Current Workload Methods and Emerging Challenges

  • Donald L. Parks
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 8)


This paper summarizes selected technology methods and needs in system design. Three major subject areas are discussed: (1) Background on methods evolution and effectiveness is summarized to illustrate methods and needs. (2) The applied environment and its demands are described, including the system development process with activities, man-machine interface tradeoffs, a workload method that is used, and questions the analyst must resolve on a timely basis. More extensive information on a working approach is presented — including the needs, some of the methods, and some of the constraints for presently developing electronic systems. (2) Near term technology challenges are identified for developing computerized, electronic display and control systems. This latter section emphasizes concern with increasing utility of analytic models to develop or evaluate a proliferation of highly flexible display-control-information processing systems. Overall, selected design methods and questions are presented as a framework to which theorists might relate their current state-of-art and provide techniques for present design use.


Mental Workload Candidate Concept Workload Level Electronic Display Boeing Company 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brown, A., Bearse, A., et al. Model 747 Task/Training Analysis; Boeing Document D6–30130, August, 1968.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cavalli, D. Discrete Time Modelling of Heavy Transport Pilot Behavior; The Thirteenth Annual Conference on Manual Control, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 15–17, 1977.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geer, C.W. Analyst’s Guide for the Analysis Sections of MIL–H–46855; Boeing Document D180–19476–1, Prepared for the Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville, Contract N62269–75–C–0271, 30 June 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geer, C.W. Navy Managers Guide for the Analysis Sections of MIL–H–46855; Boeing Document D180–19476–2, Prepared for the Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville, Contract N62269–75–C–0271, June 30, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geer, C.W. Technical Proposal: Survey/Analysis of Operator Workload Measurement; Boeing Document D296–10011–1, April 1977.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunn, R. Flight Displays for the Next Generation Aircraft; SAE Paper 760930, Aerospace Engineering and Manufacturing Meeting, San Diego, Nov. 29-Dec. 2, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerathewohl, S.J. Panel: Inflight Measurement of Pilot Workload; Panelists E.L. Brown, Douglas Aircraft Co., J.E. Burke, Vought Corporation, K.A. Kimball, USAMRL, S.P. Stackhouse, Honeywell, Inc. and W. Long, Bell Helicopter Co., Aerospace Medical Association Annual Scientific Meeting, Las Vegas, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goerres, Hans-Peter. Subjective Stress Assessment - A New Simple Method to Determine Pilot Workload; Aerospace Medical Association Annual Scientific Meeting, Las Vegas, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jahns, D.W. A Concept of Operator Workload in Manual Vehicle Operations. Forschungsberich Nr. 14, Fortschungsinstitute fur Anthropotechnik, 5309, Meckenhime, December 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jahns, D.W. Operator Workload: What Is It and How Should I Be Measured? In Crew Systems Design, Cross, K.D., and McGrath, J.J. Eds., Anacapa Sciences, Inc., Santa Barbara, Ca., 1973.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnston, D.M. and Hickey, L.F. Procedures for Optimizing Man’s Role in Systems. Boeing Document D3–3458, 12 May, 1961.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaake, W.D. 747 Crew Workload Study; Boeing Document D630478–4, June 1969.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lancaster, W.W. and Hickey, L.F. B52-H Electronic Warfare Officer Effectiveness–Human Factors Analyses. D3–32543, 1961.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lancaster, W.W. and Hickey, L.F. Improvement Study - Tactical Aircraft Command and Control; Boeing Document D6–9631, May, 1964.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flight Deck Certification Data; Boeing Document D6–3048–1, July, 1969.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linton, P.M., Jahns, D.W. and Chatelier, P.R. Operator Workload Assessment Model: An Evolution of a VF/VA-V/STOL System; AGARD-CPP-216, Aerospace Medical Panel Specialist Meeting, Koln, Germany, 18–22 April 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, K.M. Timeline Analysis Program (TLA–1), Final Report; Boeing Document D6–42377–5, Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center (NASA–CR–144942) April, 1976.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parks, D.L. Instrument Integration - A Preliminary Literature Review and an Analysis; Boeing Document D31820, November, 1959.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parks, D.L., Stern, P.H. and Niwa, J.S. Crew Number Study: Supporting Documentation for “Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft, Crew Factors Study, Volume III – Task Allocation Report”; Bóeing Document D6–16224–3, Prepared for U.S. Air Force Systems Command, Contract AF33(657)–15339, October, 1965.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parks, D.L., Hayashi, M.M., and Fries, J.R. “Development of an Independent Altitude Monitor Concept”; FAA-RD-73–168, Systems Research and Development Service, FAA, DOT, September, 1973.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parks, D.L. and Springer, W.E. Human Factors Engineering Analytic Process Definition and Criterion Development for CAFES; Boeing Document D180–18750–1, Prepared for Naval Air Development Center, Contract N62269–74–C–0693, June 1975.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roscoe, A.H. Stress, Responsibility and Workload; Aerospace Medical Association Annual Scientific Meeting, Las Vegas, 1977.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheridan, T.B., G. ed. Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control; Published in coordination with NATO Scientific Affairs Division, Plenum Press, New York and London, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siegel, A.I. and Wolf, J.J. Techniques for Evaluating Operator Loading in Man-Machine Systems; Applied Psychological Services, 1961.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith, W.D. Digital Multi-Function Switching Control and Display for Transport Aircraft; NAECON 77, Presented at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, June 1975.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Boeing Company; AMPSS Interim Summary Report (Volume II); Boeing Document D6–8600, 1963.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Boeing Company; Cockpit System Requirements Development for AMPSS; Boeing Document D6–2136, 1964.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Boeing Company; Functional Flow Diagrams - AMSA; Boeing Document D6–17883, October, 1965.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whitley, L.C., and Vaughn-, R.R. Man-Machine Stochastic Simulator TEN-078, MMSS Volume I; Boeing Document D629184-TN-1, April, 1968.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whitley, L.C. and Vaughn, R.R. Man-Machine Stochastic Simulator TEN-078, MMSS Volume II; Boeing Document D629184-TN-II, April, 1968.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Whitmore, D.C. and Parks, D.L. Computer Aided Function–Allocation Evaluation System (CAFES), Phase IV, Final Report; Boeing Document D180–18433–1, –29, Prepared for Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville, (Contract N62269–74–C–0274), December, 1974.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    U.S. Military Specification MIL-H-46855A; Human Engineering Requirements for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities; 2 May 1972.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    U.S. Military Standard MIL-STD-1472B; Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities; 31 December 1974.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    VanCott, H.P. and Altman, J.W. Procedures for Including Human Engineering Factors in the Development of Weapon Systems; American Institute for Research; WADC TR 56–488, AD 97305, October 1956.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Woodson, W.E. and Conover, D.W. Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers; Second Edition, University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles, or Cambridge University Press, London, 1964.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zipoy, D.R., Premselaar, S.J. et al. Integrated Information Presentation and Control System Study; Boeing Technical Report AFFDL-TR-70–79, Volume I, Prepared for Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald L. Parks
    • 1
  1. 1.Crew Systems TechnologyThe Boeing CompanySeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations