Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design

Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design

ai.eecs.umich.edu
from ai.eecs.umich.edu More from this publisher
11.07.2015 Views

NATO UNCLASSIFIEDMAC/243(Panel 8ITR/7Volume 2The scope of the work associated with function analysis should not be underestimated. A typical functiondecomposition has about ten functions at the top level. Each. function decomposes to some ten more, so that in threelevels of analysis 1000 functions can be identified. Once the functions have been defined, they can be used as thebasis for establishingfunction performance criteria (Meister, 1985), to analyse the ability of the system to meet itsperformance requirements.References and Bibliography1. Beevis, D. (1987). Experience in the integration of human engineering effort with avionics systemsdevelopment In The Desi n. Development and Testine of Complex Avionics Systems. AGARD-CP-417.Neuilly sur Seine, France: Advisory Groups for Aerospace Research and Development.2. Henry, O.W. (1968). Human factors in ship control: human engineering techniques and uidelines applicable tomerchant marine bridee design. Groton, Connecticut: General Dynamics Inc. Volume II3. Lim, K.Y., Long, J.B., & Silcock. N. (1990). Integrating human factors with structured analysis and designmethods: An enhanced conception of the extended Jackson System Development method. In: D. Diaper, (Ed.)Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT '90. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V...4. Lurcott, E. (1977). F2D2 (functional flow diagram and descriptions), a system management tool. DefenseSystems Management Review. (1) 19-28.5. Meister, D. (1985). Behavioral analysis and measurement methods. New York: Wiley Intcrscience.6. Ministere de la defense (1988). Guide de mise en ocuvre de l'analvse fonctionnelle. DEN/CMQ No. 88610. Paris-Armees: Ddlegation Gdndrale pour V'Armament. Direction des Engins.7. NATO (1989). Handbook on the nhased armaments programming systems (PAPS). Volume I &II. NATO AAP-20.Brussels: NATO CNAD.8. Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processin! and human-machine interaction.New York: North Holland.9. Roe, G. (1982). The heap up hands back control concept. In Advanced avionics and the military aircraftman/machine interface. AGARD-CP-329. Neuilly sur Seine, France: Advisory Groups for Aerospace Researchand Development.10. Sutcliffe, A.G., & McDermott, M. (1991). Integrating methods of human-computer interface design withstructured systems development. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies. 34. 631-655.1I. Tooze, M.J. (1989). Avionic system design methodology. In: Systems enrineerinz: AGARD Lecture Series No.164. Neuilly sur Seine, France: AGARD LS-164.12. US Departmentof the Army (1979). System en-ineering. Washington D.C.: Headquarters, Dept. of the Army.FM 770-78.13. US Defense Systems Management College (1990). System enginfering mana ement guide. Washington D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.14. Yourdon, E. (1989). Modem structured anal-sis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.NATO UNCLASSIFIED-16-

NATO UNCLASSIFIED- 17- AC/243(Panel-8)TR/7Volume 2ce2.1 FUNCTION FLOW DIAGRAMSWhat the technique doesA function flow diagram identifies the sequential relationships of the functions required to perform the mission andoperations defined in the operational requirement and analysed in the mission analysis. Starting with the system ormission objectives and the mission analyses, function flows are developed at increasing levels of detail, down to thelevel where specific tasks can be identified for performance by hardware, software, or human operators. Typically theto analysis proceeds by successive decompositions of the individual functions. Examples are provided in sections 3.1.2and 3.2.3 of Volume 2, Part 2. These graphical representations arc the starting point for the determination of detailedsystem requirements.140 2.0 50pertorprfo perform performpre-f light turn-around maintenanceiis- -operations o e operations operations l*:N2. fh Ref.- tpe olpeeormdegraded flightoperations.0Rf-- No. rt0 Ret.RfperformperformY_ flight Adegradedflight- erations .. operationsflyto combat OR fly combat OR totu performarea x prtosbase turn-aroujnd |operationsFigure 2.2: First and second level function flow diagrams for a tactical fighter aircraftFunction Flow Diagrams (FFDs) are sometimes called Function Flow Block Diagrams. The term is confusing,because Function Block Diagrams are static representations of system functions grouped into organizational areas;Function Flow Diagrams indicate the sequential relationships of all the functions needed to accomplish the systemperformance requirements (US Defense Systems Management College, 1990). FFDs are constructed by arranging insequence all of the functions that are believed necessary to perform the mission, or to fulfil the system performancerequirements. The sequence is arranged to reflect the order in which the functions are performed. The flows areconstructed using "AND/OR" logic, to distinguish between functions conducted in series or parallel. Flowconnections normally enter a function box from the left, and exit from the righL "No go" connections can exit fromthe bottom of a function box. The individual functions are numbered using a system which indicates the order of theNATO UNCLASSIFIED- 17 - i

NATO UNCLASSIFIED- 17- AC/243(Panel-8)TR/7Volume 2ce2.1 FUNCTION FLOW DIAGRAMSWhat the technique doesA function flow diagram identifies the sequential relationships of the functions required to perform the mission andoperations defined in the operational requirement and analysed in the mission analysis. Starting with the system ormission objectives and the mission analyses, function flows are developed at increasing levels of detail, down to thelevel where specific tasks can be identified for performance by hardware, software, or human operators. Typically theto analysis proceeds by successive decompositions of the individual functions. Examples are provided in sections 3.1.2and 3.2.3 of Volume 2, Part 2. These graphical representations arc the starting point for the determination of detailedsystem requirements.140 2.0 50pertorprfo perform performpre-f light turn-around maintenanceiis- -operations o e operations operations l*:N2. fh Ref.- tpe olpeeormdegraded flightoperations.0Rf-- No. rt0 Ret.RfperformperformY_ flight Adegradedflight- erations .. operationsflyto combat OR fly combat OR totu performarea x prtosbase turn-aroujnd |operationsFigure 2.2: First and second level function flow diagrams for a tactical fighter aircraftFunction Flow Diagrams (FFDs) are sometimes called Function Flow Block Diagrams. The term is confusing,because Function Block Diagrams are static representations of system functions grouped into organizational areas;Function Flow Diagrams indicate the sequential relationships of all the functions needed to accomplish the systemperformance requirements (US Defense <strong>Systems</strong> <strong>Man</strong>agement College, 1990). FFDs are constructed by arranging insequence all of the functions that are believed necessary to perform the mission, or to fulfil the system performancerequirements. The sequence is arranged to reflect the order in which the functions are performed. The flows areconstructed using "AND/OR" logic, to distinguish between functions conducted in series or parallel. Flowconnections normally enter a function box from the left, and exit from the righL "No go" connections can exit fromthe bottom of a function box. The individual functions are numbered using a system which indicates the order of theNATO UNCLASSIFIED- 17 - i

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!