The art of thinking · 6 · Judgment, action and error
Skill-, rule- and knowledge-based behavior
Also known as: SRK framework, SRK taxonomy, Skills, rules and knowledge
German: fertigkeits-, regel- und wissensbasiertes Verhalten
In human factors, the skill-, rule- and knowledge-based (SRK) framework by Jens Rasmussen distinguishes three levels of performance: skill-based behavior runs automatically from sensory patterns, rule-based behavior applies stored if–then rules to familiar situations, and knowledge-based behavior reasons from goals and a mental model in unfamiliar situations.
- Cognitive psychology
- Human factors
- Work psychology
In one sentence
Rasmussen’s SRK framework (1983): skill-based routines, rule-based if–then actions and knowledge-based reasoning in unfamiliar situations.
Example
Feeding labels into the labeler is skill-based; clearing a jam by the posted procedure is rule-based; finding why the labeler skips every third bottle after a format change is knowledge-based.
What the research shows
Jens Rasmussen (1983), working on operators in process plants, distinguished three levels of control of behavior. Skill-based behavior is smooth, automated sensorimotor performance guided by signals. Rule-based behavior applies stored rules or procedures, triggered by signs that identify a familiar situation. Knowledge-based behavior is goal-directed problem solving with symbols and a mental model, used when no rule applies. The same task can move between levels: practice shifts it from knowledge- to rule- to skill-based, and an unexpected fault shifts it back. James Reason (1990) built his classification of errors on the framework.
Evidence status
The SRK framework is a conceptual model from engineering psychology that has been used for decades in human reliability analysis, interface design (ecological interface design) and accident analysis. It is a taxonomy rather than an experimentally tested theory; assigning a real action to one level involves judgment, and the levels overlap in practice. It is related to German action regulation theory, which also distinguishes levels of regulation.
How it applies
Different levels need different information: routine operation needs little text and good cues, rule-based work needs procedures and troubleshooting rules, unfamiliar faults need concept information and system descriptions. The glossary “Applied cognitive psychology for information use” covers the design side, for example job aids and checklists. The framework helps to analyze information needs; it does not replace the analysis of hazards and of human error in the risk assessment.
External references
How to read this pool
Entries, context cards and transitional topics
The art of thinking explains ways of thinking — where a method comes from, what it asks of you and how it was adapted later. You meet four kinds of content here, each with its own job:
- Glossary entry
- Defines one concept or method of thinking: its origin, an example and how it relates to neighboring ideas. “X vs. Y” sections set two methods side by side.
- Context card of the art of thinking
- A short, self-contained answer to one question about a way of thinking — its lineage, its steps, its limits. These cards are listed on The art of thinking only.
- Transitional topicBridges both pools
- A context card that bridges both pools: it shows how a way of thinking was adapted into documentation, analysis or quality practice. It sits with the reference context cards and is marked as transitional wherever it appears.
- Reference entry or context card
- Belongs to the Glossary & Norms Space on regulation, norms and engineering. Entries here link to one only where a method is also an established tool of documentation or quality work, such as the five whys or a user’s mental model.