Guy H. Walker

Human Factors (Ergonomics, E/HF) is facing increasing calls for a step change in how analytical methods are conducted, with an emphasis on improving robustness and analytical power through the integration of modern data driven and programmatic techniques. The Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA), while of value to the analyst conducting the method, and with the potential for design and ergonomics insights, it is cumbersome to perform and largely confined to outdated tools or generic software. Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers a breakthrough. This paper describes the development and application of a software tool, called CWAI, which uses a novel approach to programmatic AI prompt design. We present an initial validation against an existing human-made CWA and a Microsoft Copilot analysis. Results show the CWAI generally outperforms the Copilot offering in our initial testing and provides a viable alternative to purely human analysis. The paper serves first step towards embracing AI as part of E/HF.

The TransiT project is pioneering the use of national-scale digital twins for the purpose of rapid decarbonisation of the UK’s transport system. The transport system is designed to service humans, and therefore without adequate representation of human factors in the transport system, any digital twins are likely to be inaccurate. This paper describes a strand of research aiming to approach Human Factors digital twinning from a novel perspective. Instead of starting with computational digital twinning platforms, the approach begins the Abstraction Hierarchy (AH). The AH is then systematically connected to data sources through a novel cyber physical systems audit. This audit provides a bridge to a programmatic solution. The AH combined with the mapping of means-ends links to actual or potential cyber physical information sources. This work points towards a computationally parsimonious yet powerful and strategic Human Factors digital twinning approach. The work provides a framework to describe this approach.

Accident analysis methods are used to model the multifactorial cause of adverse incidents. Methods such as AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and recently AcciNet, are systemic approaches that support the identification of safety interventions across sociotechnical system levels. Despite their growing popularity, little is known about how reliable systems-based methods are when used to describe, model and classify contributory factors and relationships. Here, we conducted an intra-rater and inter-rater reliability assessment of AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and AcciNet using the Signal Detection Theory (SDT) paradigm. A total of 180 hours' worth of analyses across 360 comparisons were performed by 30 expert analysts. Findings revealed that all three methods produced a weak to moderate positive correlation coefficient, however the inter-rater reliability of STAMP-CAST was significantly higher compared to AcciMap and AcciNet. No statistically significant or practically meaningful differences were found between methods in the overall intra-rater reliability analyses. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

There is growing interest in the use of systems-based risk assessment methods in Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE). The purpose of this study was to test the intra-rater reliability and criterion-referenced concurrent validity of three systems-based risk assessment approaches: (i) the Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) method; (ii) the Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork Broken Links (EAST-BL) method; and, (iii) the Network Hazard Analysis and Risk Management System (Net-HARMS) method. Reliability and validity measures were obtained using the Signal Detection Theory (SDT) paradigm. Whilst STPA identified the highest number of risks, the findings indicate a weak to moderate level of reliability and validity for STPA, EAST-BL and Net-HARMS. There were no statistically significant differences between the methods across analyses. The results suggest that there is merit to the continued use of systems-based risk assessment methods following a series of methodological extensions that aim to enhance the reliability and validity of future applications. Practitioner summary The three risk assessment methods produced weak to moderate levels of stability and accuracy regarding their capability to predict risks. There is a pressing need to further test the reliability and validity of safety methods in Human Factors and Ergonomics.

Accident analysis methods are used to model and understand the multifactorial cause of adverse incidents. Methods such as AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and more recently AcciNet, are systemic approaches that support the identification of new safety interventions across multiple sociotechnical system levels. Despite the growing popularity of systems-based accident analysis methods, little is known about how reliable and valid they are when used to describe, model and classify contributory factors and relationships. This is the second of two studies in the Journal to examine and compare the reliability and validity of accident analysis methods. Here, we conducted an intra-rater (between analyst) and inter-rater (between analyst) reliability assessment of AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and AcciNet, and used the Signal Detection Theory paradigm to analyse the complete dataset. The findings indicate that STAMP-CAST produced a significantly higher inter-rater reliability coefficient relative to AcciMap and AcciNet. No statistically significant or practically meaningful differences were found between the three methods in the intra-rater reliability analyses. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Crashes at intersections represent an important road safety problem. Interactions between different road user types, such as between vehicles and vulnerable road users, are a particular concern. It has been suggested driver-centric road design plays a role in crashes. A multi-road user evaluation of three novel intersection designs is described. The designs were generated using the Cognitive Work Analysis Design Toolkit, underpinned by sociotechnical systems theory. The desktop evaluation involved drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians rating the design concepts against alignment with design goals, sociotechnical systems theory and usability, and providing feedback on the positive and negative aspects. Two concepts received more positive ratings and feedback in comparison to a concept that provided more user autonomy. The evaluation results also highlight clear differences in needs across road user groups. The design and evaluation process demonstrates how sociotechnical systems values and principles can be applied in the design of public spaces. Practitioner Summary:This study involved a participatory evaluation of novel road intersection designs, based on sociotechnical systems theory. The results identified important differences in needs and preferences across road user groups and demonstrate the value of sociotechnical systems theory and user participation in road transport design and evaluation processes.