Advertisement

Improve Your Task Analysis! Efficiency, Quality and Effectiveness Increase in Task Analysis Using a Software Tool

  • Vaishnavi UpadrastaEmail author
  • Harald Kolrep
  • Astrid Oehme
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 965)

Abstract

As the field of Task Analysis (TA) is still fragmented and poorly understood by many, a software-tool, build by HFC Human-Factors-Consult GmbH, has been developed for easy and better TA. Purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficiency, quality and effectiveness of TA performed with the support of this software-tool. In the experiment, 36 participants conducted a total of two hierarchical-TA (HTA) on two given tasks, once using the new software-tool and the second using fundamental methods i.e. paper-&-pencil. The results indicated that the software-tool aided participants in producing good-quality analysis, provided support and guidance during the HTA-process and helped in maintaining a consistent performance-level in terms of both quality and effectiveness. The findings resulted in identifying the strengths and acknowledging the shortcomings of the new software-tool, thus providing a concrete direction for further improvements. Moreover, the study adds to literature by developing checklists to make this assessment, which in turn proposes components that characterizes a good TA.

Keywords

Method Task analysis Hierarchical Task Analysis Software tool Support software 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The author is responsible for the content of this publication. We thank all participants for their time and effort and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. We would also like to show our gratitude to HMKW University of Applied Sciences for Media, Communication and Management, Berlin, for their support.

References

  1. 1.
    Annett, J., Stanton, N.A. (eds.): Task Analysis. CRC Press, London (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hollnagel, E.: Task analysis: why, what, and how. In: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3rd edn., pp. 371–383. Wiley, Hoboken (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Rafferty, L.A., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.P.: Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design. CRC Press, London (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bass, A., Aspinall, J., Walters, G., Stanton, N.: A software toolkit for hierarchical task analysis. Appl. Ergon. 26(2), 147–151 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Annett, J., Duncan, K.D., Stammers, R.B., Gray, M.J.: Task Analysis. HMSO, London (1971)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diaper, D., Stanton, N.A. (eds.): The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crystal, A., Ellington, B.: Task analysis and human-computer interaction: approaches, techniques, and levels of analysis. In: AMCIS 2004 Proceedings, 391, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felipe, S.K., Adams, A.E., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D.: Training novices on hierarchical task analysis. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 54, no. 23, pp. 2005–2009. Sage, Los Angeles, California (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shepherd, A.: Hierarchial Task Analysis. CRC Press, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hone, G., Stanton, N.: HTA: the development and use of tools for hierarchical task analysis in the Armed Forces and elsewhere. Human Factors Integration Defence Technology Centre (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P., Harris, D., Marshall, A., Demagalski, J., Young, M.S., Waldmann, T., Dekker, S.: Predicting pilot error: testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approach. Appl. Ergon. 40(3), 464–471 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hugo, J.: An integrated suite of tools to support human factors engineering. In: NPIC & HMIT 2015. Charlotte, NC (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kieffer, S., Batalas, N., Markopoulos, P.: Towards task analysis tool support. In: Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design, pp. 59–68. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dixon, K., Reed, Y., Reid, J.: Supporting teacher educator professional learning about assessment: insights from the design and use of a task analysis tool in a first-year BEd programme. S. Afr. J. High. Educ. 27(5), 1099–1117 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Promann, M., Zhang, T.: Applying hierarchical task analysis method to discovery layer evaluation. Inf. Technol. Libr. 34(1), 77–105 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stanton, N.A.: Hierarchical task analysis: developments, applications, and extensions. Appl. Ergon. 37(1), 55–79 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roth, E.M., O’Hara, J., Bisantz, A., Endsley, M.R., Hoffman, R., Klein, G., Militello, L., Pfautz, J.D.: Discussion panel: how to recognize a “good” cognitive task analysis? In: HFES (ed.) Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 320–324. Sage, Los Angeles, California (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Onnasch, L., Bürglen, J., Tristram, S., Kolrep, H.: Break it down! a Practitioners’ software tool for human factors task analysis and human error identification. In: Proceeding of 32nd Conference of European Association for Aviation Psychology – Thinking High AND Low: Cognition and Decision Making in Aviation. Cascais, Portugal (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bisantz, A.: Can (and should) i use these results? Six factors in CTA quality. In: Roth, E.M., et al.: Discussion Panel: How to Recognize a “Good” Cognitive Task Analysis? In: HFES, vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 320–324. Sage, Los Angeles, California (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klein, G.: Does a CTA study generate insights? In: Roth, E. M., et al.: Discussion Panel: How to Recognize a “Good” Cognitive Task Analysis? In: HFES, vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 320–324. Sage, Los Angeles, California (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jordan, P.W.: An Introduction to Usability. CRC Press, London (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hart, S.G.: NASA Task load Index (TLX), vol. 1.0, Paper and pencil package. Ames Research Center, California (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vaishnavi Upadrasta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Harald Kolrep
    • 1
  • Astrid Oehme
    • 1
  1. 1.HFC Human-Factors-Consult GmbHBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations