Testing Hollnagel's contextual control mod

Please contact publisher for further reprinting or re-useThis article sets out to test the hypothetical COtext and COntrol Model (COCOM) developed by Hollnagel (1993). Essentially, Hollnagel develops the argument that team behavior should be analyzed at a macro, rather than micro, level. He proposes 4 principal models of team activity: strategic, tactical, opportunistic, and scrambled. These modes of team behavior vary in terms of the degree of forward planning (highest in the strategic mode) and reactivity to the environment (highest in the scrambled mode). He further hypothesizes a linear progression through the modes from strategic to tactical to opportunistic to scrambled, depending on context, and vice versa. To test the COCOM model, we placed teams of people in a simulated energy distribution system. Our results confirm Hollnagel's hypothesized model in 2 main ways. First, we show that the team behavior could be categorized reliably into the 4 control modes and this provided a useful way of distinguishing between experimental conditions. Second, the progression between control modes conformed to the linear progression as predicted. This research provided the first independent test of the COCOM model and lends empirical support to the hypotheses

Adaptive planning for distributed systems using goal accomplishment tracking

Goal accomplishment tracking is the process of monitoring the progress of a task or series of tasks towards completing a goal. Goal accomplishment tracking is used to monitor goal progress in a variety of domains, including workflow processing, teleoperation and industrial manufacturing. Practically, it involves the constant monitoring of task execution, analysis of this data to determine the task progress and notification of interested parties. This information is usually used in a passive way to observe goal progress. However, responding to this information may prevent goal failures. In addition, responding proactively in an opportunistic way can also lead to goals being completed faster. This paper proposes an architecture to support the adaptive planning of tasks for fault tolerance or opportunistic task execution based on goal accomplishment tracking. It argues that dramatically increased performance can be gained by monitoring task execution and altering plans dynamically

Designing as Construction of Representations: A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive Design Research

This article presents a cognitively oriented viewpoint on design. It focuses on cognitive, dynamic aspects of real design, i.e., the actual cognitive activity implemented by designers during their work on professional design projects. Rather than conceiving de-signing as problem solving - Simon's symbolic information processing (SIP) approach - or as a reflective practice or some other form of situated activity - the situativity (SIT) approach - we consider that, from a cognitive viewpoint, designing is most appropriately characterised as a construction of representations. After a critical discussion of the SIP and SIT approaches to design, we present our view-point. This presentation concerns the evolving nature of representations regarding levels of abstraction and degrees of precision, the function of external representations, and specific qualities of representation in collective design. Designing is described at three levels: the organisation of the activity, its strategies, and its design-representation construction activities (different ways to generate, trans-form, and evaluate representations). Even if we adopt a "generic design" stance, we claim that design can take different forms depending on the nature of the artefact, and we propose some candidates for dimensions that allow a distinction to be made between these forms of design. We discuss the potential specificity of HCI design, and the lack of cognitive design research occupied with the quality of design. We close our discussion of representational structures and activities by an outline of some directions regarding their functional linkages

The argumentational texture of transaction cost economics

Transaction Costs;Deconstruction Method;economic theory

Whose Lands? Which Public? Trump\u27s National Monument Proclamations and the Shape of Public-Lands Law

President Trump issued a proclamation in December 2017 purporting to remove two million acres in southern Utah from national monument status, radically shrinking the Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument and splitting the Bears Ears National Monument into two residual protected areas. Whether the President has the power to revise or revoke existing monuments under the Antiquities Act, which creates the national monument system, is a new question of law for a 112-year-old statute that has been used by Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama to protect roughly fifteen million acres of federal land and hundreds of millions of marine acres. If President Trump’s shrinkages stand, they will be the largest removal of public lands from protected status in U.S. history, and will put the remaining national monuments on the chopping block. This article advances a novel theory showing that the President lacks the power to revise or revoke monuments. The Antiquities Act gives a power only to protect public lands, not to remove them from protection. Arguments developed so far in litigation and scholarship fail to recognize a general feature of public-lands law: It consistently denies the President the power unilaterally to remove lands from statutorily protected categories once they are placed within those categories. The Antiquities Act should be read to be consistent with this field-wide pattern. The article explicates the reasons for this pattern. Generally speaking, public-lands law has been very little theorized; but it needs a theory now. Public-lands law is a field defined by structured normative pluralism. It integrates a range of deeply conflicting public-lands purposes, from mining and drilling to wilderness preservation, across a range of statutes and agencies and acreage totaling nearly a third of the land area of the United States. The asymmetric premise against any Presidential power remove lands from protection is rooted in this structure, specifically the President’s obligation to preserve for Congress the option of protecting lands, and the dangers of hasty or corrupt Presidential action. The article traces these rationales across the history of statutory, executive, and judicial articulations of public-lands law and shows that they apply to the present Antiquities Act dispute. The article also highlights the political and cultural dimension of the dispute: a series of three-way conflicts among “public-lands populists” who seek increased use of and access to public lands (whose agenda the Trump Administration has incorporated into its economic and ethno-national populism), recreationists and environmentalists, and indigenous communities in the Bears Ears region. Conflicts among these groups amount to fights over collective identity--the nature of the “public” that public lands should serve. This dimension of the conflict does not fall outside the doctrinal analysis of the Antiquities Act. Rather, with a clear theoretical view of public-lands law, it is possible to see that these agendas are already integral to the field itself. They are central threads of its pluralism, and their competing claims fit within its structure. An account of the larger field of cultural conflict both enriches the theory of public-lands law and helps to show how the field should resolve the present fight

Whose Lands? Which Public? Trump\u27s National Monument Proclamations and the Shape of Public-Lands Law

President Trump issued a proclamation in December 2017 purporting to remove two million acres in southern Utah from national monument status, radically shrinking the Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument and splitting the Bears Ears National Monument into two residual protected areas. Whether the President has the power to revise or revoke existing monuments under the Antiquities Act, which creates the national monument system, is a new question of law for a 112-year-old statute that has been used by Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama to protect roughly fifteen million acres of federal land and hundreds of millions of marine acres. If President Trump’s shrinkages stand, they will be the largest removal of public lands from protected status in U.S. history, and will put the remaining national monuments on the chopping block. This article advances a novel theory showing that the President lacks the power to revise or revoke monuments. The Antiquities Act gives a power only to protect public lands, not to remove them from protection. Arguments developed so far in litigation and scholarship fail to recognize a general feature of public-lands law: It consistently denies the President the power unilaterally to remove lands from statutorily protected categories once they are placed within those categories. The Antiquities Act should be read to be consistent with this field-wide pattern. The article explicates the reasons for this pattern. Generally speaking, public-lands law has been very little theorized; but it needs a theory now. Public-lands law is a field defined by structured normative pluralism. It integrates a range of deeply conflicting public-lands purposes, from mining and drilling to wilderness preservation, across a range of statutes and agencies and acreage totaling nearly a third of the land area of the United States. The asymmetric premise against any Presidential power remove lands from protection is rooted in this structure, specifically the President’s obligation to preserve for Congress the option of protecting lands, and the dangers of hasty or corrupt Presidential action. The article traces these rationales across the history of statutory, executive, and judicial articulations of public-lands law and shows that they apply to the present Antiquities Act dispute. The article also highlights the political and cultural dimension of the dispute: a series of three-way conflicts among “public-lands populists” who seek increased use of and access to public lands (whose agenda the Trump Administration has incorporated into its economic and ethno-national populism), recreationists and environmentalists, and indigenous communities in the Bears Ears region. Conflicts among these groups amount to fights over collective identity--the nature of the “public” that public lands should serve. This dimension of the conflict does not fall outside the doctrinal analysis of the Antiquities Act. Rather, with a clear theoretical view of public-lands law, it is possible to see that these agendas are already integral to the field itself. They are central threads of its pluralism, and their competing claims fit within its structure. An account of the larger field of cultural conflict both enriches the theory of public-lands law and helps to show how the field should resolve the present fight

Entrepreneurial Inclination Among Business Students: a Malaysian Study

Entrepreneurship has been the fundamental topics of discussion among the politicians, economists, and academics. Business creation is especially critical in developing countries to stimulate economic growth. The present study attempts to examine entrepreneurial inclination among students who are a potential source of entrepreneurs. The fi ndings of the present research study indicate that majority of our business students are not entrepreneurial-inclined. They do not seem to possess strong entrepreneurial characteristics and entrepreneurial skills, and they are not keen in starting a new business. The roles of higher institutes of education and the government in promoting entrepreneurship are discussed

Goals and Strategies of Peasants in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia

Multidisciplinary research methods such as observatory, participatory and multivariate regression analysis were employed to examine goals and strategies of two peasant communities in the Central highlands of Ethiopia. Continuing the family tradition of participating in social networks is found to be a universal normative goal of most study farmers. Securing subsistence food requirements and goals that may be used to characterise higher level of standard of living were ranked next to the normative goal. Five major goals were examined in relation to the normative goal. Furthermore, strategies identified by households were grouped into opportunistic, risk-minimization and long-range planning. Statistical analysis of relationship between the five goals and strategies indicate that i) most strategies are relatively important in attaining goals selected for statistical analysis, ii) strategies which are proven to be useful from prior experience of other producers prior to this study tend to have a stronger relationship with the current goals of decision-makers (e.g. pesticides and fertilizer ), iii) the ranking of goals and strategies recognize region, enterprise and experience-specific comparative advantages of peasants, and iv) producers rank strategies hierarchically and goals ranked high in the hierarchy are valued high on subsequent goals (e.g. securing subsistence on livestock husbandry). Development projects could successfully increase the attainment of securing food self-sufficiency if they properly identify comparative advantages of farmers and regions, and examine the compatibility of intervention strategies with the goals and strategies of peasants.Multidisciplinary; multivariate regression; Ethiopia; social networks; opportunistic; risk-minimization; long-range planning; peasants; hierarchical ranking; intervention strategies; goals and strategies