Cognitive work-analysis (Fidel, et al., 2004)

認知工作分析 Cognitive Work Analysis

Fidel, R., et al. "A Multidimensional Approach to the Study of

Human Information Interaction: A Case Study of Collaborative

Information Retrieval." Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology 55.11 (2004): 939-53.

2011-03-22 陳啟亮臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所博士班

Charles Chen ([email protected])

The authors

Raya Fidel Center for Human-Information Interaction,

The Information School,

University of Washington, Seattle

Annelise Mark Pejtersen

Bryan Cleal Cognitive Systems Engineering Center, Systems Analysis Department,

Risoe National Laboratory

Harry Bruce The Information School,

University of Washington, Seattle

Approaches to the Study of HII

Pettigrew, et al. (2001)

• 認知取向 Cognitive approaches

• 社會取向 Social approaches

• 多元取向 Multifaceted approaches

Fidel, R., et al. (2004)

• 心理取向 The Psychological Approach

• 社會取向 The Social Approach

• 多元取向 Multidimensional Approaches

Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., &Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information behavior. in Annual Review of Information Science and

Technology (ARIST), 35, 43-78.

Fidel, R., et al. "A Multidimensional Approach to the Study of Human Information Interaction: A Case Study of Collaborative Information

Retrieval." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55.11 (2004): 939-53. Print.

IB: Cognitive approaches

History

• Taylor (1968) : 使用者沒有完整的世界圖像，即對資訊的需求、意義與價值乃立基於個人的認知觀點。

• Dervin ＆ Nilan (1986) 鼓吹並揚棄系統取向

何謂認知

• Belkin: 人類(或資訊處理機制)在接受/感知或生產時，如何運作(或互動)知識、信念、等等

• Scope (Pettigrew, et.al., 2001)

• 關於個人如何應用他自我世界的觀點或模型，處理資訊的需求、搜尋、給出、與使用的研究

IB: Social approaches

History

• 從1990年代初期慢慢興起，並變得越來越重要

• Chatman (80s-) 開始研究貧窮勞工階級的資訊行為

何謂社會取向

• 資訊的意義與價值，與其社會脈絡相關

• 偏向以自然探究, 人類學或社會學的方法進行研究

IB: Multifaceted (Multidimensional) approaches

• 由於了解到人類資訊行為的複雜性，越來越多研究者認為需要以多元觀點進行研究，而非只考慮認知的與社會的一種觀點

• Rosenbaum **

• Johnson *

• Bystrom & Jarvelm *

• Sonnenwald **

• Leckie et al. *

• Cognitive Work Analysis, CWA **

認知工作分析: Cognitive Work Analysis

• 認知工作分析 (CWA)是由 Rasmussen, Pejtersen, Goodstein

(1994)所共同發展出來的一種研究概念架構

1969成立

為了實現尼爾斯·波耳的和平使用核能的理想

Control room in nuclear power plant. USA (2000)

http://www.our-energy.com/nuclear_technology_is_mature_and_safe.html

1. Chernobyl: Nuclear Disaster in Ukraine

(1986, April) http://www.life.com/gallery/57691/nuclear-

disasters#index/4

2.3.4. Russian Nuclear Power Plant Control

Room (1990) http://hackedgadgets.com/2009/05/03/russian-nuclear-

power-plant-control-room/

5. After Chernobyl (2009) http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/Enlargement.a

spx?id=42-26910515

1

2 3 4

5

Cognitive Work Analysis

• 認知工作分析實際上與認知科學並沒有直接關係，根據Rasmussen(1994)，其理論依據來自於：

• 系統化思維(General System Thinking)

• 適應控制系統(Adaptive Control Systems)

• Gibson的環境心理學(Ecological Psychology)

• 重點：限制(constraint) 與適應(adaptive)

• CWA 認為，在與工作相關的活動中進行資訊互動的人，是一行動者/演員(actor) ，而非一般資訊系統所稱的使用者(user)

Cognitive Work Analysis: History

1960s Rasmussen work in Riso

1990 Rasmussen, Pejtersen & Schmidt

Taxonomy for cognitive work

analysis

1994 Rasmussen, Pejtersen & Goodstein

Cognitive systems engineering

理論基礎是：

系統化思維(general system thinking)

適應控制系統(adaptive control

systems)

Gibson的環境心理學(Ecological

Psychology)；

以及各種不同工作領域中支援系統開發的實地研究。

CWA 認為，在與工作相關的活動中進行資訊互動的人，是一「行動者/演員(actor)」，而非一般資訊系統所稱的「使用者(user)」

Cognitive Work Analysis: History

1960s Rasmussen work in Riso

1990 Rasmussen, Pejtersen & Schmidt

Taxonomy for cognitive work

analysis

1994 Rasmussen, Pejtersen & Goodstein

Cognitive systems engineering

1999

Kim J Vicente Cognitive Work

Analysis: Toward Safe,

Productive, and Healthy

Computer-Based Work

Work Analysis

Mark Pejtersen, A.

1990s

Albrechtsen, H, Domain Analysis

& Knowledge Organzation

2003 Albrechtsen, H., & Pejtersen, A. M.

Cognitive work analysis and

work centered design of

classification schemes.

2004

Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. From

information behaviour

research to the design of

information systems: The

CWA framework

LIS

HCI

1998 Sanderson, P

Cognitive work analysis and

the analysis, design, and

evaluation of HCI systems

Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework

Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. Information Research, 10(1), 10-11.

實際工作環境

工作領域分析(WDA)

手段-目的結構

組織分析分工與社會組織

行為者的資源與價值

活動分析(AA) 任務情境

人因工程分析知覺行動能力

工作領域

決策判斷心智策略

分析人格特徵



實際工作環境

行為者

環境

•有什麼因素在組織外部影響？



實際工作環境


手段-目的結構

行為者

工作領域

•工作領域中有哪些目標？

•限制？

•優先順序？

•功能？

•物體上的程序？

•利用哪些工具？



實際工作環境


手段-目的結構


行為者

組織分析

•團隊如何分工？

•使用哪些標準？

•組織的本質？科層制、民主制、無秩序？

•組織性的價值為何？



實際工作環境


手段-目的結構


行為者


工作領域

任務分析

•任務是什麼(例如，設計導覽功能)？

•產生資訊問題的任務目標為何？

•其限制？

•涉及的功能？

•所使用的工具？



實際工作環境


手段-目的結構


行為者


工作領域

決策判斷

決策工作分析

•做了哪些決策(例，選擇哪種導覽模式)？

•決策需要哪些資訊？

•哪些資訊資源是有用？



實際工作環境


手段-目的結構


行為者


工作領域


策略工作分析

•哪些策略是可能的(例，瀏覽、分析)？

•行動者偏好哪種策略？

•需要哪些資訊？

•偏好哪些資訊來源？



實際工作環境


手段-目的結構


行為者的資源與價值


人因工程分析知覺行動能力

工作領域


分析人格特徵

個人資源與價值

•行為者受過哪些正規訓練？

•是哪種專家？

•有哪些主題領域或工作領域的經驗？

•個人的優先順序為何？

•個人的價值觀為何？

Cognitive Work Analysis: 手段-目的分析 Means-Ends Analysis

Reference:

Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis

framework. Information Research, 10(1), 10-11.

目的、限制

優先性 (價值觀)

一般功能

物理程序

物理資源、工具

書後索引工作的領域分析

Reference:

陳啟亮（2008）。書後索引之編製行為研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所。

Cognitive Work Analysis: 工作領域分析 Work Domain Analysis, WDA

Cognitive Work Analysis: 決策階梯 Decision Ladder

決策階梯三階段：

• 狀況分析 Situation analysis

• 評估 Evaluation

• 計劃 Planning

Research: Collaborative information retrieval

Case: Microsoft Design Team:

• a single case of making navigation function design. (Help

and Support Center, HSC)

Data collecting method

• naturalistic field study: interview, observation, content

analysis (email, documents)

Microsoft – Product Support Service

Internet Archive. http://support.microsoft.com 2007-07-18

Microsoft HSC Design Team: Environments

• Microsoft Corporation

• Products & Projects: Help & Support Center

• Project division:

Test, Development, Program Management, and Design

• Design Team:

Product Designer, Visual Designer, Usability Engineer,

Project Manager

• Task: The Case of Navigation Design

Work

Environment

Organizational

Analysis

Task

Analysis

Work Domain

Analysis

Actors: a product designer & his colleagues

• Neil, the product design lead

• Resources: colleagues

• Artifacts: to-do list, prototype, previous system

• Task Goals & Priorities:

provide a high-quality design,

fit user behavior and user preferences

• Environment constraint:

limited time,

ensure coordinated with other teams

• Strategies:

find used navigation model

Work

Environment

Organizational

Analysis

Task

Analysis

Work Domain

Analysis

Neil

Strategy

Actors: Decision Ladder

• Spent all time between analysis - evaluation

• Decision making did not share with his colleagues

• 3rd phase (planning) did not involve CIR

Notice:

CIR(Collaborative Information Retrieval) doesn’t include

action-taking behavior (?)

Work

Environment

Organizational

Analysis

Task

Analysis

Work Domain

Analysis

Neil

Strategy

Decision

CIR: Motives: Cognitive

• Inexperience: Novice to

Microsoft (need personal network,

previous system, interpretations)

• Value: The quality of

design decision making (need references, informal feedback to

their ideas, and opinions)

• Knowledge: lack of web

design tacit knowledge (need Nail & Lily’s knowledge &

interpretation)

• Drawback-of-CIR:

information overload

Work

Environment

Organizational

Analysis

Task Analysis

Work Domain

Analysis

Neil Product

designer

Strategy

Decision

CIR: Organization of the Team’s Work

Define Organizational Task:

• Organizational Constraint

• Actor’s responsibility

• Collaboration with others

Microsoft Culture

• the boundaries of the task

responsibility are not

always clear

• Not documented

• Rely on their own personal

network

Work

Environment

Organizational

Analysis

Task Analysis

Work Domain

Analysis

Neil Product

designer

Strategy

Decision

CIR: Task and Decision

Task: (strategy & decision)

• Search for design

constraints (access sources)

• decision making of

navigation design (no formal

design guide)

• Prepare for

communication with

others (quality)

• Collaborative creative (quality)

• Drawback-of-CIR:

no creation & innovation

Work

Environment

Organizational

Analysis

Task

Analysis

Work Domain

Analysis

Neil Product

designer

Strategy

Decision

Challenges to the CIR process

Actors 對行為者而言，CIR的挑戰是：

• 需要花時間討論 Spend time in discussions

• 不同行為者，在CIR過程中有不同的立場。 Difference actors have different stakes in the process, or have different priorities

• CIR中成員的理解不同 The understanding of problems might various

• 新手需邀請專家參與 Notice involve other expert actors

• 討論或協作中會發生資訊過載 Information overload

Discussion

Multiple dimensions

Such interdependencies suggest that focusing on a single

dimension may not only provide a partial understanding, but

might also be misleading.

Contributions to the Study of CIR

Notice:

The goals of CWA research?

What the difference between CWA & IB research?

Documents

Cognitive work-analysis (Fidel, et al., 2004)