Advertisement

Operator Workload for Military System Acquisition

  • Paul M. Linton
  • Brian D. Plamondon
  • A. O. Dick
  • Alvah C. BittnerJr.
  • Richard E. Christ

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is threefold. Initially, we take the liberty of introducing the subject of workload: what it means and why we as engineers and behavioral scientists are interested in it. We assume that practically all engineers involved in the design of new weapon systems are, by now, at least aware of the importance of operator workload (OWL). Indeed, the widely endorsed, yet poorly addressed, initiative to reduce operator workload is partly responsible for the seemingly mad rush to provide ever greater levels of automation in the cockpit, at the helm, or at the workstation. Those of us who practice the Human Factors Engineering profession realize the folly of providing automation simply because it is technologically feasible .. but that philosophical argument must remain the subject for another day. In any event, a brief discussion of workload is necessary to set the stage. The second purpose of this paper is to identify specific workload prediction and assessment models which we have reviewed in our research program, and present summary opinions as to the utility of these techniques. Lastly, we will suggest some top level. questions, strategies, and issues which we all must confront when the time comes to actually select and apply a technique.

Keywords

Task Analysis Optimal Control Model Cognitive Workload Mission Scenario Workload Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, T. B., Craddock, W., and McCracken, J. H., 1984, “A Computer Analysis to Predict Crew Workload During LHX Scout-Attack Missions: Volume 1,” U.S. Army Research Institute, Ft. Rucker, Al.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, T. B., and Szabo, S. M., 1986, A methodology for predicting crew workload in new weapon systems, in: “Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting,” Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Ca.Google Scholar
  3. Attneave, F., 1959, “Applications of Information Theory to Psychology,” Holt, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Baron, S., and Levison, W. H., 1977, Display analysis using the Optimal Control Model of the human operator, Human Factors 19: 437–457.Google Scholar
  5. Baron, S., 1979, A brief overview of the theory and application of the optimal control model of the human operator, in: “Models of Human Operators in Vision Dependent Tasks,” M. C. Waller, ed., NASA Conference Publication 2103, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Baron, S., Zacharias, G., Muralidharan, R., and Lancraft, R., 1980, PROCRU: A model for analyzing flight crew procedures in approach to landing, in: “Proceedings of the Eighth IFAC World Congress,” Tokyo.Google Scholar
  7. Bateman, R. P., and Thompson, M. W., 1986, Correlation of predicted workload with actual workload measured using the subjective workload assessment technique. SAE AeroTech.Google Scholar
  8. Card., S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A., 1983, “The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction,” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A., 1986, The model human processor: An engineering model of human performance, in: “Handbook of Perception and Human Performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive Processes and Performance,” K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J.P. Thomas eds., Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Casper, P. A., Shively, R. J., and Hart, S. G., 1987, Decision support for workload assessment: Introducing W C FIELDE, in: “Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting,” Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Ca.Google Scholar
  11. Chubb, G. P., Laughery, K. R., and Pritsker, A. B., 1987, Simulating manned systems, in: “Handbook of Human Factors,” John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Crawford, B. M., 1979, Workload assessment methodology development, in: “Survey of Methods to Assess Workload,” B.O. Hartman and R. E. McKenzie, eds., AGARD-AG-246, Neuilly Sur Seine, France.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, R., Curnow, R., and Ostrand, R., 1977, “Workload Assessment Model (WAM) User’s Manual,” Boeing Aerospace Co. Report D180–20247–3, Seattle, Wa.Google Scholar
  14. Ellison, M. G., and Roberts, B. B., 1985, Timebased analysis of significant coordinated operations (TASCO): A cockpit workload analysis technique, in: “Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting,” Human Factors Society, Santa, Monica, Ca.Google Scholar
  15. Gainer, P., 1979, Analysis of visual estimation of system state from arbitrary displays, in: “Models of Human Operators in Vision Dependent Tasks,” M. C. Waller, ed., NASA Conference Publication 2103, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Garner, W. R., 1962, “Uncertainty and Structure as Psychological Concepts,” Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Garner, W. R., 1974, “The Processing of Information and Structure,” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Potomac, Md.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, B. E., and Harper, H. P., 1984, Analytic methods for LHX mission and task analysis, in: “Proceedings of Advanced Cockpit Specialist Meeting,” American Helicopter Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, R. M., Glenn, F., Iavecchia, H. P., and Zaklad, A., 1986, Human Operator Simulator, in: “Trends in Ergonomic/Human Factors III (Part A),” W. Karwoski, ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, R. M., Iavecchia, H. P., Ross, L. V., and Shaffer, S. C., 1987, Microcomputer Human Operator Simulator (HOS-IV), in: “Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting,” Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Ca.Google Scholar
  21. Holley, C. D., and Parks, R. E., 1987, Predicting man-machine system performance in predesign, in “ American Helicopter Society National Specialist Meeting on Flight Controls and Avionics,” American Helicopter Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Jahns, D. W., 1973, Operator workload: What is it and how should it be measured?, in: “Crew System Design,” K. D. Gross, and J. J. McGrath, eds., Anacapa Sciences, Inc, Santa Barbara, Ca.Google Scholar
