CQUniversity Unit Profile.

Engagement as a responsible member of the learning community is important to your future careers as accident investigation professionals. This skill will assist in future teamwork and collaboration with other agencies.

• Post your draft Assessment 2 to the Moodle Sharing Drafts forum so that you can receive peer feedback and to prompt class discussion
• Post your constructive responses to two other students' Assessment 2 drafts suggesting additions to the scenario preamble and/or the scenario lines of inquiry
• Post your draft Assessment 3 to the Moodle Sharing Drafts forum so that you can receive peer feedback and to prompt class discussion
• Post your constructive responses to two other students' Assessment 3 drafts, suggesting changes or additions to the lines of inquiry and/or life cycle analysis
• Submit two other reflective and relevant posts to the Moodle Sharing Drafts forum, evidencing your meaningful contribution to the HFI community of practice.

Any external sources must be referenced in CQUni Harvard style.

Engagement is a pass/fail criteria. To pass this assessment, you will need to complete and pass a minimum of eight posts to Moodle. The grading criteria for passing each of these posts are:

2. Meaningful and respectful feedback to the other students' drafts that will prompt both further improvement and generation of new ideas.

3. Meaningful contributions to the HFI community of practice by way of new research or application.

For this task, you will be required to review the literature and complete a preamble (context), an annotated mindmap and bibliography based around a specific case study of your choice. Your choice of case-study will be subject to approval by your unit coordinator. The case studies provided in the unit are examples and will not be suitable for this Assessment.

To do this assessment you must:

• choose a case study and advise the unit coordinator of your choice by the end of week 3
• read widely about the case study and human factors tools
• develop a draft mindmap
• write a preamble description
• finalise your preamble and mindmap based on ideas generated from the group discussion
• determine the appropriate HFI investigative tools that will progress those lines of inquiry
• complete a critical annotated bibliography that describes each of your identified investigative tools, and
• collate all of this into one submission.

Your collated submission should include the following:

1. A Preamble that includes a detailed:
• description of what happened and the roles of the key actors
• timeline of events (that includes latent issues that underpin the accident event)
• explanation of why it happened, both in the physical domain and the human factors domain.
2. An Annotated Mindmap based on the WorkSafe BC model:
• Design failures and system life cycle as related to human factors issues
• Issues and findings related to physical, cognitive and organisational factors
• Human factors investigation tools recommended (other than HFACS) to investigate the human factors issues/lines of inquiry
3. An Annotated Bibliography:
• Critical annotations of the strengths and weaknesses of each recommended human factors investigative tool
4. A reflection as to how this assessment may inform your future professional investigative practice (especially Crash Lab Project 2)

The ‘whys’ above should draw on evidence in the report AND in the literature (i.e. bibliographies). It should include formal ‘in text’ referencing in the mind map and include a separate reference list. You are encouraged to use mind mapping software e.g.‘FreeMind’(http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page)  or a similar tool but you shall upload your submission as a pdf.

As an investigation professional, you will become part of a wider community of practice, therefore your draft will be peer-reviewed and discussed in Assessment 1. Further details about this task will be provided through Moodle.

To be successful in this Assessment, you will need to demonstrate your competence in the following aspects of HF investigation:

• Depth of analysis in each of the physical, cognitive and organisational domains
• Critical application of the systems design perspective
• Thorough mindmaps applying inductive and deductive reasoning to explore the underpinning role that human factors have in accident causation
• Comprehensive research of the evidence base for HF accident investigation practice
• Application of appropriate HF tools and methods for HF lines of inquiry.
  

The grading criteria are below: 

• WorkSafeBC Mindmap (20%)
• identified People, Workplace and Management Factors
• understands the role of HF: apply inductive and deductive logic to determine HF lines of enquiry
• Mindmap Findings evidence base (20%)
• Physical domain
• Cognitive domain
• Organisational domain
• systems design perspective
• Identify specific HF tools for each of the lines of enquiry identified in your new mindmap (30%)
• Guide for passing grade: A minimum of 6 different tools
• Annotated Bibliography (12%)
• Summarise why you have chosen each HF investigative tool in a 150 word (or thereabouts) critical annotation for each (12)
• Writing & CQUni Harvard Style Referencing (10%)
• Reflection (8%)

This problem-solving activity will extend the work done in Assessment 2. While it is recommended that you continue the same case study, you may choose a different one with the agreement of your unit coordinator.

The submission will be a written formal style report. (Reports of 2,000 to 3,000 words are more likely to be successful).

Complete both Part A and Part B.

PART A (80%)

You are required to:

1. Fully describe the event (this can be taken from assessment 2)

2. Identify significant components of the system/s relevant to the event (this can be taken from assessment 2)

3. Analyse and research the potential human factors issues related to the event (this can be taken from assessment 2)

4. Using the HFACS nanocodes, create an HFI analysis for your event (your analysis must include a minimum of 30 nanocodes):

a. Critique HFACS, in terms of its;

• usability
• value in investigating human factors issues
• usefulness with regard to learning from the event to prevent any future event.

b. Discuss any recommendations you would make to the authors of HFACS to address any limitations with the current tool.

PART B (20%)

… and in the end … some of the most important reflections of all:

1. Compare and discuss the results achieved using HFACS with those of WorkSafeBC used in Assessment 2

2. Reflect on and describe the contribution that organisational factors and safety culture had on the causation of your case study accident

3. Reflect on and describe these HF issues and any shifts of understanding that you may have had through a. study of systems and b. HF design in this unit

4. Reflect on and describe your professional human factors investigative practice into the future (and any 'ah ha' moments in this unit) and share any planned changes to your professional practice resulting from the study of human factors investigation.

To be successful in this Assessment, you will need to demonstrate your understanding through in-depth analysis of the following aspects of HF investigation and their effect on failure:

• evaluating context and its relationship to failure
• actors, their lens and how that might have influenced an event outcome
• relationship between people, machines and systems in society as a socio-technical system
• HF physical, cognitive and organisational design issues
• latent issues and preconditions
• the role of the system life cycle in the accident causation;
• loss of system control
• organisational factors and safety culture.

The grading criteria are below:

• Scenario Systems Issues: 35%: (these are issues to be developed through your application of HFACS or else identified in your HFACS critique).  You will be assessed to the extent that you have demonstrated understanding of:
• context and its relationship to failure
• actors, their lens and how that might have influenced an event outcome
• the relationships between people, machines and systems in society as a socio-technical system
• the systems life cycles and their effect on failure
• failures of latent issues and pre-conditions and the effect on failure
• HF design issues & the influence this has on end-user actions and errors
• HF cognitive design issues & the influence this has on end-user actions and errors
• HF organisational design issues & the influence this has on end-user actions and errors
• HFACS Analysis (35%). You will be assessed on the extent to which you have:
• applied an appropriate understanding of HFACS (10%)
• demonstrate d an understanding of the loss of control of a system and its effect on failure (10%)
• Critiqued the benefits and limitations of HFACS tool (8%)
• Recognised the links between HFACS and the plethora of specialist HF tools introduced in the end of Module 1 and the comparative results achieved in Assessment 2  (7%)
• Critical Reflective Practice (20%) This will be assessed on the extent that you have recognised and described:
• Organisational factors and safety culture (10%) (describe the contribution on the causation of your case study accident)
• Your reflection and description of your understanding of HF issues (5%) (shifts of understanding from studying a. systems and b. HF design)
• Your reflection upon your HFI future professional practice (5%) (any 'ah ha' moments in this unit and planned changes to your professional practice resulting from study of HFI).
• Formal Report (10%)    Format, Organisation, written expression, evidence-based practice, CQUni Harvard Referencing.
  

Further details will be provided in the Rubric in Moodle during the term.