Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257036337

Cognitivemapping:Revealingthelinksbetweenhumanfactorsandstrategicgoalsinorganizations

ARTICLEinINTERNATIONALJOURNALOFINDUSTRIALERGONOMICS·JULY2013

ImpactFactor:1.21·DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2013.05.001

CITATION

1

DOWNLOADS

95

VIEWS

152

3AUTHORS:

JudyVillage

UniversityofBritishColumbia-Vancouver

50PUBLICATIONS321CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

FilippoSalustri

RyersonUniversity

79PUBLICATIONS192CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

W.PatrickNeumann

RyersonUniversity

116PUBLICATIONS1,235CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:JudyVillage

Retrievedon:19June2015

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Cognitive mapping: Revealing the links between human factorsand strategic goals in organizations

Judy Village*, Filippo A. Salustri, W. Patrick NeumannHuman Factors Engineering Lab, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St., Toronto,Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 April 2012Received in revised form16 January 2013Accepted 7 May 2013Available online

Keywords:Cognitive mappingStrategic goalsHuman factorsMacroergonomics

a b s t r a c t

The authors propose cognitive mapping (CM), a tool used in operations and management research, as away for Human Factors (HF) Engineers to understand the HF perspective of senior managers and othersin manufacturing industries, and how HF aligns with strategic goals in the organization. This paper firstpresents a methodological review of various mapping methods. Options are summarized with respect to:how to elicit information; the role of the facilitator; mapping methods and analyses; and interpretationof the data. Second, we choose a mapping method and demonstrate its utility with a single participant.Results from the illustrative example show the visual nature of the tool in summarizing the perceptionsof the participant. We suggest CM methods can help HF Engineers and others work with industry toidentify actionable steps to integrate HF into daily practice in ways that support strategic organizationalgoals.Relevance to industry: : Aligning human factors to organizations’ corporate strategies will enhance itsapplication, and therefore effectiveness. Such macroergonomic tools are needed to facilitate under-standing by senior management of the strategic potential for human factors and to help create aligned HFinitiatives. This paper presents a methodological review and illustrative example using cognitive map-ping for this purpose.

� 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background

1.1. The need for a tool to link human factors to an organizations’strategy

Dul and Neumann (2009) suggest that human factors (HF)considerations would be more accepted and better internalized inorganizations if they were understood by managers to contributedirectly to the companies’ strategies. HF groups generally want tobe proactively involved in design activities to prevent problems andthey want to contribute to the organization’s goals. However, thechallenge is that in their often limited “support” role, HF groups arefrequently disconnected from management strategies and othersaffecting business such as engineering groups (Perrow, 1983; Dixonet al., 2009; Jensen, 2002). HF groups may be unaware of percep-tions held by managers and engineers concerning HF, and how bestto help achieve strategic goals. HF engineers (used synonymouslyherewith Ergonomists) may be perceived as defenders of operators

(Perrow, 1983), rather than being essential to achieving the orga-nizations objectives, or integrated throughout the production sys-tems design.

While there is evidence that engineering changes are moredifficult and costly when HF considerations are incorporated late inthe design lifecycle (Miles and Swift, 1998; Seim and Broberg,2010), HF engineers have difficulty accessing design groups. HFengineers are often consulted too late in the design process; theyare seen as critical of the design (Broberg, 2007; Kirwan, 2000;Hendrick, 2008), thereby increasing costs and delays (Perrow,1983). HF engineers can reduce the conflict described if theyknow the strategic goals of the design process and align HF withthese goals.

Waterson and Kolose (2010), in a large scale military defenseorganization, discussed some of the challenges experienced by theHF team with management perceptions of their function and pur-pose. Although the team had been in existence and had supportedmany functions for several years, the authors reported that it stilllacked visibility and prominence in the overall organizationalstructure. It was referred to as a “bubble” on a flow diagram of anorganization chart. It appeared that others in the organizationwereunaware of the value of involving the HF team.

* Corresponding author. 2220 Badger Rd, North Vancouver, British Columbia V7G1T1, Canada. Tel.: þ1 604 929 7243; fax: þ1 604 929 7280.

E-mail addresses: jvillage@ryerson.ca, jvillage@shaw.ca (J. Village).

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ergon

0169-8141/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2013.05.001

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313

Author's personal copy

Integrating HF into an organization, like other business re-engineering and quality efforts, is really an “organizationalchange” initiative because they affect multiple levels in an orga-nization and require the interaction of different agents. Theresearch on organizational change strongly suggests that the suc-cessful initiatives are the ones that are integrated into the “psy-chological” dimension, or mindset, of the organization (Zink et al.,2008). Similarly, to facilitate integration of HF among groups andfunctions throughout an organization, and especially to gainmanagement commitment, HF must be aligned with the strategicobjectives and business function strategies (Dul and Neumann,2009; Drury, 2000; Genaidy et al., 2009; Neumann et al., 1999).

The task for HF Engineers is the practical one of finding ways togain management support and facilitate alignment of HF consid-erations with the strategic goals and business outcomes of the or-ganization. This paper adapts “cognitive mapping,” from theoperations management field, and provides an illustrative exampleof its use in HF. The goal of this methodological paper is todemonstrate a practical macroergonomicsmethod for HF Engineersto facilitate alignment of HF considerations with strategic goals ofsenior management and engineers.

1.2. Objectives

The objectives of this paper are to:

� Introduce the cognitive mapping technique that can makeapparent the perceptions about HF and how it relates to acompany’s strategic goals;

� Review methodological options for applying the cognitivemapping technique;

� Choose one method of cognitive mapping for use by HF Engi-neers and demonstrate it with an illustrative example; and

� Recommend how HF Engineers could use cognitive mappingcollaboratively with senior management and other agents toimprove discussion of and action on HF implementation.

2. Methodological review of cognitive mapping

2.1. What is cognitive mapping?

A cognitive map is a graphical representation, or visual picture,of the content and structure of an individual’s belief system (Edenet al., 1992). The process of cognitive mapping was introduced intothe management science field by Axelrod in 1976 (Markoczy andGoldberg, 1995). The basis of the theory originates in the psycho-logical “personal construct theory” (Kelly, 1955). The personalconstruct theory posits that humans are scientists who areconstantly trying to make sense of the world in order to act withinand upon it. In trying to make sense of the world, people use aconstruct system, then compare any new information for similar-ities and differences and map these relationships to form theirperceptions. The process is one of reflective comparison betweencurrently held concepts and new information.

The process of eliciting the map is most commonly performedusing interview techniques and open-ended questions about aspecific problem or issue. Participants provide their perceptions,known as “concepts.” The concepts are written down, andrefined through more open-ended questions. Relationships be-tween concepts are identified (for example causality e whereone concept leads to or influences another). Concepts areconsidered “nodes” and the relationship between concepts areconsidered “links.” Links have arrowheads that show the caus-ative direction (for example, see Fig. 2). Typically, individualmaps contain up to 100 nodes and group maps that are made by

merging individual maps may contain as many as 800 nodes(Eden, 1988).

The notion of team or group maps began in the 1990’s with theidea of helping teams negotiate consensus and commitment to aportfolio of actions (Eden, 1988). Because it makes explicit theconcepts of different individuals, cognitive mapping helps facilitatedecision-making by promoting a shared understanding of potentialproblems and design choices (Swan, 1997). With a wider under-standing of the issues, negotiation can occur more easily and de-cision makers can jointly understand the complexity andconsequences of a decision (Shaw et al., 2009). The use of a groupstrategy map also removes individual ownership of the issues,creating some distance to see and discuss the problem in newways,thereby facilitating organizational change.

2.2. Review of cognitive mapping methodologies

In this section we will present some of the key methodologicalchoices in creating and analyzing cognitivemaps, with an emphasison techniques that are most likely to be of practical use in thecontext of human factors in manufacturing environments. Thissection will include: methods to elicit information; the role of thefacilitator; mapping methods (software or paper and pencil); andmethods for analysis and interpretation of maps.

The choice of technique for any given context depends on anumber of variables, including the likelihood of producing validand reliable data, logistical considerations such as the time andextent of participation, and seniority of the participants. Othervariables include the complexity of the problem, the interest of thepractitioner/researcher, and the scope of analysis. It is important toconsider the overall purpose and intent of the map, for example, inthis case, to prioritize human factors efforts to support the orga-nizational strategy. Note that none of the methods presume onemust have a strong knowledge of the HF.

2.2.1. Choose the method of eliciting informationInformation can be elicited either through open-ended ques-

tions, or through pre-selected “closed” questions. Using an open-ended question, such as “How may one improve customer ser-vice?”, tends to result in wide-ranging and distinctive maps for anygiven individual. Alternatively, the researcher may use a moreclosed structure to provide a set of pre-selected concepts based onthe literature and their domain knowledge of the situation, that theparticipants link or rank by importance (see Markoczy andGoldberg, 1995). One example of a closed structure is pairwisecomparison, where participants make judgments of the positive ornegative influence of one variable on another in a pairwise fashion(Hodgkinson et al., 2004). Another example of a closed structure isthe repertory grid, an early cognitive mapping technique that in-volves a very structured approach for clustering and rating con-cepts (Eden, 1988; Swan, 1995). The advantage of closed questionsis that they make merging of individual maps easier because theconcepts are all similar. The disadvantages are that they do notfacilitate a rich subjective reflection on the topic, and they pre-suppose prior knowledge of all relevant domain elements. Whileeither open or closed questions can work, open questions allowindividuals to view their responses, re-evaluate, make new links,and at times discover emergent themes that would not be other-wise captured.

2.2.2. Consider the role of the facilitatorThe role of the facilitator is an important consideration as it

influences the mapping outcome, and it varies widely acrossdifferent techniques. Some of the methods are executed exclusivelyby the facilitator/researcher; others are facilitator-led but

J. Village et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313 305

Author's personal copy

incorporate a large degree of participant involvement; and a veryfew are performed with minimal involvement of the facilitator. Thelatter techniques involve less researcher bias e as for example, inthe Self-Q Technique (Nicolini, 1999) in which participants performself-interviews formulating their own questions with structuredactivities to develop their concepts and the network. These latertechniques most closely resemble ethnographic methods of datacollection (Nicolini, 1999). Group maps can then be built throughconsensus activities or the use of software that combines individualmaps into group maps without any interpretation by a researcher(Nicolini, 1999).

In techniques where the facilitator plays a very active role, theymay create the map, add concepts and emergent themes, drawlinks, and cluster concepts together (see Oval Maps or Group MapTechniques by Tegarden and Sheetz, 2003; Robertson andWilliams,2006). The advantage of an active facilitator is that they can detectemerging concepts that the individual or group may not see.However, these methods are heavily influenced by the facilitator. Inthemiddle ground aremethodswhere the facilitator plays an activerole, but also heavily involves the participants in negotiation of aconsensus (see the Strategic Options Development and Analysis(SODA) method by Eden (1988) and Swan, 1995).

2.2.3. Choose the method of mappingMapping is usually done actively with the participant, but can be

done after an interview by coding transcripts of interviews or othertext (Swan, 1995). Coding after an interview does not allow aparticipant to see the map and to question the links or expand on aconcept as they are viewing it (Eden and Ackermann, 2004). Codingpost-interview may also result in the facilitator making assump-tions when drawing the links since they cannot check with theparticipant directly.

The mapping method uses mapping software or paper andpencil. The extensive work by Eden et al. (1992), Eden, 1992, Edenand Ackerman (2004) and Ackermann et al. (1992) describe indetail the paper and pencil process for eliciting concepts anddrawing maps. They suggest mapping in layers or hierarchies withthe goals at the top, the strategic decisions in the middle and thepotential options at the bottom (as is shown in Fig. 2). They suggestevaluation of opposite extremes of concepts (i.e. positive andnegative), and distinguishing between actors (persons) and actions(verbs) in the codes. The advantage of paper and pencil techniquesis that they require minimal technology and can easily be executedduring interviews, with the participant seeing the “whole” mapdevelop visually as they actively assist in its creation. This processhelps the participants see new links and concepts they might nototherwise have noticed. It is also considered ethical in that par-ticipants can see what is recorded (Brown, 1992).

Several types of software have been developed to aid both themap drawing and, especially, the analytical processes (see Lee et al.,1992 for Collective Cognitive Mapping System (COCOMAP),Ackermann, et al., 1992 for Decision Explorer, Sheetz, et al., 1994 forVisionQuest and Eden, 1988 for COPE software). In simpler pro-grams, the facilitator uses the software to draw the map duringindividual or group sessions. They can later overlay individual mapsto create a groupmap, or they can analyze maps in numerous otherways. Collectively, computer-based systems that combine hard-ware, software and procedures to structure group activities areknown as Group Support Systems (GSS). Some GSS require groupmembers to simultaneously work on separate computers and thesystems prompt members to agree to common themes and links.Other GSS tools include electronic brainstorming, point allocation,and voting and ranking systems (Sheetz et al., 1994). The softwarethen merges the complex maps and facilitates numerous analysistechniques. For example, rules can establish cut-offs for merging

concepts and relationships from multiple maps, such as minimumlevel of agreement of concepts. There is tremendous advantage inusing software to analyze the information statistically. However,while such analyses may be interesting to the researcher, the datamay not be as useful for the participants, or necessary for problemsolving in the organization. Note that analysis methods will bediscussed in Section 2.2.5.

2.2.4. Methods for creating group mapsThere are a range of methods for creating group maps that

include: maps made by the facilitator; by the facilitator and par-ticipants together; or by participants with little input from thefacilitator. Group maps may also be created without first makingindividual maps.

The first type, where the facilitator alone merges individualmaps into a group map, includes examples such as the Etiograph,Congregate Map and Group Map techniques (Swan, 1995; Tegardenand Sheetz, 2003; Robertson and Williams, 2006). In the Congre-gate Map technique, for example, only the nodes that are commonto each individual’s map are included. This method has been crit-icized for researcher bias, but has the advantage of likely beingquicker and involving less participants’ time. However, the finalgroup map may not promote change or action by the group ifparticipants are not involved in its creation.

In the second type of method, where the facilitator develops themerged map together with participants during a workshop, thelevel of consensus must be considered. Langfield-Smith (1992) re-ported that reaching consensus on all concepts is time consuming,and Nicolini (1999) found it may provoke disagreement over themeaning of the nodes. However, if the maps are accepted tooreadily by participants, they may contain generic statements thatmay not be as useful.

The third type of method, which relies heavily on participantsderiving the map, includes, for example, Strategic Options Devel-opment and Analysis (SODA) (Swan, 1997). Software is used toretain all individual differences in individual maps. Negotiationamong participants to determine the final shape of themap leads toa richer understanding of complex issues. This type of mergingprocess, while time consuming, allows common features of eachindividual map to be highlighted while retaining the idiosyncraticbeliefs of individuals (Swan, 1997).

Finally, a group can create a shared map without first derivingindividual maps (see Sheetz et al., 1994). Sheetz et al. (1994) re-ported that the group procedure, which took almost 4 h, was muchmore time efficient and produced the same overall result as con-ducting individual maps that were then merged. Robertson andWilliams (2006) also suggests using a direct group approach iftime is limited or if it is essential that all parties identify with, andbuy in to, the output. The use of individual maps, however, issuggested when individual concepts are of interest to the facilitatorand when participants come from different levels or departmentswithin the organization, or where there may be disagreement be-tween participants.

2.2.5. Methods to analyze and interpret a cognitive mapA number of analysis techniques will be discussed in this section

to provide an overview of options available for both individual andgroup maps. The case study that follows will give examples to helpillustrate some of the methods. Maps are analyzed in three ways:the number of concepts and links; the shape and structure; and thecontent.

A map’s complexity, reflected by the number of concepts, pro-vides an indication of the person’s knowledge or expertise on atopic (Novak and Canas, 2008). While a greater number of nodesgenerally represents greater mastery, expert knowledge, or

J. Village et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313306

Author's personal copy

complexity of the situation, the method of elicitation and length ofinterview time can influence the number of nodes (Eden, 1992). Inaddition to the number of concepts, the ratio of links to conceptsalso reflects knowledge and expertise. Eden (1992) reports thattypical ratios of the number of links to the number of conceptsrange from 1.15 to 1.2, with higher ratios depicting greatercomplexity and expert knowledge.

Regarding shape and structure, cognitive psychologists suggestthat the “essence of knowledge is structure” (Ruiz-Primo, 2004).Therefore, as a person’s knowledge increases through learning,training, or experience, the elements of their knowledge becomeincreasingly connected; this can be revealed in their cognitive map.Work by Hay and Kinchin (2006) in the educational field suggestthat more expert maps resemble networks with high numbers ofinterconnections, compared with those of novices that are linear orspoke-shaped (with numerous concepts coming from a singeconcept). One can also explore the ratio of heads to tails. Conceptsthat are “heads” are at the top of the map with concepts leadinginto them. “Tails” are at the bottom of the map and represent theaction items leading upward. A high ratio of heads-to-nodes canindicate multiple potentially conflicting objectives or goals, whichin turn can indicate higher complexity of the problem. A high ratioof tails-to-nodes, or relative flatness of the shape, can indicate alarge range of possible options to achieve a particular goal.

The content of the map can be explored by looking for the mostfrequently linked concepts (known as domains) or most centralconcepts (calculated with a distance decay function for links suc-cessively further from the central concept). Central concepts reflectthose with highest overall networks, or perceived “influence”.Concepts identified by domain or centrality analysis can then be re-mapped as smaller maps to improve comprehension of conceptsand their associations.

Map content can also be explored with cluster analysis toidentify groupings of concepts that appear to stand-alone withrespect to other groupings. Analysis software looks at each nodeand the immediate context of that node to determine the similarityrating (mathematically known as Jaccard co-efficient). A map withfew clusters indicates less complexity as it cannot be simplified andbroken apart.

Finally, content can be analyzed qualitatively by following pathseither from a strategic goal to a final action item, or vice verse.Software can list the various “explanations” (concepts that explainor lead into the given concept), or “consequences” (concepts thatarise as a result of a given concept). In a highly networkedmap, theremay be hundreds of these for central concepts. Particularly infor-mative paths are the causal loopswhere concepts connect circularly.Both virtuous and vicious loops e indicating growth, decline, orfeedback control e may be studied as opportunities for action.

