Microsoft access as a modelling tool for
cognitive work analysis
Introduction
A number of computer‐based modelling tools have been proposed and some developed for
components of cognitive work analysis or for the framework in its entirety. Inevitably, those tools
have limitations. They lack the flexibility that is desired for a framework such as cognitive work
analysis which has not yet achieved a stable level of maturity. Additionally, the tools are custom built
by single research groups for this specific purpose and lack the organisational support that is
desirable for a software tool that could continue to find use through many generations.
In this note, I illustrate the use of Microsoft Access as a modelling tool for cognitive work analysis. It
is a widely used software application which has been supported by Microsoft through many
generations. It has widespread use in diverse domains and is likely to continue as a key component
of the Microsoft Office Suite. It is a relational database application and its relational properties in
particular allow it to take account of the relationships within and between the multiple stages of
cognitive work analysis.
The source data for this illustration are drawn from my recent tutorial on cognitive work analysis
(Lintern, 2013).
Cognitive
work
analysis
in
brief
Cognitive work analysis is a multi‐stage framework in which each stage deals with one or more sets
of cognitively‐relevant capabilities and constraints. I will not describe the framework in any more
detail here but if you are not familiar with cognitive work analysis, I have a number of resources on
my site, www.cognitivesystemsdesign.net, (ranging from a couple of pages up to book length) that
explain it.
Access
is
a
relational
database
In common with Excel, Access is a database application. In contrast to Excel, it allows an analyst to
build relationships between tables. If you do not understand what that means, or if you are
otherwise unfamiliar with Access, you will probably need to consult an Access tutorial. Here I will
assume you know the basics.
The ability to model relationships is the most powerful reason that Access is a suitable tool for
modelling the results of cognitive work analysis. This particular feature allows changes you make in
any part of the analysis to flow automatically through to other linked tables. For example, if you
change a term or find a spelling error or need to add elements to any of your analytic products,
these changes will update automatically in any of the linked tables. I typically use Visio, another
Microsoft application, to represent the products of a cognitive work analysis. Inevitably, I find things
This is a particularly labour‐intensive and time‐consuming business. In Access, you make the change
once and it updates automatically through the analysis.
However, Microsoft Access does not offer the types of visual layouts supported by Visio and other
dedicated tools. I find the visual layout to be important early in an analysis as I am exploring the
work domain and the patterns of work but less so as I proceed. Typically, I start with Visio and then
revert to tables as I become more familiar with the work domain and the patterns of work.
Access
modelling
The analytic products of cognitive work analysis are represented as tables within Access. Figure 1
offers an overview of the tables I have developed for this tutorial example. The links shown in Figure
1 are relationships as modelled in Access. I will illustrate how to build relationships in Access by
reference to how I modelled means‐ends link within the abstraction‐decomposition space. I will
then outline the overall structure of the complete analysis.
Means‐ends links within the abstraction‐decomposition space
I develop individual tables for each of the levels of the abstraction decomposition space and then
specify relationships between tables that represent adjacent levels (Figure 1). Note, for example, the
relationship between system purpose and domain values.
Figure 1: Screen capture of the Microsoft Access relationships view showing the tables and relationship links for the abstraction decomposition space and the work task docket
There is one potentially confusing issue with relationships. The means‐ends links between levels in
an abstraction‐decomposition space constitute many‐to‐many mappings (a single element at one
level can support many elements at the next level up and a single element at the upper level can be
supported by many elements at the next level down).
Access copes with many‐to‐many mappings by use of a junction table (a table that sits between the
two other tables). I believe the use of a junction table complicates the representation of the
abstraction‐decomposition space without offering any added value. I have chosen, in this modelling
exercise, to avoid use of junction tables by treating the relationships as one‐to‐many.
Given that choice, I needed to decide whether my one‐to‐many mappings go from means to ends or
from ends to means. That is, should my model show many means mapping into a single end or many
ends being supported by a single means? Arbitrarily, I chose the former. For example, my system
purpose table lists two purposes and shows which values support them. In the Access relationships
view, this is indicated by the line connecting the two tables. You will note the symbols on the line,
the number one at the values end and the infinity symbol at the purpose end. Following the Access
convention, this is to be read as each value appears only once in the values table but many times in
the purposes table.
Relationships involving the work task docket
I create a work situations table, a work tasks table, a cognitive processes and cognitive states table, a
cognitive strategies table, and a cognitive strategies and cognitive modes table (Figure 1).
The work situations table lists the potential work situations.
The work tasks table lists the work tasks. A one‐to‐many relationship with the domain functions
table is used to identify the domain functions associated with particular work tasks. A one‐to‐many
relationship with the work situations table is used to identify the work situations associated with
particular work tasks.
The cognitive processes and cognitive states table contains a work‐tasks column, which is populated
via a relationships link to the work tasks table. There is also a column for each cognitive state and
each cognitive process associated with the decision ladder. Check boxes are used to indicate the
cognitive states and cognitive processes activated for each work task. I have so far marked the
cognitive states and cognitive processes associated only with the plan and replan work tasks.
The cognitive strategies table lists all potential cognitive strategies and also the reasons a worker
might use a particular strategy.
The cognitive strategies and cognitive modes table has a work‐tasks column which is populated via a
relationships link to the work tasks table. It has a strategies column, which is populated via
relationship link to the cognitive strategies table. This column associates work tasks with strategies.
Because some work tasks involve the use of multiple strategies (actually or potentially), specific work
tasks may appear in the work tasks column more than once. This table also has separate columns for
the three cognitive modes (skills, rules, knowledge). Check boxes are used to indicate the cognitive
Relationships involving the social transactions docket
I create a social transactions table, a transactions reach table, an agents table, a transactions
demands table, two transactions dimensions tables (spatial and temporal), and a transaction
resources (or design ideas) table (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Screen capture of the Microsoft Access relationships view showing the tables and relationship links for the social transactions docket
The social transactions table has columns for transaction reach (populated via a relationship link to
the transactions reach table), for interacting agents (populated via a relationship link to the agents
table), for transaction demands (populated via a relationship link to the transactions demands
table), for spatial transaction dimensions (populated via a relationship link to the spatial transactions
dimensions table), for temporal transaction dimensions (populated via a relationship link to the
temporal transactions dimensions table), and for resources or design ideas (populated via a
relationship link to the resources or design ideas table.
The transactions reach table has a column for transaction reach.
The agents table has a column for agents.
Each of the two transactions dimensions tables (spatial and temporal) has a column for the relevant
transaction dimension.
The transaction resources (or design ideas) table has a column for transaction resources or design
ideas.
Relationships involving the staffing docket
I create a staffing table, a work modules table, and a staff roles table (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Screen capture of the Microsoft Access relationships view showing the tables and relationship links for the staffing docket
The staffing table has columns for platoon subgroup (populated via a relationship link to the work
modules table), and for role and rank (both populated via relationship links to the staff roles table).
Additional columns have been created for other criteria but have not yet been filled in.
The work modules table has a column for platoon subgroup.
The staff roles table has columns for role designation and for rank.
Summary
This completes my brief description of how I used Microsoft Access to model the results of my
cognitive work analysis described in Lintern (2013). I intend the Microsoft Access model that this
note describes as an illustration of the way Access can be used rather than as a description of the
way it should be used. I have explored several variations on ways of populating tables and
developing relationships. I have not included descriptions of those in this note because I wanted to
present a relatively simple tutorial that would suggest the possibilities rather than to provide
The use of Microsoft Access as a modelling tool for cognitive work analysis has three primary
benefits. It comfortably accommodates the results from analysis of an extensive system, one so large
that it would tax the capabilities of tools that offered visual representations of the analytic products.
Additionally, changes in or additions to one table flow automatically through to other linked tables.
Finally, Microsoft Access is a well‐established software application with solid organisational support
and is likely to continue to be maintained as a viable product through many generations.
Reference
Lintern, Gavan (2013). Joker One: A Tutorial in Cognitive Work Analysis. Melbourne, Australia:
Cognitive Systems Design.