A Study on the Feasibility of Evaluating the Complexity of KTX Driving Tasks

KTX 운전직무에 대한 복잡도 평가 - 타당성 연구

  • 박진균 (한국원자력연구원 종합안전평가부) ;
  • 정원대 (한국원자력연구원 종합안전평가부) ;
  • 장승철 (한국원자력연구원 종합안전평가부) ;
  • 고종현 (한국수력원자력 원자력발전기술원 방사선기술실)
  • Published : 2009.10.30

Abstract

According to the result of related studies, the degradation of human performance has been revealed as one of the most significant causes resulting in the safety of any human-involved system. This means that preventing the occurrence of accidents/incidents through avoiding the degradation of human performance is prerequisite for their successive operation. To this end, it is necessary to develop a plausible tool to evaluate the complexity of a task, which has been known as one of the decisive factors affecting the human performance. For this reason, in this paper, the complexity of tasks to be conducted by KTX drivers was quantified by TACOM measure that is enable to quantify the complexity of proceduralized tasks being used in nuclear power plants. After that, TACOM scores about the tasks of KTX drivers were compared with NASA-TLX scores that are responsible for the level of a subjective workload to be felt by KTX drivers.

기존 연구결과에 따르면, 시스템의 안전성에 가장 큰 영향을 주는 요인 중 하나는 인적수행도의 저하인 것으로 밝혀졌다. 따라서 인적수행도 저하 방지를 통한 사건/사고의 방지는 원자력이나 철도와 같이 안전을 우선적으로 고려해야 하는 산업체의 경우 반드시 고려되어야 하는 조건이다. 이를 위해서는 인적수행도 저감의 원인의 체계적 파악 및 이에 근거한 효과적인 관리가 선행되어야 하기 때문에, 대표적인 인적수행도 저하 원인으로 알려져 있는 직무복잡도를 객관적으로 평가할 수 있는 방법의 개발이 필요하다. 이러한 필요성에 따라, 본 논문에서는 원자력발전소의 절차화된 직무에 대한 복잡도를 평가할 수 있는 TACOM 척도를 사용하여 KTX 기장이 수행해야 하는 운전직무의 복잡도를 정량적으로 평가한 후 그 결과를 주관적 직무부하 평가 방법인 NASA-TLX 결과와 비교하여 적합성을 검증하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Environmental Health Center(1999), 'New ways to prevent chemical incidents,' EPA 550-B-99-012, Washington D.C.
  2. W. H. Moore(1994), "The grounding of Exxon Valdez: An examination of the human and organizational factors," Marine Technology, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 41~51
  3. 건설교통부(2006), "철도안전종합계획 제1차(2006~2010),"
  4. S. Hall(1997), "Railway Accidents," Ian Allan Publishing
  5. J. Park and W. Jung(2006), "A study on the validity of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants - comparing with a subjective workload," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol. 53, pp. 1~9 https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2005.845783
  6. 정원대, 고종현, 박진균, 곽상록, 임승수(2006), "NASA-TLX 방법에 의한 KTX 운전 직무부하 분석," 한국철도학회 2006 추계학술대회
  7. J. Park and W. Jung(2007), "A study on the revision of the TACOM measure," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol.54, pp. 2666~2676 https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2007.906783
  8. R. Leitch and M. Gallanti(1992), "Task classification for knowledge-based systems in industrial automation," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cyvernetics, Vol. 22, p.142~152 https://doi.org/10.1109/21.141318
  9. J. Park(2009), "The complexity of Proceduralized Tasks," Springer-Verlag, UK, to be published in 2009
  10. 부산 고속철도기관사 승무사무소(2005), "KTX 고장조치 편람 및 기준운전선도"
  11. S. G. Hart, and . E. staveland(1988), "Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research," In: Human Mental Workload, P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati, Ed. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publisher B. V., pp. 139~183
  12. Y. Liu, and C. D. Wickens(1994), "Mental workload and cognitive task automaticity: an evaluation of subjective and time estimation metrics," Ergonomics, Vol. 37, pp. 1843~1854 https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964953
  13. S. Miyake(2001), "Multivariate workload evaluation combining physiological and subjective measures," International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 40, pp. 233~238 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(00)00191-4
  14. T. E. Nygren(1991), "Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload," Human Factors, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 17~33 https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089103300102
  15. S. G. Hill, H. P. Iavecchia, J. C. Byers, A. C. Bittner, Jr., A. L. Zaklad, and R. E. Christ(1992), "Comparison of four subjective workload rating scale," Human Factors, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 429~439