Psychological Aspects of Risk Management and Technology Overview 16.9. Introduction (GG) 23.9. General framework: How organizations manage uncertainty (GG) 30.9. General framework: Tasks and tools in risk management (RS) 7.10. How individuals deal with risk: risk perception, decision making (GG) 14.1 0. Individual risk perception in future scenarios (RS) 21.10. Risk communication in crisis management (MZ) 28.1 0. Risk and the public: Psychological concerns in risk communication (GG) 4.11. Automation: Handling the limits of human control (GG) 11.1 1. Rules and routines in organizations (GG) 18.1 1. Handling risks in organizations: Safety management systems (GG) 25.1 1. Managing safety and security in telecommunications (MZ) 2.12. Standards and the role of the regulator in aviation (SM) 9.12. Risk implications of automation in aviation (SM) 16.12. General discussion - towards an integrative model of risk management (GG, RS)
Management of uncertainty (Grote, 2004, 2009) Minimizing uncertainty Complex central planning systems Reducing operative degrees if freedom through procedures and automation Disturbances as to be avoided symptoms of inefficient system design Coping with uncertainty Planning as resource for situated action Maximizing operative degrees of freedon through complete tasks and lateral cooperation Disturbances as opportunity for development and use of competencies and for system change Dependence / feedforward control Balance through loose coupling Motivation through task orientation Higher order autonomy Autonomy / feedback control Flexible changes between organizational modes Culture as basis for coordination/integration
Management of uncertainty (Grote, 2004, 2009) Minimizing uncertainty Coordination via - technical systems Complex central planning systems Reducing operative degrees if - freedom standards/programs through procedures and automation - personal instruction Disturbances as to be avoided symptoms of inefficient system Effective design with few uncertainties Dependence / feedforward control Balance through loose coupling Motivation through task orientation Higher order autonomy Coping with uncertainty Coordination via - plans Planning as resource for situated action Maximizing - mutual agreement operative degrees of freedon through complete tasks - culture and lateral cooperation Disturbances as opportunity for development Effective with and many use of competencies uncertainties and for system change Autonomy / feedback control Flexible changes between organizational modes Culture as basis for coordination/integration
The concept of organizational routines Organizational routines are "repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, carried out by multiple actors" (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 95) Three functions of routines (Nelson & Winter, 1982) targets for behavior, thereby keeping behavior under control; organizational memory of the knowledge needed for successful task performance; truce between conflicting interests of different participants in the organization.
Example of functions of rules in railway operations (Weichbrodt & Grote, 2009) Signalling Shunting Construction Density of regulation high low medium (increasing) Level and type of risk personal risk: none for others: high personal risk: high for others: medium personal risk: high for others: high Amount of conflict around rules low high medium Handling of rule breaking mostly peer control mostly supervision peer control and supervision Function of rules (interviewee s perspective) providing support, especially in unusual situations control by management and identifying culprit control by management and providing support! Rule as organizational memory! Rule as truce! Rule as target
Organizational routines versus organizational flexibility (1) Routines as crucial for coordinated action because they reduce complexity and uncertainty and increase stability, managerial control, and legitimacy. Routines can be standard operating procedures, technology-based processes, shared tacit understanding etc. Routines contain the duality of principle and practice, with practice always introducing an element of flexible adaptation; degree of flexibility depends on embeddedness of routine, power of rule user etc. (Feldman & Pentland, 2003) Rules have differential effects on different outcomes, e.g. efficiency versus customer satisfaction (Gilson et al., 2005) Rules may impede the forming of an individual action plan and thereby further atomization of actions (Vermersch, 1985)
Organizational routines versus organizational flexibility (2) Rules create expectation of shared goals, plans, perspectives, knowledge base etc. for individual actors. Risk of not realizing need for explicit coordination, e.g. in non-routine situations which require switches to higher levels of common action regulation (i.e. skill -> rule -> knowledge). How to achieve flexible guidance for coordinated action through rules? Instead of focusing on the issue of many vs. few rules / high vs. low standardization, different types of rules need to be defined and their effects studied
The relationship between routines and rules Routine in principle Abstract understanding of certain recurrent behavior pattern describe inform guide express Rule Artefact containing a written-down formal description of certain behavior pattern Routine in practice Actual recurrent behavior pattern create establish
Rule types (Hale & Swuste, 1998) Rules concerning goals to be achieved (goal rules) "It must be clearly understood that not all combinations of cumulative opera-tional problems (engine failure plus e.g. terrain, weather, availability of aerodroms etc.) can be covered by this policy. In such situations the solution offering the highest degree of safety should be sought." Rules defining the way in which decisions about a course of action must be arrived at (process rules) "In order to complete a replan-ning, any documented cruise systems and all means available may be used, such as flight management systems and data contained in the respective AOMs." Rules defining concrete actions (action rules) "Every evacuation must be carried out as quickly as possible. The passengers must be assisted to leave the aeroplane without their belongings and directed to a point at a safe distance from the aeroplane."
Rule types - continued (Hale & Swuste, 1998) Level of action regulation: Goal rules Process rules Action rules Obligation (Advice vs. command) Decision latitude (with vs. without decision latitude) Distribution of responsibility (Responsible person(s) mentioned vs. not mentioned) Exceptions (with vs. without exceptions) Reasons (with vs. without reasons)
Results of rules analysis in railway operations Rule type Rules shunting New rules Moving trains Old rules Moving trains (analogue parts to new rules) Old rules Moving trains Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Total 28 100 32 100 38 100 155 100 Goal rule 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 Process rule 6 21 9 28 2 5 19 12 Action rule 22 79 22 69 36 95 135 87 Advice 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 2 With decision latitude With distribution of responsibili t y 20 71 15 47 14 37 61 39 2 7 17 53 13 34 46 30 With exceptions 7 25 6 19 7 18 34 22 With reasons 1 4 0 0 1 3 5 3
Issues emerging from rules analysis for railway operations More goal rules to support priority setting? More process rules to support orientation without restricting action and adaptive coordination? More decision latitude for shunting operations than for moving trains: adequate for actor groups vs. optimizing efforts for rule design? More distribution of responsibilites: danger of overreduction of redundancies and insufficient match between distribution of uncertainties and resources for coping with uncertainties? 1/5 to 1/4 exceptions as support vs. as unnecessary increase in complexity?
Exercise Analyze the TCAS rules from the Swissair flight operations manual. Discuss your findings regarding the usefulness of the rules as they are. If needed, suggest improvements.
Good rule? Example from a flight operations manual regarding use of TCAS
Rule management process (Hale, Heijer & Koornneef, 2003)
Interplay between different coordination mechanisms: Adaptive coordination in the cockpit Flight phase 1 2 3 Take-off Preparation Approach and Landing Clean approach Average duration (min.) 3 10 3 Task load Low Low High Standardization High Low High Coordination units (CU) overall 840 3514 1429 CU explicit 66% 81% 60% CU implicit 34% 19% 40% CU leadership 2% 14% 3% CU heedful interrelating 2% 18% 19% r=.37 between performance and explicit coordination overall Good teams used more leadership in phase 2 and less in phases 1 and 3 Good teams had first officers using less implicit coordination.
Elements of good rules management Determine desired balance between stability and flexibility Systematic decisions about types of rules Process and goal rules promote flexibility, action rules promote stability Matching competence levels by rule followers and decision latitude in rules Systematic procedures for developing rules Participative rule-making Systematic choices between rules and other coordination mechanisms such as leadership