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

IF 2.5 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
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 ,&nbsp;Sin-Ning Cindy Liu ,&nbsp;Alec Smith ,&nbsp;Joseph W. Hendricks ,&nbsp;S. Camille Peres ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Sin-Ning Cindy Liu ,&nbsp;Alec Smith ,&nbsp;Joseph W. Hendricks ,&nbsp;S. Camille Peres ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

想象中的工作"(WAI)和 "实际完成的工作"(WAD)之间的差异反映了理论上普遍存在的、众所周知的人类工作绩效研究障碍。由于工作场所的动态性和情境性,程序中反映的理想化绩效并不总是按规定完成,因此为研究 WAI 和 WAD 之间的差异提供了绝佳的机会。对于高风险行业来说,要了解如何有效地设计和维护工人工具(这里指的是程序),就必须识别和检查这种差距以及这些偏差的性质。本研究采用主题分析法,通过在几家大型国际化工企业进行的访谈,比较了程序管理人员和管理层的绩效预期(代表 WAI)与用户绩效的实际情况(代表 WAD)。对这些观点的直接比较显示,人们对程序的使用方式和何时最有用的期望存在分歧:用户报告偏离程序的频率高于管理员认为用户偏离程序的频率;用户报告任务是造成偏离程序的原因的频率高于管理员;管理员认为用户可能无意中偏离程序,而用户却没有报告这种情况。要使程序系统达到最佳运行状态,就必须找出并进一步研究这些差异以及造成这些差异的根本原因。为此,我们从人为因素、人体工程学和心理学文献中找出了相关的研究结果和理论,并提出了未来的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.90%
发文量
110
审稿时长
56 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信