3. Illustrative example of cognitive mapping

3.1. Purpose

The purpose of the following illustrative example is to demon-strate the selection and use of one of the cognitive mapping tech-niques and evaluate its potential as a means to improveunderstanding of the relationship between human factors and anorganization’s strategic goals. We are less interested here in thecontent or results of the map, than in the how the tool can be usedby HF Engineers and others in industrial applications. An individualinterview was conducted with one of the co-authors of this paper(WPN), who has 20 years of industrial experience. To evaluate theapplicability of the tool for our larger case study in an electronicsfirm, the individual responded to the mapping exercise from theperspective of a manufacturing company.

3.2. Case study: methods

Our goal was to choose a method that would be both time- andresource-efficient for the illustrative example since our broader aimwas to use the method with a group of senior directors of a com-pany. We therefore chose an interactive paper-and-pencil individ-ual mapping technique structured with strategic goals, main goalsand actions (Eden et al., 1992). The participant was provided withgeneral instructions about how the mapping would be executedinteractively during the interview. The open-ended question posedwas “How can integrating human factors into production systemdesign processes help achieve strategic goals of an organization?”Both an open-ended question and paper-and-pencil mapping werechosen so that the participant could explore their perceptions andsee their concepts emerge in real time, with the potential todiscover new or emergent links among the concepts. As theparticipant responded, concepts (short phrases or keywords in theparticipant’s words) were written on the paper and put in boxes.The participant was asked to verify if a concept was a strategic goal,in which case it was placed near the top of the paper or a main goal(in the middle). Action items populated the bottom of the map. Thedrawing and linking of concepts continued more or less uninter-rupted. If unsure about the directional nature of the linkage for agiven concept, the participant was prompted with “what does thislead to?” or “what causes this?” The participant was encouraged toobserve the mapping process and suggest new links betweenconcepts. The interview was scheduled for one hour, and it wasdigitally recorded. If a concept was missed during the interview, itwas added to the map later upon reviewing the digital recording. Ifthe facilitator was unsure of any concept or linkages, clarificationwas sought from the participant.

For data analysis, each concept and link from the hand-drawnmap was entered into Decision Explorer software (Banxia Soft-ware Ltd. 2002, U. of Strathclyde). The analyst (JV) carefullycompared the computer-drawn map with the hand-drawn mapand the digital recording to ensure all concepts and links wereincluded. Strategic goals and main goals were given different boxfonts and colors to make them easier to identify. Where possible,concepts were arranged to minimize linking lines that crossed; thisimproves legibility of themap. Initial analysis of the map included acount of concepts, heads, tails, and loops, and listing of domain andcentrality scores. The most central concepts were re-mapped intosmaller maps. Maps were discussed with the participant to reviewinsights regarding both content of the map and process of itscreation.

3.3. Case study: results

The one-hour interview produced a cognitive map with 71concepts. Few concepts were missed (<5%) during the interview;they were discovered and added during review of the digitizedrecording. The complex inter-connections made it difficult to drawa “clean” map, free of cross-linkages. The full cognitive map isshown in Fig. 1. As is typical for these large maps it is very difficultto read the node-labels from a single print-out e which wouldrequire ‘zooming in’. Instead, such a display provides insight intothe overall structure and complexity. The main strategic goal is thesolid oval at the top, main goals are ovals with a dark background,and sub-goals are shaded square boxes. Descriptive statistics areshown in Table 1.

The overall shape, structure and highly networked nature of themap in Fig.1, together with the descriptive statistics in Table 1, leadsto the conclusion that the participant has an “expert” and complexknowledge about the topic. The large number of links (123), highratio of links to nodes (1.7), high ratio of tails to nodes (0.296), and

J. Village et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313 307

Author's personal copy

1 Release New

Products on Regular

Basis2 Increased Product

Variety

3 Need to adaptquickly

4 Rapid set-up5 Rapid Ramp-Up

(Operationally)

6 Improved Quality

7 Increased Yield

and throughput

8 Improve changeoverof Assembly Line

(Ramp down)

9 Faster to achievedesign

10 Less retrofitting

11 Increasedflexibility

12 Improved modelfor setting up

assembly (consideroptions)

13 Improved set-upof assembly

14 Improve designfor assembly toimprove product

design

15 Correct mistakesquickly

16 Improve errordetection

17 Improved MaterialSupply Strategy

18 Ensure mentalmodel of assembly

correct

19 Increase ease ofunderstanding

20 Simplify assembly

21 less errors

22 Increasedcognitive

performance

23 Increase feedback(visual, tactile) 24 Reduced need to

learn (moreautomatic)

25 Improvedinstructions for

assembly

26 Improve training

27 Cluster intosubsystems

28 Improve sequences

29 Improvepositioning of tools

30 Reduced physicalforces31 Reduce control

and dexteritydemands

32 Reduced workerpain and fatigue

33 Reduceddistraction

34 Define chunks ofwork that can be run

in parallell ratherthan seriel

35 Improve lighting

36 Increase varietywith workstation

level changes

37 Use goodprocesses

38 Improve work-restrecovery

39 Reduce shortcycle jobs

40 Less attentionfocus rather than

assembling wholeproduct41 Increased

motivation

42 Improved varietyof workstations

43 Lessminiaturization

44 Reduce reaches

46 Reduce awkwardpostures

47 Less need to dealwith unfamiliar

components

48 Increases needfor all components

to be available

49 Improvemanagement of

materials

50 Improvesarrangement of

materials

51 Improvedpsychosocial factors

52 Autonomy

53 Increased controland reduced demands

54 Watch tray supplyapproach

55 Kit

56 Cartridge 57 Improves effortreward balance

58 increases jobscope59 increases

supervisor support

60 Determine newtasks

61 Determine newprocedures

62 Explore singleminute dye changes

63 Increase workerparticipation

64 Increasedefficiency

65 Increased profit

66 Increased volune

67 Improves rapidset-up

68 Improve design ofoff-time tasks

69 Use right tools

70 less monotony

71 Improvedcommunication

72 Improveassessments

Fig. 1. Complete cognitive map (not to be read) showing complex networks of nodes and links (Note, the main strategic goal is the grey oval with red print, main goals are grey ovals with blue print and sub-goals are blue square boxes).(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

J.Village

etal./

InternationalJournal

ofIndustrial

Ergonomics

43(2013)

304e313

308

Author's personal copy

large number of loops (37) illustrate that there are many possibleactions (tails) and numerous routes to achieving the goals. Asshown in Fig. 1, and Table 2 the participant highlighted one stra-tegic goal, four main goals and six sub-goals.

To demonstrate the results of the analysis, Table 3 lists the tenhighest central concepts (defined in themethods) with their scores,and the number of concepts linked to each. Not surprisingly, someof the most central concepts are strategic, main or sub-goals (5 of10), since one would expect many concepts and links would lead tothese. Of more interest in the centrality listing are those conceptsthat are central but not goals (such as “define chunks of work thatcan be run in parallel rather than serial”, and “improve work-restrecovery” e number 56 and 52, respectively). A re-drawing of thecentral concept “Improve work-rest recovery” is shown in Fig. 2.Smaller maps, such as this, are more easily read and comprehendedthan the full map. This is helpful for identifying action items.

It helpswhen reviewing and interpreting the smallermaps, suchas Fig. 2, to start with the central concept, in this case “Improvework-rest recovery” (box 38 in Fig. 2). Arrows leading out of thisconcept highlight the consequences of improving work-rest recov-ery, which can be sub-goals such as “improved quality” (6), or maingoals such as “Increased yield and throughput”. The three arrowsleading in to “improve work-rest recovery” (38) can then beexplored asways to achieve this concept, for example, “reduce shortcycle jobs” (39). One can also trace the paths leading into concepts;these show various routes to achieve improved work-rest recovery.

Both Figs. 1 and 2 show numerous loops, but these are difficultto disentangle when viewing a large map. The Decision Explorersoftware identified 37 loops, and these can be drawn individuallyand explored in more detail. Fig. 3 shows an example of one suchreinforcing loop that contains several loops within it.

Loops in Fig. 3 illustrate the highly interconnected and rein-forcing nature of the concepts as understood by this participant.Taking action towards any one of these concepts, such as “reducing

physical forces” or “reducing short cycle jobs” will have benefits inseveral areas. The analysis of loops is a particular advantage of thecognitive mapping technique, as can be seen even from a singleperson example. The knowledge contained in a loop is often notconsciously evident to the participant, but is brought out throughthe mapping process. Loops can be powerful for beneficial changesince it leads to actions that reinforce other actions. This demon-strates viable results from themapping tool that can lead to specificimprovement projects.

4. Discussion

This paper provides a comprehensive review of methodologicaloptions, not available elsewhere in the literature, for those whomay be interested in conducting cognitive mapping in the HFdomain. It also shows the outputs from one time- and resource-efficient method of paper and pencil mapping with the assistanceof software for analysis. The illustrative example demonstrates howcognitive mapping, if performed with managers or engineers, canprovide a unique macroergonomic tool for diverse actors to un-derstand HF perspectives and strategically align these with an or-ganization’s goals (c.f. Dul and Neumann, 2009). Based on themethodological review and illustrative example, this paper hasprovided themethod development work for a larger trial underwaywith a group of senior management of an electronics company. Thegoal of the trial is to understand management perceptions of HF,see how they align HF with their strategic goals, and help identifyspecific HF initiatives as part of a multi-year collaboration to in-crease HF application.

In management research, cognitive mapping at the individuallevel has been used to illustrate the idiosyncratic knowledge thatthe individual manager possesses (Tegarden and Sheetz, 2003;Langfield-Smith, 1992). The individual mapping exercise demon-strated graphically in this paper made apparent the relationshipsbetween HF and the company’s strategic goals, as understood bythe participant. This can be very valuable for a HF Engineer, or otheractor, seeking to understand the perspective of managers and en-gineers in an organization. As well as revealing knowledge visually,in some cases it can reveal gaps in knowledge. Similar techniqueshave been used to explore students’ knowledge base in fields suchas science, engineering, nursing, teaching, business and the arts(Hay et al., 2008). Further advantages of mapping as a technique arethat the mapping process stimulated deep responses from theparticipant and is a useful way to understand concept linkages, tocorrect misunderstandings, and to make connections betweenconcepts that may otherwise not be apparent. The visual nature ofmapping allows for evidence checking and can more fully lead tosaturation on a topic than other methods. It may also lead toenhancing or expanding the conceptual framework by raising otherquestions, and revealing emergent themes (Daley, 2004).

Maps are also a basis for self-reflection that produces learning.Whenmerged groupmaps are discussed with a management team,participants compare their concepts with others (share theircognitivemaps), which updates their ownmap to facilitate learning(Fiol and Huff, 1992). It has been suggested that learning takes placeat the intersection between maps and mental models (Moreroft,1992). Using cognitive mapping, rather than conventional meet-ings, helps managers think more critically, broadly, and in-depth,while recognizing the contributions of others and seeing thebroader environment (Shaw et al., 2009). In strategic managementand operational research, mapping has been used with individualsand groups to understand or solve complex or “messy” problemssuch as a business decline, rationale for joint ventures, and man-agement perceptions of competitive positioning, as well as in groupmodel building for dynamic decision-making (Moreroft, 1992;

Table 2List of strategic goal, main goals and sub-goals.

Strategic goal Release new product on regular basis

Main goals Increase product varietyImprove rapid set-upImprove rapid ramp-up operationallyIncrease yield and through-put

Sub goals Increase qualityImprove changeover of assembly line (ramp down)Improve model for setting up assemblyImprove set-up of assemblyImprove design for assembly to improve product designImprove material supply strategy

Table 1Descriptive statistics from cognitive map.

Measure Number in map

Number of concepts (nodes) 71Number of links 123Ratio of links to concepts (nodes) 1.7Number of heads 8Number of tails 21Ratio of heads to nodes 0.11Ratio of tails to nodes 0.296Number of Strategic goals 1Number of Main goals 4Number of Sub goals 6Number of central concepts >10 links 55Number of clusters 2Number of loops 37

J. Village et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313 309

Author's personal copy

Swan, 1995; Langfield-Smith, 1992). Aligning HF considerationswith organizational strategies can also be considered a “messy”problem. Depersonalizing individual concepts into a group mapwith the goal of problem solving has been used successfully to helpindividuals “change their mind” in a way that is face-saving (Swan,1997).

We anticipate that cognitive mapping can also be used as abridge or boundary object (Swan, 1995; Langfield-Smith, 1992).Broberg (2010) describes boundary objects as concrete or abstractartefacts that facilitate communication between different socialgroups. He reviewed various boundary objects used by HF

specialists with engineers or architects to facilitate communicationof knowledge across the two domains about a specific designproblem (Broberg, 2010). Since human factors departments areoften separate from senior management, such a boundary objectmay provide a common ground for discussion of the benefits of HF.The mapping tool has been recognized as a facilitator of systemslevel thinking, since it goes beyond simple cause and effect (Shawet al., 2009). Such systems level thinking is consistent with thegoals of human factors andmacroergonomics. In a research context,the mapping tool could potentially be used as a basis for a simu-lation model to explore the most effective action plans for inte-grating human factors into the business strategies. A similarqualitative systems dynamic simulation model was developed toinvestigate attribution of overrun costs in a large engineeringproject (Howick et al., 2008).

While cognitive mapping is common in operations and man-agement research and the educational domain, its use has beenlimited in HF. Only a handful of HF studies report using a mappingtool. McNeese et al. (1995) reported a study that used mapping toimprove elicitation of knowledge about users, tasks and their envi-ronment, and the U.S. Navy used mapping to perform job task ana-lyses of duties, and to brainstorm challenges (Dumestre, 2004).Mapping has also been used to document and preserve institu-tionalized expert knowledge in the nuclear power industry and fortraining and learning purposes (Coffey et al., 2004; Basque et al.,2004). Mapping has also been discussed in the qualitative researchfield as a strategy to reduce large volumes of data and allow visualidentification of themes and patterns (Daley, 2004). An average 20page interview can be expressed in a single largemap (Daley, 2004).

5 Rapid Ramp-Up

(Operationally)

6 Improved Quality

7 Increased Yield

and throughput

8 Improve changeoverof Assembly Line

(Ramp down)

9 Faster to achievedesign 11 Increased

flexibility

12 Improved modelfor setting up

assembly (consideroptions)

13 Improved set-upof assembly

21 less errors

31 Reduce controland dexterity

demands

32 Reduced workerpain and fatigue

33 Reduceddistraction

34 Define chunks ofwork that can be run

in parallell ratherthan seriel

36 Increase varietywith workstation

level changes

37 Use goodprocesses

38 Improve work-restrecovery

39 Reduce shortcycle jobs

40 Less attentionfocus rather thanassembling whole

product

41 Increasedmotivation

44 Reduce reaches

46 Reduce awkwardpostures

51 Improvedpsychosocial factors

53 Increased controland reduced demands

57 Improves effortreward balance

58 increases jobscope

68 Improve design ofoff-time tasks

70 less monotony

Fig. 2. Map of central concept: “Improve work-rest recovery” (concept #38).

Table 3List of 10 highest central concepts, scores and number of linked concepts.

Highest central concepts Score Number oflinked concepts

Improved set-up of assembly 29 57Improved model for setting up assembly 29 58Define chunks of work that can be run in

parallel rather than seriala28 56

Improve quality 28 54Improve work-rest recovery 25 52Improve design for assembly to improve

product design25 51

Improve psychosocial factors 23 43Increase variety with workstation level changes 23 44Improve error detection 23 50Rapid Ramp-up Operationally 23 50

a Concepts in italics were not identified as strategic, main or sub-goals by theparticipant.

J. Village et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313310

Author's personal copy

The HF literature, especially in macroergonomics and partici-patory ergonomics, suggest that management support andinvolvement are critical for success of HF in organizations (Driessenet al., 2010; Dixon et al., 2009). However, very little guidance to gainthis support and involvement is available. All too often, ergono-mists attempt to ”convince” or “sell” HF to management, generallyappealing to injury reduction or cost-benefit, as a way to gain theircommitment (Goggins et al., 2008). This is difficult and often un-successful. Cognitive mapping may be a tool that can facilitatemanagerial support since one of its strengths is that it contains onlythe concepts expressed by themap “owner” or managere it is theirworldview on a topic. Through mapping, the manager reveals thelinks they themselves perceive between HF and strategic goals, andthereby take ownership of the information. The technique alsohelps identify possible HF actions that support strategic goals of theorganization and will have the greatest impact, again from theperspective of the manager. As such, the tool is “participatory” andhelps a manager focus on human factors at the “macro” level torealize the potential links it has to organizational strategies. Asmentioned in Section 2.1, when mapping is used in a group to in-crease understanding and negotiate a portfolio of actions, the toolpromotes organizational change. We anticipate that the tool mayleverage HF support and action if a managerial group shares theircommon perceptions about HF, and agrees to take actions to pro-mote HF.

As with any tool, cognitive mapping has limitations. Maps areshaped by the method used to build them (Swan, 1997). Somemethods can take considerable time and are labor-intensive,especially if a group consensus is desired (Hodgkinson et al.,2004). Langfield-Smith (1992), in a case study with firefighters,reported that significant time was wasted due to disagreementsabout different meanings and boundaries of the elements, possiblybecause there was not a high level of shared language betweenmembers of the group. Based on their difficulties, Langfield-Smith(1992) suggested that a collective map may not be an enduringphenomenon but rather transitory “collective cognitions” sub-scribed to in varying degrees at a particular point in time during“collective encounters”.

Some authors suggest that individual maps give richer under-standing of a subject area and avoid possible takeover of forceful

personalities or “group think” that may occur when creating a mapin a group setting (Robertson and Williams, 2006). On the otherhand, others argue that cognitive maps of key individuals do notnecessarily relate to decisions made at an organizational level, andtherefore group maps with shared beliefs may be more likely toguide decision making at the organizational level (Swan, 1997). Tofurther confound matters, O’Connor and Johnson (2004) argue thata team map that results from interaction with the team can changehow individual’s think. Clearly, there are advantages and disad-vantages to different methods that must be aligned with the pur-pose for performing cognitive mapping.

Swan (1995) criticizes available methods for mapping, sug-gesting that most are complex and time-consuming and of little useto practitioners compared with researchers. Extensive analysesmay be well beyond what is practical in an organizational setting.The practitioner focused on time and effectiveness may choosemore direct individual or group approaches and simpler analyses inorder to move toward action to solve the problem or further the HFagenda. When considering the question of how to judge the use-fulness of the map, Fiol and Huff (1992) suggest the map shouldprovide “sufficient understanding for effective action”. For most HFEngineers, the goal of mapping will be to agree to action steps inaccordance with an objective, such as reported by Robertson andWilliams (2006) when looking for recommendations about howto proceed with huge delays in a software implementation project.

