Task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures based on resource requirements in human information processing

11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference 2012, PSAM11 ESREL 2012

Volumn 8, Issue , 2012, Pages 6148-6157

  Liu, Peng ^a   Li, Zhizhong ^a   Wang, Zhuang ^a  

^a TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Emergency operating procedures; Human information processing; Resource requirements; Task complexity

Indexed keywords

EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES; ERROR RATE; HUMAN INFORMATION PROCESSING; OPERATION TIME; OPERATOR PERFORMANCE; RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS; TASK COMPLEXITY;

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SAFETY ENGINEERING;

BIONICS;

EID: 84873110398     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Aldrich, T B, Szabo, S M and Bierbaum, C R. (1989). The development and application of models to predict operator workload during system design. In: McMillan, G R, et al. (eds.) Applications of Human Performance Models to System Design. New York: Plenum.
2. Bettman, J R, Johnson, E J and Payne, J W. (1990). A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 111-139.
3. Boles, D B, Bursk, J H, Phillips, J B and Perdelwitz, J R. (2007). Predicting dual-task performance with the Multiple Resources Questionnaire (MRQ). Human Factors, 49, 32-45.
4. Boring, R L. (2006). Modeling Human Reliability Analysis Using MIDAS (INL/CON-06-11170). Idaho Falls: Idoho National Laboratory.
5. Braarud, P O. (1998). Complexity Factors and Prediction of Crew Performance (HWR-521). Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project.
6. Braarud, P O and Kirwan, B. (2011). Task complexity: what challenges the crew and how do they cope. In: Skjerve, A B and Bye, A (eds.) Simulator-based Human Factors Studies Across 25 Years: the History of the Halden Man-Machine Laboratory. London: Springer.
7. Cain, B. (2007). A Rewview of the Mental Workload Literature (RTO-TR-HFM-121-Part-II). Toronto, Canada: Defence Research and Development Canada Toronto.
8. Campbell, D J. (1988). Task complexity: a review and analysis. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 40-52.
9. Cummings, M L, Sasangohar, F and Thornburg, K M. (2010). Human-System Interface Complexity and Opacity Part I: Literature Review. Technical Report, MIT.
10. Gertman, D, Blackman, H, Byers, J, Haney, L, Smith, C and Marble, J. (2005). The SPAR-H Human Relaibility Analysis Method (NUREG/CR-6883). Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
11. Grote, G. (in press). Safety management in different high-risk domains - all the same?. Safety Science.
12. Jacko, J A, Salvendy, G and Koubek, R J. (1995). Modelling of menu design in computerized work. Interacting with Computers, 7, 304-330.
13. Jarrold, C, Tam, H, Baddeley, A D and Harvey, C E. (2011). How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 688.
14. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Laux, L and Plott C. (2007). Using operator workload data to inform human reliability analyses. Joint 8th IEEE HFPP/13th HPRCT, 309-313.
16. Li, K and Wieringa, P A. (2000). Understanding perceived complexity in human supervisory control. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2, 75-88.
17. Liu, P and Li, Z. (2011). Toward understanding the relationship between task complexity and task performance. In: Rau, P L P (ed.) Internationalization, Design and Global Development, HCII 2011, LNCS 6775. London: Springer.
18. McCracken, J H and Aldrich, T B. (1984). Analyses of Selected LHX Mission Functions: Implications for Operator Workload and System Automation Goals (MDA903-81-C-0504 ASI479-024-84). Fort Rucker, AL: Human Factors Research in Aircrew Performance and Training.
19. McDowd, J, Vercruyssen, M and Birren, J E. (1991). Aging, divided attention, and dual-task performance. In: Damos, D L (ed.) Multiple-task Performance. London: Taylor & Francis.
20. Navon, D. (1984). Resources-a theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216.
21. Newell, A and Simon, H A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. Park, J. (2009). The Complexity of Proceduralized Tasks. London: Springer.
23. Park, J and Jung, W. (2007). A study on the development of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 92, 1102-1116.
24. Park, J, Jung, W and Ha, J. (2001). Development of the step complexity measure for emergency operating procedures using entropy concepts. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 71, 115-130.
25. Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity: a Philosophical Overview. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction publishers.
26. Sarno, K J and Wickens, C D. (1995). Role of multiple resources in predicting time-sharing efficiency: evaluation of three workload models in a multiple-task setting. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5, 107-130.
27. Schuck, M M. (1996). Development of equal-interval task rating scales and task conflict matrices as predictors of attentional demand. Ergonomics, 39, 345-357.
28. Sebok, A and Plott, B. (2011). Staffing levels: methods for assessing requirements. In: Skjerve, A B and Bye, A (eds.) Simulator-based Human Factors Studies Across 25 Years: the History of the Halden Man-Machine Laboratory. London: Springer.
29. Wickens, C D. (1984). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. New York: Harper Collins.
30. Wickens, C D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159-177.
31. Wickens, C D and Hollands, J G. (2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32. Wickens, C D and McCarley, J. (2008). Applied Attention Theory. BocaRaton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
33. Xu, S, Li, Z, Song, F, Luo, W, Zhao, Q and Salvendy, G. (2009). Influence of step complexity and presentation style on step performance of computerized emergency operating procedures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94, 670-674.
34. Xu, S, Song, F, Li, Z, Zhao, Q, Luo, W, He, X and Salvendy, G. (2008). An ergonomics study of computerized emergency operating procedures: presentation style, task complexity, and training level. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93, 1500-1511.
35. Yee, S, Nguyen, L, Green, P, Oberholtzer, J. and Miller, B. (2007). Visual, Auditory, Cognitive, and Psychomotor Demands of Real In-Vehicle Tasks (Technical Report UMTRI-2006-20). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
36. Yu, L Q, Li, Z Z, Dong, X L and Xu, S. (2009). Complexity measures of emergency operating procedures: a comparison study with data from a simulated computerized procedure experiment. In: Martorell, S, et al. (eds.) Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications. London: CRC Press.
37. Zhao, B. (1992). A Structured Analysis and Quantitative Measurement of Task Complexity in Human- Computer Interaction. Unpublished Dissertation, Purdue University.