The Role of Language and Abstraction in the Safe Operation of Complex Systems
02.09.04 22:02 Filed in: Language
and Linguistics | Operation
of Complex Systems
This is the abstract to our paper, "The Role of
Language and Abstraction in the Safe Operation of
Complex Systems." For a copy of the paper, please
contact Brad Williamson at
blog@interlogic-inc.com.
Operations of complex systems such as nuclear plants generate information regarding the health of the systems and comparisons to how the systems conform to the intent of the designers. Our interpretations about safe operation are therefore derived from valid problem indications as well as the potential distraction of irrelevant or insignificant data. Separation of legitimate problem reporting, the “signal”, from distracting and irrelevant issues, the “noise”, is only the first part of intelligent signal processing. Organizing those signals in a manner that enables you to form an effective assessment is the paramount operational challenge.
Some signals are unambiguous; a worker gets hurt, equipment is damaged during a plant transient, or a relief valve lifts. For these instances, a series of actions is triggered to assess why the instance occurred and what can be done to prevent future occurrences. But what about those instances in which the problem report is not about a failure or the instance is not distinguished as a failure but rather as some sort of occurrence that falls short of our failure threshold? Notice now that the very use of the terms “instance”, “failure”, and “problem” each to attempt to distinguish a set of events, and perhaps more importantly, characterize our response.
These distinctions are all in language, the words we speak and write, and the means by which we as human beings produce operational actions within our organizations. As such, the words we choose, their variation in meaning and intent, and the abstractions we make are critically important in producing the assessments that influence our actions, and ultimately, the performance of our plant, operation, or organization.
The authors of this paper will, using examples from failures in complex systems including nuclear power and aerospace, examine how the words we choose, the way problems are labeled, reflects the organizational culture and pre-determines the organizational response. We will look at potential methods to improve the “signal to noise ratio” and thereby identify valid signals as the basis for forming effective assessments.
-----------
This article and incorporated images are ©2005 Brad Williamson All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted for reproduction not for profit in its entirety including this copyright notice.
-----------
Operations of complex systems such as nuclear plants generate information regarding the health of the systems and comparisons to how the systems conform to the intent of the designers. Our interpretations about safe operation are therefore derived from valid problem indications as well as the potential distraction of irrelevant or insignificant data. Separation of legitimate problem reporting, the “signal”, from distracting and irrelevant issues, the “noise”, is only the first part of intelligent signal processing. Organizing those signals in a manner that enables you to form an effective assessment is the paramount operational challenge.
Some signals are unambiguous; a worker gets hurt, equipment is damaged during a plant transient, or a relief valve lifts. For these instances, a series of actions is triggered to assess why the instance occurred and what can be done to prevent future occurrences. But what about those instances in which the problem report is not about a failure or the instance is not distinguished as a failure but rather as some sort of occurrence that falls short of our failure threshold? Notice now that the very use of the terms “instance”, “failure”, and “problem” each to attempt to distinguish a set of events, and perhaps more importantly, characterize our response.
These distinctions are all in language, the words we speak and write, and the means by which we as human beings produce operational actions within our organizations. As such, the words we choose, their variation in meaning and intent, and the abstractions we make are critically important in producing the assessments that influence our actions, and ultimately, the performance of our plant, operation, or organization.
The authors of this paper will, using examples from failures in complex systems including nuclear power and aerospace, examine how the words we choose, the way problems are labeled, reflects the organizational culture and pre-determines the organizational response. We will look at potential methods to improve the “signal to noise ratio” and thereby identify valid signals as the basis for forming effective assessments.
-----------
This article and incorporated images are ©2005 Brad Williamson All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted for reproduction not for profit in its entirety including this copyright notice.
-----------
|