While it can be argued that a cognitive map of an individual orgroupmay only be valid for a particular point in time, it may be thatthe actions identified through the mapping exercise stay relevant,despite changes in perceptions or management. However, formapping to result in tangible action and therefore reach its po-tential as a tool for organizational change or macroergonomics, thegroup must be prepared to act on the action items identified by thecognitive mapping exercise. In other words, the purpose of cogni-tive mapping and the process of change should be made clear toparticipants ahead of time and agreement should be reached as tothe steps that follow from mapping. If the purpose is to exploreknowledge, to compare knowledge between participants, or tocompare knowledge before and after a change, then mapping mayprovide insight but not necessarily lead to specific action. Alter-natively, if the purpose is to solve a specific problem, or negotiate a

30 Reduced physicalforces

31 Reduce controland dexterity

demands

32 Reduced workerpain and fatigue 36 Increase variety

with workstationlevel changes

38 Improve work-restrecovery

39 Reduce shortcycle jobs

46 Reduce awkwardpostures

51 Improvedpsychosocial factors

Fig. 3. Example of a loop revealing reinforcing characteristics of human factors.

J. Village et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313 311

Author's personal copy

solution, or improve HF activities in an organization, then mappingcan reveal actionable steps, but there still needs to be a commit-ment to making the changes.

5. Recommendations

Based on the methodological review and our illustrativeexample, we suggest the following recommendations for thepractical use of individual cognitive mapping by HF Engineers withmanagers and others in organizations to link HF considerations tostrategic goals:

� conduct individual paper-and-pencil mapping interviews ofone hour duration with managers and others to optimize in-formation in a reasonable time period;

� use an open-ended question to gather perceptions about HF,and how it links to strategic goals in the organization;

� consider recording the interview so information can bechecked without needing to re-check with the manager;

� use software to re-draw the maps and to disentangle theconcepts;

� run simple analyses to reveal the main strategic goals andcentral concepts from the individual maps;

� Analyze the most central concepts for discussion (highestnumber of links);

� Investigate the types of actions (tails) that include HF and linkto strategic goals;

� Analyze loops with reinforcing concepts as they have the po-tential for ongoing positive feedback; and

� Compare human factors perceptions between differentindividuals.

Based on the illustrative example, we propose that individualmapping with managers in a manufacturing organization willprovide untapped perceptions about HF and their link with stra-tegic goals. Based on our literature review, we further suggestmerging maps into a group map based on a common goal.

5.1. Next steps

In our larger trial underway with an electronics company, wewill perform mapping for each individual in a management team,which may reveal both individual beliefs with respect to HF anddifferences in knowledge sets and perspectives. We then proposecombining single maps of managers into a group map, as discussedmethodologically in Section 2.2.4. Our main goal is to generateshared understanding and action to promote the uptake of HF intheir design of assembly systems. We will then evaluate the utilityof the merged map in a workshop with managers for:

� sharing perceptions about HF with the group to facilitate dis-cussion and learning;

� determining the most central connections between humanfactors and strategic goals for this organization; and

� agreeing to a portfolio of potential HF actions based on centralconcepts and paths in the group map and discussions in theworkshop.

The outcome of the workshop is anticipated to be threefold:human factors specialists gain a critical understanding of the per-ceptions managers have of strategic priorities and HF; managersincrease their understanding of how human factors can help themachieve their strategic goals; and actionable initiatives can resultfrom the workshop that further strengthen the connection be-tween HF and the strategic goals.

6. Conclusions

This paper presents a tool called cognitive mapping, from op-erations and management research, that has the potential to helpSenior Managers and others understand how human factors con-tributes to strategic goals in their organizations. The variousmethodological and analytical options for cognitive mapping arereviewed in this paper to help the HF Engineer (or others) choosemapping methods and analyses appropriate for their specificcontext. We recommend further application and testing of this tool.The maps have the potential to facilitate participatory human fac-tors knowledge sharing at a systems or macroergonomic level, andcan lead to actionable steps to further integrate human factors intoorganizations. This tool has the potential to change the humanfactors emphasis in organizations from one of short-term cost-benefit savings to enhancing long-term strategic objectives. Thismay open up new opportunities for the application of HF in in-dustrial systems.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the funding supplied by theWorkplace Safety Insurance Board of Ontario.

References

Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Cropper, S., 1992 (13-15th April). Getting Started withCognitive Mapping. University of Warwick, pp. 65e82.

Basque, J., Imbeault, C., Pudelko, B., Leonard, M., 2004. Collaborative knowledgemodeling between experts and novices: a strategy to support transfer ofexpertise in an organization. In: Canas, A.J., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Gomez, G.,Eskridge, T.C., Arroyo, M., Carvajal, R. (Eds.), Proc. of the First InternationalConference on Concept Mapping. (Pamplona, Spain).

Broberg, O., 2007. Integrating ergonomics into engineering: empirical evidence andimplications for the ergonomists. Human Factors and Ergonomics inManufacturing 17 (4), 353e366.

Broberg, O., 2010. Workspace design: a case study applying participatory designprinciples of healthy workplaces in an industrial setting. International Journalof Technology Management 51 (1), 39e57.

Brown, S.M., 1992. Cognitive mapping and reprtory grids for qualitative surveyresearch: some comparative observations. Journal of Management Studies 29(3), 287e307.

Coffey, J.W., Eskridge, T.C., Sanchez, D.P., 2004. A case study in knowledge elicitationfor institutional memory preservation using concept maps. In: Canas, A.J.,Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Gomez, G., Eskridge, T.C., Arroyo, M., Carvajal, R. (Eds.),Proc. of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. (Pamplona,Spain).

Daley, B.J., 2004. Using concept maps in qualitative research. In: Canas, A.J., Carff, R.,Suri, N., Lott, J., Gomez, G., Eskridge, T.C., Arroyo, M., Carvajal, R. (Eds.), Proc. ofthe First International Conference on Concept Mapping. (Pamplona, Spain).

Dixon, S.M., Therberge, N., Cole, D.C., 2009. Sustaining management commitment toworkplace health programs: the case of participatory ergonomics. ResationsIndustrielles/Industrial Relations 64 (1), 50e64.

Driessen, M.T., Groenewoud, K., Proper, K.I., Anema, J.R., Bongers, P.M., van derBeek, A.J., 2010. What are possible barriers and facilitators to implementation ofa participatory ergonomics programme? Implementation Science 5 (64), 1e9.

