potential to reach to zero harm objective of
mining operations [26,27].
2. Related work
Significant progress has been made in comprehending human
behavior such as the process of decision-making under uncertainty
and the effect of cognitive and motivational biases on the output of
risk analysis [5,6]. Engineering fields recognize the human mind as
a complex network having an assertive role in the completion of a
project, but much confusion arise regarding the factors affecting
human performance and potential ways to improve it [7]. As an
example, the equipment design or the working environment might
seem as influential factors, however, without the subjective aware-
ness of each working individual, these external objective forces
cannot be defined as correlating effects, but merely as independent
units.
Until the half of the 20th century, tasks were mostly physical
and repetitive, and human-factor engineering introduced an ele-
mentary form of task analysis, which simply examines the only
and most efficient way of performing a task [8]. The role of cogni-
tive processes and external components in early industrial
domains appeared extraneous in assessing the probability of unan-
ticipated events. Subsequently, the need for an applicable tool
arose in industries integrating logical process and automation as
part of their systems, and therefore the concept of cognitive anal-
ysis became an emerging research area. Rasmussen et al. devel-
oped the CWA framework as a general approach of investigating
the task itself, the work domain, the strategies and the cognitive
processes. Initially, this approach was implemented in nuclear
power plants, known for their extensive systems, and their precar-
ious management of accidents by operators [9,10]. The CWA has
paved the way towards different frameworks such as ecological
interface design, which is designing the interfaces in complex
socio-technical systems as a primary focus and resolving small
and medium-scale issues in petrochemical, nuclear and other
Please cite this article in press as: Demir S et al. Cognitive work analysis to comprehend operations and organizations in the mining industry. Int J Min Sci
Technol (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.008
process control systems [11]. Overall, the methodological frame-
work of the CWA could benefit from overcoming the uncertainties
arising from the interactive mining system, as seen in the dis-
cussed model in the following section.
CWA has been used in many engineering areas. For example,
Salmon et al. applied CWA to rail level crossing systems such that
a range of situations where systems thinking could be modified or
re-designed to improve behavior, and safety was determined [12].
Hilliard and Jamieson utilized the CWA to monitor and target
energy efficiency. In the mining industry, CWA started to attract
interest [13]. Xiao et al. applied work domain analysis, which is
the first step of CWA, to an Australian underground coal mine con-
sidering the investigation of the mine emergency management
requirements of control room operators [14].
3. Cognitive work analysis levels
The initial aim of the CWA research is to meticulously analyze
all the components of an industrial complex system (e.g. mining),
and then arrange them into five different categories, with their
own specific level of details: work domain, control task, strategy,
social organization and cooperation, and Worker’s competencies.
In turn, each level has its own methodology of interpreting and col-
lecting the available data with a qualitative acquisition tool used
by experts in the field [10,15,16,20,24].
3.1. Level 1: Work domain analysis
This level highlights the general characteristics of the system. In
mining context, the objective is to unfold the mining system and
its constraints that all stakeholders expose. Overall productivity
of consecutive operations such as rock fragmentation, materials
handling, mineral processing or equipment reliability, requires an
indispensable comprehension of the environmental force and its
constraints. Accordingly, the expert tools such as abstraction hier-
archy and abstraction decomposition space probe classified docu-
ments, operation manuals and interviews with working
individuals to reveal those constraints and the preeminent objec-
tive of the mine rather than its detailed functionalities. Abstraction
hierarchy includes system goals along with its external restrictions
on operation, organizational structure with a measured functional
criterion, general criteria that functional criteria is built on, and
functional capabilities of mining equipment. The outcome of this
stage will detail the mining system on the basis of the constrains
affecting equipment and human behavior.
3.2. Level 2: Control task analysis
The second level, control task analysis, evaluates the essence of
the tasks, relevant to the functional purposes determined in the
level above. Hence, every aspect of the technological design, such
as its compatibility and its efficiency to the assigned role can be
identified, as well as the degree of simplicity in implementing roles
for each working individual. The specific tasks are listed to accom-
plish the goals within a work domain. In a mining operation, there
are many tasks regarding analyzing, controlling, implementing,
assisting, coaching, coordinating, developing, inspecting,
maintaining, evaluating, motivating, making decision, monitoring,
predicting, computing and communicating. For example, tasks in
bench drilling include clearing bench, borehole examination, mak-
ing holes, equipment inspection and maintenance, hole bottom
cleaning, bit replacement, determination of spacing, burden and
inclination. It also involves communication between mine
foreman, drill operator and the engineer; coordinating priming,
loading, and stemming holes; and safety measures. The acquisition
 S. Demir et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Table 1
Cognitive analysis modeling table for the quantification of the cognitive work domain quality.
Cognitive work quality Cognitive work
factor (CWQi) characteristics
(a) Ming domain
Characteristics of mine System functionality
domain (CMD) Constraint management
Target attainability and
optimization
Mine design and Mine planning and
environment (MD&E) scheduling
Safety precautions (mine
and assets)
Operation system
(b) Control task analysis
Tools design (TD) Design compatibility
Efficiency for task
completion
Availability of equipment
Task implementation Guidelines and procedures
(TI) of task
Performance criteria well-
defined
(c) Strategies analysis
Strategy analysis (SA) Management of
uncalculated event
Availability of methods of
task completion
(d) Social organization and cooperation analysis
Supervision (S) Clarity of instructions and
procedures
Mine and asset
sustainability
Time management
Mining culture (MC) Incentives
Mining community
involvement
Safety and emergency plan
Teamwork and Roles and responsibilities
communication
(T&C) Communication
Involvement and
coordination
(e) Worked competencies analysis
Performance Formal/continuous training
requirements (PR) Skill-based behavior
Rule-based behavior
Knowledge-based behavior
Physical and mental Arm, leg, back strength and
fitness (P&MF) endurance level
Emotional stability
Concentration alertness and
memory
Self-satisfaction
Acute sight
Cognitive demand of Logical reasoning
task (CDT) Perception skills and
knowledge
Stress handling capacity
Social skills and experience
methods are that cognitive walk-through and study of work prac-
tices and the recommended tools are either decision ladder or con-
textual activity template [22]. The decision ladder helps different
Please cite this article in press as: Demir S et al. Cognitive work analysis to comprehend operations and organizations in the mining industry. Int J Min Sci
Technol (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.008
3
Characteristic rating
5-Excellent; 3-Good; 1-Average; 0-Poor
Defining the function and the purpose of the system and creating a work environment accordingly
Effectively managing the environmental, legal and technical constraints posed on the working domain
Achieving the defined common goals and targets of the domain
Meeting long range planning goals by creating an efficient mining production plan
Ensuring a safe environment for employees and equipment (i.e. Ground support, geotechnical design)
Attaining optimal operation system, and creating the most time-efficient schedule to meet production
deadlines and targets
The equipment suitability for the required task
How efficient is the current set of tools for the task completion (quality, safety, productivity and so on)
Having an easily accessible and available equipment for the task completion
Ensuring the accessibility of information sources and data
How well-defined is the criteria for assuring outstanding performance
Handling unanticipated events and being prepared for novel situations
Ensuring the accessibility of available methods and different strategies pathways
Excellent communication is necessary between the employees and supervisor in order to assure optimal and
safe performance
Maintain mine and assets quality to be fit for continuous activity
Activities must maintain their time deadlines and ensure that tasks are completed on time
Encourage good working habits by evaluation financial business and safety performance and rewarding with
salary and bonus
Workers participate in volunteering and community activities in the mine domain
The mine site is well-structured for any possible emergency situation, with specific plans and guidelines
Roles and responsibilities for each actor is different and should be well-defined to comprehend abilities and
specializations
Information flows freely according to the organizational structure of the mine domain, and the different
workers have access to that information by efficient communication system
The activities of the workers require a certain level of coordination and feedback mechanism
Level of formal and professional training completed by the workers
Automated responses to alerting events. Does not require much cognitive process. Mostly used in physical
processes, i.e., operating a machine
The workers are able to verbalize their thoughts and generate behaviors through their experiences, i.e.,
following safety instruction for truck haulage
More complex and demanding process where the workers take the individual and system goals into
consideration with analytical reasoning and problem solving skills
Physical condition to conduct any required task using mining equipment
Stress management and handling unexpected situations. Mental health issues
The workers are able to stay focused during task completion and memories important details and facts
The workers are confident in the abilities and satisfied with the way of task completion
The workers have a great vision and a rapid reflex to any situation
Dealing with novel situation by improving knowledge-based behavior and high level of logical reasoning
Perceiving the general demand of the task and applying knowledge to a problem with an extensive
perspective
Managing the stress facing a situation or a problem
The ability to learn and adapt new and professional knowledge; level of experience of workers
type of staff use short cuts to make decisions. The control task
analysis determines functions and their costs within different
locations.
