Advertisement

Staffing Levels: Methods for Assessing Requirements

  • Angelia Sebok
  • Beth Plott
Conference paper

Abstract

Technological innovations and the increasing role of automation in advanced systems raise questions about the role of the human operator and the number of humans required to run these systems. This chapter discusses a variety of approaches to evaluating staffing requirements and describes in detail two HAMMLAB studies performed to evaluate staffing requirements in advanced versus conventional nuclear power plant control rooms.

Keywords

Task Analysis Situation Awareness Staffing Level Conventional Plant Scenario Period 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bergstrøm B (1993) Task demand, workload, and performance. FOA Report A 50016-5.2, Swedish Försvarets ForskningsanstaltGoogle Scholar
  2. Decurnex C, Moum BR, Førdestrømmen NT (1996) Integrated information overview displays (HWR-451). OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  3. Hallbert B, Sebok A, Morisseau D (2000) A study of control room staffing levels for advanced reactors NUREG/IA-0137. US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  4. Hanson DJ, Meyer OR, Blackman HS, Nelson WR, Hallbert BP (1987) Evaluation of operation safety at Babcock and Wilcox plants: Volume 1—results overview NUREG/CR-4966. US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  5. Hogg DN, Follesø K, Torralba B, Volden FS (1995) Development of a situation awareness measure to evaluate advanced alarm systems in nuclear power plant control rooms. Ergonomics 38(11):2394–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huey BM, Wickens CD (eds) (1993) Workload transition: implications for individual and team performance. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK (eds) (1992) Guide to task analysis. Taylor and Francis, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. McCracken JH, Aldrich TB (1984) Analysis of selected LHX mission functions: implications for operator workload and system automation goals. Technical note ASI479-024-84. Anacapa Sciences Inc, Fort RuckerGoogle Scholar
  9. Montgomery J, Gaddy C, Toquam J (1991) Team interaction skills evaluation criteria for nuclear power plant control room operators. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th annual meeting, pp 918–922Google Scholar
  10. Roth EM, Mumaw RJ, Stubler WF (1993) Human factors evaluation issues for advanced control rooms: a research agenda. IEEE conference proceedings, pp 254–265Google Scholar
  11. Roth EM, Lin L, Thomas VM, Kerch S, Kenney SJ, Sugibayashi N (1998) Supporting situation awareness of individuals and teams using group view displays. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd annual meeting, pp 244–248Google Scholar
  12. Sebok A (2000) Team performance in process control: influences of interface design and staffing levels. Ergonomics 43(8):1210–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stubler WF, O’Hara JM (1996) Group-view displays: functional characteristics and review criteria. Technical report E2090-T.4.4.12/94, Brookhaven National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  14. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alion Science and Technology, MA&D OperationBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations