Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design

] NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel 8)TR/7 - 120 -Volume 2SYSTEM FUNCTION LAYOUT ARCHITECTURE INDIVIDUALOfficer of the Watch& Commandstarboardduplicatedequipmentso me comoatOfficer of the Watchsystem functionsstarboard;performed on bridge Command oirt J sharedlarge bridgeequipmentonly routine 1 pelorus on lbridge functionscentreline. forwardperformed on bridge_small bridgesome navigation 1 pelorus individual consolesfunctions performedamidshipsin Ops. Roomii 1 pelorus each l| lport 1 & starboardcombined consoles|_conventional | rectangularpersonnelbridgefunctionshelm forwardbulkhead mountedintegratedpersonnel helm circular consolesfunctions to rear bridgeof bridge* helm not onisland consolesbridge |) Design option decision pointTradeoffs for design option:Conventional personnel functionsIntegrated vs conventional personnel functionsIntegrated personnel functionsAdvantages | maintains current career streams - smaller complement reduces costs| - exploits current training plan * develops more skilled personneli smaller complement reduces delays, errors,misunderstandings in proceduresl__ l _ _|_*permits small bridae with good visibilityDisadvantages * current manning levels are expensive * increased capital & training costs likely* increasing manning problems expected * performance not easily predicted* large complement incurs delays & - requires higher standard of design thanerrors in execution of bridge procedures conventional bridge* bridge must be large, reducing visibility - changes career streams & training planof OOW I requirementsFigure 6.1: Example of design option decision tree and tradeoff tablefor a ship's bridge (after Beevis, 1981)NATO UNCLASSIFIED- 120 -