• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16091 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16091 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Presses des Mines
  • ›
  • Économie et gestion
  • ›
  • Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Eng...
  • ›
  • Colliding Dilemmas: Interactions Of Loca...
  • Presses des Mines
  • Presses des Mines
    Presses des Mines
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral 1 Introduction 2 The Strategies in Operation in the ED 3 Interactions of and Influences on Strategies 4 Directions for Future Research Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Colliding Dilemmas: Interactions Of Locally Adaptive Strategies In A Hospital Setting

    Robert J. Stephens, David D. Woods, Matthieu Branlat et Robert L. Wears

    p. 256-262

    Résumé

    One strategy that systems employ to remain resilient in the face of shifting demands is the creation and maintenance of margins of maneuver, cushions of potential actions and additional resources that allows the system to continue functioning despite unexpected demands. Systems are often comprised of units which have partial authority and autonomy to manage their individual margins of maneuver. In a study of emergency department interactions with other hospital units, we found that reorganizations to maintain margin could be classified into one of three categories: units could either defensively restrict the actions of other units or borrow margin from them, autonomously reorganize to create new margin, or cooperatively act with other units to exploit existing common pool resources and create new ones. The enumeration of the three classes of strategies to maintain margin of maneuver further explains how systems could reorganize themselves to remain resilient, and how they become brittle and fail. The influences on and interactions of each type of strategy are explored, and directions for future research to allow for better control of overall system margin, and hence resilience, are discussed.

    Note de l’auteur

    Note portant sur l’auteur1

    Note portant sur l’auteur2

    Note portant sur l’auteur3

    Note portant sur l’auteur4

    Texte intégral Bibliographie References Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Texte intégral

    1 Introduction

    1Woods and Branlat propose Hollnagel's test to examine the concept of control in resilient systems: what does it mean to be in control and how can control be amplified? One strategy systems employ to maintain control is that they actively create and maintain adequate margin of maneuver, a cushion of potential actions and additional resources that allows the system to continue functioning despite unexpected demands. When this envelope is lost, so is the ability to control the system when unexpected shocks occur. A converse example from the literature is going solid, the state in which a system has lost its ability to readily absorb destabilizing influences, meaning any shock to the system will have dire consequences. In the parlance of resilience engineering, systems with increasingly inadequate margin of maneuver are becoming brittle.

    2Using a materials science analogy, Woods, and Wreathall have proposed that adaptive systems can absorb new demands up until a certain point (first-order stretching), after which the system must reorganize itself (second-order adaptations) or risk failure. This ability to reorganize is the critical marker of resilience. As Figure 1 shows, margin of maneuver can be conceptualized as the space between constraints imposed by the world (both the blunt end organizational pressures and the monitored process itself) and the current stretching of the system to cope with the demands of meeting system goals.

    Image 1.jpg

    Figure 1. Margin of maneuver lies between constraints imposed on the system and its first-order stretching to cope with escalating demands

    3Coordination and coupling of groups across organizational boundaries has been implicated as a factor impacting resilience. One possible mechanism to explain this is that a group's reorganization to maintain margin may impact other groups' margins. Exploring the interactions and effects of these reorganizations may reveal important determinants of system resilience.

    4This paper proposes that within organizations, units (groups that are well-defined by organizational, physical, and/or social boundaries) have a number of potential types of strategies for reorganization to maintain their margin of maneuver, thus avoiding going solid while balancing resource limits. Three general classes were identified based on studies of emergency department (ED) interactions with other units in the larger hospital system. These strategies are:

    • defensive strategies that maintain local margin by restricting other units' actions or borrowing other units' margin(s),

    • autonomous strategies to create margin via exclusively local reorganization, and

    • cooperative strategies that either jointly recognize and manage existing common pool resources, or create new common pool resources that allow sharing of margin with other units.

    5If the unit does not or cannot reorganize sufficiently to maintain its margin, then it operates in a risky mode where any additional demands can transform into a cascade of disturbances and lead to failure. Generic patterns of this failure have been identified, e.g. decompensation. Failures in the system can also be considered as crossing organizational scales and boundaries: horizontal failures may occur when local adaptations of units are defensive; units may simply shift demands, and hence failures, to other units. Vertical failures may occur when units behave autonomously; while this may improve the condition of the local unit, it does not help other units and so the system as a whole benefits less than if units were cooperating.

    6Failures may also result from maladaptation across multiple timescales. Failures at shorter time scales can occur due to units' tactical inability to reconfigure to create additional margin, a type of decompensation failure. At longer time scales, strategic failures occur if units cannot be proactive and coordinative in their management of margin. It may not be sufficient to simply react to new demands by creating margin; joint management and pre-planning of margin with other interdependent units may be required to maintain a resilient system.

    7When considering these generic patterns, the actions of individual actors in the system are de-emphasized in favor of considering system-level processes. The examples presented below therefore focus on the joint cognitive system (JCS) of humans, technology, and work environment that acts to maintain margins of maneuver in the context of cross-scale interactions and multiple timescales.

    2 The Strategies in Operation in the ED

    8The emergency department (ED) continues to be one of the critical laboratories for studying or understanding resilience and adaptation in human systems. Studies of boarding in the ED (admitted patients being held in the ED after their treatment there has concluded) examine inter-unit relationships about how patients flow into and sometimes get "stuck" in the ED. Observations of emergency departments have revealed cases of each class of strategy in use. This section explores those findings and also describes some factors observed as influencing the evolution of each strategy.

    2.1 Defensive Strategies

    9A defensive strategy increases the margin of one unit by restricting another unit or borrowing margin from another unit. An example of this shift towards a defensive strategy can be seen in the interactions of the ED and the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of many hospitals. It is often the case that the ED is charged with the responsibility for ICU-bound patients, but over time policy shifts have migrated authority over these boarded patients to the ICU. In one study, the ICU adapted a defensive strategy to borrow margin from the ED: the ICU delayed or refused admissions of ED patients bound for ICU care until tasks such as laboratory studies or intensive therapies had been completed. This strategy may have been spurred by a top-down policy mandating a 1:1 patient-to-nurse ratio in the ICU. However, this borrowing of margin from the ED by delaying admission may result in a worse overall outcome for patients: research has found that critically ill patients experience worse outcomes when they are delayed in their transfer from the ED to the ICU.

    10Some EDs have employed similar defensive strategies against other inpatient units in an example of a tit-for-tat cascade of defensive actions. In the face of other units delaying admission to defend their margin, one ED avoided boarding patients by simply moving admitted patients to inpatient unit hallways, an ad-hoc intermediate area between the ED and inpatient unit, without prior approval of the inpatient unit. Interestingly, one study of this coping strategy found that it did not result in worse outcomes for these patients.

    11Going on diversion (ED refusal to accept patients via ambulance) is another example of a defensive strategy adopted in response to the restriction and borrowing of margin from the ED. In this case, the ED’s margin is expanded at the expense of other EDs in the area. Policies in some regions prevent EDs from going on diversion for this reason.

    12Moving outside of the ED-inpatient dyad to hospital-wide issues, the practice of bed hiding (maintaining a reservation for a bed when not immediately needed) is another example of a defensive strategy. By hoarding resources (i.e. from a common pool), additional margin is created locally, but this may adversely affect the margin of other units that also want to use the resources being hoarded.

    2.2 Autonomous Strategies

    13Autonomous strategies consist of local reorganization to add margin of maneuver within a unit or expand a unit's ability to regulate its margin given resource availability and limits. For example, persistent overcrowding problems have led some EDs commit resources under their control to develop additional buffer capacities and specialized care tracks.

    14One ED studied created an exception-handling sub-unit to reduce the resource cost of managing psychiatric patients, who are often boarded long-term. This unit economized the resources needed to care for psychiatric patients; a single nurse can now monitor up to six patients concurrently. This strategy arose due to inpatient psychiatric units' use of a delay of acceptance strategy against the ED, itself spurred by severe resource constraints from budgetary cuts. The ED also used an autonomous strategy of relaxing standards on discharge of mental health patients during the weekends, a time when insurance-related policies make it difficult to secure admission for psychiatric patients.

    15In general, EDs often pre-plan stratified intensities of care by placing some patients in beds and others in chairs. This has the effect of creating additional margin, as resources can be rapidly redeployed to the higher-priority (bed) patients if there is a surge in load. Similarly, ICUs have been found to pre-plan which patients can be readily transferred to a lower intensity unit; the identification of these bumpable patients is one of the critical functions of the ICU’s role of bedmeister.

    2.3 Cooperative Strategies

    16A cooperative strategy shares two or more units’ margins through coordinated, collective action of recognizing or creating a common-pool resource on which both units can draw. For example, one ED gave up one of its five treatment areas to use it exclusively to board admitted patients. The inpatient services agreed to provide nursing staff for that area, accepting it as another inpatient ward. This created a common pool resource for both the ED and inpatient unit: the ED could remove boarded patients to the specialized unit pending their transfer to an actual inpatient unit, freeing more staff; the inpatient unit could avoid a bedcrunch.

    3 Interactions of and Influences on Strategies

    17The three strategies allow units to anticipate upcoming demands by being prepared to cope with them. Units' behavior may be primarily tactical (reactive to maintain margin), but may also be strategic (proactive to maintain the ability to reorganize towards using more or less margin, as needed). A unit's choice of strategy is therefore influenced heavily by the availability of cues about its past, present, and potential future demands, as well as cues about the space of possible actions the unit could take and the resulting reactions of other units.

    18Strategies may interact in both a horizontal (between-units) and vertical (higher-echelon) fashion. In the defensive examples above, units are adapting locally, but with effects on other units' ability to regulate their margins of maneuver, as well as potential global effects. As enumerated previously, such adaptations can spur cascades of defensive action as units whose margin is borrowed simply continue to shift work or risk to other units; the same global margin is maintained. However, a more dire possibility is that units work at cross-purposes from each other, thus actually reducing the global margin. This suggests that defensive strategies, at best, do not help meet the goals of the system, and may actually leave the entire system in a more precarious state.

    19Autonomous strategies may arise when a unit either has no defensive or cooperative possibilities for reorganization, it cannot perceive them due to inadequate cues, or an autonomous adaptation is simply assumed to be the most effective way for the unit to manage its margin. There is also at least some cost associated with the coordination necessary to maintain common ground at a sufficient level to support sharing of margins, making autonomous strategies (and potentially defensive ones) more attractive if this cost is perceived to outweigh the benefits of cooperation.

    20Considering these factors, it is apparent that in order for a unit to choose a cooperative strategy, it must be able to not only predict how cooperative actions allow it to cope with its own demands despite the costs of coordination, but also how its actions ripple through interdependencies with other units and therefore the system as a whole. In the cooperative example above, pre-planning of a shared common pool of resources supported this ability.

    21Other factors may also influence the strategy chosen. The influence of culture can be seen in a recent volume on the ED, titled "Anyone, Anytime, Anything;" this attitude pervades much of emergency medicine practice and may influence the ED towards adopting primarily autonomous strategies. It may also be that other units similarly view the ED as the sole or primary unit charged with absorbing sudden demands on the larger system.

    22Policy may deter reconfiguration of the overall system towards a more even distribution of margin. This is likely the case in highly-siloed systems with minimal horizontal interaction between units, as well as in situations where control and responsibility are mismatched due to organizational pressures and policy. If one unit has control but the other has responsibility for a given goal or task, the former unit has an increased ability to maintain an uneven margin distribution at the expense of the latter. Accountability through higher-echelon monitoring of margin distribution could mitigate these factors, though it may also create new problems of its own through encouraging units to cheat or game the system.

    4 Directions for Future Research

    23Future work to validate and expand this framework should focus on how factors such as information availability, governance, and work culture influence the behavior of units with respect to the three strategies enumerated. It should also investigate how cascades of strategies can result, and what factors will result in the most resilient management of strategies in the context of actual work systems.

    24An open question is whether there is a tendency for sudden demands to drive a unit towards defensive or autonomous modes of reorganization. Perhaps this can be mitigated by providing the ability to rapidly coordinate with other units or setting up pre-existing collaborative agreements and triggers. We have posited above that defensive strategies are generally detrimental to systems; however, this may not always be the case. It would be interesting to identify and investigate cases in which a defensive or autonomous strategy resulted in a better overall outcome.

    25The studies of emergency department interactions with the larger hospital system tend to indicate that providing units with the ability to build common ground and joint predictability with other units may foster more cooperative strategies, particularly in cases where there is a need to recognize an existing common pool resource as a shared margin of maneuver, as opposed to defining all resources as owned by a single unit. At the same time, it is recognized that the role of higher-echelon governance to create the proper environment in which cooperative strategies can thrive is critical; for example, a narrow focus on unit-specific performance could increase the tendency to adopt defensive strategies. Studies of common pool resource governance by Ostrom and colleagues suggest that polycentric control architectures can balance these extremes to create resilient systems.

    26The three strategies to maintain margin of maneuver enumerated in this paper provide a framework for discussing how local actions affect global system resilience, how these actions may interact, and how they could be shaped to create the most resilient global system.

    Bibliographie

    Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.

    Format

    • APA
    • Chicago
    • MLA
    Cook, R. (2005). "Going solid": a model of system dynamics and consequences for patient safety. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14(2), 130-134. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2003.009530
    Dietz, T. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907-1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015
    Ostrom, E. (1999). COPING WITH TRAGEDIES OF THE COMMONS. Annual Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493
    Parkhe, M., Myles, P. S., Leach, D. S., & Maclean, A. V. (2002). Outcome of emergency department patients with delayed admission to an intensive care unit. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 14(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2002.00286.x
    Viccellio, A., Santora, C., Singer, A. J., Thode, H. C. , Jr., & Henry, M. C. (2009). The Association Between Transfer of Emergency Department Boarders to Inpatient Hallways and Mortality: A 4-Year Experience. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 54(4), 487-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.03.005
    Woods, D. D., & Branlat, M. (2010). Hollnagel’s test: being ‘in control’ of highly interdependent multi-layered networked systems. Cognition, Technology &Amp; Work, 12(2), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-010-0144-5
    Woods, D. D., Dekker, S., Cook, R., Johannesen, L., & Sarter, N. (2017). Behind Human Error. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315568935
    Cook, R. “‘Going solid’: A Model of System Dynamics and Consequences for Patient Safety”. Quality and Safety in Health Care 14, nos. 2 (April 1, 2005): 130-34. doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.009530.
    Dietz, T. “The Struggle to Govern the Commons”. Science 302, nos. 5652 (December 12, 2003): 1907-12. doi:10.1126/science.1091015.
    Ostrom, Elinor. “COPING WITH TRAGEDIES OF THE COMMONS”. Annual Review of Political Science. Annual Reviews, June 1999. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493.
    Parkhe, Meera, Paul S Myles, Deborah S Leach, and Andrew V Maclean. “Outcome of Emergency Department Patients With Delayed Admission to an Intensive Care Unit”. Emergency Medicine Australasia 14, no. 1 (March 2002): 50-57. doi:10.1046/j.1442-2026.2002.00286.x.
    Viccellio, Asa, Carolyn Santora, Adam J. Singer, Henry C. Thode Jr., and Mark C. Henry. “The Association Between Transfer of Emergency Department Boarders to Inpatient Hallways and Mortality: A 4-Year Experience”. Annals of Emergency Medicine 54, nos. 4 (October 2009): 487-91. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.03.005.
    Woods, David D., and Matthieu Branlat. “Hollnagel’s Test: Being ‘in control’ of Highly Interdependent Multi-Layered Networked Systems”. Cognition, Technology &Amp; Work 12, nos. 2 (April 13, 2010): 95-101. doi:10.1007/s10111-010-0144-5.
    Woods, David D., Sidney Dekker, Richard Cook, Leila Johannesen, and Nadine Sarter. Behind Human Error. []. CRC Press, 2017. doi:10.1201/9781315568935.
    Cook, R. “‘Going solid’: A Model of System Dynamics and Consequences for Patient Safety”. Quality and Safety in Health Care, vols. 14, nos. 2, Apr. 2005, pp. 130-4. CrossRef, https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2003.009530.
    Dietz, T. “The Struggle to Govern the Commons”. Science, vols. 302, nos. 5652, Dec. 2003, pp. 1907-12. CrossRef, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015.
    Ostrom, Elinor. “COPING WITH TRAGEDIES OF THE COMMONS”. Annual Review of Political Science, vols. 2, no. 1, Annual Reviews, June 1999, pp. 493-35. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493.
    Parkhe, Meera, et al. “Outcome of Emergency Department Patients With Delayed Admission to an Intensive Care Unit”. Emergency Medicine Australasia, vols. 14, no. 1, Mar. 2002, pp. 50-57. CrossRef, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2002.00286.x.
    Viccellio, Asa, et al. “The Association Between Transfer of Emergency Department Boarders to Inpatient Hallways and Mortality: A 4-Year Experience”. Annals of Emergency Medicine, vols. 54, nos. 4, Oct. 2009, pp. 487-91. CrossRef, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.03.005.
    Woods, David D., and Matthieu Branlat. “Hollnagel’s Test: Being ‘in control’ of Highly Interdependent Multi-Layered Networked Systems”. Cognition, Technology &Amp; Work, vols. 12, nos. 2, Apr. 2010, pp. 95-101. CrossRef, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-010-0144-5.
    Woods, David D., et al. Behind Human Error. [], CRC Press, 2017. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315568935.

    Cette bibliographie a été enrichie de toutes les références bibliographiques automatiquement générées par Bilbo en utilisant Crossref.

    References

    Anders, S., Woods, D., Wears, R., Perry, S., & Patterson, E. (2006). Limits on adaptation: modeling resilience and brittleness in hospital emergency departments. In E. Rigaud & E. Hollnagel (Eds.) Second Symposium on Resilience Engineering. Juan-les-Pins, France, Nov. 8-10, 2006.

    Branlat, M., & Woods, D. D. (2010). How do Systems Manage Their Adaptive Capacity to Successfully Handle Disruptions? A Resilience Engineering Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2010 AAAI Fall Symposium Series -Complex Adaptive Systems, Arlington, VA, USA.

    Cook, R. I. (2006). Being bumpable. In D. D. Woods & E. Hollnagel (Eds.), Joint cognitive systems: Patterns in cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    10.1136/qshc.2003.009530 :

    Cook, R. I., & Rasmussen, J. (2005). ‘‘Going solid’’: a model of system dynamics and consequences for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care, 14, 130-134.

    10.1126/science.1091015 :

    Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907.

    Garza, M. (2004). Memphis just says 'No!' to ambulance diversion. JEMS: A Journal of emergency medical services, 29(1), 130.

    10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493 :

    Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 493-535.

    10.1046/j.1442-2026.2002.00286.x :

    Parkhe, M., Myles, P. S., Leach, D. S., & Maclean, A. V. (2002). Outcome of emergency department patients with delayed admission to an intensive care unit. Emergency Medicine, 14(1), 50-57.

    Stephens, R. J. (2010). Managing the Margin: A Cognitive Systems Engineering Analysis of Emergency Department Patient Boarding. Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University.

    Stephens, R. J., Cudnik, M., & Patterson, E. (2011, in press). Barriers and Facilitators to Timely Admission and Transfer of Patients from an Emergency Department to an Intensive Care Unit. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV.

    10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.03.005 :

    Viccellio, A., Santora, C., Singer, A. J., Thode Jr, H. C., & Henry, M. C. (2009). The Association Between Transfer of Emergency Department Boarders to Inpatient Hallways and Mortality: A 4-Year Experience. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 54(4), 487-491.

    Wears, R. L., & Perry, S. J. (2008). A system dynamics representation of resilience. In E. Rigaud & E. Hollnagel (Eds.) Second Symposium on Resilience Engineering. Juan-les-Pins, France, October 28-30, 2008.

    Wears, R. L. and Perry, S. J. (2006). “Free fall” – a case study of resilience, its degradation, and recovery in an emergency department. In E. Rigaud & E. Hollnagel (Eds.) Second Symposium on Resilience Engineering. Juan-les-Pins, France, November 8-10, 2006.

    Woods, D. D., & Branlat, M. (2010a). Basic Patterns in How Adaptive Systems Fail. In E. Hollnagel, J. Pariès, D. D. Woods & J. Wreathall (Eds.), Resilience Engineering in Practice (pp. 127-144). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

    10.1007/s10111-010-0144-5 :

    Woods, D. D., & Branlat, M. (2010b). Hollnagel’s test: being ‘in control’ of highly interdependent multi-layered networked systems. Cognition, Technology & Work, 12(2), 95-101.

    10.1201/9781315568935 :

    Woods, D. D., Johannesen, L., Dekker, S., Cook, R., & Sarter, N. (2010). Behind human error. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Woods, D. D., & Wreathall, J. (2008). Stress-Strain Plots as a Basis for Assessing System Resilience. In E. Hollnagel, C. P. Nemeth & S. W. A. Dekker (Eds.), Resilience Engineering Perspectives (pp. 143-158). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Zink, B. J. (2006). Anyone, anything, anytime: A history of emergency medicine: Mosby.

    Notes de bas de page

    1 National Center for Human Factors Engineering in Healthcare, 3007 Tilden St NW Suite 7M, Washington, DC 20008, USA robert.stephens@medicalhfe.org

    2 The Ohio State University, 1971 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43202, USA woods.2@osu.edu

    3 The Ohio State University, 1971 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43202, USA branlat.2@osu.edu

    4 University of Florida, 655 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA Imperial College London, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, UK wears@ufl.edu

    Auteurs

    • Robert J. Stephens
    • David D. Woods
    • Matthieu Branlat
    • Robert L. Wears
    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    TIC et innovation organisationnelle

    TIC et innovation organisationnelle

    Journées d’étude MTO’2011

    Pierre-Michel Riccio et Daniel Bonnet (dir.)

    2012

    Construire la biodiversité

    Construire la biodiversité

    Processus de conception de « biens communs »

    Julie Labatut

    2010

    Évaluation des coûts

    Évaluation des coûts

    Éléments d’une théorie de la gestion

    Claude Riveline

    2005

    Entre communautés et mobilité : une approche interdisciplinaire des médias

    Entre communautés et mobilité : une approche interdisciplinaire des médias

    Serge Agostinelli, Dominique Augey et Frédéric Laurie (dir.)

    2010

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    June 8-10, 2011, Sophia Antipolis, France

    Erik Hollnagel, Éric Rigaud et Denis Besnard (dir.)

    2011

    L’activité marchande sans le marché ?

    L’activité marchande sans le marché ?

    Colloque de Cerisy

    Armand Hatchuel, Olivier Favereau et Franck Aggeri (dir.)

    2010

    Fragiles compétences

    Fragiles compétences

    Sophie Bretesché et Cathy Krohmer (dir.)

    2012

    Construire l'innovation durable

    Construire l'innovation durable

    Les instruments de la gestion environnementale

    Jeanne Riot

    2014

    Aider les proches aidants

    Aider les proches aidants

    Comprendre les besoins et organiser les services sur les territoires

    Sébastien Gand, Léonie Hénaut et Jean-Claude Sardas

    2014

    Urbanisme durable

    Urbanisme durable

    Pilotage des collectifs d'innovation

    Rebecca Pinheiro-Croisel

    2014

    L'absentéisme des personnels soignants à l'hôpital

    L'absentéisme des personnels soignants à l'hôpital

    Comprendre et agir

    Brami Laurent, Sébastien Damart, Mathieu Detchessahar et al.

    2014

    La « Société à Objet Social Étendu »

    La « Société à Objet Social Étendu »

    Un nouveau statut pour l'entreprise

    Blanche Segrestin, Kevin Levillain, Stéphane Vernac et al.

    2015

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    TIC et innovation organisationnelle

    TIC et innovation organisationnelle

    Journées d’étude MTO’2011

    Pierre-Michel Riccio et Daniel Bonnet (dir.)

    2012

    Construire la biodiversité

    Construire la biodiversité

    Processus de conception de « biens communs »

    Julie Labatut

    2010

    Évaluation des coûts

    Évaluation des coûts

    Éléments d’une théorie de la gestion

    Claude Riveline

    2005

    Entre communautés et mobilité : une approche interdisciplinaire des médias

    Entre communautés et mobilité : une approche interdisciplinaire des médias

    Serge Agostinelli, Dominique Augey et Frédéric Laurie (dir.)

    2010

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    June 8-10, 2011, Sophia Antipolis, France

    Erik Hollnagel, Éric Rigaud et Denis Besnard (dir.)

    2011

    L’activité marchande sans le marché ?

    L’activité marchande sans le marché ?

    Colloque de Cerisy

    Armand Hatchuel, Olivier Favereau et Franck Aggeri (dir.)

    2010

    Fragiles compétences

    Fragiles compétences

    Sophie Bretesché et Cathy Krohmer (dir.)