4 S. Demir et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
3.3. Level 3: Strategies analysis
Strategies analysis constitutes the third phase of the CWA. After
outlining the work domain and the required task in previous
stages, the strategies analysis moves towards the specific factors
that may prevent the task from completion and the management
of uncalculated risks. It helps to identify all of the alternative
strategies by which the control tasks can be implemented. The
strategies analysis diagram (SAD) can implement the strategies
analysis phase [23]. The acquisition methods are critical decision
methods, interaction analysis and verbal protocol analysis. After
gathering the necessary information, the recommended tool for
demonstration is information flow map.
3.4. Level 4: Social organization and cooperation analysis
The fourth level of the CWA is social organization and coopera-
tion analysis. As the name suggests, this step investigates how the
working individuals interact within the constraints on the mine
site, and the overall team performance. In other words, it estab-
lishes interaction ways among actors to maximize collaboration
and communication such that resources and functions are allo-
cated optimally. Experts require data on supervision and the infor-
mation flow in the pyramidal structure of roles. The acquisition
method is communication and interaction analyses, which mainly
discovers the relationship of operators through verbal processes.
3.5. Level 5: Worker competencies analysis
The final phase of the analysis is worker competencies analysis.
This level studies in detail the cognitive awareness of the working
individuals and their behaviors when facing external situations
coming from upper levels of the mining system. Through the
review of previous steps such as the decision ladder and repertory
grid analysis, a specific tool called skills rules and knowledge (SRK)
taxonomy is formed.
The SRK taxonomy classifies human behavior in relation to var-
ious restrictions in a workplace and the knowledge required for
each strategic task. As a result of this analysis, the most important
components of cognitive processes can be extracted and used for
the improvement of the system’s design. From another perspective,
the SRK inventory could also refer to the worker competencies
essential for task completion [17].
Lintern proposed a slightly different classification such as: work
domain analysis, work organization analysis, work task analysis,
cognitive strategies analysis, cognitive model analysis and social
organization analysis [18].
4. Cognitive work analysis modeling
The previous sections demonstrate the tools used by the experts
to acquire extensive data in each of the CWA levels for a mining
system. However, for a better understanding of those tools, one
should make an individual effort, since they are beyond the scope
of this research. Furthermore, there needs to be a visual model to
classify and understand the information extracted above, and from
this model, a quantitative methodology will be applied to obtain
the mine’s cognitive work quality (CWQ%). This proxy is computed
as a percentage and describes the qualities of the mine domain,
such as its safety feasibility, organizational structure and the cog-
nitive strength of the working individuals. The quantification will
be done using graph theory and matrix approach, previously used
to determine human error in a maintenance system by Kumar and
Gandhi (see Table 1 for model) [19].
Please cite this article in press as: Demir S et al. Cognitive work analysis to comprehend operations and organizations in the mining industry. Int J Min Sci
Technol (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.008
4.1. Cognitive work quality factors
In addition to the CWA levels, the modeling is rectified in a way
that each level is defined by a set of cognitive work quality factors
(CWQi), and each factor in turn has its defining characteristics. For
example, the first level, work domain, is composed of two factors
‘‘characteristics of mine domain (CMD)” and ‘‘mine design and
environment (MD&E)”. Moreover, CMD is defined by its own cogni-
tive work characteristics such as ‘‘system functionality”, ‘‘con-
straint management” and ‘‘target attainability and optimization”.
In total, the five levels are detailed in 11 factors, and 35 cognitive
work characteristics. It should be noted that this model represents
a general overview of a mining system, and the number of factors
and characteristics could possibly vary and change within each
mine, however the methodology does not differ.
Finally, the role of the experts, after data acquisition, is to assign
a quality rating to each characteristic with four available ratings
‘‘5-excellent”, ‘‘3-good”, ‘‘1-average” and ‘‘0-poor”. The sum of
these ratings corresponds to the level value, Li. As an example, to
determine the level value of the ‘‘tools design” factor, one would
need to sum the ratings assessed for its characteristics such as:
‘‘design compatibility”, ‘‘efficiency for task completion” and ‘‘avail-
ability of equipment”.
