Human Systems Integration in Army Systems Acquisition

Booher, Harold R.; Minninger, James

doi:10.1002/0471721174.ch18

Cited by 19 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the sum of these two components, a total interference component can be produced ranging from 0 to 8. This is a simplified version of the kind of computation that goes into predicting multitask workload, in software packages such as IMPRINT © (Laughery, LeBiere, & Archer, 2006) or MIDAS (Booher & Minninger, 2003;Gore & Jarvis, 2005). Of course, the simple prediction of the total interference between tasks does not inform the modeler as to which task suffers when there is interference, and hence added use must be made of a third, resource allocation component of the multiple resource model, which can express, for example, the extent to which driving versus cell phone conversation suffers when the two compete for multiple resources.…”

Section: A Computational Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this component is really intended to predict performance decrements in the overload region as a result of multitask requirements, which, as we saw, represents only one portion of the workload concept. Such models have been employed in important design decisions regarding workload and crew size (Booher & Minninger, 2003).…”

Section: Multiple Resources and Workloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multiple Resources and Mental Workload

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: A Computational Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Multiple Resources and Workloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Resources and Mental Workload

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IMPRINT and its predecessor MANPRINT (see Booher and Minninger 2003) are tools that have been employed by the United States Army Research Laboratory to identify personnel-related constraints on system design and to predict performance during extreme condition. IMPRINT predicts performance decrements for a number of stressors (MOPP, heat, cold, noise, and sleeplessness), and currently uses a set of nine taxons:…”

Section: Relationship Of the T3 Methods To Other Modeling Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting the task-taxon-task methodology to model the impact of chemical protective gear

Simpkins

Anno

Fallon

et al. 2011

Comput Math Organ Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Task-Taxon-Task method (Anno et al. DNA-TR-95-115, 1996) is a statistical modeling approach to predict performance decrements on behavioral tasks in response to various stressors. We describe the basics of the T3 method and our approach to adapting it to handle more acute stressors, which can require decomposition into task networks via logical or empirical analysis. We provide an illustrative example showing how the method can be used to account for performance decrements in manual tasks associated with wearing protective gloves. This illustration provides a substantive application in which the current T3 method can be augmented to account for performance decrements in a new sub-domain, while additionally providing lessons for extending the method to new stressors, performance domains, and behavior modeling systems.

show abstract

“…In a review of the application of user models to evaluate Army systems, Booher and Minninger (2003) report many instances where millions of dollars over the course of a device's lifetime were saved by better interface design, through reduced training, for example. They also highlight several cases where systems had to be scrapped or modified at great expense because they were not usable.…”

Section: Benefit 2: Financial Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing User-Centered Systems Design

Ritter

Baxter

Churchill³

2014

Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If designers and developers want to design better technologies that are intended for human use they need to have a good understanding of the people who are or who will be using their systems. Understanding people, their characteristics, capabilities, commonalities, and differences allows designers to create more effective, safer, efficient, and enjoyable systems. This book provides readers with resources for thinking about people-commonly called ''users''-their tasks and the context in which they perform those tasks. Our intention is to enable you to make more informed decisions when designing complex interactive systems. This chapter thus introduces this argument through example design problems. We then present the benefits and costs associated with understanding the user. Two approaches for understanding users are introduced. The first is a framework called the ABCS for understanding, in broad strokes, different aspects of users. The second is user knowledge and action simulation for developing and testing how users approach tasks in more detail. After reading this chapter you should be able to appreciate why it is important to understand users, and the associated benefits and costs of doing so. IntroductionMost of us use interactive technologies every day-cell phones, TVs, alarm clocks, cars, vending machines, computers, cameras, microwaves, ovens, ticket machines-the list is endless.Technology can help us achieve what we desire to do or need to do, but it can also hinder us. When we cannot get something done, when our expectations are not met, or when technology is too hard to use, we get frustrated. When technologies and systems are unpredictable, delays and unforeseen problems can occur.This book is about designing technology and systems for use by people. We offer an introduction to what we know about why humans do what they do when they do it as users of technology. The book has one central premise: Understanding people will help you build better interactive technologies and systems.When we say ''understanding people'' we mean:• We propose that systems should be designed in a user-centered way. Being usercentered means considering human characteristics and capabilities during system design. It means explicitly asking: who is going to use the system/technology and why; what are they hoping to achieve in using the system/technology; how much effort are they willing to put into learning how to use the system/technology; whether they will be operating the system alone or with others…. Being user-centered means knowing why, as well as how, users do what they do when they do it. We propose that consideration of users' basic human characteristics should be in place before system development begins. Reflection and experimentation with potential users of the system should take place throughout the design and development process using methods like brainstorming, storyboarding, low to high fidelity prototyping, and, as the system gets closer to full functionality, with more formal use testing.This book assu...

show abstract

Human Systems Integration in Army Systems Acquisition

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Multiple Resources and Mental Workload

Multiple Resources and Mental Workload

Adapting the task-taxon-task methodology to model the impact of chemical protective gear

Introducing User-Centered Systems Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About