    2012

    Construire l'innovation durable

    Construire l'innovation durable

    Les instruments de la gestion environnementale

    Jeanne Riot

    2014

    Aider les proches aidants

    Aider les proches aidants

    Comprendre les besoins et organiser les services sur les territoires

    Sébastien Gand, Léonie Hénaut et Jean-Claude Sardas

    2014

    Urbanisme durable

    Urbanisme durable

    Pilotage des collectifs d'innovation

    Rebecca Pinheiro-Croisel

    2014

    L'absentéisme des personnels soignants à l'hôpital

    L'absentéisme des personnels soignants à l'hôpital

    Comprendre et agir

    Brami Laurent, Sébastien Damart, Mathieu Detchessahar et al.

    2014

    La « Société à Objet Social Étendu »

    La « Société à Objet Social Étendu »

    Un nouveau statut pour l'entreprise

    Blanche Segrestin, Kevin Levillain, Stéphane Vernac et al.

    2015

    Voir plus de chapitres

    How Human Adaptive Systems Balance Fundamental Trade-offs: Implications For Polycentric Governance Architectures

    David D. Woods et Matthieu Branlat

    Fundamental On Situational Surprise: A Case Study With Implications For Resilience

    Robert L. Wears et L. Kendall Webb

    Voir plus de chapitres
    1 / 2

    How Human Adaptive Systems Balance Fundamental Trade-offs: Implications For Polycentric Governance Architectures

    David D. Woods et Matthieu Branlat

    Fundamental On Situational Surprise: A Case Study With Implications For Resilience

    Robert L. Wears et L. Kendall Webb

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Presses des Mines
    • amazon.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1 National Center for Human Factors Engineering in Healthcare, 3007 Tilden St NW Suite 7M, Washington, DC 20008, USA robert.stephens@medicalhfe.org

    2 The Ohio State University, 1971 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43202, USA woods.2@osu.edu

    3 The Ohio State University, 1971 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43202, USA branlat.2@osu.edu

    4 University of Florida, 655 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA Imperial College London, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, UK wears@ufl.edu

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    X Facebook Email

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    Ce livre est cité par

    • Sena, Aderita. Ebi, Kristie L.. Freitas, Carlos. Corvalan, Carlos. Barcellos, Christovam. (2017) Indicators to measure risk of disaster associated with drought: Implications for the health sector. PLOS ONE, 12. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181394
    • Cedergren, Alexander. (2013) Designing resilient infrastructure systems: a case study of decision-making challenges in railway tunnel projects. Journal of Risk Research, 16. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.726241
    • Liwång, Hans. (2023) Future National Energy Systems, Energy Security and Comprehensive National Defence. Energies, 16. DOI: 10.3390/en16186627
    • Yang, Zhuyu. Barroca, Bruno. Mebarki, Ahmed. Laffréchine, Katia. Dolidon, Hélène. Lilas, Lionel. (2024) Critical infrastructure resilience: a guide for building indicator systems based on a multi-criteria framework with a focus on implementable actions. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 24. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-24-3723-2024

    Ce chapitre est cité par

    • Rankin, Amy. Lundberg, Jonas. Woltjer, Rogier. Rollenhagen, Carl. Hollnagel, Erik. (2014) Resilience in Everyday Operations. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8. DOI: 10.1177/1555343413498753
    • Chiou, Erin K.. Lee, John D.. (2016) Cooperation in Human-Agent Systems to Support Resilience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58. DOI: 10.1177/0018720816649094
    • Chiou, Erin K.. Lee, John D.. (2023) Trusting Automation: Designing for Responsivity and Resilience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 65. DOI: 10.1177/00187208211009995
    • Pariès, Jean. (2024) SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology Safe Performance in a World of Global Networks. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-35163-1_4
    • Salehi, Pouria. León, Gabriel A.. Chiou, Erin K.. (2025) Cooperative resource management in human-agent teams: effects of accountability and interaction structures. Human-Intelligent Systems Integration, 7. DOI: 10.1007/s42454-025-00061-3
    • Cuvelier, Lucie. D. Woods, David. (2019) Sécurité réglée et/ou sécurité gérée : quand l’ingénierie de la résilience réinterroge l’ergonomie de l’activité. Le travail humain, Vol. 82. DOI: 10.3917/th.821.0041
    • Marion, Guilherme Luiz Canzian. Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu. Viana, Daniela Dietz. (2025) The cost-benefit of slack in production planning and control in construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 43. DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2025.2529505
    • Bueno, Wagner Pietrobelli. Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu. Wachs, Priscila. Kuchenbecker, Ricardo. Braithwaite, Jeffrey. (2019) Coping with complexity in intensive care units: A systematic literature review of improvement interventions. Safety Science, 118. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.06.023
    • Neville, Kelly J.. Pires, Bianica. Madhavan, Poornima. Booth, Matthew. Rosfjord, Kris. Patterson, Emily S.. (2022) The TRUSTS Work System Resilience Framework: A Foundation for Resilience-Aware Development and Transition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 66. DOI: 10.1177/1071181322661177
    • Li, Jiahao. Dong, Shen. Chiou, Erin K.. Xu, Jie. (2020) Reciprocity and Its Neurological Correlates in Human-Agent Cooperation. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50. DOI: 10.1109/THMS.2020.2992224
    • Liao, Alan H.W.. Lai, Ka-Man. Tsai, Hsi-Yi. (2025) Applying Human Factors in Post Ambulatory Anesthesia Follow-Up Redesign. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care, 14. DOI: 10.1177/2327857925141025
    • Kadri, F.. Chaabane, Sondes. Vanderhaegen, F.. (2024) Studies in Computational Intelligence Service Oriented, Holonic and Multi-Agent Manufacturing Systems for Industry of the Future. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-53445-4_9
    • Watt, Alison. Jun, Gyuchan Thomas. Waterson, Patrick. (2019) Resilience in the blood transfusion process: Everyday and long-term adaptations to ‘normal’ work. Safety Science, 120. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.07.028
    • Woods, David D.. Branlat, Matthieu. (2011) Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium. DOI: 10.4000/books.pressesmines.1125
    • Marczyk, Carlos Emilio Stigler. Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu. Bulhões, Iamara Rossi. Patriarca, Riccardo. Bilotta, Federico. (2023) Slack in the infrastructure of intensive care units: resilience management in the post-pandemic era. BMC Health Services Research, 23. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09495-4
    • Smith, Michael W. Davis Giardina, Traber. Murphy, Daniel R. Laxmisan, Archana. Singh, Hardeep. (2013) Resilient actions in the diagnostic process and system performance. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001661
    • Son, Changwon. Sasangohar, Farzan. Rao, Arjun H.. Larsen, Ethan P.. Neville, Timothy. (2019) Resilient performance of emergency department: Patterns, models and strategies. Safety Science, 120. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.07.010
    • Fireman, Marcus C. T.. Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu. Formoso, Carlos Torres. Koskela, Lauri. Tommelein, Iris D.. (2023) Slack in production planning and control: a study in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 41. DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2022.2135749
    • Bolton‐Maggs, Paula H. B.. Watt, Alison. (2020) Transfusion errors — can they be eliminated?. British Journal of Haematology, 189. DOI: 10.1111/bjh.16256

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Stephens, R. J., Woods, D. D., Branlat, M., & Wears, R. L. (2011). Colliding Dilemmas: Interactions Of Locally Adaptive Strategies In A Hospital Setting. In E. Hollnagel, Éric Rigaud, & D. Besnard (éds.), Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium. Paris: Presses des Mines. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.1110
    Stephens, Robert J., David D. Woods, Matthieu Branlat, et Robert L. Wears. « Colliding Dilemmas: Interactions Of Locally Adaptive Strategies In A Hospital Setting ». In Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium, édité par Erik Hollnagel, Éric Rigaud, et Denis Besnard. Paris: Presses des Mines, 2011. doi:10.4000/books.pressesmines.1110.
    Stephens, Robert J., et al. « Colliding Dilemmas: Interactions Of Locally Adaptive Strategies In A Hospital Setting ». Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium, édité par Erik Hollnagel et al., Presses des Mines, 2011, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.1110.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Hollnagel, E., Rigaud, Éric, & Besnard, D. (éds.). (2011). Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium. Paris: Presses des Mines. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.931
    Hollnagel, Erik, Éric Rigaud, et Denis Besnard, éd. Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium. Paris: Presses des Mines, 2011. doi:10.4000/books.pressesmines.931.
    Hollnagel, Erik, et al., éditeurs. Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium. Presses des Mines, 2011, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.931.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Presses des Mines

    Presses des Mines

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.pressesdesmines.com

    Email : presses@mines-paristech.fr

    Adresse :

    60, Boulevard Saint-Michel

    75272

    Paris

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement