Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Reducing the Level of Cognitive Distortions when Assessing the Vulnerability of Complex Technical Systems Based on Criterial Modeling Methods


(*) Corresponding author


Authors' affiliations


DOI: https://doi.org/10.15866/iremos.v13i6.17812

Abstract


Cognitive distortions are systematic errors made by people who participate in managing a complex technical system. From 60 to 90% of disasters occur due to cognitive distortions in the complex technical system management. The purpose of this work is to develop a mathematical apparatus for estimating cognitive distortions when assessing the complex technical system vulnerability by using the criterial modeling methods. In this study, cognitive distortions are interpreted as various kinds of systematic errors, as well as traditional distortions that occur in certain situations and that are based on the misrepresentations about the vulnerability of complex technical system and on the need to make decisions about their parrying. Complex technical systems have allocated parts (managed subsystems), participation in the system of people, machines and the natural environment, material, energy and information links between parts of systems, as well as the links between the system under consideration and other systems, etc. The object of this study is to find cognitive distortions that have an impact on estimating complex technical system vulnerabilities. The subjects of this study are criterial modeling methods that make it possible to estimate cognitive distortions when assessing vulnerability at all the levels of complex technical system management and thereby reduce the risks of accidents and disasters. Examples of criterial modeling methods implementation for cognitive distortions estimation in the vulnerability of the banking and transport systems are given.
Copyright © 2020 Praise Worthy Prize - All rights reserved.

Keywords


Cognitive Distortions; Vulnerability; Criterial Modeling; Complex Technical System; Risk

Full Text:

PDF


References


D. Kahneman, Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness, Cognitive Psychology, 3(3): 430–454, 1972.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3

A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Sciences, 185: 1124–1131, 1974.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

N.A. Makhutov, Z.S. Akhmetkhanov, D.R. Reznikov, Security of Russia. Security and safety of critically important facilities. Part 1. Scientific fundamentals of safety and security of objects that are critically important for national security. [Bezopasnost Rossii. Bezopasnost i zashchishchennost kriticheski vazhnykh obyektov. Chast 1. Nauchnyye osnovy bezopasnosti i zashchishchennosti kriticheski vazhnykh dlya natsionalnoy bezopasnosti obyektov] (Moscow, MGF “Knowledge”, 2012).

N.A. Makhutov, V.N. Permyakov, Z.S. Akhmetkhanov, D.O. Reznikov, E.F. Dubinina, Analysis of risks and ensuring the security of critically important objects of the oil and gas complex [Analiz riskov i obespecheniye zashchishchennosti kriticheski vazhnykh obyektov neftegazovogo kompleksa] (Tyumen, SGOU, 2013).

R.L. Solso, O.H. Maclin, M. Kimberly, Cognitive Psychology (Pearson, 2007).

E. Yudkowsky, Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgment of Global Risks. Global Catastrophic Risks (New York, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 91–119).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198570509.003.0009

C.H. Tinsley, R.L. Dillon, P.M. Madsen, How to Avoid Catastrophe, Harvard Business Review, 89(4): 90–110, 2011.

K.M. Henson, K.G. Goulias, R.G. Golledge, An assessment of activity-based modeling and simulation for applications in operational studies, disaster preparedness, and homeland security, Transportation Letters: The International Journal of Transportation Research, 1(1): 19–39, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.3328/tl.2009.01.01.19-39

R.L. Dillon, C.H. Tinsley, How near-misses influence decision making under risk: A missed opportunity for learning, Management Science, 54(8): 1425–1440, 2008.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0869

A.A. Kononov, D.A. Nikitin, A.K. Polikarpov, A.V. Sichkaruk, Problems of quality of safety requirements and possible ways to solve them, [Problemy kachestva trebovaniy bezopasnosti i vozmozhnyye puti ikh resheniy], Risk and Safety Management: Works of the System Analysis Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 41: 14–18, 2009.

A. Murata, T. Nakamura, W. Karwowski, Influence of Cognitive Biases in Distorting Decision Making and Leading to Critical Unfavorable Incidents, Safety, 1: 44–58, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.3390/safety1010044

A. Gloeckner, Psychology and Disaster: Why We Do Not See Looming Disasters and How Our Way of Thinking Causes Them, Global Policy, 7: 16–24, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12289

J. Mochizuki, N. Komendantova, In Search of Perfect Foresight? Policy Bias, Management of Unknowns, and What Has Changed in Science Policy Since the Tohoku Disaster, Risk Analysis, 37(2): 219–230, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12602

N. Naikar, B. Elix, Reflections on cognitive work analysis and its capacity to support designing for adaptation, Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 10(2): 123–125, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416654846

S. Demir, E. Abou-Jaoude, M. Kumral, Cognitive work analysis to comprehend operations and organizations in the mining industry, International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 27(4): 605-609, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.008

H. H. Erdogan, H. S. Duzgun, A. S. Selcuk-Kestel, Quantitative hazard assessment for Zonguldak Coal Basin underground mines, International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 29(3): 453-467, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2018.11.004

J. Miranda, P. Ponce, A. Molina, P. Wright, Sensing, smart and sustainable technologies for Agri-Food 4.0, Computers in Industry, 108: 21–36, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.02.002

S. Winkelhaus, E.H. Grosse, Logistics 4.0: a. systematic review towards a new logistics system, International Journal of Product Research, 58(1): 18-43, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1612964

A. Badri, B. Trudel, A.S. Souissi,. Occupational health and safety in the industry 4.0 era: A cause for major concern? Safety Science, 109: 403–411, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.012

H.J. Pasman, W.J. Rogers, M.S. Mannan, How can we improve process hazard identification? What can accident investigation methods contribute and what other recent developments? A brief historical survey and a sketch of how to advance. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 55: 80–106, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.05.018

A.A. Kononov, P.I. Kulakov, A.K. Polikarpov, On the methodology of criterial modeling of safety of large systems, critically important objects and critical infrastructures [O metodologii kriterialnogo modelirovaniya bezopasnosti bolshikh sistem, kriticheski vazhnykh obyektov i kriticheskikh infrastruktur], in Problems on Managing Safety of Complex Systems. Works of the XXIV International Scientific Conference (Moscow, Russian State Humanitarian University, 2016, pp. 276–279).

P.M. Salmon. M.G. Lenne, G.J.M. Read, C.M. Mulvihill, M. Cornelissen, J.H. Walker, K.L. Young, N. Stevens, N.A. Stanton, More than meets the eye: using cognitive work analysis to identify design requirements for future rail level crossing systems. Applied Ergonomics, 53: 312–322, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.021

J.L. Kohler, Looking ahead to significant improvements in mining safety and health through innovative research and effective diffusion into the industry, International journal of mining science and technology, 25(3): 325-332, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.03.002

D. Komljenovic, G. Loiselle, M. Kumral, Organization: a new focus on mine safety improvement in a complex operational and business environment, International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 27(4): 617-625, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.006

A.A. Kononov, V.P. Avdotin, V.G. Plyushchikov, Y.S. Avdotina, Using criterial modeling to control the regulatory framework on natural and technogenic security [Ispolzovaniye kriterialnogo modelirovaniya dlya kontrolya normativnoy bazy po prirodnoy i tekhnogennoy bezopasnosti], in Prevention. Rescue. Help: the XXVII International Scientific and Practical Conference (Khimki, FSBHIU HI ASS MES of Russia, 2017a, pp. 50–54).

A.A. Kononov, A.K. Polikarpov, K.V. Chernysh, Formal scheme of the dynamics of criterial models and assessment of the risks of incorrectness of the criterial basis for managing the security of large regional systems [Formalnaya skhema dinamiki kriterialnykh modeley i otsenki riskov nekorrektnosti kriterialnoy bazy upravleniya bezopasnostyu bolshikh regional’nykh sistem], in The VII All-Russian Scientific Conference “Theory and practice of system dynamics”: Materials of reports (Apatity, KSC RAS, 2017b, pp. 43–47).

W. Rücker, F. Hille, H. Rohrmann, Guideline for the Assessment of the Existing Structures (Berlin, Federal Institute of Materials Research and Testing, 2006).

V.V. Nazarov, V.O. Komar, T.E. Magas, Estimation of functioning quality of distributive electrical networks applying criterial modelling, Scientific Works of Vinnytsia National Technical University, 2, 2010.
https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19001594

V.A. Silich, M.P. Silich, Indicative assessment of the situation within the crisis situation center [Indikativnaya otsenka situatsii v ramkakh krizisnogo situatsionnogo tsentra], Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University, 317(5): 166–170, 2010.

Y.A. Shekhovtsova, Applying the indicative method for assessing the investment security of the region [Primeneniye indikativnogo metoda dlya otsenki investitsionnoy bezopasnosti regiona], Regional Studies, 2: 53–61, 2012.

J.C. Helm, Teaching Continuous Risk Management Using A Requirements Management Tool, INCOSE International Symposium, 14(1), 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2004.tb00630.x

Y. Cherdantseva, J. Hilton, A reference model of information assurance & security, 2013 International Conference on Availability, reliability and security, pp. 546–555, Regensburg, September 2-6,2013.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ares.2013.72

T. Bjerga, T. Aven, E. Zio, Uncertainty Handling in Risk Analysis of Complex Systems: Cases of Stamp and FRAM, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 156, 203–209, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.004

L. de Vries, L.-O. Bligård, Security visualization: the potential for using sociotechnical systems models in security perspective and design, Safety Science, 111: 80-93, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.09.003

J. Braithwaite, R.L. Wears, E. Hollnagel, Resilient Health Care: Reconciling Work-as-Imaginated and Work-as-Done (CRC Press, 2017).
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315366838-2

E. Hollnagel, CREAM method for analyzing cognitive reliability and errors. (accessed August 10, 2018).
Available from: http://erikhollnagel.com/ideas/cream.html

A. B. Beketov, A. A. Kononov, S. N. Osipov, A. A. Fobyanchuk, Management of cyber security of automated information systems [Upravleniye kiberbezopasnostyu avtomatizirovannykh informatsionnykh sistem], Proceedings of ISA RAS, 61(5): 8–13, 2011.