Drury, C.G., 2000. Human factors and quality: integration and new directions.Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 10 (1), 45e59.

Dul, J., Neumann, W.P., 2009. Ergonomics contributions to company strategies.Applied Ergonomics 40, 745e752.

Dumestre, J., 2004. CMap tools software to assist in performing job task analysis. In:Canas, A.J., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Gomez, G., Eskridge, T.C., Arroyo, M.,Carvajal, R. (Eds.), Proc. of the First International Conference on ConceptMapping. (Pamplona, Spain).

Eden, C., 1988. Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research 36,1e13.

Eden, C., 1992. On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies 29(3), 261e265.

Eden, C., Ackermann, F., 2004. Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis inthe public sector. European Journal of Operational Research 152, 615e630.

Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Cropper, S., 1992. The analysis of cause maps. Journal ofManagement Studies 29 (3), 309e324.

Fiol, C.M., Huff, A.S., 1992. Maps for Managers: where are we? Where do we go fromhere? Journal of Management Studies 29 (3), 267e286.

Genaidy, A.M., Sequeira, R., Rinder, M.M., A-Rehim, A.D., 2009. Determinantsof business sustainability: an ergonomics perspective. Ergonomics 52 (3),273e301.

J. Village et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313312

Author's personal copy

Goggins, R.W., Spielholz, P., Nothstein, G.L., 2008. Estimating the effectiveness ofergonomics interventions through case studies: Implications for predictivecost-benefit analysis. Journal of Safety Research 39, 339e344.

Hay, D.B., Kinchin, I.M., 2006. Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies.Education þ Training 48(2/3), 127e142.

Hay, D., Kinchin, I., Lygo-Baker, S., 2008. Making learning visible: the role of conceptmapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 33 (2), 295e311.

Hendrick, H.W., 2008. Applying ergonomics to systems: some documented “lessonslearned”. Applied Ergonomics 39, 418e426.

Hodgkinson, G.P., Maule, A.J., Bown, N.J., 2004. Causal cognitive mapping in theorganizational strategy field: a comparison of alternative elicitation procedures.Organizational Research Methods 7 (1), 3e26.

Howick, S., Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Williams, T., 2008. Building confidence inmodels for multiple audiences: the modelling cascade. European Journal ofOperational Research 186, 1068e1083.

Jensen, P.L., 2002. Human factors and ergonomics in the planning of production.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 29, 121e131.

Kelly, G.A., 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs: a Theory of Personality.Norton, New York.

Kirwan, B., 2000. Soft systems, hard lessons. Applied Ergonomics 31, 663e678.Langfield-Smith, K., 1992. Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map. Journal of

Management Studies 29 (3), 1e20.Lee, S., Courtney Jr., J.F., O’Keefe, R.M., 1992. A system for organizational learning

using cognitive maps. Journal of Management Science 20 (1), 23e36.Markoczy, L., Goldberg, J., 1995. A method for eliciting and comparing causal maps.

Journal of Management 21 (2), 305e333.McNeese, M.D., Zaff, B.S., Citera, M., Brown, C.E., Whitaker, R., 1995. ADADAM:

eliciting user knowledge to support participatory ergonomics. InternationalJournal of Industrial Ergonomics 15, 345e363.

Miles, B.L., Swift, K., 1998. Design for manufacture and assembly. ManufacturingEngineer 77 (5), 221e224.

Moreroft, J.D.W., 1992. Executive knowledge, models and learning. European Jour-nal of Operational Research 59, 9e27.

Neumann, W.P., Edman, M., Winkel, J., 1999. Integrating ergonomics into productionsystem development e the volvo powertrain case. Applied Ergonomics 40,527e537.

Nicolini, D., 1999. Comparing methods for understanding organizational cognition.Organization Studies 20 (5), 833e860.

Novak, J.S., Canas, A.J., 2008. The theory underlying concept maps and how toconstruct and use them. In: Technical Report, Institute for Human and MachineCognition Cmap Tools. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.www.ihmc.us.

O’Connor, D.L., Johnson, T.E., Khalil, M.K., 2004. Measuring team cognition: conceptmapping elicitation as a means of constructing team shared mental models inan applied setting. In: Canas, A.J., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Gomez, G.,Eskridge, T.C., Arroyo, M., Carvajal, R. (Eds.), Proc. of the First InternationalConference on Concept Mapping, pp. 1e7. Pamplona, Spain.

Perrow, C., 1983. The organizational context of human factors engineering.Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 521e541.

Robertson, S., Williams, T., 2006. Understanding project failure: using cognitivemapping in an insurance project. Project Management Institute 37 (4), 55e71.

Ruiz-Primo, M.A., 2004. Examining concept maps as an assessment tool. In:Canas, A.J., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Gomez, G., Eskridge, T.C., Arroyo, M.,Carvajal, R. (Eds.). (Pamplona, Spain).

Seim, R., Broberg, O., 2010. Participatory workspace design: a new approach forergonomists? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 40 (1), 25e33.

Shaw, D., Eden, C., Ackermann, F., 2009. Mapping causal knowledge: Howmanagersconsider their environment during meetings. International Journal of Man-agement and Decision Making 10 (5/6), 321e340.

Sheetz, S.D., Tegarden, D.P., Kozar, K.A., Zigurs, I., 1994. A group support systemsapproach to cognitive mapping. Journal of Management Information Systems11 (1), 31e58.

Swan, J.A., 1995. Exploring knowledge and cognitions in decisions about techno-logical innovation: mapping managerial cognitions. Human Relations 45 (11),1241e1271.

Swan, J., 1997. Using cognitive mapping in management research: decisions abouttechnical innovation. British Journal of Management 8, 183e198.

Tegarden, D.P., Sheetz, S.D., 2003. Group cognitive mapping: a methodology andsystem for capturing and evaluating managerial and organizational cognition.Omega 31, 113e125.

Waterson, P., Kolose, S.L., 2010. Exploring the social and organizational aspects ofhuman factors integration: a framework and a case study. Safety Science 48,482e490.

Zink, K.J., Steimle, U., Schroder, D., 2008. Comprehensive change managementconcepts. Development of a participatory approach. Applied Ergonomics 38,527e538.

J. Village et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 304e313 313