The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Broken components versus broken systems: why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness

Broken components versus broken systems: why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness
Broken components versus broken systems: why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness
This commentary is a response to Dekker’s insightful article in this issue on situation awareness (SA). This is a concept that continues to excite strong debate but only because of the profound implications for the theoretical foundations and the effects that different approaches have for the work of human factors practitioners. We argue that Dekker’s paper tacitly adopts one approach to SA, and in doing so will inevitably arrive at the point of questioning the concept in its entirety. If SA really is as deterministic and ‘broken component’ orientated as Dekker describes, then we would be in complete agreement, but instead we offer a counterpoint. We apply our distributed situation awareness approach to the key issues raised, answer all of Dekker’s concerns, and offer a useful way forward
situation awareness, safety, accident analysis
1435-5566
179-183
Salmon, P.M.
e96abc65-12e8-4c75-8c1c-1cb986e0492f
Walker, G.H.
79e57e9e-7e21-4d38-8267-5fb68fa3469b
Stanton, N.A.
351a44ab-09a0-422a-a738-01df1fe0fadd
Salmon, P.M.
e96abc65-12e8-4c75-8c1c-1cb986e0492f
Walker, G.H.
79e57e9e-7e21-4d38-8267-5fb68fa3469b
Stanton, N.A.
351a44ab-09a0-422a-a738-01df1fe0fadd

Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H. and Stanton, N.A. (2015) Broken components versus broken systems: why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness. Cognition, Technology & Work, 17 (2), 179-183. (doi:10.1007/s10111-015-0324-4).

Record type: Article

Abstract

This commentary is a response to Dekker’s insightful article in this issue on situation awareness (SA). This is a concept that continues to excite strong debate but only because of the profound implications for the theoretical foundations and the effects that different approaches have for the work of human factors practitioners. We argue that Dekker’s paper tacitly adopts one approach to SA, and in doing so will inevitably arrive at the point of questioning the concept in its entirety. If SA really is as deterministic and ‘broken component’ orientated as Dekker describes, then we would be in complete agreement, but instead we offer a counterpoint. We apply our distributed situation awareness approach to the key issues raised, answer all of Dekker’s concerns, and offer a useful way forward

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 7 March 2015
Published date: May 2015
Keywords: situation awareness, safety, accident analysis
Organisations: Transportation Group

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 382295
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/382295
ISSN: 1435-5566
PURE UUID: b4991c25-1a93-4a48-8589-66f6032ea088
ORCID for N.A. Stanton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8562-3279

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 30 Oct 2015 09:18
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:33

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: P.M. Salmon
Author: G.H. Walker
Author: N.A. Stanton ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×