Review Critical evaluation of cognitive analysis techniques for construction field management Fernando A. Mondragon Solis ⁎, William J. O'Brien The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, 1 University Station C1752, Austin, TX 78712-0273, United States abstract article info Article history: Accepted 28 December 2013 Available online 22 January 2014 Keywords: Cognitive analysis Construction management Knowledge elicitation Knowledge representation Cognitive analysis techniques to document field personnel's knowledge have been a recent topic of interest in construction. However, the decision to utilize such techniques remains a difficult one, given their perceived com- plexity, their variety of scopes and means and their expected limitations for utilization in jobsites. This paper pre- sents a critical review of cognitive analysis techniques to analyze their value for construction management research. The evaluation is geared towards identifying the function of different types of techniques as well as con- straints for their implementation in construction environments. In the evaluation, the components of techniques are dissected to uncover their individual capabilities and applications, while also providing insight into the actual difficulties to collect and represent knowledge. This analysis is complemented by the authors' experience in pre- vious cognitive analysis studies, which helps produce a set of recommendations about the practical challenges and implications of deploying specific techniques in construction jobsites. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Cognitive analysis in construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.1. Cognitive analysis techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.2. Applications of cognitive analysis in construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.2.1. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3. Critical evaluation of cognitive analysis techniques in construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1. Categorization of the main aspects of cognitive analysis techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2. Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3. Knowledge representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.4. Knowledge elicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4. Implications and challenges of using cognitive analysis in the construction domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.1. Planning for data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.2. Development of knowledge elicitation and representation processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1. Introduction Construction field managers occupy a key position in construction projects, as they are in charge of coordinating available resources for production. Their job is very complex given the dynamic and uncertain character of the many variables involved; besides, the relationships between these variables can be difficult to discern and understand. Adequate support for field manager's work requires a thorough analysis of the variables involved and their relationships. These characteristics have called for a shift in the methods utilized for analyzing job patterns and practice. Traditional observational techniques, which focus on anal- ysis of manual tasks, have proved inadequate to capture abstract activ- ity; cognitive analysis techniques have been developed to understand the knowledge, thought processes and goal structures that underlie observable task performance [1]. These techniques enable the descrip- tion of work—from a practitioner's perspective—to analyze and design information technologies, work systems, work processes, decision sup- port tools, and learning aids, among other purposes [2]. Automation in Construction 40 (2014) 21–32 ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 512 471 4638; fax: +1 512 471 3191. E-mail addresses: mondragon@utexas.edu (F.A. Mondragon Solis), wjob@mail.utexas.edu (W.J. O'Brien). 0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.012 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Automation in Construction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon