Error Analysis in Man-Machine Systems

  • S. Bagnara
  • A. Rizzo
  • F. Stablum
Conference paper

Summary

The study to be reported was aimed at evaluating the reliability of MMS in an automated process control system. The methodology was based on error analysis and took into consideration: a) the error occurred, b) the error detections and c) the recoveries from error. It was adopted to evaluate both a prototype and the implementation of the MMS. The two evaluations had different aims. The first, related to the “design” phase, was aimed at establishing whether the designed tasks, were compatible with the cognitive abilities and competence of the operators. The objective of the second evaluation related to the “re-design” phase, was to identify where and how to improve th MMS.

Keywords

Olat Decid Lost Poss Fami 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Norman, D.A.: Design rules based on analysis of human error. Communications of the ACM. 26 (1963) 254–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reason, J.T.: Actions not as planned: The prize of automatization. In G. Underwood and R. stevens (eds.) Aspects of consciousnese. Vol. 1. London: Academic Press 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reason, J.T, Lapses of attention, In R. Parasuraman and D. Davies (eds.) varieties of attention. New York: Academic Press 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman, D.A.: Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review. 88 (1981) 1–15.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. Human Inference: Strategies and shortcomings in social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall 1980.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rasmussen, J., Duncan, K., and Leplat, J. (eds.) New. technology and human error. London: Wiley 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rasmussen, J. Information processing and human machine interaction. New York: North Holland 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reason, J.T.: Generic error. modelling system. (GEMS): A cognitive framework for locating Common human error forms. In J. Rasmussen, K. Duncan, and J. Leplat (eds.) New technology and human error. London: Wiley 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norman, D.A. Working papers on errors and error detection. San Diego: University of California 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rizzo, A., Bagnara, S., and Visciola, M.: Human error detection processes. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 27 (1987) 555–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis, C., and Norman, D.A.: Designing for error. In D.A. Norman and S.W. Draper (eds.) User centered system design. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutchins, E.L., Holland, J.D., and Norman, D.A.: Direct manipulation interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction. 1 (1985) 311–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allwood, C.M.: Error detection processes in statistical problem solving. Cognitive Science. 8 (1984) 413–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahneman D., and Miller, D.T.: Norm. Theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review.93 (1986) 136–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bagnara, S., Ferrante, D., Rizzo, A., and Stablum, F.: Causal analysis in human computer interaction: When does it occur? Cambridge: Fourth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bagnara, S., Rizzo, A., Stablum, F, and Visciola, M.: “Generics” in human decision making. In H.J. Bullinger and B. Shackel (eds.) Human-computer interaction — INTERACT ’87. Amsterdam: North Holland 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ericsson, K.A., and Simon, H.A.: Protocol analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press 1984.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Partridge, D., and Paap, K.: An introduction to learning. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2 (1988) 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Bagnara
    • 1
  • A. Rizzo
    • 2
  • F. Stablum
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Philosophy and Social SciencesUniversity of SienaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Psychology, CNRRomaItaly
  3. 3.Dept. of PsychologyUniversity of PadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations