Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design

NATO UNCLASSIFIED55 - - AC/243(Panel-8)TR/7Volume 2AdvantagesThe review has the potential for contributing to theallocation of functions, and for documenting personneland training requirements and facilitating the kind ofdesign/selection/training tradeoffs emphasized inMANPRINT and related programmes (Barber, Ching,Jones & Miles, 1990).DisadvantagesThe technique was used in only 2 out of 10 projectsreviewed in Canada and in one of those applications thepurpose of the analysis was misunderstood by thecontractor (Beevis, 1987). The contractor emphasizedgeneric human capabilities, and the effects on them ofgeneric environmental stresses, rather than performancerelated to anticipated operator functions. Contractors havedifficulty distinguishing between the material for thereview of potential operator capabilities and the moregeneric material of the Fitts' List (3.2).Relative contributionIn a review of 38 projects undertaken in NATO nations, the technique ranked 10th out of 24, in terms of frequency ofuse compared with others. Users, however, are not positive about its contribution.ApplicationsPotential operator capability reviews were conducted for the development of an ASW helicopter, an ASW patrolaircraft, a fighter aircraft, a tank, and for a naval training system.Quality assurance considerationsThe analysis should be consistent with the functions decomposed in the system functional analysis, and with knownoperator/maintainer capabilities and limitations. The information on operator performance should be system specificrather than generic (e.g. radar detections per hour in a given target density rather than general information processingcapacity in terms of bits per second).Relationship to system performance requirementsSystem performance requirements are implicit in the review of operator capabilities in terms of speed, accuracy ofresponse etc.References and Bibliography1. Barber, J.L., Ching, H.L.F., Jones, R.E. & Miles, J.L. Jr. (1990). MANPRINT Handbook for RFPdevelopment. 2nd edition. Army Material Command Pamphlet 602-1. Alexandria, VA: US Army ResearchInstitute.2. Beevis, D. (1987). Experience in the integration of human engineering effort with avionics systemsdevelopment. In The Design. Development and TestinQ of Complex Avionics Systems. AGARD-CP-417.Neuilly sur Seine, France: Advisory Groups for Aerospace Research and Development.3. NATO MAS (1991). Application of human enzinceiin to advanced aircraft systems. STANAG 3994 Al(Edition 1). Brussels: NATO Military Agency for Standardization.4. US Department of Defense. (1979). Human enginecnn ! requirements for military systems. equipment. andfacilities MIL-H-46855B. Washington D.C.: US Army Missile R&D Command.NATO UNCLASSIFIED /- 55 -