Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design
Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design 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-
NATO UNCLASSIFIED-19 - - AC/243(Panel-8)TRnVolume ithe applications of the three most frequently used techniques reported how they related the resultsto system performance. Again this may reflect a deficiency of existing guides to humanengineering, which do not make clear the connection with other engineering specialities such assystems engineering, reliability, logistics support, spares allocation, maintenance, trainingsystems design, and test and evaluation. For those reasons, the RSG decided to concentrate itswork on a review of existing human engineering analysis techniques and their compatibility withother engineering processes. See Volume 2 of this report for details of the individual techniques.2.2 REVIEW OF HUMAN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES33. As with many engineering specialities, human engineering is most effective if it isapplied in the early stages of project development (Van Cott & Altman, 1956; Meister, 1985).Human engineering analysis techniques are applicable to those early stages through the analysisof the system concept. The techniques mentioned here, which are reviewed in Volume 2, areused for the analysis of system missions, functions and function allocation, the analysis ofoperator and maintainer tasks, and the requirements for human-machine interfaces. An additionalcategory of technique, Interface and Workspace Design, has been included because of theimportance of translating the task analysis information into a design (Fig. 2.3). It should benoted that not all possible analysis techniques are included in this report. The selection wasdictated by the results of the preliminary survey, and by the experience of the RSG members andtheir colleagues.,.mission &scenarioanalysis 2ehinvp 2. functionanalysis5.~~~ pefrac3.i ofu - stem 3.funcionworkspacep6. interface &allocation s a task a designanalysis5. performancepredictionlFigure 2.3:The sequence of human engineering analyses reviewed in the report34. In this review the prediction of system performance and operator workload isapproached only by analytical techniques. Those techniques, and task analysis in particular, canprovide the basis for other human engineering or human factors activities such as mathematicalmodelling, experimentation, man-in-the-loop simulation or rapid prototyping, or field trials bydefining performance requirements and identifying critical operator tasks. Those other humanengineering activities (see Fig. 1.6) are not covered by this review. Mathematical models ofhuman behaviour have been reviewed by another Research Study Group (McMillan et al.,1991). Man-in-the-loop simulator experiments, laboratory experiments, and techniques tosimulate the environmental setting are beyond the scope of this review. It must be remembered,however, that the analytical approach assumes normative behaviour of operator and system.NATOUNCLASSIFIED19 -
- Page 1 and 2: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDNORTH ATLANTIC TRE
- Page 3 and 4: N A T OU N C L A S S I F I E DREPOR
- Page 6 and 7: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR/
- Page 8 and 9: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC1243(Pane1-8)TRf
- Page 10 and 11: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TRf
- Page 12 and 13: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR/
- Page 14 and 15: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR[
- Page 16 and 17: NATO UNCLAS S IFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)T
- Page 18 and 19: NATO UNCLASSIFTEDAC/243(Panel-8)=RJ
- Page 20 and 21: NATO UNCLASSIFTEDAC/243(Panei-8)TR1
- Page 22 and 23: NATO UNCLASSIFIED-143tPanei-8)Tw7n3
- Page 24 and 25: NATO UJNCLASS IFTEDACt243(Panei-8)T
- Page 26 and 27: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDIAC243(Panei-8)=Vo
- Page 28 and 29: NAT O UNCLAS SIFTEDAC/3(Panel-8 7 -
- Page 30 and 31: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDACP-43gne-)TRj714
- Page 32 and 33: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TRL
- Page 36 and 37: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDrAC/243(Panel-8)TR
- Page 38 and 39: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Pane1-8)TR/
- Page 40 and 41: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel- 8)TR
- Page 42 and 43: AC/243(Panei-8)TR/7- 26 -Volume ist
- Page 44 and 45: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR/
- Page 46 and 47: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR/
- Page 48 and 49: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR/
- Page 50 and 51: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR/
- Page 52 and 53: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDI! -.\Cf2 3(Panei-
- Page 54 and 55: NATO UNCLASSIFIED"AC/243(Panel-8)TR
- Page 56 and 57: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDACT243(Palel- 8 TR
- Page 58 and 59: NATO UNCLASSIFTED,AC/243(Panel-8)TR
- Page 60 and 61: NATO UNCLASSIFIED 7ACP'_43(PaneI-8)
- Page 62 and 63: NATO UNCLASSIFIED.AC/243(Panel-8)TR
- Page 64 and 65: NATO UNCLASSIFIED QAC/243(Pafnel-8'
- Page 66 and 67: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8Y)1=
- Page 68 and 69: NATO UNC LAS SIFIE.DAC/243(Panel-8)
- Page 70 and 71: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC,243(Panel-8)TRt
- Page 72 and 73: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR1
- Page 74 and 75: I1.AC/243(Panei-89)TRP.Volume INATO
- Page 76 and 77: AC/243(Panel-87TR/7Volume I- 60 -Ta
- Page 78 and 79: NATO UNCLASSI.FIEULACP243(Panel-8)T
- Page 80 and 81: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TR1
- Page 82 and 83: NATO UNCLAS SIFIEDAC8243(Pane1-8)TR
NATO UNCLASSIFIED-19 - - AC/243(Panel-8)TRnVolume ithe applications of the three most frequently used techniques reported how they related the resultsto system performance. Again this may reflect a deficiency of existing guides to humanengineering, which do not make clear the connection with other engineering specialities such assystems engineering, reliability, logistics support, spares allocation, maintenance, trainingsystems design, and test and evaluation. <strong>For</strong> those reasons, the RSG decided to concentrate itswork on a review of existing human engineering analysis techniques and their compatibility withother engineering processes. See Volume 2 of this report for details of the individual techniques.2.2 REVIEW OF HUMAN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES33. As with many engineering specialities, human engineering is most effective if it isapplied in the early stages of project development (Van Cott & Altman, 1956; Meister, 1985).Human engineering analysis techniques are applicable to those early stages through the analysisof the system concept. The techniques mentioned here, which are reviewed in Volume 2, areused for the analysis of system missions, functions and function allocation, the analysis ofoperator and maintainer tasks, and the requirements for human-machine interfaces. An additionalcategory of technique, Interface and Workspace <strong>Design</strong>, has been included because of theimportance of translating the task analysis information into a design (Fig. 2.3). It should benoted that not all possible analysis techniques are included in this report. The selection wasdictated by the results of the preliminary survey, and by the experience of the RSG members andtheir colleagues.,.mission &scenarioanalysis 2ehinvp 2. functionanalysis5.~~~ pefrac3.i ofu - stem 3.funcionworkspacep6. interface &allocation s a task a designanalysis5. performancepredictionlFigure 2.3:The sequence of human engineering analyses reviewed in the report34. In this review the prediction of system performance and operator workload isapproached only by analytical techniques. Those techniques, and task analysis in particular, canprovide the basis for other human engineering or human factors activities such as mathematicalmodelling, experimentation, man-in-the-loop simulation or rapid prototyping, or field trials bydefining performance requirements and identifying critical operator tasks. Those other humanengineering activities (see Fig. 1.6) are not covered by this review. Mathematical models ofhuman behaviour have been reviewed by another Research Study Group (McMillan et al.,1991). <strong>Man</strong>-in-the-loop simulator experiments, laboratory experiments, and techniques tosimulate the environmental setting are beyond the scope of this review. It must be remembered,however, that the analytical approach assumes normative behaviour of operator and system.NATOUNCLASSIFIED19 -