Anjelica Mendoza , Sin-Ning Cindy Liu , Alec Smith , Joseph W. Hendricks , S. Camille Peres , Farzan Sasangohar
{"title":"程序偏差的现实:对 \"已完成的工作 \"和 \"想象中的工作 \"两种不同视角的定性研究","authors":"Anjelica Mendoza , Sin-Ning Cindy Liu , Alec Smith , Joseph W. Hendricks , S. Camille Peres , Farzan Sasangohar","doi":"10.1016/j.ergon.2024.103564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The differences between ‘work as imagined’ (WAI) and ‘work as done’ (WAD) reflect theoretically pervasive and well-known barriers to the examination of human performance at work. Due to the dynamic and situational nature of the workplace, the idealized performance reflected in procedures is not always done as prescribed, and thus provides an excellent opportunity for examining divergence between WAI and WAD. The identification and examination of this gap and the nature of these deviations are imperative for high-risk industries to understand how workers' tools—in this case procedures—can be effectively designed and maintained. The present study used thematic analysis to compare procedure administrator and management performance expectations (representing WAI) to the realities of user performance (representing WAD) through interviews collected at several large, international chemical corporation sites. Direct comparisons of these perspectives revealed divergent expectations of how procedures are used and when they are most useful: Users reported deviating more often than administrators perceived the users deviate; users reported that tasks were the cause of the deviations more than administrators; and administrators thought that users may deviate from the procedures unintentionally while users did not report this. For a procedural system to perform optimally, these differences and the underlying processes that perpetuate them must be identified and further examined. To this end, relevant findings and theories from the human factors, ergonomics, and psychology literatures are identified and future directions are proposed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50317,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The realities of procedure deviance: A qualitative examination of divergent work-as-done and work-as-imagined perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Anjelica Mendoza , Sin-Ning Cindy Liu , Alec Smith , Joseph W. Hendricks , S. Camille Peres , Farzan Sasangohar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ergon.2024.103564\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The differences between ‘work as imagined’ (WAI) and ‘work as done’ (WAD) reflect theoretically pervasive and well-known barriers to the examination of human performance at work. Due to the dynamic and situational nature of the workplace, the idealized performance reflected in procedures is not always done as prescribed, and thus provides an excellent opportunity for examining divergence between WAI and WAD. The identification and examination of this gap and the nature of these deviations are imperative for high-risk industries to understand how workers' tools—in this case procedures—can be effectively designed and maintained. The present study used thematic analysis to compare procedure administrator and management performance expectations (representing WAI) to the realities of user performance (representing WAD) through interviews collected at several large, international chemical corporation sites. Direct comparisons of these perspectives revealed divergent expectations of how procedures are used and when they are most useful: Users reported deviating more often than administrators perceived the users deviate; users reported that tasks were the cause of the deviations more than administrators; and administrators thought that users may deviate from the procedures unintentionally while users did not report this. For a procedural system to perform optimally, these differences and the underlying processes that perpetuate them must be identified and further examined. To this end, relevant findings and theories from the human factors, ergonomics, and psychology literatures are identified and future directions are proposed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814124000209\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814124000209","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
The realities of procedure deviance: A qualitative examination of divergent work-as-done and work-as-imagined perspectives
The differences between ‘work as imagined’ (WAI) and ‘work as done’ (WAD) reflect theoretically pervasive and well-known barriers to the examination of human performance at work. Due to the dynamic and situational nature of the workplace, the idealized performance reflected in procedures is not always done as prescribed, and thus provides an excellent opportunity for examining divergence between WAI and WAD. The identification and examination of this gap and the nature of these deviations are imperative for high-risk industries to understand how workers' tools—in this case procedures—can be effectively designed and maintained. The present study used thematic analysis to compare procedure administrator and management performance expectations (representing WAI) to the realities of user performance (representing WAD) through interviews collected at several large, international chemical corporation sites. Direct comparisons of these perspectives revealed divergent expectations of how procedures are used and when they are most useful: Users reported deviating more often than administrators perceived the users deviate; users reported that tasks were the cause of the deviations more than administrators; and administrators thought that users may deviate from the procedures unintentionally while users did not report this. For a procedural system to perform optimally, these differences and the underlying processes that perpetuate them must be identified and further examined. To this end, relevant findings and theories from the human factors, ergonomics, and psychology literatures are identified and future directions are proposed.
期刊介绍:
The journal publishes original contributions that add to our understanding of the role of humans in today systems and the interactions thereof with various system components. The journal typically covers the following areas: industrial and occupational ergonomics, design of systems, tools and equipment, human performance measurement and modeling, human productivity, humans in technologically complex systems, and safety. The focus of the articles includes basic theoretical advances, applications, case studies, new methodologies and procedures; and empirical studies.