  23. Kirkpatrick, M., Malone, T. B., and Andrews, P. J., 1984, Development of an interactive microprocessor-based workload evaluation model (SIMWAM), in: “Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting,” Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Ca.Google Scholar
  24. Lane, N. E., Strieb, M. I., Glenn, F. A., and Wherry, R. J., 1981, The human operator simulator: An overview, in: ‘Manned Systems Design: Methods, Equipment, and Applications,“ J. Moraal and K. F. Kraiss, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Laughery, K. R., Jr., Drews, C., Archer, R., and Kramme, K., 1986, A MicroSAINT simulation analyzing operator workload in a future attack helicopter, in: “Proceedings of the National Aerospace and Electronics Conference.”Google Scholar
  26. Levison, W. H., 1970, A model for task interference, in: “Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Manual Control.”Google Scholar
  27. Levison, W. H., 1979, A model for mental workload in tasks requiring continuous information processing, in: “Mental Workload: Its Theory and Measurement,” N. Moray ed., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Linton, P. M., Jahns, D. W., and Chatelier, P. R., 1977, Operator workload assessment model: An evaluation of a VF/VA-V/STOL system, in: “Proceedings of the AGARD Conference on Methods to Assess Workload,” AGARD-CP-216, Neuilly Sur Seine, France.Google Scholar
  29. Malone, T. B., Kirkpatrick, M., and Kopp, W. H., 1986, Human Factors Engineering impact of system workload and manning levels, in: “Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting,” Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Ca.Google Scholar
  30. McCracken, J. H., and Aldrich, T. B., 1984, “Analysis of Selected LHX Mission Functions: Implications for Operator Workload and System Automation Goals,” Anacapa Sciences, Inc., (TNA ASI479–24–84), Fort Rucker, Al.Google Scholar
  31. Meister, D., 1985, “Behavioral Analysis and Measurement Methods,” John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  32. North, R. A., 1986, A workload index for iterative crewstation evaluation, in: “Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Carmel Workshop: Workload and Training, an Examination of Their Interactions”.Google Scholar
  33. Rault, A., 1976, Pilot workload analysis, in “Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control,” T. B. Sheridan and G. Johannsen eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Rickard, W. W., and Levison, W. H., 1981, Further tests of a model-based scheme for predicting pilot opinion ratings for large commercial transports, in: “Proceedings of the 17th Annual NASA-University Conference on Manual Control,” University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, B. B., and Crites, C. D., 1985, Computer-aided cockpit workload analysis for all weather, multirole tactical aircraft, in: “Fourth Aerospace Behavioral Engineering Technology Conference Proceedings,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa.Google Scholar
  36. Rouse, W. B., 1980, “Systems Engineering Models of Human-Machine Interaction,” Elsevier North Holland, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Schmidt., D. K., 1978, A queing analysis of the air traffic controller’s workload, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-8(6):492–493.Google Scholar
  38. Senders, J. W., Elkind, J. I., Grignetti, M. C., and Smallwood, R., 1966, “An Investigation of the Visual Sampling Behavior of Human Observers,” NASA CR-434, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Senders, J. W., 1964, The human operator as a monitor and controller of multi-degree of freedom systems, IEEE Transactions on Human Factors and Electronics HFE-5:2–5.Google Scholar
  40. Senders, J. W., and Posner, M., 1976, A queueing model of monitoring and supervisory behavior, in: “Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control,” T. B. Sheridan, and G. Johannsen, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Sheridan, T. B., and Ferrell, W. R., 1974, “Man-Machine Systems: Information, Control, and Decision Models of Human Performance,” MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.Google Scholar
  42. Smit, J., and Wewerinke, P. H., 1978, An analysis of helicopter pilot control behavior and workload during instrument flying tasks, in: “AÛARD Aerospace Medical Panel Specialists Meeting on Operational Helicopter Aviation Medicine,” AGARD, Neuilly Sur Seine, France.Google Scholar
  43. Stone, G., Gulick, R. K., and Gabriel, R. F., 1987, Use of timeline analysis to assess crew workload, in: “The Practical.Assessment. of Pilot. Workload,” A. H. Roscoe, ed., AGARD-AG-282, Neuilly Sur Seine, France.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, M. W., and Bateman, R. P., 1986, A computer based workload prediction model, unpublished work.Google Scholar
  45. Walden, R. S., and Rouse, W. B., 1978, A queing model of pilot decision making in a multi-task flight management situation, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-8(12):867–875.Google Scholar
  46. Wherry, R. J., Jr., 1969, The development of sophisticated models of man-machine systems, in: “Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Models of Man-Machine Systems Performance,” North American Aviation, Columbus, Oh.Google Scholar
  47. Wewerinke, P. H., 1974, Human operator workload for various control situations, in: “Tenth Annual Conference on Manual Control,” Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Oh.Google Scholar
  48. Zachary, W., 1981, “Cost-benefit assessment of candidate decision aids for Naval Air ASW,” Analytics Tech Report 1366-C, Willow Grove, Pa.Google Scholar
  49. Zachary, W., Zaklad, A., and Davis, D. A., 1987, A cognitive approach to multisensor correlation in an advanced tactical environment, in: “Proceedings of the First Tri-Service Data Fusion Symposium,” Johns Hopkins Univ., Columbia, Md.Google Scholar
  50. Zaklad, A., Deimler, J., Iavecchia, H., and Stokes, J., 1982, “Multisensor Correlation and TACCO Workload in Representative ASW and ASUW Environments,” Analytics Technical Report 1753A, Willow Grove, Pa.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul M. Linton
    • 1
  • Brian D. Plamondon
    • 1
  • A. O. Dick
    • 2
  • Alvah C. BittnerJr.
    • 2
  • Richard E. Christ
    • 3
  1. 1.Sikorsky Aircraft DivisionUnited Technologies CorporationStratfordUSA
  2. 2.Willow GroveAnalytics Inc.USA
  3. 3.U.S. Army Research InstituteFort BlissUSA

Personalised recommendations