Advertisement

A Model for Performing System Performance Analysis in Predesign

  • Charles D. Holley

Abstract

Two areas of digital simulation are particularly relevant to valid system performance during predesign: mission modelling and man-machine modelling. In this paper, the latter technique is emphasized. The architecture (including the artificial intelligence components) and validation data for a particular model are presented. The components of the predesign process are illustrated in Fig. 1. This process has evolved from, and been applied to a variety of weapons systems (cf. Refs. 1, 2 & 3) and documents (for example, Refs. 4, 5 & 6).

Keywords

Concurrent Task Digital Simulation Task Block Task Element Discrete Task 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Taylor, R.R. and Poole, E.R., A Mission Oriented Approach to Cockpit Design as Applied to Observation and Attack Helicopters, American Helicopter Society 40th Annual Forum, Arlington, VA, May 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holley, C.D. and Parks, R.E., Predicting Man-Machine System Performance in Predesign, Bell Helicopter, Textron, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graf, V.A. and Holley, C.D., Human Factors Impact on the V-22 Osprey Cockpit Development: An Overview, American Helicopter Society, Washington, D.C., June 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Human Engineering Requirements for Measurement of Operator Workload, ADS-30, U.S. Army Research and Technology Laboratories (AVSCOM), St. Louis, MO, November 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Donnell, R.D. and Eggemeir, T., Workload Assessment Methodology, “Handbook of Perception and Human Performance;’ Vol. 2, Cognitive Processes in Performance, K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman and J.P. Thomas (eds), Wiley, New York, NY, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment, and Facilities, MIL-STD-1472C, Department of Defence, May 1981.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sticha, P.J., Analytical Models of Performance of Procedure, IEEE, 0547–3578/84/0000–0841, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C., “Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research;’ McNally, Chicago, IL, 1966.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sequitur’s Workload Analysis System (SWAS): User’s Manual, Sequitur Systems, Fort Worth, TX, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karger, D.W. and Bayha, F.H.,“Engineered Work Measurement;’ Industrial Press, New York, NY, 1966.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Generic Data System, Methods Time Measurement ( MTM) Association, Fair Lawn, NJ, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siegel, A.I. and Wolf, J.J.,“Man-Machine Simulation Models;’ Wiley, New York NY, 1969.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wickens, D.C., Processing Resources in Attention, “Varieties of Attention;’ R. Parasuraman and R. Davies (eds), Academic Press, New York, NY, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wickens, D.C., The Structure of Attentional Resources,“Attention and Performance VIII;’ R. Nickerson and R. Pew (eds), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wickens, D.C., Mountford, S.J. and Schreiner, W.S., Multiple Resources, Task-Hemispheric Integrity, and Individual Differences in Time-Sharing Efficiency, Human Factors 23, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Multidimensional Scaling of Task Relationships, Sequitur Working Papers, Sequitur Systems, Fort Worth, TX, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carroll, J. and Chang, J., Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling via an N-way Generalization of Eckart-Young Decomposition, Psychometrika 35, 1970.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Derrick, W.L., The Relationship Between Processing Resource and Subjective Dimensions of Operator Workload, “Human Factor Society 25th Annual Meeting, Proceedings,” 1981.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Advanced Rotorcraft Technology Integration: Interim Report, BHTI Report 677–099–02, Bell Helicopter, Fort Worth, TX, May 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Advanced Rotorcraft Technology Integration: Flight Test Report, BHTI Report 677–099–026, Bell Helicopter, Fort Worth, TX, August 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles D. Holley
    • 1
  1. 1.Sequitur Systems, Inc.Fort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations