The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Operating at the Sharp End: The Complexity of Human Error
Abstract
This chapter examines issues surrounding human performance at the sharp end, including those described as errors and those considered expert. It provides an introduction to the complexity of system failures and the term human error. Studies of incidents in medicine and other fields attribute most bad outcomes to a category of human performance labeled human error. For practitioners at the sharp end of the system, there are three classes of cognitive factors that govern how people form intentions to act: Knowledge factors—factors related to the knowledge that can be drawn on when solving problems in context. Attentional dynamics—factors that govern the control of attention and the management of mental workload as situations evolve and change over time. Strategic factors—the trade-offs between goals that conflict, especially when the practitioners must act under uncertainty, risk, and the pressure of limited resources.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 · Cited by 1,955
Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation
Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569 · Cited by 873 · cited 1×
“…practice and the other similar disciplines such as military situations (Lipshitz, 1989), critics will be unable to disconnect their knowledge of the outcome in order to be able to make unbiased judgments about the performance of human operators during the incident (Baron & Hershey, 1988).”
Background
Cited by
Understanding adverse events: human factors.
Reason, J. (1995) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.4.2.80 · Cited by 938
Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and research agenda
Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007) · 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icsmc.2007.4414160 · Cited by 846
Chisholm, C. D., Collison, E. K., Nelson, D. R., & Cordell, W. H. (2000) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00469.x · Cited by 610
SEIPS 3.0: human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety
Carayon, P., Wooldridge, A., Hoonakker, P., Hundt, A. S., & Kelly, M. M. (2020) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103033 · Cited by 493
Measuring errors and adverse events in health care
Thomas, E. J., & Petersen, L. A. (2003) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20147.x · Cited by 455
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, R. I., & Woods, D. D.
- Venue
- Human Error in Medicine
- Publisher
- CRC Press
- Published
- 2018-02-06
- Pages
- 255-310
- OpenAlex
- W2908119557
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.26
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Operating at the Sharp End: The Complexity of Human Error. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1201/9780203751725-13
- The paper
- Cook, R. I., & Woods, D. D. (2018). Operating at the Sharp End: The Complexity of Human Error. Human Error in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203751725-13
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
