Virpi Kalakoski

Cognitive failure at work: factorial structure of a new questionnaire

Motivation -- To estimate cognitive failure and preceding conditions at work with a new questionnaire, and to describe its factorial structure and subscales. Research approach -- An explorative survey approach was used with a questionnaire consisting of three parts: Workplace Cognitive Failure Scale (WCFS), a new scale on cognitive failures, and a questionnaire on work conditions. Findings/Design -- The results replicate the factorial structure of the original WCFS, with its memory, attention, and action subscales. With additional items of cognitive failure we found four subscales detailing perception of relevant information, forgetting work tasks, multitasking, and acting in the environment. Seven subscales were found for work-related factors that are likely to impair cognitive functioning. Research limitations/Implications -- Only employees of one company and one occupation participated in the preliminary study, which limits generalisation of the findings. Originality/Value -- The research makes a contribution to defining and detailing cognitive failure at work and identifying work-related conditions that may induce human error and accidents in occupations that are not safety-critical, but nevertheless prone to accidents. Take away message -- Improving safety at conventional workplaces requires means to recognise central latent causes of human error. We developed a cost-effective method to identify types of cognitive failure and work conditions that may induce error at work.

Improving effectiveness and well-being in knowledge work through cognitive ergonomics

Motivation -- To study if the use of information technology (IT) really does improve efficiency in different knowledge work professions in itself, and to identify possible unnecessary cognitive stress factors in systems and environments. Research approach -- The research consists of four parts: 1. A survey based on the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (Broadbent et al. 1982), CFQ, and the Workplace Cognitive Failure Scale (Wallace and Chen, 2005), WCFS. The questionnaires will be slightly modified to fit knowledge work environments and tasks better. 2. An experiment studying the costs of inconsistent information in knowledge work. These costs are measured with a newly developed cognitive task that simulates working with both consistent and inconsistent systems. 3. An experiment studying environmental factors and their effect on work flow and efficiency. Such environmental factors include ambient office noise, interruptions in work flow, and system usability. Work is simulated using the same cognitive task as in part 2. 4. A review of cognitive stress factors inflicting cognitive errors, harming work flow, and decreasing efficiency. Also aspects of the true costs of such factors, and ways in which they could be avoided are discussed. Findings/Design -- First, common cognitive errors and failures in knowledge work environments are recognized. Novel methods for studying the effects of information consistency and various environmental factors are developed and applied. The findings of these studies are then applied to a broader context including the well-being of individuals, knowledge work flow and effectiveness, and the economic effects of cognitive failures and stressful environments. Research limitations/Implications -- Research is limited to Finnish knowledge work environments, hence the socio-economic aspects and work environment conditions are not universally generalisable. However, the cognitive aspects and limitations studied are likely to be cross-cultural. Originality/Value -- A correlation between cognitive failure at work and workplace accidents has been recognized. However, typical knowledge work environments are not prone to accidents, but should be particularly susceptible to cognitive errors. The frequency, effect and cost of such errors in these environments merits a more thorough study. Take away message -- Information systems are often introduced into work environments in order to improve efficiency. Such systems do not increase work efficiency just by being information systems, they must fit the work environment, tasks and most importantly the users in order to improve work flow and not frustrate or stress the employees.