4.2. Quantifying the cognitive work quality index
The level value (Li) calculated above will serve to find the quality
value (Qi) of each factor. In addition, the experts must attribute a
decimal weight (Wi) between 0 and 1 to each of the eleven cognitive
work quality factors mentioned in Table 1. The weight represents
the importance that factor plays in the overall scheme. The higher
the weight of a factor, the more significant it appears in the assess-
ment of the cognitive work quality (CWQ%) of the mine. The total
sum of the weights should be equal to one, such that:
WCMD þ WMD&E þ WTD þ WTI þ WSA þ WS þ WMC þ WT&C
þ WPR þ WP&MF þ WCDT ¼ 1 ð1Þ
Finally, the expert must determine the rating influence between
two factors, Fij, such as ‘‘5-strong influence”, ‘‘3-medium influ-
ence”, ‘‘1-weak influence” and ‘‘0-no influence”. The quality value,
Qi is derived from both the level value (Li) and weightage (Wi) as
follows.
Quality value; Q i ¼ Wi  Li ð2Þ
The quality values Qi and the influence values Fij are placed in a
matrix with the permanent of this matrix computing the cognitive
work domain quality index. M represents the number of factors
involved in the model. A more detailed representation of the for-
mula and methodology can be found in Kumar and Gandhi [19].
2 3
Q1 F12 F1M
6 7
CWQ index ¼ Permanent of 4 F21 Q 2 F2M 5 ð3Þ
FM1 FM2 QM
The prospect theory by Kahneman explains that decision-
making appears subjective for every human worker, and so, assess-
ing probabilities to errors (weightage and influences) could lead to
biases in the cognitive work quality results [21]. However, the
techniques used to assess objective ratings and influences, such
as THERP, CREAM and NARA, set an error probability to the execu-
tion of necessary actions taken by the workers at every cognitive
work quality factor [25]. Many aerospace industry actors, such as
NASA, use these techniques to considerably reduce operational
and procedural errors [20].
 S. Demir et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Table 2
Cognitive work quality ratings and recommendations.
Rating range Cognitive work quality Recommendation
85–100 Excellent Mine domain does not require any major adjustment
70–84 Good Minor adjustments are needed to attain excellency in the mine domain
60–69 Average The mine domain is efficient but major changes are needed to improve its quality
45–59 Poor Enhance the management system by seeking advice from suitable experts
0–44 Insufficient The mine requires major update in its system. Should close until a safe and feasible environment is attained
4.3. Cognitive work quality results
The cognitive work domain quality index turns into a percent-
age by computing first the index for the ideal and worst case min-
ing system. Table 2 shows the range and signification of the
cognitive work quality percentage (CWQ%) obtained.
CWQ ð%Þ ¼ CWQ Index  CWQ Ideal =CWQ Ideal  CWQ worst
Regression analysis could be applied to the five-level quantifica-
tion model to locate the weakest and strongest influence between
the 11 factors, and therefore comprehending the interconnected-
ness between the cognitive human, the equipment and the envi-
ronment. This model thoroughly evaluates the subsystems and
general aspects of the mine.
While there are a number of other design solutions that could
be provided within this framework, specific recommendations to
improve working performance may need further attention. Accord-
ing to the ratings range in which the mining system attributes,
some adjustment can be made to the cognitive processes of oper-
ators regarding the task performance. Therefore, today, many min-
ing companies track the workers’ general performance in terms of
achieving the production targets, computer tracking, safety perfor-
mance, reported injuries, safety procedure flaws, daily physical/-
mental state observation by the supervisors, meeting the task
deadlines, and drug testing when required, all with the purpose
of reducing human error.
5. Conclusions
The CWA is relatively recent and a powerful tool in understand-
ing complicated systems including mining and its overall safety
organization. Taking its roots from the 19th century ergonomics
research, this type of analysis transcends traditional methodology
by integrating the concept of cognitive awareness and human
behavior. There are five levels in the analysis, in which experts
use specific data acquisition tools. Each level has its own set of fac-
tors, and in turn each factor has its own cognitive work character-
istics as seen in the model in Table 1. Then, a cognitive work
quality percentage is obtained by using a quantification methodol-
ogy computing human error in maintenance. Regression analysis
could be applied to the erected five-level quantification model to
locate the weakest and strongest influence amongst the 11 factors,
and therefore comprehending the interconnectedness between the
cognitive human, equipment and environment. Mining systems
and many other hazardous industry domains can benefit from this
framework in quantifying and improving safety and quality of the
mine design in the work environment.
