Fundamentals of the Model Behind the COSMOS Methodology Used for Team Assessment in Simulator Training

• Autorzy: Izso L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Team working is the basic way of working in the control rooms of hazardous technologies and therefore its quality is a safety-relevant issue. In addition to the technological competence it is also crucial for the crews to have the necessary communicational skills. During simulator training these skills can only be improved if the simulator use is embedded in an appropriate setting. To support this skill acquisition a computer-supported methodology called COSMOS (COmputer Supported Method for Operators’ Self-assessment) has been developed. With its help more effective communication and more complete shared mental models can be fostered. This paper is a report on the psychological fundamentals and the mathematical model of the COSMOS methodology.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

team working; control room operators; nuclear power plant; simulator training; communication; social skills

PL

szkolenie zawodowe; ergonomia; operator maszyn i urządzeń; zastosowania mikrokomputerów; sygnalizacja i komunikowanie się; praca zespołowa; sterownia

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2001
• Tom: Vol. 7, No. 2
• Strony: 163--178
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 30 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Izso L.

• Department of Ergonomics and Psychology, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary

Bibliografia

• 1.Antalovits, M., & Izsó, L. (1994). What are the basic aims, criteria and methods of developing application methodology for a full scope simulator? In J. Misumi & B. Wilpert (Eds.), First International Conference on Human Factors Research in Nuclear Power Operation (Conference Report, V. Session: Simulation, pp. 1-2). Berlin, Germany: Research Center Systems Safety at the Berlin University of Technology.
• 2.Antalovits, M., & Izsó, L. (1996). How to improve the crew’s common understanding and norms by self-assessment during simulator training. In J. Misumi & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Second International Conference of HF-research in Nuclear Power Operations (Conference Report, Session: Training, pp. VI.2.1-8). Berlin, Germany: Research Center Systems Safety at the Berlin University of Technology.
• 3.Antalovits, M., & Izsó, L. (1999). Self-assessment and learning in nuclear power plant simulation training. In J. Misumi, R. Miller, & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Nuclear safety: A human factors perspective (pp. 243-256). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
• 4.Antalovits, M., Izsó, L., & Jenei, C. (1995). New method for performance assessment in NPP training simulator. In K. de Witte (Ed.), Proceedings of Seventh European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology (p. A84). Györ, Hungary: European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP).
• 5.Antalovits, M., Izsó, L., & Takács, I. (1995). A frame for evaluation and self-evaluation of NPP personnel. In K. de Witte (Ed.), Proceedings of Seventh European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology (p. A14). Györ, Hungary: European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP).
• 6.Brown, I.D. (1990). Accident reporting and analysis. In J.R Wilson & E.N. Corlett (Eds.) Evaluation of human work. A practical ergonomics methodology (pp. 755-778). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
• 7.Collier, J.G., & Davis, L.M. (1986). Chernobyl: The accident at Chernobyl Unit 4 in the Ukraine, April 1986. Barnwood, UK: Central Electricity Generating Board.
• 8.Ellis, C.A., Gibbs, S.J., & Rein, G.L. (1991). Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 680-689.
• 9.Flin, R., Salas, E., Strub, M., & Martin, L. (Eds.). (1997). Decision making under stress. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
• 10.Grudin, J. (1993). Computer supported cooperative work and groupware. Unpublished course notes, University of California, USA.
• 11.Hajtman, B., Izsó, L., & Radinszky, A. (1990). Multivariate ranking based on subjective classifications. In B. Hajtman (Ed.), Proceedings of the XVth International Biometric Conference (p. B9). Budapest, Hungary: International Biometric Association.
• 12.Hale, A.R., & Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual behaviour in the control of danger. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
• 13.Hale, A.R., & Hale, M. (1972). A review of the industrial accident research literature. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
• 14.Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). (1998). Guideline for teamwork and diagnostic skill development (INPO 88-003 guideline). Atlanta, GA, USA: Author.
• 15.International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (1989). Guidebook on training to establish and maintain the qualification and competence of nuclear power plant operations personnel (IAEA-TECDOC-525). Vienna, Austria: Author.
• 16.International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (1990). Assessment of safety significant events team (ASSET) guidelines (IAEA-TECDOC-573). Vienna, Austria: Author.
• 17.International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (1991a). ASSET guidelines. Revised edition. Reference material prepared by the IAEA for assessment of safety significant events team (IAEA-TECDOC-632). Vienna, Austria: Author.
• 18.International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (1991b). Human reliability data collecting and modeling (IAEA-TECDOC-618). Vienna, Austria: Author.
• 19.International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (1994). Role and responsibilities of management in NPP personnel training and competence Presentations for the seminar of the IAEA model project in Hungary: Strengthening training for operational safety at Paks NPP (IAEA-TC-UN/9/01/1). Vienna, Austria: Author.
• 20.Izsó L., & Antalovits M. (1996). Developing Computer Supported Method for Operators’ Self-assessment (“COSMOS”) for improving team work [Videotape from a workshop organised by the Nuclear Power Research and Development Centre at the Tokyo Electric Power Company, Yokohama, Japan, January 17].
• 21.Izsó, L., & Antalovits, M. (1997). Results of a validation study of the method COSMOS in NPP simulator sessions. In P. Seppälä, T. Luopajärvi, C.-H. Nygård, & M. Mattila (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Tampere, Finland, 1997 (Vol. 7, pp. 231–233). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.
• 22.Kendall, M.G. (1948). Rank correlation methods. London, UK: Griffin.
• 23.Newman, W.M., & Lamming, M.G. (1996). Interactive system design. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.
• 24.Reason, J. (1987). The Chernobyl errors. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40, 201-206.
• 25.Reason, J. (1994). Human error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• 26.Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
• 27.Shneiderman, B. (1987, 1992). Designing the user interface (1st and 2nd eds.). Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.
• 28.USSR State Committee on the Utilization of Atomic Energy. (1986). The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and its consequences (Information compiled for the IAEA Experts’ Meeting, 25-29 August, 1986). Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
• 29.Wilpert, B., Frank, M., Fahlbruch, B., Freitag, M., Giesa, H.G., Miller, R., & Becker, G. (1994). Improvement of reporting and evaluation of significant incidents and other registered events in nuclear power operation in term of human errors. Dossenheim, Germany: Merkel. (In German).
• 30.Woods, D.D. (1982). Operator decision behavior during the steam generator tube rapture at the Ginna nuclear power station (Research Report 82-1C57-CONRM-R2). Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Westinghouse R & D Center.