• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15405 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15405 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...
  • ›
  • From Crew Resource Management To Operati...
  • 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 Traditional CRM-principles 3 An Alternative Approach 4 Implementing Operational Resilience 5 Concluding Remarks Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    From Crew Resource Management To Operational Resilience

    Johan Bergström, Eder Henriqson et Nicklas Dahlström

    p. 36-42

    Résumé

    This paper questions the correspondence between resilience engineering theory and the theoretical fundamentals of traditional CRM training, with its related behavior assessments. Reviewing the theoretical roots of CRM it is concluded that such concepts are rather founded in the information processing paradigm hiding the complexities of adaption to rapidly changing situations. An alternative approach to team training and team performance assessment, called Operational Resilience, is introduced. Operational Resilience is rooted in complexity theory and in theorizing cognition as a distributed phenomenon. The most important principles of Operational Resilience are the focus on processes of coordination and control rather than behaviors, analysis of emergent interactions in multi-professional settings, focus on local production of meaning instead of normative accounts of situation awareness (or similar constructions), and finally analysing how to bridge the gaps caused by the inherent system complexity instead of counting and categorizing errors.

    Note de l’auteur

    Note portant sur l’auteur1

    Note portant sur l’auteur2

    Note portant sur l’auteur3

    Texte intégral Bibliographie References Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Texte intégral

    1 Introduction

    1Recent contributions on the topic of Resilience Engineering have developed new concepts and methodologies for training organizational resilience. In general terms, these concepts have been focused on the understanding of people’s adaptative capacity to cope with complex working situations (Dekker, 2006; Nemeth, 2008). Methodologies of RE are still been developed in parallel with the adaption of some conventional methodologies (e.g. team training, risk assessment methods, crises management plans), in order to provide various safety-critical industries with techniques to introduce resilience thinking in practice (Hollnagel, Paries, Woods & Wreathall, 2011).

    2In the wake of the development of Resilience Engineering the experience of Crew Resource Management (CRM) training, firstly in aviation, and secondly in healthcare, has been identified as a conventional training practice with potential for improving organizational resilience in highly complex technological settings, considering dimensions at thel level of the individual (e.g. leadership skills), team (e.g. communication, coordination), and the organization (e.g. safety culture) (Bergström, Dahlström, Henriqson & Dekker, 2010; Dekker & Lundström, 2007; McManus, Seville, Brunsdon, Vargo, 2007).

    3In this paper an agenda for the development of conceptual fundaments of sharp end team training, and team performance assessment, will be outlined. The proposition will be made that CRM concepts and methods should be reviewed, and tailored in light of resilience theory before being applied in training. First CRM principles and its epistemological fundaments will be discussed in order to present some fragilities of the traditional view. Then an alternative approach to team training and assessment, based on resilience theory, will be presented. Finally some implications for the analysis and training of sharp end performance will be outlined.

    2 Traditional CRM-principles

    4The currently established starting point to understand sharp end work is fundamentally based on the information processing paradigm, in which the human is seen as a stimuli­response system (Hollnagel & Woods, 2005). From this paradigm, “folk models” of what goes on in the human mind (e.g. concepts such as “Situation Awareness” or “Complacency”) follow naturally and seem to provide a simple and seductively convincing way of understanding human work in safety critical systems (Dekker & Hollnagel, 2005).

    5The study of man as a stimuli-response system puts the focus on human behavior, such as making correct and rational decisions based on optimal information processing based on accurate awareness of the situation, assertive communication and effective interaction between leaders and followers. The ultimate implication of the information processing-paradigm in the field of current Human Factors and CRM training is the use of different techniques to assess such behaviors. Some examples are the use of behavioral markers to (such as NOTECHS, KSA markers) and different forms of Line Operation Safety Audit (LOSA), which is focused on counting and categorizing errors.

    6Although these models and techniques are simple to understand and use this simplicity comes with a price. The price one pays by adapting to these models is that they exclude or hide the complexities of the multiple factors, which can support and enhance local adaption in unforeseen situations.

    3 An Alternative Approach

    7An alternative approach to understanding sharp end work in safety critical systems needs to be based on the perspectives provided by Complexity Theory and cognition as a phenomenon distributed among the actors engaged in a specific context (Hutchins, 1995a). It brings about the possibility of focusing on complexity and coupling of interactions in joint human-machine systems thus shifting from human cognition and behavior analysis to Operational Resilience.

    8From Complexity Theory the corollary that a system cannot be fully described nor fully controlled (Cilliers, 2005) is important for understanding safety-critical work. Complexity is what emerges when a system, put together by physically separated elements and artifacts (e.g. different wards at a hospital or different aircrafts on approach to an airport), shifts from loose to tight coupling, from high autonomy to high interdependence in a short span of time (as when different hospital wards normally functioning relatively autonomously becomes highly interdependent in response to an escalating situation) (Dekker, 2005).

    9From the approach of analysing cognition as distributed the focus shifts from the human as an information-processor to the work in which the human engage together with other team players as people (spread over hierarchical boundaries) and technological systems (Woods, 2003). By not focusing on the specific indivudual’s behavior focus is shifted to the perspective of studying cognition as distributed in the entire system engaged in a particular work situation (Hutchins, 1995b).

    10Thus, from the perspective of Operational Resilience the interest lies not in observing human behavior, nor in deconstructing human work from motivationally-based models or concepts such as situation awareness, complacency, or human error. Instead the interest of analysis lies in the complexities facing the sharp-end operators in their day-to-day work in complex, dynamic systems.

    4 Implementing Operational Resilience

    11In our respective organization we, the authors of this paper, are incorporating the notion of Operational Resilience into training programs as well as methods to assess team performance. Bergström is involved in developing a training program for multiprofessional team training of health care staff. Henriqson and Bergström are together developing methods for team assessment based on Operational Resilience rather than behavioral markers, and Dahlström has, toghether with Bergström worked for several years with alternative approaches for training team coordination in escalating situations. Now Dahlström is closer than ever to ”reality” being head of the human factors training at Emirates Airlines.

    12Now that the context of our work is outlined the last part of the paper will be focused on describing the main principles of the Operational Resilience-approach to team training and team performance assessment.

    4.1 The role of the observer

    13In complex systems an observer cannot measure behaviors or errors, because each behavior and error is a construction made by the observer herself (in contrast to being constructed as a social fact in a Durkheimian sense) (Hollnagel & Amalberti, 2001). The role of the observer will rather be to interpret (in contrast to explain) coordination and control of the entire cognitive system engaged in the ongoing safety critical work.

    14This argument has been made by Dekker, Nyce, van Winsen & Henriqson (2010) asking the community of human factors to apply a more modest view to their epistemological assumptions when analyzing human activity. When developing protocols for team performance assessment this argument is considered by always incorporating the perspectives of the participants, together with the interpretation of the observer, into the evaluation.

    4.2 Control

    15Cognitive systems theory has adopted a cybernetics approach to define control by its circularities of feedback and feedforward. This approach combines, the cybernetic notion of regulation (Ashby, 1959), the Perceptual Cycle of Neisser (1976) and Hutchins’ ideas of distributed cognition (1995a, 1995b), to provide a functionalist approach of control. In this sense, control ‘happens’ during the interaction of “human-task-artifact” and is goal-oriented and influenced by the context in which the situated activity happens.

    16When developing methods for team performance assessment Hollnagel’s model of contextual control modes (Hollnagel & Woods, 2005) has been operationalized to map how the perceived level of control shifts during a scenario by including both the participants’ own reflections and the observer’s interpretations (Palmqvist, Bergström, Henriqson, 2011). Noteworthy is that no level of control is seen as more appropriate than another, but instead is highly contingent upon the situation and context. This is a promising way to go beyond the behavioral markers or error classifications of the information processing paradigm.

    4.3 Coordination

    17Complexity is managed in context dependent processes of coordination rather than in local processes of stimuli and response. When developing methods to analyze and improve sharp-end work in complex systems the concept of coordination is more valuable than the concepts of individual cognitive phenomena. The paradigm of joint cognitive systems has advocated the view that coordination must be analyzed as a distributed phenomenon emerging from the interactions between people and artefacts.

    18In a recent study Henriqson, Saurin and Bergström (2011) described how coordination may be interpreted as a situated and distributed cognitive phenomenon in the cockpit of commercial aircraft. The study provided an integration of the perspectives of joint cognitive systems theory with four coordination requirements described in the literature: common ground, interpretability, directability and synchrony (Klien et al, 2005). Automation, along with the pilots, were conceived of as a third activity agent. As a result of this integration, four coordination modes in the cockpit, occurring at different flight stages, were proposed according to the degree of interdependence of actions, the task flow, and the purpouse of the coordination iniciatives at the joint system level.

    19As investigation guidelines for future studies it is proposed that: (a) studies of coordination should be context, as well as, domains specific and hence proceed to broader generalizations; (b) the mechanicist perspective of coordination via the analysis of cause-effect relations needs to be abandoned, because it only increases the rigidity of the process reducing the capability of flexibility and adaptation; (c) work procedures needs to be flexible, providing means of adapting the theoretical system and the operator to the work situation.

    4.4 The emergent interactions in the system

    20Emergence is a property that appears in the interactive process of co-activity between the social and technical parts of the system (Cilliers, 2005). To move beyond containing emergence, it is necessary to establish practices for dealing with variability and uncertainty. In this sense, to analyse the capacity of the human to perform work or analyse technology design, it is necessary to focus on the phenomena emerging from the interactions of joint cognitive work.

    21The interaction context offers guidance for the action at the same time as it is constructed by the action carried out. In this case, there is no precedence in the interaction, except for the event. For example, Henriqson, Saurin and Bergström (2011) identified that local representations which condition the broader coordination context in a cockpit, are results from interactions between internal (interpreting structure that is peculiar to the individual) and external representations (elements in the action context, such as symbols, numbers, data and shapes), in themselves always partial and incomplete.

    22When developing programs for team training the importance of the multiprofessional approach is stressed. In a multiprofessional setting the participants can together identify the situations in which the relationships and interactions between them, rather than their respective reliability as safe components, establish safety (or risk) as an emergent property of the system.

    4.5 Production of meaning

    23Training for optimal Situation Awareness is less important than understanding different assessments. Complex systems do not allow for complete, or “correct” descriptions. Instead of using hindsight to accuse operators for not having had an optimal Situation Awareness focus needs to shift to ensuring that different and competing productions of meaning (based on different experiences and viewpoints) are available when working in safety critical environments.

    24Ultimately this is a shift towards the notion of diversity, so important for complexity theory (Cilliers, 1998). Complex systems are resilient when they are diverse. Diversity implies that different practicioners deploy different repertoires for responding to what, from their respeictive perspective, is seen as evidence as well as to each others’ constructions of such evidence (Dekker, 2011).

    25Again, when developing concepts for multiprofessional team training in complex settings it is important to gather the actors that at certain points might become tightly coupled and highly interdependent. Together they need to be given the opportunity to, aided by facilitators, enlight their different perspectives so as to create prerequisites for successful coordination at the organization’s most complex moments.

    4.6 Focus on bridging gaps instead of categorizing and counting errors.

    26This implication is based on writings of Cook, Render & Woods (2000) suggesting that to improve safety the gaps that arise in any complex operation, and the expert strategies used by operators to bridge those gaps in practice, need to be understood.

    27To make the notion of complexity theory graspable and useful for practitioners in any high-risk field complexity needs to get a pedagogical value for their own reflections of their work. The notion of gaps and bridges is a valuable contributor for such pedagogical operationalization of complexity theory. In a multiprofessional setting a valuable exercise could be to sit down together from different subsystems and professions and discuss the gaps that arise during the situations when the actors of the system shift from loose to tight coupling, and the strategies that can be used to bridge the upcoming gaps.

    5 Concluding Remarks

    28This paper has provided an overview of how the fundamental understanding of safety and CRM training needs to be reshaped and proposed how the current content of such training needs to be developed to be aligned with the theory of Operational Resilience.

    29Since modern safety-critical industries exhibit an abundance of evidence suggesting the need for analysis using approaches based on complexity theory our models for understanding human work in these systems cannot be based on a paradigm in which human work is reduced to behavior as response internal information processing, such as in traditional CRM concepts. Based on the properties exhibited the perspective of Operational Resilience seems more relevant for these systems, because it brings about the view of the inherent socio-technical complexity, rather than the view of such systems as Cartesian-Newtonian machines susceptible to the rules of information processing paradigm.

    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
    Klir, G. J. (1991). Facets of Systems Science (1–). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9
    Cilliers, P. (2002). Complexity and Postmodernism (1–). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203012253
    Cook, R. I. (2000). Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety. BMJ, 320(7237), 791-794. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.791
    Dekker, S., & Hollnagel, E. (2004). Human factors and folk models. In Cognition, Technology & Work (Vols. 6, Issues 2, pp. 79-86). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-003-0136-9
    Dekker, S. (2004). Ten Questions About Human Error (1–). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b12474
    Dekker, S. (2016). Drift into Failure (1–). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315257396
    Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. D. (2005). Joint Cognitive Systems (1–). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420038194
    Hutchins, E. (1995). How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265-288. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1
    Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the Wild (1–). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001
    Rouse, W. B., & Boff, K. R. (Eds.). (2005). Organizational Simulation (1–). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471739448
    Human Factors and Ergonomics (1–). (1–). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/leahumfacerg
    Klir, George J. Facets of Systems Science. []. Springer US, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9.
    Cilliers, Paul. Complexity and Postmodernism. []. Routledge, 2002. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203012253.
    Cook, R. I. “Gaps in the Continuity of Care and Progress on Patient Safety”. BMJ 320, no. 7237 (March 18, 2000): 791-94. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.791.
    Dekker, Sidney, and Erik Hollnagel. “Human Factors and Folk Models”. Cognition, Technology &Amp; Work. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, May 1, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-003-0136-9.
    Dekker, Sidney. Ten Questions About Human Error. []. CRC Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1201/b12474.
    Dekker, Sidney. “Drift into Failure”. []. CRC Press, December 5, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315257396.
    Hollnagel, Erik, and David D. Woods. Joint Cognitive Systems. []. CRC Press, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420038194.
    Hutchins, Edwin. “How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds”. Cognitive Science 19, no. 3 (July 1995): 265-88. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1.
    Hutchins, Edwin. “Cognition in the Wild”. []. The MIT Press, 1996. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001.
    Rouse, William B., and Kenneth R. Boff, eds. “Organizational Simulation”. []. Wiley, May 11, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471739448.
    “Human Factors and Ergonomics”. []. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/leahumfacerg.
    Klir, George J. Facets of Systems Science. [], Springer US, 1991. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9.
    Cilliers, Paul. Complexity and Postmodernism. [], Routledge, 2002. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203012253.
    Cook, R. I. “Gaps in the Continuity of Care and Progress on Patient Safety”. BMJ, vol. 320, no. 7237, Mar. 2000, pp. 791-4. CrossRef, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.791.
    Dekker, Sidney, and Erik Hollnagel. “Human Factors and Folk Models”. Cognition, Technology &Amp; Work, vol. 6, no. 2, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 1 May 2004, pp. 79-86. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-003-0136-9.
    Dekker, Sidney. Ten Questions About Human Error. [], CRC Press, 2004. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1201/b12474.
    Dekker, Sidney. Drift into Failure. [], CRC Press, 5 Dec. 2016. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315257396.
    Hollnagel, Erik, and David D. Woods. Joint Cognitive Systems. [], CRC Press, 2005. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420038194.
    Hutchins, Edwin. “How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds”. Cognitive Science, vol. 19, no. 3, July 1995, pp. 265-88. CrossRef, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1.
    Hutchins, Edwin. Cognition in the Wild. [], The MIT Press, 1996. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001.
    Rouse, William B., and Kenneth R. Boff, editors. Organizational Simulation. [], Wiley, 11 May 2005. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/0471739448.
    Human Factors and Ergonomics. [], CRC Press. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1201/leahumfacerg.

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

    References

    10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9 :

    Ashby, W.R. (1959). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems, Cybernetica, 1, 83-99.

    Bergström, J.N., Dahlström, N., Henriqson, E., Dekker, S.W.A. (2010). Team coordination in escalating situations : an empirical study using mid-fidelity simulation. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18(4).

    10.4324/9780203012253 :

    Cilliers P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge

    Cilliers, P. (2005). Complexity, Deconstruction and Relativism. Theory Culture &Society, v.22, n.5, p. 255-267.

    10.1136/bmj.320.7237.791 :

    Cook, RI., Render, M., & Woods, DD. (2000) Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety. British Medical Journal, 320:7237, 791-794.

    10.1007/s10111-003-0136-9 :

    Dekker, S.W.A. & Hollnagel, E. (2004). Human factors and folk models. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 6, 79-86.

    10.1201/b12474 :

    Dekker, S.W.A. (2005) Ten questions about human error. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Dekker, S.W.A. (2006). Resilience Engineering: chronicling the emergence of confuse consensus. In: E. Hollnagel, D.D. Woods & N.G. Leveson (eds.). Resilience Engineering: concepts and percepts. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Dekker, S. W. A., & Lundström, J. T. (2007). From threat and error management (TEM) to resilience. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 6(3), 261-274.

    Dekker, S..W.A., Nyce, J., van Winsen, R., Henriqson, E. (2010). Epistemological Self-Confidence in Human Factors Research, Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4:1, 27-38.

    10.1201/9781315257396 :

    Dekker, S.W.A. (2011). Drift into failure: From hunting broken components to understanding complex systems, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Hollnagel, E., & Amalberti, R. (2001). The emperor’s new clothes: Or whatever happened to “human error”? In S. W.A. Dekker (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Human Error, Safety and Systems Development (pp. 1-18). Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University.

    10.1201/9781420038194 :

    Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D.D. (2005). Joint Cognitive Systems: foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

    Hollnagel, E., Paries, J., Woods, D.D. & Wreathall, J. (2011). Resilience Engineering in Practice. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1 :

    Hutchins, E. (1995a). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288.

    10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 :

    Hutchins, E. (1995b). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    10.1002/0471739448 :

    Klein, G., Feltovich, P.J., Bradshaw, J.M., Woods, D.D. (2005). Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In W. Rouse & K. Boff (Eds.). Organizational Simulation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    McManus, S, Seville, E., Brunsdon, D. & Vargo, J. (2007). A framework for assessing and improving resilience of organizations (Research Report 2007/1). New Zealand: Resilience Organizations Program.

    Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and Reality. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

    Nemeth, C. (2008). Resilience Engineering: the birth of a notion. In: E. Hollnagel, C. Nemeth & S.W.A. Dekker (eds.). Resilience Engineering Perspectives, volume 1: remaining sensitive to the possibility of failure. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Palmqvist, H., Bergström, J., Henriqson, E. (2011). How to assess team performance in terms of control: A cognitive systems engineering approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    10.1201/LEAHUMFACERG :

    Woods, D.D. (2003). Discovering how distributed cognitive systems work. In E. Hollnagel (Ed.). Handbook of Cognitive Task Design. (pp.37-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Notes de bas de page