References
[1] Rasmussen J, Pejtersen AM, Goodstein LP. Cognitive systems engineering. New
York: Wiley; 1994.
Please cite this article in press as: Demir S et al. Cognitive work analysis to comprehend operations and organizations in the mining industry. Int J Min Sci
Technol (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.008
5
[2] Mai JE, Albrechtsen H, Fidel R, Pejtersen AM. Cognitive work analysis: the
study of work, actors, and activities. Proc Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 2004;41
(1):582–3.
[3] Naikar N, Elix B. Reflections on cognitive work analysis and its capacity to
support designing for adaptation. J Cognit Eng Decis Making 2016;10
(2):123–5.
[4] Fidel R, Pejtersen AM. From information behaviour research to the design of
information systems: the cognitive work analysis framework. Inform Res
2004;10(1):403–14.
ð4Þ [5] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica 1979;47(2):263–91.
[6] Montibeller G, Winterfeldt D. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision
and risk analysis. Risk Anal 2015;35(7):1230–51.
[7] Department of Energy DoE. Human performance improvement handbook.
Washington DC; 2009.
[8] Vicente KJ. Task analysis, cognitive task analysis, cognitive work analysis:
what’s the difference? Proc Human Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet 1995;39
(9):534–7.
[9] Rasmussen J, Pejtersen AM, Schmidt K. Taxonomy for cognitive work
analysis. Risø National Laboratory; 1990.
[10] Vicente KJ. Cognitive work analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associate; 1999.
[11] Naikar N. Cognitive work analysis: foundations, extensions, and challenges
(No. DSTO-GD-0680). Defence Science and Technology Organisation
Edinburgh (Australia) Air Operations Div.; 2010.
[12] Xiao T, Horberry T, Cliff D. Analysing mine emergency management needs: a
cognitive work analysis approach. Int J Emergency Manage 2015;11
(3):191–208.
[13] Salmon PM, Lenné MG, Read GJ, Mulvihill CM, Cornelissen M, Walker GH, et al.
More than meets the eye: using cognitive work analysis to identify design
requirements for future rail level crossing systems. Appl Ergon
2016;53:312–22.
[14] Hilliard A, Jamieson GA. Representing energy efficiency diagnosis strategies in
cognitive work analysis. Appl Ergon 2015;67(9):317–55.
[15] Jenkins DP, Stanton NA, Salmon PM. Cognitive work analysis: coping with
complexity. Abingdon, Oxon, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Group, ProQuest
Ebrary; 2008.
[16] Lintern G, Cone S, Schenaker M, Ehlert J, Hughes T. Asymmetric adversary
analysis for intelligent preparation of the battlespace (A3-IBP). United States
Air Force Research Department Report; 2004.
[17] Kilgore R, St-Cyr O, Jamieson GA. From work domains to worker competencies:
a five-phase CWA for air traffic control; 2008.
[18] Lintern G. Cognitive work analysis; 2016.
[19] Kumar VNA, Gandhi OP. Quantification of human error in maintenance using
graph theory and matrix approach. Qual Reliab Eng Int 2011;27:1145–72.
[20] NASA. NASA human error analysis. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Washington, D.C.; 2010.
[21] Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan; 2011.
[22] Naikar N, Moylan A, Pearce B. Analysing activity in complex systems with
cognitive work analysis: concepts, guidelines and case study for control task
analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 2006;7(4):371–94.
[23] Cornelissen M, Salmon PM, McClure R, Stanton NA. Using cognitive work
analysis and the strategies analysis diagram to understand variability in road
user behaviour at intersections. Ergonomics 2013;56(5):764–80.
[24] Sanderson P, Burns C. Rasmussen and the boundaries of empirical evaluation.
Appl Ergon 2017;59:649–56.
[25] Alvarenga MA, Melo PF, Fonseca RA. A critical review of methods and models
for evaluating organizational factors in Human Reliability Analysis. Prog Nucl
Energy 2014;75:25–41.
[26] Zhang W. Causation mechanism of coal miners’ human errors in the
perspective of life events. Int J Min Sci Technol 2014;24(4):581–6.
[27] Kohler JL. Looking ahead to significant improvements in mining safety and
health through innovative research and effective diffusion into the industry.
Int J Min Sci Technol 2016;25(3):325–32.