Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design

NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TRn7 - 18 -Volume128. The application of these techniques in individual nations has been describedelsewhere (Beevis, 1984; Behr, 1984; Ddring, 1983; Kloster et al., 1989; Merriman et al., 1984;Papin, 1988, and Schuffel, 1984). Few data were obtained on the extent of use of the techniquesin NATO projects. Use of available techniques appears to have been minimal, certainly at theconcept development stage when such analyses can have the most impact. The NATO FrigateRequirement project (NFR-90) invited input for the development of a human engineering planonly when in its final stages. The early stages of the NATO Anti-Air Weapon System (NAAWS)project were completed without human engineering analyses, although assumptions had beenmade about the functions to be allocated to human operators.29. The low rate of use of human engineering analysis techniques in NATO projectsshould be qualified with the observation that there has been little emphasis on such techniques inNATO publications. The NATO Ergonomic Design Guidelines (1982) do not mention them.Individual papers in AGARD symposia proceedings and reports have covered specifictechniques (see for example Stringer, 1978). An AGARD Aerospace Medical Panel (AMP) studyon the impact of future developments in electronic technology (Hunt et al., 1987) concluded thatdevelopments are needed in the area of crew station design methods to facilitate the inclusion ofhuman factors issues. No single NATO publication has documented a complete set oftechniques. This finding confirmed the intent of the RSG to document available techniques (seeVolume 2 of this report).30. The survey also obtained comments from users on the utility of the differenttechniques, and any limitations in their use. Several of the users' comments were common todifferent techniques. These included:* the need to provide a high level of detail early in system development* the need to reiterate and update analyses as designs evolve* the lack of a good data base* the lack of standardizationThree other comments were common to several of the techniques reviewed:* they are labour-intensive and can take so long that they become out of step with thedesign/ development process* there is need to develop computer programs supporting these different techniques,which make it easier to develop and modify the different analyses* there is a high degree of subjectivity and/or experience involved in their use31. The comments suggested that a more thorough understanding of the capabilities ofthe different techniques would be useful. The state of knowledge of the techniques did notappear to be very high in any nation (NATO RSG.14, 1988) although it is possible that somerespondents were using some techniques under different names. In general, universities do notteach these techniques (Sanders & Smith, 1988), and the need to improve human factorseducation has been recognized (Hennesy, 1981). As is typical for other aspects of engineeringand applied science, universities concentrate their teaching on the underlying sciences. Littleinformation is available on how to practise human factors or human engineering (NationalResearch Council, 1983). Those in industry who wish to use the techniques must trainthemselves. Possibly as a reflection of this situation, some users suggested that there should be agreater effort to foster the use of techniques which are already available, rather than developingnew techniques.32. Another suggestion, which reflected the experience of several members of the RSG,was that human engineering analyses should be integrated with other systems engineeringactivities. For example, the question "How was (the analysis) related to system performancerequirements?" received a generally low response. Only 46%, 27% and 27%, respectively, ofNATO UNCLASSIFIED-18-