Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회지)

Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Identification and Organization of Task Complexity Factors Based on a Model Combining Task Design Aspects and Complexity Dimensions

  • Ham, Dong-Han (Department of Industrial Engineering, Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2013.01.16
  • Accepted : 2013.01.30
  • Published : 2013.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to introduce a task complexity model combining task design aspects and complexity dimensions and to explain an approach to identifying and organizing task complexity factors based on the model. Background: Task complexity is a critical concept in describing and predicting human performance in complex systems such as nuclear power plants(NPPs). In order to understand the nature of task complexity, task complexity factors need to be identified and organized in a systematic manner. Although several methods have been suggested for identifying and organizing task complexity factors, it is rare to find an analytical approach based on a theoretically sound model. Method: This study regarded a task as a system to be designed. Three levels of design ion, which are functional, behavioral, and structural level of a task, characterize the design aspects of a task. The behavioral aspect is further classified into five cognitive processing activity types(information collection, information analysis, decision and action selection, action implementation, and action feedback). The complexity dimensions describe a task complexity from different perspectives that are size, variety, and order/organization. Combining the design aspects and complexity dimensions of a task, we developed a model from which meaningful task complexity factors can be identified and organized in an analytic way. Results: A model consisting of two facets, each of which is respectively concerned with design aspects and complexity dimensions, were proposed. Additionally, twenty-one task complexity factors were identified and organized based on the model. Conclusion: The model and approach introduced in this paper can be effectively used for examining human performance and human-system interface design issues in NPPs. Application: The model and approach introduced in this paper could be used for several human factors problems, including task allocation and design of information aiding, in NPPs and extended to other types of complex systems such as air traffic control systems as well.

Keywords

References

  1. Campbell, D.J., Task complexity: a review and analysis, Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40-52, 1988.
  2. Endsley, M.R., Bolte, B. and Jones, D.G., Designing for Situation Awareness: An approach to Human-Centered Design, Taylor & Francis, 2003.
  3. Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U., The situated function-behavior-structure framework, Design Studies, 25(4), 373-391, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010
  4. Gill, T.G. and Hicks, R.C., Task complexity and informing science: a synthesis, Informing Science Journal, 9, 1-30, 2006. https://doi.org/10.28945/469
  5. Ham, D-H., Development of Model-Based Method for Evaluating Cognitive Task Complexity and Human-Machine Interface Design in Nuclear Power Plants, KAERI/CM-1253/2009, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2010.
  6. Ham, D-H., Park, J. and Jung, W., Model-based identification and use of task complexity factors of human integrated systems, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 100, 33-47, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.12.019
  7. Ham, D-H., Park, J. and Jung, W., Extension of TACOM to the complexity of tasks designed for abnormal situations in nuclear power plants, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 24(5), 601-611, 2011a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.04.006
  8. Ham, D-H., Park, J. and Jung, W., A framework-based approach to identifying and organizing the complexity factors of human-system interaction, IEEE Systems Journal, 5(2), 213-222, 2011b. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2010.2102574
  9. Hillburn, B., Cognitive Complexity in Air Traffic Control: A Literature Review, EEC Note No. 04/04, EUROCONTROL Experimental Center, 2004.
  10. Hollnagel, E. and Woods, D., Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering, CRC Press, 2005.
  11. Horsky, J., Kaufman, D.R., Oppenheim, M.I. and Patel, V.L., A framework for analyzing the cognitive complexity of computer-assisted clinical ordering, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36(1-2), 4-22, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1532-0464(03)00062-5
  12. Li, K. and Wieringa P.P., Understanding perceived complexity in human supervisory control, Cognition, Technology, and Work, 2(2), 75-88, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101110050029
  13. Liu, P. and Li, Z., Task complexity: a review and conceptualization framework, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 47(6), 553-568, 2012.
  14. Ormerod, T.C. and Shepherd, A., Using Task Analysis for Information Requirements Specification: The Sub-Goal Template (SGT) Method. In D. Diaper and N. Stanton (Ed). The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum, London, 347-365, 2004.
  15. Park, J., The Complexity of Proceduralized Tasks, Springer-Verlag, 2009.
  16. Park, J. and Jung, W. A study on the development of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 92(8), 1102-1116, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.03.009
  17. Rasmussen, J., The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision making and system management, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 15, 234-243, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313353
  18. Rasmussen, J. and Lind, M., Coping with Complexity, RISO-M-2293, RISO National Research Laboratory, 1981.
  19. Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A.M. and Goodstein, L.P., Cognitive Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
  20. Rothrock, L., Harvey, C.M. and Burns, J., A theoretical framework and quantitative architecture to assess team task complexity in dynamic environments, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(2), 157-171, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922042000295678
  21. Shepherd, A., HTA as a framework for task analysis, Ergonomics, 41(11), 1537-1552, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398186063
  22. Sheridan, T.B., Human and Automation: System Design and Research Issues, John Wiley, 2002.
  23. Thelwell, P.J., "What Defines Complexity?", Proceedings of Ergonomics Society's 1994 Annual Conference (pp. 89-94), Warwick. UK. 1994.
  24. Vermaas, P.E. and Dorst, K., On the conceptual framework of John Gero's FBS-model and the prescriptive aims of design methodology, Design Studies, 28(2), 133-157, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.11.001
  25. Vicente, K.J., Cognitive Work Analysis: Towards Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work, Lawrence-Erlbaum, 1999.
  26. Waring, A., Practical Systems Thinking, International Thomson Business Press, 1996.
  27. Wickens, C.D., Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 2nd ed., HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.
  28. Xing, J., Measure of Information Complexity and the Implications for Automation Design, DOT/FAA/AM-04/17, US Department of Transportation, 2004.
  29. Zamenopoulos, T. and Alexiou, K., Linking Design and Complexity: A Review, Proceedings of the ECCS 2005 Satellite Workshop (pp. 91 -102), Paris France, 2005.