Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

INVESTIGATING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE TACOM MEASURE - APPLICATION TO THE COMPLEXITY OF PROCEDURALIZED TASKS FOR HIGH SPEED TRAIN DRIVERS

  • Published : 2010.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

According to wide-spread experience in many industries, a procedure is one of the most effective countermeasures to reduce the possibility of human related problems. Unfortunately, a systematic framework to evaluate the complexity of procedural tasks seems to be very scant. For this reason, the TACOM measure, which can quantify the complexity of procedural tasks, has been developed. In this study, the appropriateness of the TACOM measure is investigated by comparing TACOM scores regarding the procedural tasks of high speed train drivers with the associated workload scores measured by the NASA-TLX technique. As a result, it is observed that there is a meaningful correlation between the TACOM scores and the associated NASA-TLX scores. Therefore, it is expected that the TACOM measure can properly quantify the complexity of procedural tasks.

Keywords

References

  1. J. R. Chiles, "Inviting Disaster: Lessons From the Edge of Technology," HarperBusiness, New York, 2002.
  2. S. J. LEE and P. H. Seong, "Development of an integrated decision suppolt system to aid cognitive activities of operators," Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 39, no. 6, p. 703-716,2007. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.2007.39.6.703
  3. J. W. KlM and J. Park, "Task types and error types involved in the hlUnan-related unplanned reactor trip events," Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 40, no. 7, p. 615-624, 2008. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.2008.40.7.615
  4. P. Carvalho, "Ergonomic field studies in a nuclear power plant control room," Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 48, p. 51-69,2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2005.04.001
  5. A. Degani and E. L. Wiener, "Procedures in complex systems: the airline cockpit," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 27, p. 302-312, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.568739
  6. K. Inaba, S. O. Parsons and R. Smillie, "Guidelines for Developing Instructions," CRC Press, 2004.
  7. D. J. Campbell and K. F. Gingrich, "The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task perfonnance: a field experiment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 38,p. 162-180,1986 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90014-2
  8. J. Arend, R. Colom, J. Botella, M. J. Contreras, V. Rubio and J. Santaereu, "Quantifying cognitive complexity: Evidence from a reasoning task," Personality and Individual Diffcrences, vol. 35, p. 59-669,2003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00141-1
  9. N. M. Morris and W. B, Rouse, "Review and evaluation of empirical research in troubleshooting," Human Factors, vol.27,no. 5,p. 503-530, 1985 https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088502700502
  10. R. E. Wood, "Task complexity: Definition of the construct," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 37, p. 60-82,1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0
  11. D. Wieringa, C. Moore and V. Barnes, "Procedure Writing Principles and Practices," 2nd edition, Battelle Press, 1988.
  12. K. Inaba, S. O. Parsons and R. Smillie, "Guidelines for developing instructions," CRC Press, 2004.
  13. J. Park and W. Jung, "A study on the development of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 92, p. 1102-1116,2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.03.009
  14. J. Park and W. Jung, "A Study on the Revision of the TACOM Measure," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Seience, vol. 54,2666-2676, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2007.906783
  15. A. Degani and E. L. Wiener, "Procedures in complex systems: the airline cockpit," IEEE Transaetions System, Man and Cybernetics Part A, vol. 27, no. 3, p.302-312, 1997.
  16. Health and Safety Executive, "Revitalising procedures," www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/comah/proeinfo.pdf, 2007.
  17. C. M. Harvey and R. J. Koubek, "Cognitive, social, and environmental attributes of distributed engineering collaboration: A review and proposed model of collaboration," Hum Factor Ergon Man. 10,369-393,2000. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6564(200023)10:4<369::AID-HFM2>3.0.CO;2-Y
  18. J. Park, "The Complexity of Proccduralized Tasks," Springer, 2009.
  19. R. E. Wood and E. A. Locke, "Goal setting and strategy effects on complex tasks," In: Research in Organizational Behavior (B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, Editors), vol. 12,p. 73-109,1990.
  20. N. L. Jimmieson and D. J. Terry, "The moderating role of task characteristics in responses to a stressful work simulation," Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 20, p. 709-736,1999. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:5<709::AID-JOB954>3.0.CO;2-7
  21. J. Park and W. Jung, "A database for human performance under simulated emergencies of nuclear power plants," Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 37, p. 491-502, 2005.
  22. J. Park and W. Jung, "The development of a quantitative measure for the complexity of emergency tasks stipulated in emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants," KAERI/TR-3279/2006, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2006.
  23. N. Morray, "Advanced displays, cultural stereotypes and organizational characteristics of a control room," In: Nuclear Safety: a Human Factors Perspective (J. Misumi, B. Wilpert and R. Miller, Editors), Taylor & Francis, New York, 1999.
  24. S. J. Reinartz and G. Reinartz, "Verbal communication in collective control of simulated nuclear power plant incidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 36, p. 245-251,1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(92)90071-R
  25. Available at: http://info.korail.com/2007/englein/ein01000/ w_ein01100.jsp
  26. Available at: http://news.korail.com/
  27. Available at: http://test.korail.go.kr/
  28. W. Jung, J. H. Ko, J. Park, S. L. Kwak and S. S. Lim, "Task Load Analysis of KTX Operation by Using NASATLX Method," In: Proceedings of Korean Society for Railway Fall Meeting, 2006.
  29. T. E. Nygren, "Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload," Human Factors, col. 33, p. 17-33, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089103300102
  30. E. Svensson, M. Angelbrog-Thanderz, L. Sjoberg and S. Olsson, "Information complexity - mental workload and performance in combat aircraft," Ergonomics, vol. 40, p. 362-380, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401397188206
  31. S. G. Hill, H. P. Iavecchia, J. C. Byers, A. C. Bittner, A. L. Zaklad and R. E. Christ, "Comparison of four subjective workload rating scale," Human Factors, vol. 24, p. 429- 439,1992.
  32. Y. Liu and C. D. Wickens, "Mental workload and cognitive task automaticity: An evaluation of subjective and time estimation metrics," Ergonomics, vol. 37, p. 1843-1854, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964953
  33. S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, "Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research," In: Human Mental Workload (P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati, Editors), Elsevier Science Publisher B. V., North-Holland, p. 139-183, 1998.
  34. R. Leitch and M. Gallanti, "Task classification for knowledgebased systems in industrial automation," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 22, p. 142-152, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.141318
  35. Z. Wei, A. P. Macwan and P. A. Wieringa, "A quantitative measure for degree of automation and its relation to system performance and mental load," Human Factors, vol. 40, no.2,p.277-295,1998. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779480406
  36. P. A. Wieringa and D. P. Wawoe, "The operator support system dilemma: balancing a reduction in task complexity vs. An increase in system complexity," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 1, p. 993-997, 1998.
  37. G. Johannsen, A. H. Levis and H. G. Stassen, "Theoretical problems in man-machine systems and their experimental validation," Automatica, vol. 30, p. 217-231, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(94)90026-4
  38. M. Visser and P. A. Wieringa, "PREHEP: Human error probability based process unit selection" IEEE Transactions on System, Man and Cybernetics-Part C. Applications, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 1-15,2001
  39. Available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/12000/12700/12799/rdv0202.pdf.
  40. I. Gillis, "Cognitive workload of train drivers," In: People and Rail Systems - Human Factors at the Heart of the Railway (J. Wilson, B. Norris, T. Clarke and A. Mills, Editors), Ashgate, p.91-101.
  41. E. Hollnagel, "Human reliability assessment in context," Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 37, p. 159-166, 2005.
  42. S. T. Ghosh and G. E. Apostolakis, "Organizational contributions to nuclear power plant safety," Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 37, p.207-220, 2005.
  43. G. W. Parry, "Suggestions for an improved HRA method for use in probabilistic safety assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 49, p. 1-12,1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00034-Y
  44. S. Petelin, B. Mavko and O. Gortnar, "Analysis of operator actions during the accident caused by total loss of secondary heat sink," Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 159, p. 169-175, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(95)01077-U
  45. J. J. Bartko, "On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 83, p. 762-765, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.762
  46. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, "The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data," Biometrics, vol. 33, p. 159-174,1977. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  47. J. Feldman, "Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning," Nature, vol. 407, p. 630-633, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1038/35036586
  48. W. I. Hamilton and T. Clarke, "Driver performance modelling and its practical application to railway safety," Applied Ergonomics, vol. 36, p. 661-670,2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.07.005
  49. G. Johannsen, A. H. Levis and H. G. Stassen, Theoretical problems in man-machine systems and their experimental validation," Automatica, vol. 30, p. 217-231, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(94)90026-4
  50. E. J. Johnson and J. W. Payne, "Effort and accuracy in choice," Management Sciences, vol. 31, p. 395-414, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.4.395
  51. H. G. Stassen, G. Johannsen and N. Moray, "Internal representation, internal model, human performance model and mental workload," Automatica, vol. 26, p. 811-820, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(90)90057-O
  52. E. Hollnagel, M. Kaarstad and H. C. Lee, "Error mode prediction," Ergonomics, vol. 42, p. 1457-1471, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399184811
  53. J. H. Kim, S. J. Lee and P. H. Seong, "Investigation on applicability of information theory to prediction of operator performance in diagnosis tasks at nuclear power plants," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 50, p. 1238- 1252,2003. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2003.814939
  54. N. A. Stanton and C. Baber, "Validating task analysis for error identification: reliability and validity of a human error prediction technique," Ergonomics, vol. 48, p. 1097-1113, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130500219726