O.A. Burdin, A.A. Kononov, A method of estimating risk-forming potentials in computerized organizational systems, Scientific and technical information processing, 31: 45–48, 2004.

J.D. Lowrance, R. Ragoobeer, Designing a System for Structured Assessment of Compliance Risk (SRI International, 2015).

G. Montibeller, D. von Winterfeldt, Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis, 35(7): 1230-1251, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12360

A. Hulme, N.A. Stanton, G.H. Walker, P. Waterson, P.M. Salmon, What do applications of systems thinking accident analysis methods tell us about accident causation? A systematic review of applications between 1990 and 2018, Safety Science, 117: 164–183, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.016

M. Reis, G. Gins, Industrial Process Monitoring in The Big Data / Industry 4.0 Era: From Detection, to Diagnosis, to Prognosis, Processes, 5: 35, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr5030035

T. Xiao, T. Horberry, D. Cliff, Analysing mine emergency management needs: a cognitive work analysis approach, International Journal of Emergency Management, 11(3): 191-208, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijem.2015.071705

P. Sanderson, C. Burns, Rasmussen and the boundaries of empirical evaluation, Applied Ergonomics, 59: 649–56, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.10.003

P. Fitsilis, V. Damasiotis, Software project's complexity measurement: a case study, Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 8(10): 549-556, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2015.810052

J.S. Blumenthal-Barby, H. Krieger, Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy, Medical Decision Making, 35(4): 539–557, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x14547740

J. Lee, H. Davari, J. Singh, V. Pandhare, Industrial Artificial Intelligence for industry 4.0-based manufacturing. Systems, Manufacturing Letters, 18: 20–23, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2018.09.002

Y. Lu, Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research issues, Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 6: 1–10, 2017.

R. Patriarca, G. Di Gravio, F. Costantino, A Monte Carlo evolution of the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) to assess performance variability in complex systems, Safety Science, 91: 49-60, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.016

R. Patriarca, J. Bergström, G. Di Gravio, F. Costantino, Resilience engineering: current state of research and future challenges, Safety Science, 102: 79-100, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.005

P.M. Salmon, G.H. Walker, M.R. GJ, N. Goode, N.A. Stanton, Fitting methods to paradigms: are ergonomics methods fit for systems thinking? Ergonomics, 60: 194-205, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1103385

A. Yosefi, M. Rodriguez, V. Lopez Pena Systemic accident analysis models: A comparison study between AcciMap, FRAM, and STAMP, Process Safety Progress, 38(10), 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.12002

H.J. Pasman, W.J. Rogers, M.S. Mannan, Risk Assessment: What Does It Cost? Are we just getting it over with, or can he do a better job? Safety Science, 99: 140-155, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.01.011

M. Ibl, J. Čapek, Behavioral complexity analysis in socio-technical systems under stress modeled by Petri nets. Entropy, 19(11): 572, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e19110572

D. Smith, B. Veitch, F. Khan, R. Taylor, Understanding Industrial Safety: A Comparison of Fault Tree, Bayesian Networking, and FRAM Approaches, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 45: 88-101, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.11.016

A. Adriaensen, R. Patriarca, A. Smoker, J. Bergstrom, Socio-technical analysis of functional properties in a collaborative cognitive system: a case study in the cockpit, Ergonomics, 62(12): 1598-1616, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1661527

R. Patriarca, A. Adriaensen, M. Peters, J. Putnam, F. Constantino, G. Di Gravio, Receiving and dispatching aircraft: functional risk analysis. Proceedings of the 8th REA Symposium Embracing Resilience: Scaling Up and Speeding Up, Squid, Sweden, June 24-27, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.15626/rea8.17

M.A. Almazruey, Commentary on “Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Errors and Eight Sources of Bias”, Analytical Chemistry, 92(18), 12725-12726, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c03002

I.K. Moppet, S.T. Shorrock, Development of the wrong blocks, Anesthesia, 73: 407-420, 2018.

D.M. D'Addona, F. Bracco, A. Bettoni, N. Nishino, E. Carpanzano, A.A. Bruzzone, Adaptive Automation and Human Factors in Manufacturing: An Experimental Evaluation of a Cognitive Approach, CIRP Annals, 67, 455-458, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2018.04.123

I.E. Dror, Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Errors and Eight Sources of Bias, Analitical Chemistry, 92(12): 7998–8004, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704

I.E. Dror. Response to commentary on Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Errors and Eight Sources of Bias, Analytical Chemistry, 92(18): 12727-12728, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c03051

Н.J. Hamnett, I.E. Dror, Influence of contextual information on decision making in forensic toxicology. Forensic Science International: Synergy, In Press, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.003


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Please send any question about this web site to info@praiseworthyprize.com
Copyright © 2005-2024 Praise Worthy Prize