    1 Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management, PO-Box 118, SE-22100, Lund, Sweden Johan.Bergstrom@lucram.lu.se

    2 Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Faculty of Aeronautical Science, Ipiranga Avenue, 6681, Building 10/106, 90619-900, Porto Alegre, Brazil ehenriqson@pucrs.br

    3 Emirates Airlines, Flight Training Department, PO Box 28 444, Dubai, UAE nicklas.dahlstrom@emirates.com

    Auteurs

    • Johan Bergström
    • Eder Henriqson
    • Nicklas Dahlström
    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

    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 Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management, PO-Box 118, SE-22100, Lund, Sweden Johan.Bergstrom@lucram.lu.se

    2 Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Faculty of Aeronautical Science, Ipiranga Avenue, 6681, Building 10/106, 90619-900, Porto Alegre, Brazil ehenriqson@pucrs.br

    3 Emirates Airlines, Flight Training Department, PO Box 28 444, Dubai, UAE nicklas.dahlstrom@emirates.com

    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

    Ce chapitre est cité par

    • Flandin, Simon. (2022) Professional and Practice-based Learning Simulation Training through the Lens of Experience and Activity Analysis. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-89567-9_3
    • Semling, Corinna. (2023) Gesund bleiben in kranken Unternehmen. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-39903-0_18
    • Roth, Wolff-Michael. Mavin, Timothy J.. (2015) Peer Assessment of Aviation Performance: Inconsistent for Good Reasons. Cognitive Science, 39. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12152
    • Hamlet, Oliver Edwin Daniel. Irwin, Amy. McGregor, Molly. (2020) Is It All about the Mission? Comparing Non-technical Skills across Offshore Transport and Search and Rescue Helicopter Pilots. The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 30. DOI: 10.1080/24721840.2020.1803746
    • Praetorius, Gesa. Hollnagel, Erik. (2014) Control and Resilience Within the Maritime Traffic Management Domain. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8. DOI: 10.1177/1555343414560022
    • Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu. Wachs, Priscila. Henriqson, Éder. (2013) RETRACTED: Identification of non-technical skills from the resilience engineering perspective: A case study of an electricity distributor. Safety Science, 51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.010
    • Adriaensen, Arie. Patriarca, Riccardo. Smoker, Anthony. Bergström, Johan. (2019) A socio-technical analysis of functional properties in a joint cognitive system: a case study in an aircraft cockpit. Ergonomics, 62. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2019.1661527
    • Semling, Corinna. Ellwart, Thomas. (2016) Entwicklung eines Modells zur Teamresilienz in kritischen Ausnahmesituationen. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 47. DOI: 10.1007/s11612-016-0322-x
    • Weber, David E.. Dekker, Sidney W.A.. (2016) Assessing the sharp end: reflections on pilot performance assessment in the light ofSafety Differently. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. DOI: 10.1080/1463922X.2016.1149253
    • Rosa, Eduardo. Dahlstrom, Nicklas. Knez, Igor. Ljung, Robert. Cameron, Mark. Willander, Johan. (2021) Dynamic decision-making of airline pilots in low-fidelity simulation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 22. DOI: 10.1080/1463922X.2020.1758830

    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

    Bergström, J., Henriqson, E., & Dahlström, N. (2011). From Crew Resource Management To Operational Resilience. In E. Hollnagel, Éric Rigaud, & D. Besnard (éds.), Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium (1‑). Presses des Mines. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.967
    Bergström, Johan, Eder Henriqson, et Nicklas Dahlström. « From Crew Resource Management To Operational Resilience ». In Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium, édité par Erik Hollnagel, Éric Rigaud, et Denis Besnard. Paris: Presses des Mines, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.967.
    Bergström, Johan, et al. « From Crew Resource Management To Operational Resilience ». Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium, édité par Erik Hollnagel et al., Presses des Mines, 2011, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.967.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Hollnagel, E., Rigaud, Éric, & Besnard, D. (éds.). (2011). Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium (1‑). 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. https://doi.org/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