Identifying problems and generating recommendations for enhancing complex systems: Applying the abstraction hierarchy framework as an analytical tool

Human Factors

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 975-994

  Xu, Wei ^a  

^a INTEL CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIRCRAFT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ABSTRACTION HIERARCHY (AH); FUNCTIONAL DOMAIN INFORMATION;

LARGE SCALE SYSTEMS;

AIRPLANE CREW; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; JOB PERFORMANCE; SIMULATION; TRAINING; WORK ENVIRONMENT;

AVIATION; HUMANS; PROBLEM SOLVING; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 36749078593     PISSN: 00187208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1518/001872007X249857     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Annett, J. (2005). Hierarchical tasks analysis (HTA). In N. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, & E. Salas (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 58-75). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
2. Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. (1998). Advanced technology aircraft safety survey report. Canberra, Australia: Author.
3. Burns, C. M., & Hajdukiewicz, J. R. (2004). Ecological interface design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
4. Degani, A., & Heymann, M. (2002). Formal verification of human-automation interaction. Human Factors, 44, 28-43.
5. Dinadis, N., & Vicente, K. (1999). Designing functional visualizations for aircraft systems status displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 271-290.
6. Gras, A., Moricot, C., Poirot-Delpech, S. L., & Scardigli, V. (1994). Faced with automation: The pilot, the controller, and the engineer. Paris: Publications of the Sorbonne.
7. Hajdukiewicz, J. R., Burns, C. M., Vicente, K. J., & Eggleston, R. G. (1999). Work domain analysis for intentional systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 333-337). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
8. Hajdukiewicz, J. R., & Vicente, K. (2004). A theoretical note on the relationship between work domain analysis and task analysis. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Sciences, 5, 527-538.
9. Ho, D., & Burns, C. M. (2003). Ecological interface design in aviation domain: Work domain analysis of automated collision detection and avoidance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 119-123). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10. Hutchins, E. L. (1996). The integrated mode management interface (NASA Ames NCC 92-578, Final Rep.). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
11. Infield, S. E., King, W., Palen, L., Possollo, A., Bates, M., & Pfaff, T. (1995). International flight management system usage survey: Airline report. Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group.
12. Itoh, J., Yoshimura, S., Ohtsuka, T., & Masuda, F. (1990). Cognitive task analysis of nuclear power plant operators for man-machine interface design. In Proceedings of the ANS Topics Meeting and advances in human factors research on man-computer interactions: Nuclear and beyond (pp. 96-102). La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society.
13. Jamieson, G. A., & Vicente, K. J. (2005). Designing effective human-automation-plant interfaces: A control-theoretic perspective. Human Factors, 47, 12-24.
14. Kirwan, B., & Ainsworth, L. (1992). A guide to task analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.
15. Leveson, N. G. (2000). Intent specifications: An approach to building human-centered specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26, 15-35.
16. Mazaeva, N., & Bisantz, A. M. (2003). Modeling automation within an abstraction hierarchy. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 649-652). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
17. McClumpha, A. J., James, M., Green, R. G., & Belyavin, A. J. (1991). Pilots' attitudes to cockpit automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 102-106). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18. Morters, K. (1988). B767 flight deck automation research (NASA Research Paper 32:420). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
19. Mumaw, R. J., Boorman, D., & Griffin, J. (2001). Constructing a conceptual framework for "glass cockpit" training. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 106-112). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
20. Mumaw, R. J., Boorman, D., Griffin, J., & Xu, W. (2000). Training and design approaches for enhancing automation awareness (Boeing Doc. D6-82577). Seattle, WA: Boeing.
21. Mumaw, R. J., Saner, N. B., Wickens, C. D., Kimball, S., Xu, W., & Xu, X. (2000). Analysis of pilots' monitoring and performance on highly automated flight decks (NASA Ames Contract NAS2-99074, Final Rep.). Seattle, WA: Boeing.
22. Naikar, N., & Sanderson, P. M. (1999). Work domain analysis for training-system definition and acquisition. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 241-269.
23. Naikar, N., & Sanderson, P. M. (2001). Evaluating design proposals for complex systems with work domain analysis. Human Factors, 43, 529-542.
24. Naikar, N., Pearce, B., Drumm, D., & Sanderson, P. M. (2003). Designing teams for first-of-a kind, complex systems using the initial phases of cognitive work analysis: Case study. Human Factors, 45, 202-217.
25. Rasmussen, J. (1985). The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision making and system management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 15, 234-243.
26. Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A., & Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley.
27. Reising, D. V. C., & Sanderson, P. M. (2000a). Testing the impact of instrumentation location and reliability on ecological interface design: Control performance. In Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1.124-1.127). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
28. Reising, D. V. C., & Sanderson, P. M. (2000b). Testing the impact of instrumentation location and reliability on ecological interface design: Fault diagnosis performance. In Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 3.591-3.594). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
29. Sarter, N. B., Mumaw, R. J., & Wickens, D. C. (2007). Pilots' monitoring strategies and performance on automated flight decks: An empirical study combining behavioral and eye-tracking data. Human Factors, 49, 347-357.
30. Sarter, N. B., Wickens, C., Mumaw, R., Kimball, S., Nikolic, M., & Xu, W. (2003). Modern flight deck automation: Pilots' mental model and monitoring patterns and performance. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1031-1036). Dayton, OH: Wright State University.
31. Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D.D. (1992). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: Operational experiences with the flight management system. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2, 303-321.
32. Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1994). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: II. An experimental study of pilots' model and awareness of the flight management system. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4, 1-28.
33. Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1995). "How in the world did we ever get into that mode?" Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37, 5-19.
34. Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1997). Team play with a powerful and independent agent: Automation surprises on the Airbus A-320. Human Factors, 39, 553-569.
35. Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (2000). Team play with a powerful and independent agent: A full-mission simulation study. Human Factors, 42, 390-402.
36. Scott, W. B. (1995, January). United training stresses cockpit discipline. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 15-18.
37. Sheridan, T. B., & Parasuraman, R. (2006). Human-automation interaction. In Reviews of human factors and ergonomics (Vol. 1, pp. 89-129). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
38. Stamatis, D. H. (2003). Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality Press.
39. St.-Cyr, O., & Burns, C. M. (2002). Mental models and ecological interface design: An experimental investigation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting (pp. 270-274). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
40. Vicente, K. J. (1996). Improving dynamic decision making in complex systems through ecological interface design: Research overview. System Dynamic Reviews, 12, 251-279.
41. Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Towards safe, productive, and healthy computer based work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Vicente, K. J. (2002). Ecological interface design: Progress and challenges. Human Factors, 44, 72-78.
43. Vicente, K. J., Christoffersen, K., & Pereklita, A. (1995). Supporting operator problem solving through ecological interface design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-25, 529-545.
44. Vicente, K. J., & Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-22, 589-606.
45. Wiener, E. L. (1989). Human factors and advanced technology (glass cockpit) transport aircraft (TR 177528). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
46. Wong, W. B. L., Salus, P. J., & O'Hare, D. (1998). The ecological approach to interface design: Applying the abstraction hierarchy to intentional domains. In Proceedings of the Eighth Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, OzCHI '98 (pp. 144-150). Perth, Australia: Ergonomics Society of Australia.
47. Xu, W., Dainoff, M. J., & Mark, L. S. (1999). Facilitating complex search tasks by externalizing functional properties of a work domain. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 201-230.