1.
認知工作分析Cognitive Work AnalysisFidel, R., et al. "A Multidimensional Approach to the Study ofHuman Information Interaction: A Case Study of CollaborativeInformation Retrieval." Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology 55.11 (2004): 939-53.2011-03-22陳啟亮 臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所 博士班Charles Chen (xxc.chen@gmail.com)

2.
The authors Raya Fidel Center for Human-Information Interaction, The Information School, University of Washington, Seattle Annelise Mark Pejtersen Bryan Cleal Cognitive Systems Engineering Center, Systems Analysis Department, Risoe National Laboratory Harry Bruce The Information School, University of Washington, Seattle

3.
Approaches to the Study of HII Pettigrew, et al. (2001) Fidel, R., et al. (2004) • 認知取向 • 心理取向 Cognitive approaches The Psychological Approach • 社會取向 • 社會取向 Social approaches The Social Approach • 多元取向 • 多元取向 Multifaceted approaches Multidimensional ApproachesPettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., &Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information behavior. in Annual Review of Information Science andTechnology (ARIST), 35, 43-78.Fidel, R., et al. "A Multidimensional Approach to the Study of Human Information Interaction: A Case Study of Collaborative InformationRetrieval." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55.11 (2004): 939-53. Print.

4.
IB: Cognitive approachesHistory• Taylor (1968) : 使用者沒有完整的世界圖像，即對資訊的需求、 意義與價值乃立基於個人的認知觀點。• Dervin ＆ Nilan (1986) 鼓吹並揚棄系統取向何謂認知• Belkin: 人類(或資訊處理機制)在接受/感知或生產時，如何運 作(或互動)知識、信念、等等• Scope (Pettigrew, et.al., 2001) • 關於個人如何應用他自我世界的觀點或模型，處理資訊的需求、 搜尋、給出、與使用的研究

5.
IB: Social approachesHistory• 從1990年代初期慢慢興起，並變得越來越重要• Chatman (80s-) 開始研究貧窮勞工階級的資訊行為何謂社會取向• 資訊的意義與價值，與其社會脈絡相關• 偏向以自然探究, 人類學或社會學的方法進行研究

6.
IB: Multifaceted (Multidimensional) approaches• 由於了解到人類資訊行為的複雜性，越來越多研究者認為需 要以多元觀點進行研究，而非只考慮認知的與社會的一種觀 點 • Rosenbaum ** • Johnson * • Bystrom & Jarvelm * • Sonnenwald ** • Leckie et al. * • Cognitive Work Analysis, CWA **

7.
認知工作分析: Cognitive Work Analysis• 認知工作分析 (CWA)是由 Rasmussen, Pejtersen, Goodstein (1994)所共同發展出來的一種研究概念架構 1969成立 為了實現尼爾斯·波耳的和平 使用核能的理想

8.
Control room in nuclear power plant. USA (2000)http://www.our-energy.com/nuclear_technology_is_mature_and_safe.html

9.
1. Chernobyl: Nuclear Disaster in Ukraine (1986, April) http://www.life.com/gallery/57691/nuclear- disasters#index/4 2.3.4. Russian Nuclear Power Plant Control Room (1990) http://hackedgadgets.com/2009/05/03/russian-nuclear- power-plant-control-room/ 5. After Chernobyl (2009) http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/Enlargement.a spx?id=42-269105151 52 3 4

10.
Cognitive Work Analysis• 認知工作分析實際上與認知科學並沒有直接關係，根據 Rasmussen(1994)，其理論依據來自於： • 系統化思維(General System Thinking) • 適應控制系統(Adaptive Control Systems) • Gibson的環境心理學(Ecological Psychology)• 重點：限制(constraint) 與 適應(adaptive)• CWA 認為，在與工作相關的活動中進行資訊互動的人，是一 行動者/演員(actor) ，而非一般資訊系統所稱的使用者(user)

11.
Cognitive Work Analysis: History 1960s 1990 1994 Rasmussen work in Riso Rasmussen, Pejtersen & Schmidt Rasmussen, Pejtersen & Goodstein Taxonomy for cognitive work Cognitive systems engineering analysisCWA 認為，在與工作相關的活動中進行資訊互動的人，是一「行動者/演員(actor)」，而非一般資訊系統所稱的「使用者(user)」理論基礎是： 系統化思維(general system thinking) 適應控制系統(adaptive control systems) Gibson的環境心理學(Ecological Psychology)； 以及各種不同工作領域中支援系統開發 的實地研究。

12.
Cognitive Work Analysis: History 1960s 1990 1994 Rasmussen work in Riso Rasmussen, Pejtersen & Schmidt Rasmussen, Pejtersen & Goodstein Taxonomy for cognitive work Cognitive systems engineering analysis 1990s Albrechtsen, H, Domain Analysis LIS & Knowledge Organzation Mark Pejtersen, A. 2004 2003 Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. From Albrechtsen, H., & Pejtersen, A. M. information behaviour Cognitive work analysis and research to the design of work centered design of information systems: The classification schemes. CWA framework 1998 Sanderson, P Cognitive work analysis and the analysis, design, and 1999 evaluation of HCI systems HCI Kim J Vicente Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based WorkWork Analysis

13.
Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework 工作領域分析 (WDA) 手段-目的結構 活動分析(AA) 任務情境 實際工作 工作領域 環境 決策判斷 心智策略 組織分析 分工與社會組織 行為者的 資源與價值 分析人格特徵 人因工程分析 知覺行動能力Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. InformationResearch, 10(1), 10-11.

14.
Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework 環境 • 有什麼因素在 組織外部影響？ 實際工作 環境 行為者Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. InformationResearch, 10(1), 10-11.

15.
Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework 工作領域 工作領域分析 • 工作領域中有 (WDA) 哪些目標？ 手段-目的結構 • 限制？ 實際工作 環境 • 優先順序？ • 功能？ • 物體上的程序？ • 利用哪些工具？ 行為者Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. InformationResearch, 10(1), 10-11.

16.
Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework 組織分析 工作領域分析 • 團隊如何分工？ (WDA) • 使用哪些標準？ 手段-目的結構 • 組織的本質？ 實際工作 環境 科層制、民主 制、無秩序？ • 組織性的價值 為何？ 組織分析 分工與社會組織 行為者Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. InformationResearch, 10(1), 10-11.

17.
Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework 任務分析 工作領域分析 • 任務是什麼(例 (WDA) 活動分析(AA) 如，設計導覽 手段-目的結構 任務情境 功能)？ 實際工作 環境 工作領域 • 產生資訊問題 的任務目標為 何？ • 其限制？ • 涉及的功能？ • 所使用的工具？ 組織分析 分工與社會組織 行為者Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. InformationResearch, 10(1), 10-11.

18.
Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework 決策工作分析 工作領域分析 • 做了哪些決策 (WDA) 活動分析(AA) (例，選擇哪種 手段-目的結構 任務情境 導覽模式)？ 實際工作 環境 工作領域 • 決策需要哪些 資訊？ • 哪些資訊資源 決策判斷 是有用？ 組織分析 分工與社會組織 行為者Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. InformationResearch, 10(1), 10-11.

19.
Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework 策略工作分析 工作領域分析 • 哪些策略是可 (WDA) 活動分析(AA) 能的(例，瀏覽、 手段-目的結構 任務情境 分析)？ 實際工作 環境 工作領域 • 行動者偏好哪 種策略？ • 需要哪些資訊？ 決策判斷 • 偏好哪些資訊 心智策略 來源？ 組織分析 分工與社會組織 行為者Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. InformationResearch, 10(1), 10-11.

20.
Cognitive Work Analysis: onion framework 個人資源與價值 工作領域分析 • 行為者受過哪 (WDA) 活動分析(AA) 些正規訓練？ 手段-目的結構 任務情境 • 是哪種專家？ 實際工作 環境 工作領域 • 有哪些主題領 域或工作領域 的經驗？ 決策判斷 • 個人的優先順 心智策略 序為何？ • 個人的價值觀 為何？ 組織分析 分工與社會組織 行為者的 資源與價值 分析人格特徵 人因工程分析 知覺行動能力Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. InformationResearch, 10(1), 10-11.

21.
Cognitive Work Analysis: 手段-目的分析 Means-Ends Analysis 目的、限制 優先性 (價值觀) 一般功能 物理程序 物理資源、工具Reference:Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysisframework. Information Research, 10(1), 10-11.

22.
Cognitive Work Analysis: 工作領域分析 Work Domain Analysis, WDA 書後索引工作的領域分析Reference:陳啟亮（2008）。書後索引之編製行為研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所。

23.
Cognitive Work Analysis: 決策階梯Decision Ladder決策階梯三階段：• 狀況分析 Situation analysis• 評估 Evaluation• 計劃 Planning

24.
Research: Collaborative information retrievalCase: Microsoft Design Team:• a single case of making navigation function design. (Help and Support Center, HSC)Data collecting method• naturalistic field study: interview, observation, content analysis (email, documents)

25.
Microsoft – Product Support ServiceInternet Archive. http://support.microsoft.com 2007-07-18

26.
Microsoft HSC Design Team: Environments• Microsoft Corporation• Products & Projects: Help & Support Center• Project division: Test, Development, Program Management, and Design• Design Team: Product Designer, Visual Designer, Usability Engineer, Project Manager• Task: The Case of Navigation Design Work Environment Work Domain Analysis Task Analysis Organizational Analysis

27.
Actors: a product designer & his colleagues• Neil, the product design lead• Resources: colleagues• Artifacts: to-do list, prototype, previous system• Task Goals & Priorities: provide a high-quality design, fit user behavior and user preferences• Environment constraint: Work Environment Work Domain limited time, Analysis Task ensure coordinated with other teams Analysis Organizational Analysis Strategy• Strategies: Neil find used navigation model

28.
Actors: Decision Ladder• Spent all time between analysis - evaluation• Decision making did not share with his colleagues• 3rd phase (planning) did not involve CIR Work Environment Work Domain Analysis Task Analysis Decision Organizational Analysis Strategy NeilNotice:CIR(Collaborative Information Retrieval) doesn’t includeaction-taking behavior (?)

29.
CIR: Motives: Cognitive • Inexperience: Novice to Microsoft (need personal network, Work previous system, interpretations) • Value: The quality of Environment design decision making Work Domain Analysis Task Analysis (need references, informal feedback to their ideas, and opinions) Decision Strategy • Knowledge: lack of web Organizational design tacit knowledge Analysis Neil (need Nail & Lily’s knowledge & Product designer interpretation) • Drawback-of-CIR: information overload

30.
CIR: Organization of the Team’s Work Define Organizational Task: • Organizational Constraint • Actor’s responsibility Work Environment Work Domain Analysis • Collaboration with others Task Analysis Decision Microsoft Culture Strategy • the boundaries of the task Organizational Analysis Neil Product responsibility are not designer always clear • Not documented • Rely on their own personal network

31.
CIR: Task and Decision Task: (strategy & decision) • Search for design Work Environment constraints (access sources) Work Domain Analysis • decision making of Task Analysis navigation design (no formal design guide) Decision Strategy • Prepare for Organizational communication with Analysis Neil Product others (quality) designer • Collaborative creative (quality) • Drawback-of-CIR: no creation & innovation

32.
Challenges to the CIR processActors 對行為者而言，CIR的挑戰是：• 需要花時間討論 Spend time in discussions• 不同行為者，在CIR過程中有不同的立場。 Difference actors have different stakes in the process, or have different priorities• CIR中成員的理解不同 The understanding of problems might various• 新手需邀請專家參與 Notice involve other expert actors• 討論或協作中會發生資訊過載 Information overload

33.
DiscussionMultiple dimensions Such interdependencies suggest that focusing on a single dimension may not only provide a partial understanding, but might also be misleading.Contributions to the Study of CIRNotice:The goals of CWA research?What the difference between CWA & IB research?