Thinking is Bad: Implications of Human Error Research for Spreadsheet Research and Practice

TL;DR

This paper highlights the importance of human error research for understanding and reducing spreadsheet errors, challenging common assumptions and emphasizing the difficulty of error reduction.

Contribution

It bridges human error research with spreadsheet error studies, questioning traditional error reduction strategies and offering new insights for research and practice.

Findings

Thinking is detrimental to error reduction

Spreadsheets are not the primary cause of errors

Reducing errors is extremely challenging

Abstract

In the spreadsheet error community, both academics and practitioners generally have ignored the rich findings produced by a century of human error research. These findings can suggest ways to reduce errors; we can then test these suggestions empirically. In addition, research on human error seems to suggest that several common prescriptions and expectations for reducing errors are likely to be incorrect. Among the key conclusions from human error research are that thinking is bad, that spreadsheets are not the cause of spreadsheet errors, and that reducing errors is extremely difficult.