76
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
talked about in relation to the term “ loss of SA”, which implies that SA is seen as
something that people have, i.e., it is not a process per se ( Dekker, 2013). However,
within the genre computer-supported cooperative work ( CSCW), novel technology
is discussed on the grounds whether it can facilitate collaboration between actors. A
classic approach to awareness within CSCW is Dourish and Bellotti’s ( 1992), arguing that awareness implies an understanding of others’ activities, which then acts
as context for own activity. Specifically, Schmidt ( 2002) argues for awareness to be
seen in conjunction with awareness of something, i.e., being or becoming aware of
specific aspects of an unfolding situation. Awareness is therefore closely coupled to
actual work practice.
Arguably, and in relation to for example the crew on the frigate bridge, awareness
implies to be aware or become aware of work practice seen in context, thus to understand what is happening in one’s surroundings and to further apply this knowledge
into practical use. With this in mind, there are two distinct yet interdependent dimensions of importance. Firstly, professionals need to monitor the work of colleagues
and secondly, at the same time be able to display own work activity. To understand
awareness, a particular analytical interest then lies in exploring and identifying how
professionals manage simultaneously to monitor and visualize work practice, and the
practical strategies and the resources they rely on using.
Klemets and Evjemo ( 2014) have studied hospital collaborative work among
nurses who rely extensively on various technologies to communicate and coordinate departmental work. The authors show how nurses handle ( and often struggles) interruptions during ordinary, routine work. Klemets and Evjemo ( 2014)
demonstrate that not all interruptions experienced by nurses via their phones are
unwanted, i.e., interruptions are dual in nature. Collaboration and coordination
characterizes nurses’ w ork – they are highly dependent on each o ther – and the
principal strategies for jointly managing interruptions is to make own work visible
and at the same time to monitor the work of others to enable collegial support.
The applied implications of the study are guidelines to use when designing new
functionality in the nurse call system so as to facilitate nurses’ awareness and
strengthen patient safety.
THE PROPERTIES OF PROSPECTIVE SENSEMAKING
Rosness et al. ( 2015) show that prospective sensemaking is not established as a distinct perspective in the scientific research literature, but there are some publications
that in some way use the term. They cover a broad range of topics from technology development, consultancy, decision-making in organizations to patient safety to
mention a few. Specifically, Rosness et al. ( 2015) argue that properties with prospective sensemaking and the relationship to ( traditional) retrospective sensemaking is
seldom debated in the research literature, and they argue that important aspects with
making sense of something is missed out. Rosness et al. ( 2015) define prospective
sensemaking as, “… sensemaking processes where the attention and concern of people is primarily directed at events that may occur in the future” ( Rosness et al., 2015),
a definition this chapter will use in the upcoming discussion of the AIBN report’s
accident analysis. Importantly, “ prospective” processes do not exclude retrospective
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
talked about in relation to the term “ loss of SA”, which implies that SA is seen as
something that people have, i.e., it is not a process per se ( Dekker, 2013). However,
within the genre computer-supported cooperative work ( CSCW), novel technology
is discussed on the grounds whether it can facilitate collaboration between actors. A
classic approach to awareness within CSCW is Dourish and Bellotti’s ( 1992), arguing that awareness implies an understanding of others’ activities, which then acts
as context for own activity. Specifically, Schmidt ( 2002) argues for awareness to be
seen in conjunction with awareness of something, i.e., being or becoming aware of
specific aspects of an unfolding situation. Awareness is therefore closely coupled to
actual work practice.
Arguably, and in relation to for example the crew on the frigate bridge, awareness
implies to be aware or become aware of work practice seen in context, thus to understand what is happening in one’s surroundings and to further apply this knowledge
into practical use. With this in mind, there are two distinct yet interdependent dimensions of importance. Firstly, professionals need to monitor the work of colleagues
and secondly, at the same time be able to display own work activity. To understand
awareness, a particular analytical interest then lies in exploring and identifying how
professionals manage simultaneously to monitor and visualize work practice, and the
practical strategies and the resources they rely on using.
Klemets and Evjemo ( 2014) have studied hospital collaborative work among
nurses who rely extensively on various technologies to communicate and coordinate departmental work. The authors show how nurses handle ( and often struggles) interruptions during ordinary, routine work. Klemets and Evjemo ( 2014)
demonstrate that not all interruptions experienced by nurses via their phones are
unwanted, i.e., interruptions are dual in nature. Collaboration and coordination
characterizes nurses’ w ork – they are highly dependent on each o ther – and the
principal strategies for jointly managing interruptions is to make own work visible
and at the same time to monitor the work of others to enable collegial support.
The applied implications of the study are guidelines to use when designing new
functionality in the nurse call system so as to facilitate nurses’ awareness and
strengthen patient safety.
THE PROPERTIES OF PROSPECTIVE SENSEMAKING
Rosness et al. ( 2015) show that prospective sensemaking is not established as a distinct perspective in the scientific research literature, but there are some publications
that in some way use the term. They cover a broad range of topics from technology development, consultancy, decision-making in organizations to patient safety to
mention a few. Specifically, Rosness et al. ( 2015) argue that properties with prospective sensemaking and the relationship to ( traditional) retrospective sensemaking is
seldom debated in the research literature, and they argue that important aspects with
making sense of something is missed out. Rosness et al. ( 2015) define prospective
sensemaking as, “… sensemaking processes where the attention and concern of people is primarily directed at events that may occur in the future” ( Rosness et al., 2015),
a definition this chapter will use in the upcoming discussion of the AIBN report’s
accident analysis. Importantly, “ prospective” processes do not exclude retrospective