Integrating cognitive analyses in a large-scale system design process

Bisantz, Ann M.; Roth, Emilie M.; Brickman, Bart J.; Gosbee, Laura Lin; Hettinger, Larry; McKinney, James

doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(02)00130-1

Cited by 104 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bisantz andBurns 2008, Jenkins et al 2008a). Its attractiveness relates to its flexibility and the varying perspectives on complex systems that it can provide; it deals with constraints that affect the who, where, how, why and what associated with a system and its activities.…”

Section: Cognitive Work Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchical task analysis vs. cognitive work analysis: comparison of theory, methodology and contribution to system design

Salmon

Jenkins²,

Stanton

et al. 2010

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive work analysis framework continues to attract increasing attention from the human factors and ergonomics community. Conversely, hierarchical task analysis has been, and remains, the most popular of all human factors and ergonomics methods. This article compares the two approaches in terms of their theoretical underpinning, methodological approach and potential contributions to system design and evaluation. To do this, recent analyses, involving both approaches, of a military rotary wing mission planning software tool are compared and contrasted in terms of their methodological procedure and analysis outputs. The findings indicate that, despite the very different theoretical and methodological nature of the two approaches, and also the entirely different analyses derived, the two methods provide highly complementary outputs. In conclusion, it is argued that there is benefit in applying both approaches to inform the design and/or evaluation of the same product or system.Keywords: cognitive work analysis; hierarchical task analysis; mission planning; human factors methods IntroductionOut of the abundance of human factors and cognitive engineering methods available, hierarchical task analysis (HTA; Annett et al. 1971) and cognitive work analysis (CWA; Vicente 1999a) are arguably the most popular. The former represents the traditional task analytic approach; the latter represents the more modern system design framework. Both approaches have distinct theoretical underpinnings and approach the analysis of systems in quite different ways, yet they are often discussed in the same breath. It is important to clarify what the theoretical and methodological differences between the two are and, even more so, to identify if, and how, the two approaches can be used in tandem during complex system design and evaluation efforts (Hajdukiewicz and Vicente 2004). This article presents a comparison of the two approaches in terms of their theoretical underpinning, methodological procedure and contribution to the system design life cycle. To do this the methods are first discussed in terms of their theoretical underpinning and methodological nature, following which recent HTA and CWA analyses of a military rotary wing mission planning system (MPS) software tool are compared and contrasted.

show abstract

Section: Cognitive Work Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchical task analysis vs. cognitive work analysis: comparison of theory, methodology and contribution to system design

Salmon

Jenkins²,

Stanton

et al. 2010

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, the application of this framework has been extended beyond interface design to a variety of other human factors and engineering concerns. Studies conducted early during this period demonstrated the relevance of CWA for defining training needs and training-system requirements (Naikar and Sanderson, 1999), evaluating system design concepts Sanderson, 2000, 2001), developing team designs , defining software specifications (Leveson, 2000), developing strategies for managing human error Saunders, 2002, 2003), and formulating recommendations for automation and role allocation (Bisantz et al, 2001(Bisantz et al, , 2003.…”

Section: Beyond Ecological Interfacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive work analysis: An influential legacy extending beyond human factors and engineering

Naikar

2017

Applied Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jens Rasmussen's multifaceted legacy includes cognitive work analysis (CWA), a framework for the analysis, design, and evaluation of complex sociotechnical systems. After considering the framework's origins, this paper reviews its progress, predictably covering experimental research on ecological interface design, case studies of the application of CWA to human factors and engineering problems in industry, and methods and modelling tools for CWA. Emphasis is placed, however, on studying the nexus between some of the recent results obtained with CWA and the original field studies of human problem-solving that motivated the framework's development. Of particular interest is a case study of the use of CWA for military doctrine development, a problem commonly regarded as lying outside the fields of human factors and engineering. It is concluded that the value of CWA, even for such diverse problems, is likely to result from its conceptual grounding in empirical observations of patterns of human reasoning in complex systems.

show abstract

“…That is, in most cases the photographer chooses when and what to take photos of, and what level of automation to deploy. The fact that this task is internally, rather than externally driven should not have a fundamental impact on the modelling or comparison presented here: the DL is sufficiently general to accommodate tasks activated by different signals, as well as under different temporal demands (see Bisantz et al 2003, for an example of a DL for an externally paced task). However, this modelling effort did not explore explicitly the extent to which dynamic or adaptive automation, in which the level of automation changes based on operator selection or task demands, could be modeled within these frameworks.…”

Section: Issues and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bisantz et al 2003, Naikar and Sanderson 2001, Reising and Sanderson 2002a, b, Burns et al 2000, Burns et al 2001, Bisantz et al 2002. The analysis provides valuable information about the structure and the constraints operating in a work domain, which define normal functioning of a system and limit the actions of either human or automated agents within the domain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the representation of automation using a work domain analysis

Mazaeva

Bisantz

2007

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Work domain analysis (WDA) has been applied extensively within cognitive engineering as an analytic framework for the evaluation of complex sociotechnical systems in support of design. However, the WDAs described in the literature have not explored the representation of automated system components, despite the documented problems associated with operatorautomation interaction and the requirements for operator support in complex automated systems. The current research examines the application of WDA to model an example automated system -a camera -by representing the camera along with its automated components as separate systems using the abstraction hierarchy (AH). Additionally, we contrasted this modelling approach with the more typical approach of modelling automation within a cognitive work analysis (CWA) by performing a control task analysis using the decision ladder. The results of these analyses suggest that, similar to non-automated systems, considering a separate representation of an automated system within the WDA may provide useful system design guidance in terms of user support and information requirements. The comparison of the AH and the decision ladder (DL) models indicates that the models provide different information about the requirements and support different user needs: the AH provides information about specific subsystems and components of the automation that are used for control and how they support functions and purposes of the automation while the DL shows how the control tasks are achieved interleaving automated actions with those of the user. The information obtained from modelling automation with the AH is different from what would normally be obtained by performing only a control task analysis, yet is necessary for operator support.

show abstract

Integrating cognitive analyses in a large-scale system design process

Cited by 104 publications

References 18 publications

Hierarchical task analysis vs. cognitive work analysis: comparison of theory, methodology and contribution to system design

Hierarchical task analysis vs. cognitive work analysis: comparison of theory, methodology and contribution to system design

Cognitive work analysis: An influential legacy extending beyond human factors and engineering

On the representation of automation using a work domain analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About