Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Span of control in supervision of rail track work

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The supervision of engineering work on the railways has received relatively little examination despite being both safety–critical in its own right and having wider implications for the successful running of the railways. The present paper is concerned with understanding the factors that make different engineering works perceived as easier or harder to manage. We describe an approach building on notions of ‘span of control’, through which we developed the TOECAP inventory (Team, Organisation, Environment, Communication, Activity and Personal). This tool was validated through both interviews and questionnaires. As well as identifying the physical factors involved, the work also emphasised the importance of collaborative and attitudinal factors. We conclude by discussing limitations of the present work and future directions for development.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Subsequent to the completion of the present work, the role of the COSS is currently under review by Network Rail, see https://www.safety.networkrail.co.uk/On-site-Solutions/Planning-and-Delivering-Safe-Work.

References

  • Bell J, Holroyd J (2009) Review of human reliability assessment methods. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO), Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  • Cathcart D, Jeska S, Karnas J, Miller S, Pechacek J, Rheault L (2004) Span of control matters. J Nurs Adm 34(9):359–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Hertog D, van Zante-de Fokkert JI, Sjamaar SA, Beusmans R (2005) Optimal working zone division for safe track maintenance in The Netherlands. Accid Anal Prev 37(5):890–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doran D, McCutcheon A, Evans M et al (2004) Impact of leader’s span of control on leadership and performance. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington-Darby T, Pickup L, Wilson JR (2005) Safety culture in railway maintenance. Saf Sci 43(1):39–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher G, Flin R, George P, Glavin R, Maran N, Patey R (2003) Anesthetists’ non-technical skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br J Anesth 90(5):580–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flin R, Martin L, Goeters K-M, Hormann H-J, Amalberti R, Valot C, Nijhuis H (2003) Development of the NOTECHS (non-technical skills) systems for assessing pilots’ CRM skills. Hum Factors Aerosp Saf 3(2):95–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford JP, Mullen WJ, Christ RE (1998) Effective span of command and control by echelon in training and operational environments. ARI research note 99-03. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA

  • Golightly D, Ryan B, Dadashi N, Pickup L, Wilson JR (2013) Use of scenarios and function analyses to understand the impact of situation awareness on safe and effective work on rail tracks. Saf Sci 56:52–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graicunas VA (1937) Relationship in organization. In: Gulick L, Urwick L (eds) Papers on the science of administration. Institute for Public Administration, Columbia University, New York, pp 181–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis—CREAM. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • King N (1998) Template analysis. In: Symon G, Cassell C (eds) Qualitative methods and analysis in organisational research. Sage, London

  • Koontz H, O’Donnell C, Weihrich H (1980) Management, 7th edn. McGrawHill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon AS, Doran D, Evans M, Hall LM, Pringle D (2009) Effects of leadership and span of control on nurses’ job satisfaction and patient satisfaction. Nurs Leadersh 22(3):48–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer RM (2008) Span of management: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 63(1):104–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell L, Pickup L, Thomas S, Watts D (2005) Assessment of new workload tools for the rail industry. In: Wilson JR, Norris BJ, Clarke T, Mills A (eds) Rail human factors: supporting the integrated railway. Ashgate Publishing, London, pp 330–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Network Rail (2011) Network rail—our history. Retrieved 02 Sept 2011 from http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/729.aspx

  • New N (2009) Optimizing nurse manager span of control. Nurse Leader 7(6):45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickup L, Wilson JR, Nichols S, Smith S (2005a) A conceptual framework of mental workload and the development of a self-reporting integrated workload scale for railway signallers. In: Wilson JR, Norris BJ, Clarke T, Mills A (eds) Rail human factors: supporting the integrated railway. Ashgate Publishing, London, pp 319–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickup L, Wilson JR, Sharples S, Norris BJ, Clarke T, Young MS (2005b) Fundamental examination of mental workload in the rail industry. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 6(6):463–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickup L, Wilson JR, Norris BJ, Mitchell L, Morrisroe G (2005c) The Integrated Workload Scale (IWS): a new self report tool to assess railway signaller workload. Appl Ergon 36(6):681–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickup L, Wilson JR, Lowe E (2010) The operational demand evaluation checklist (ODEC) of workload for railway signaling. Appl Ergon 41(3):393–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2007) Interaction design: beyond human computer interaction, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson C (2011) Real world research, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • RSSB (2012a) Operations and management—non-technical skills for rail: a list of skills and behavioural markers for drivers, with guidance notes

  • RSSB (2012b) Operations and management—non-technical skills required in train driver role: developing an integrated approach to NTS training and investment

  • Ryan B, Wilson JR, Schock A, Lowe E, Kenvyn F (2007) Human factors in the management of engineering possessions: roles of the engineering supervisor and PICOP. In: Wilson JR, Norris BJ, Clarke T, Mills A (eds) People and rail systems: human factors at the heart of the railway. Ashgate Publishing, London, pp 331–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Schober MF, Conrad FG (1997) Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public Opin Quart 61:576–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schock A, Ryan B, Wilson JR, Clarke T, Sharples S (2010) Visual scenario analysis: understanding human factors of planning in rail engineering. Prod Plan Control 21(4):386–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant operations. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel BM, Christ RE (1993) The resurrection of span of control. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 37th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA

  • Williams JC (1988) A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance. In: IEEE fourth conference on human factors and power plants. Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, NY, pp 346–350

  • Wilson JR (2005) Methods in the understanding of human factors. In: Wilson JR, Corlett N (eds) The evaluation of human work, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JR, Norris BJ (2006) Human factors in support of a successful railway: a review. Cogn Technol Work 8(1):4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JR, Cordiner L, Nichols S, Norton L, Bristol N, Clarke T, Roberts S (2001) On the right track: systematic implementation of ergonomics in railway network control. Cogn Technol Work 3(4):238–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JR, Pickup L, Norris BJ, Nichols S, Mitchell L (2005) Understanding of mental workload in the railways. In: Wilson JR, Norris BJ, Clarke T, Mills A (eds) Rail human factors: supporting the integrated railway. Ashgate Publishing, London, pp 309–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JR, Ryan B, Schock A, Ferreira P, Smith S, Pitsopoulos J (2009) Understanding safety and production risks in rail engineering planning and protection. Ergonomics 52(7):774–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong CA, Elliot-Miller P, Laschinger H, Cuddihy M, Meyer RM, Keatings M, Burnett C, Szudy N (2015) Examining the relationships between span of control and manager job and unit performance outcomes. J Nurs Manag 23(2):156–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Robert J. Houghton and David Golightly were supported by the RCUK Horizon Digital Economy Research Grant [EP/G065802/1].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Factors Research Group, Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

    Robert J. Houghton, Chris White, David Golightly & John R. Wilson

  2. Network Rail Ergonomics Team, Milton Keynes, UK

    Chris White & John R. Wilson

Authors
  1. Robert J. Houghton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Golightly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John R. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Houghton.

Additional information

John R. Wilson: Deceased.

Appendix: Semi-structured interview

Appendix: Semi-structured interview

The aim of this research is to identify and ultimately help mitigate stressing and loading factors associated with on-track maintenance work. This will help reduce the chance of errors and improve the efficiency and safety of this work. This interview will help me understand the role of Engineering Supervisor and begin to identify those loading factors.

1.1 Interviewee data

Job title.

Duration in post.

Route to post (through ranks, from other industry, etc.).

1.2 Exploratory interview items

  1. 1.

    What is like being an ES/PICOP?

  2. 2.

    How do you feel about the ES/PICOP role?

  3. 3.

    What aspects of the ES/PICOP role do you enjoy?

  4. 4.

    What have you felt at your limit?

  5. 5.

    What do you feel affects your performance the most?

  6. 6.

    What affects team/gang performance most?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Houghton, R.J., White, C., Golightly, D. et al. Span of control in supervision of rail track work. Cogn Tech Work 18, 361–378 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0364-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0364-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation