Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design
Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design Analysis Techniques For Man-Machine Systems Design
NATO UNC LAS SIFIE.DAC/243(Panel-8)TR7V olu me I- 52 -analyses must cut across different trade-off study areas. This will require improvements tohuman engineering analysis techniques to make them compatible with parametric studies. Thework of NATO AC/243 Panel-8/RSG. 2 1 on "Liveware Integration" may contribute to definingthe extent of this problem.4.4.2 User centred system design99. McLaughlin (1987) has reported an approach which emphasizes iterativedevelopment through user evaluation of a prototype. His "user engineering methodology" hasbeen combined with traditional system engineering techniques to develop complex man-machinesystems. The approach is intended to gather data about the potential system users andincorporate those data into the design process as early as possible. The methodology, whichparallels the approach recommended for human factors engineering, emphasizes, defines,validates, and maintains the user's view of the system being developed. Similar approaches havebeen called "user centred system design" (Norman & Draper, 1986), and "usability engineering"(Whiteside, 1988). Typically these approaches involve the development of specifications whichinclude "usability" requirements, development and iteration of user procedures. evolution of thedesign through iteration. and testing the design using "usability"' criteria. as it evolves.-A genericapproach includes seven steps:(1) mission and operational concept definition(2) user/system data extraction(3) user analysis (establishment of a representative profile of the user)(4) task analysis(5) human-computer interface analysis(6) prototype validation(7) users' design review100. This approach parallels that recommended for the application of human engineeringdescribed earlier in this report. The approach also parallels the systems engineering process,thereby providing the opportunity for collaboration with systems engineers and developers.Typically, however, the user analysis is not performed in military systems engineering studies.This analysis is conducted prior to task analysis to derive a model of the user group. This isbecause customer requirements for complex man-machine systems are often subjective, vague,incomplete, or unknown (McLaughlin. 1987; Pressman. 1987). A representative profile of theuser group is formed from results of interviews, from observations, and from cognitive. workstyle and personality measures. It should be noted that user analysis has been placed on thehuman-machine systems research agenda only recently and it will be a long time before methodsappropriate for design are established. However, what is important is to be aware that designersimplicitly assume a user profile when designing systems. and this profile should be formulatedmore explicitly.101. In the user centred approach to design, extensive prototyping, with a lot ofdeveloper/end-user interaction, is substituted for the preparation of detailed requirementsdocuments. McLaughlin (1987) claims that "new procurement procedures are needed in order toinsure that these activities are conducted early. Formal documentation deliverables in contractsmust initially yield to the delivery of prototypes, and the analysis surrounding their developmentand trial use." Following the user design review more traditional (formal. top-down) systemdesign methods are used.102. In summary, more widespread use of user centred design approaches and useranalysis may require developments or modifications to existing task analysis techniques. TheNATO UNCLA.SSI.FIEED- 52 -
NATO UNCLASSIFTED53 - AC1243(Panel-8)TR/7Volume Idocumentation of a satisfactory design in the form of a prototype, rather than a systemspecification, presents additional challenges.4.4.3 Integration of system development activities103. As the work of NATO AC/243 Panel 8/RSG.9 has shown (McMillan et al., 1989),the use of CAD systems for human factors/ergonomics studies of operator work-space design isincreasing steadily. Typically, such systems represent the size range of potential operators andtheir movement abilities, and permit comparisons of those operators with three-dimensionalrepresentations of the work-space (McDaniel & Hoffman, 1990). Advanced versions of suchCAD systems permit the representation of a sequence of operator actions.104. While they do not integrate human factors into the weapon systems acquisitionprocess (WSAP), a variety of human engineering CAD tools exist which integrate humanengineering standards or data into the system design. These tools generally assist humanengineering practitioners in:* analyzing requirements for designs* generating designs* evaluating designs in terms of reach. clearances and other types of anthropometricassessmentsSome examples of state-of-the-an CAD tools are (Booher & Hewitt, 1990):* CADET (Computer Aided Design and Evaluation Techniques)* EDG (Engineering Design Graphics system)* SAMMIE (System for Aiding Man-Machine Interaction Evaluation* MIDAS (Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System)105. Related developments in CAD systems may influence the approach taken to theapplication of human factors engineering on large systems. Computer-aided Acquisition andLogistic Support (CALS) is a US DoD and industrial initiative to facilitate and speed up the useand integration of digital product information from CAD systems in military procurements.including construction. production, evaluation and maintenance. The long-term goal withinCALS is to establish an integrated database covering all aspects of a military system that arecommon to procurement agency and supplier. CALS technology is currently being evaluated inseveral projects. e.g., USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter and the Centurion submarine.Currently, there is a project to include human factors data in CALS. That project may lead tostandard human factors data elements and formats. This development is being monitored byNATO AC/243 Panel-8/RSG 21. The US Armyos MANPRINT programme parallels CALS inmany ways, but the focus is on the engineering more than logistics. Although integratedsoftware tools for human engineering have been developed. the only available set of humanengineering tools which are explicitly tailored to MANPRINT is the US Army's MANPRINTIDEA (integrated Decision/Engineering Aid) which is also being used on an exploratory basis inFrance, The Netherlands. and the U.K.106. The developments outlined above suggest the possibility for a much moreintegrated approach between the human-, system-,'and software-engineering aspects of projectdevelopment. Additional important activities include the development of specifications. Thequality of the work done in developing systems specifications is crucial to later success. andgreatly affects the system's operational usefulness and life-cycle costs. Increasingly, theimportance of systems specifications is being recognized among system developers and users.Given the operational requirements. a general description of the development of specificationsmight be as follows:NATO UNCLASSIFTED-53 -
- 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 34 and 35: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDAC/243(Panel-8)TRn
- 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 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
- Page 84 and 85: NATO UNCLASSI-ItLAC/243(Panei-8)TR1
- Page 86 and 87: NATO UNCLASSIFIED.,AC1243(Panel-8)T
- Page 88 and 89: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDACM43(Panel-g)T1-7
- Page 90 and 91: NATO UINCLASSII ri.uACP243(Panei-8)
- Page 92 and 93: NATO UNCLASSIFtiEUACI243(Panei-8)TR
- Page 94 and 95: AC1243(Panel-8)TRnVolume I- 78 -.al
- Page 96 and 97: ANNEX I toA~43(Panei-9)TRf7-Volume
- Page 98 and 99: ANNEX I toAC/243(Panei-8)1=7 -Volum
- Page 100 and 101: ANNEX Ito6Aca41(Pane}-8)TRn7VolumL
- Page 102 and 103: ANNEX I toAC43(Pane-8TR7 - 8 -Volum
- Page 104 and 105: N1 A l O oJN k-~ L i-* 3 3 1 i- XAN
- Page 106 and 107: NATO UNCLASSIFIED. aNORTH ATLANTIC
- Page 108 and 109: N A T OU N C L A S S I F I E DREPOR
- Page 110 and 111: NATO UNCLASSIFIEDACQ243(Panei-88)TR
- Page 112 and 113: AC243(Panel-8)TR7-Volume 25.6 NASA
- Page 114 and 115: N A T O U N CLASIF l IE DAC/243(Pan
- Page 116 and 117: ACP243(Panel-8)TRn 2.Volume 2INTROD
NATO UNC LAS SIFIE.DAC/243(Panel-8)TR7V olu me I- 52 -analyses must cut across different trade-off study areas. This will require improvements tohuman engineering analysis techniques to make them compatible with parametric studies. Thework of NATO AC/243 Panel-8/RSG. 2 1 on "Liveware Integration" may contribute to definingthe extent of this problem.4.4.2 User centred system design99. McLaughlin (1987) has reported an approach which emphasizes iterativedevelopment through user evaluation of a prototype. His "user engineering methodology" hasbeen combined with traditional system engineering techniques to develop complex man-machinesystems. The approach is intended to gather data about the potential system users andincorporate those data into the design process as early as possible. The methodology, whichparallels the approach recommended for human factors engineering, emphasizes, defines,validates, and maintains the user's view of the system being developed. Similar approaches havebeen called "user centred system design" (Norman & Draper, 1986), and "usability engineering"(Whiteside, 1988). Typically these approaches involve the development of specifications whichinclude "usability" requirements, development and iteration of user procedures. evolution of thedesign through iteration. and testing the design using "usability"' criteria. as it evolves.-A genericapproach includes seven steps:(1) mission and operational concept definition(2) user/system data extraction(3) user analysis (establishment of a representative profile of the user)(4) task analysis(5) human-computer interface analysis(6) prototype validation(7) users' design review100. This approach parallels that recommended for the application of human engineeringdescribed earlier in this report. The approach also parallels the systems engineering process,thereby providing the opportunity for collaboration with systems engineers and developers.Typically, however, the user analysis is not performed in military systems engineering studies.This analysis is conducted prior to task analysis to derive a model of the user group. This isbecause customer requirements for complex man-machine systems are often subjective, vague,incomplete, or unknown (McLaughlin. 1987; Pressman. 1987). A representative profile of theuser group is formed from results of interviews, from observations, and from cognitive. workstyle and personality measures. It should be noted that user analysis has been placed on thehuman-machine systems research agenda only recently and it will be a long time before methodsappropriate for design are established. However, what is important is to be aware that designersimplicitly assume a user profile when designing systems. and this profile should be formulatedmore explicitly.101. In the user centred approach to design, extensive prototyping, with a lot ofdeveloper/end-user interaction, is substituted for the preparation of detailed requirementsdocuments. McLaughlin (1987) claims that "new procurement procedures are needed in order toinsure that these activities are conducted early. <strong>For</strong>mal documentation deliverables in contractsmust initially yield to the delivery of prototypes, and the analysis surrounding their developmentand trial use." Following the user design review more traditional (formal. top-down) systemdesign methods are used.102. In summary, more widespread use of user centred design approaches and useranalysis may require developments or modifications to existing task analysis techniques. TheNATO UNCLA.SSI.FIEED- 52 -