|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Wo RELOAD
TRANSITI
AN
Implications for Individual
and Team Performance
Beverly Messick Huey and Christopher D. Wickens, editors
Pane! on Workload Transition
Committee on Human Factors
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, DC 1993
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board
of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences
and with regard to appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This work relates to Department of the Army grant MDA 903-89-K-0074 issued by the
Defense Supply Service Washington. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the
position or the policy of the government, and no officio] endorsement should be inferred.
The United States government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable
license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver,
perform, dispose of, and to authorize others so as to do, all or any portion of this work
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Workload transition: implications for individual and team performance
/ Beverly Messick Huey and Christopher D. Wickens, eds.; Panel on
Workload Transition, Committee on Human Factors, Commission on
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research
Council.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-309-04796-X
1. Job stress. 2. Tank crews Job stress. 3. Emergency medical
personnel-Job stress. 4. Nuclear power plant operators Job
stress. 5. Fatigue. I. Huey, Beverly Messick. II. Wickens,
Christopher D. III. National Research Council (U.S.). Panel on
Workload Transition.
RC963.48.W67 1 993
155.9'042-dc2093-363
CIP
Additional copies are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20418
B045
Printed in the United States of America
Copyright 1993 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
OCR for page R3
PANEL ON WORKLOAD TRANSITION
CHRISTOPHER D. WICKENS (Chair), Aviation Research Laboratory,
University of Illinois, Savoy
KAREN COOK, Department of Sociology, University of Washington
CHARLES A. CZEISLER, Laboratory for Circadian and Sleep Disorders,
Harvard Medical School
SANDRA HART, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
ROBERT HELMREICH, NASA/UT Aerospace Crew Research Project,
Austin, Texas
GORDON LOGAN, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois,
Champaign
MICHAEL E. MADDOX, Sisyphus Associates, Madison, North Carolina
JOYCE L. SHIELDS, HAY Systems, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
JOEL S. WARM, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati
BEVERLY M. HUEY, Study Director
EVELYN E. SIMEON, Senior Project Assistant
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN FACTORS
RAYMOND S. NICKERS ON (Chair), Bolt, Beranek, and Newman
Laboratories (retired), Cambridge, Massachusetts
PAUL A. ATTEWELL, Department of Sociology, City University of New York
MOHAMED M. AYOUB, Institute for Ergonomics Research, Texas Tech
University
PAUL S. GOODMAN, Center for Management of Technology, Carnegie
Mellon University
JOHN D. GOULD, IBM Corporation, Yorktown Heights, New York
ROBERT L. HELMREICH, NASA/UT Aerospace Crew Research Project,
Austin, Texas
ROBERTA L. KLATZKY, Department of Psychology, University of
California, Santa Barbara
HERSCHEL W. LEIBOWITZ, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania
State University
NEVILLE P. MORAY, Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
WILLIAM B. ROUSE, Search Technology, Inc., Norcross, Georgia
JOYCE L. SHIELDS, HAY Systems, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER D. WICKENS, Aviation Research Laboratory, University
of Illinois
J. FRANK YATES, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan
LAURENCE R. YOUNG, Man Vehicle Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
. . .
Liz!
OCR for page R4
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetu-
ating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering
research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it
by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to
advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank
Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under
the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization
of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Acad-
emy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting
national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the supe-
rior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the
National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy
of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate pro-
fessions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the
public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National
Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the
federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medi-
cal care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was established by the National Acad-
emy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and
technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and ad-
vising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general
policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal
operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Na-
tional Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the
public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is
administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr.
Frank Press and Dr. Robert White are chairman and vice chairman, respec-
tively, of the National Research Council.
IV
OCR for page R5
Foreworc
The Committee on Human Factors was established in October 1980 by
the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the
National Research Council. The committee is sponsored by the Air Force
Office of Scientific Research, the Army Research Institute for the Behav-
ioral and Social Sciences, the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion, the Air Force Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, the
Army Advanced Systems Research Office, the Army Human Engineering
Laboratory, the Army Natick RD&E Center, the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Naval Training Systems
Center, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The principal objectives of the commit-
tee are to provide new perspectives on theoretical and methodological is-
sues, to identify basic research needed to expand and strengthen the scien-
tific basis of human factors, and to attract scientists both inside and outside
the field for interactive communication and performance of needed research.
Human factors issues arise in every domain in which humans interact
with the products of a technological society. To perform its role effectively,
the committee draws on experts from a wide range of scientific and engi-
neering disciplines. Members of the committee include specialists in such
fields as psychology, engineering, biomechanics, physiology, medicine, cognitive
sciences, machine intelligence, computer science, sociology, education, and
human factors engineering. Other disciplines are represented in the work-
ing groups, workshops, and symposia organized by the committee. Each of
these disciplines contributes to the basic data, theory, and methods required
to improve the scientific basis of human factors.
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Acknowledgments
In 1988, the U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory approached the
Committee on Human Factors to undertake a study of the effects of pro-
longed periods of underload on the performance of tank crews. As the
committee evaluated the request, it realized that the key problems were less
related to performance during underload itself, about which a fair amount is
known and published, than to the consequences of prolonged underload
(and concomitant sleep loss) on subsequent performance when workload is
suddenly increased by the need to enter combat. Further study revealed this
situation to be common across a number of team-oriented systems, such as
emergency medical services personnel and nuclear power plant personnel
responding to emergencies. Because of the perceived importance of this
team transition situation, its commonality across systems, and the absence
of a coherent research base, the committee chose to undertake the study.
Our approach was intentionally broad, focusing on multiple systems
and not just tank crews. This choice of breadth was intentional as, aware of
the scarce research base on tanks, we realized that generalizable research
conclusions could be obtained only by casting our net broadly. We also felt
that a broad net might assemble a set of coherent research conclusions with
relevance to other systems as well as tanks. With these goals in mind, the
committee assembled a Panel of experts. scanning a wide range of fields
. - ~ , ~ ~
relevant to the team transition situation.
The work of this study was performed by a small group of experts from
key areas in workload, training, vigilance, circadian rhythms and perfor-
mance effects of sleep loss and fatigue, cognitive switching, situation awareness,
. .
V11
OCR for page R8
. . .
V111
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
and crew communication and coordination. As chair, I want to thank the
panel members for their extensive contributions, their many thoughtful po-
sition papers, and their gracious collaboration throughout this study. I want
to personally acknowledge the work of Vern Battiste for his review of geo-
graphic orientation; Karen Cook for her contributions in the area of stress
and social psychology; Charles Czeisler in the area of circadian rhythms,
sleep loss, and fatigue; Sandy Hart in the area of workload; Bob Helmreich
in the area of crew coordination and leadership; Gordon Logan in the area
of cognitive switching; Mike Maddox in the area of workspace design and
stress; Joyce Shields in the area of training; Joel Warm for his contributions
in the area of vigilance and target detection; and Beverly Huey for her
contributions in the area of stress and the review of analogous systems.
Beverly Huey, Committee on Human Factors staff officer, not only orga-
nized and participated in the meetings of the panel, but also willingly and
effectively worked with the chair to organize and assemble this report and
contributed to its editing. Charles Dixon, Betty Ehrman Messick, and Evelyn
Simeon provided secretarial assistance in preparing this document for re-
v~ew.
Beverly Huey and I would like to extend our sincere appreciation for
the assistance and information provided by numerous representatives of
analogous systems of interest: Todd Brown of the Safety Research Division
of the Association of American Railroads; James Danaher, of the National
Transportation Safety Board; Russell Dynes, head of the Disaster Research
Center; Mark Mandler of the U.S. Coast Guard R&D Center; Merrill Messick,
Jr., of the Maryland State Police and the Bet Air Volunteer Fire Company,
Inc.; Richard Pain of the National Research Council's Transportation Re-
search Board; James Reason of the University of Manchester; Ronald Schaefer
of Shocktrauma; Steve Sheek of the Office of Marine Safety, Security, and
Environmental Protection, U.S. Coast Guard; Barry Sweedler of the Na-
tional Transportation Safety Board; Marc Wilson, doctoral candidate at George
Washington University; Gene Worthington of the Maryland State Firemen's
Association and the Level Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.; and Wayne Young
of the National Research Council's Marine Board.
The panel received invaluable contributions from many people. Major
Brad Scott gave a briefing on the psychological aspects of tank crew opera-
tions. Bernard Corona and Ron Whitaker set up presentations that were
given by personnel of the U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory, Be-
havioral Research Division. Frederick Baldwin and Captain Ravell of the
U.S. Combat Systems Test Activity gave panel members the opportunity to
ride in a tank. Jack Thorpe of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency gave a demonstration of SIMNET, the U.S. Army's computer-based
battlefield simulator.
The panel appreciates the cooperation, support, and advice it received
OCR for page R9
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IX
from many individuals, especially that of John Lockett and Kenneth Caldwell.
John Lockett arranged a site visit to Aberdeen Proving Ground, where the
panel had the invaluable opportunity to experience a tank ride, and provided
access to pertinent background materials; Kenneth Caldwell acted as techni-
cal consultant to the panel, contributing his years of experience as a tank
commander to better our understanding of the nature of armored operations.
Christopher D. Wickens, Chair
Panel on Workload Transition
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Contents
SUMMARY .....
Background, 2
Analogous Systems, 3
Workload, 4
Stress, 4
Sleep Disruption and Fatigue, 5
Vigilance, 5
Geographic Orientation, 6
Decision Making, 6
Strategic Task Management, 7
Team Leadership and Crew Coordination, 7
Training for Emergency Responses, 8
Recommendations for Research, 9
Research Recommendations, 9
Application of Research Results, 10
-
1 TEAM TRANSITIONS
Background, 14
Team Performance During Transitions, 15
Crew Performance Requirements, 16
Planning and Preparation, 16
Routine Monitoring, 17
Maintenance, 18
Information Seeking, 18
Xl
OCR for page R12
. .
All
CONTENTS
Decision Making, 19
Control and Operation, 19
Communications, 20
Workstation Characteristics, 20
Framework of the Report, 24
References, 26
ANALOGOUS SYSTEMS......................................................................
Features of Similarity, 28
Time, 28
Structure of the Event, 29
Environment, 30
Personal Risk, 30
Organizational Structure, 30
Summary, 31
Commercial Airlines, 31
Railroads, 33
Nuclear Power Plants, 37
Merchant and Military Ships, 39
Natural Disasters, 45
Emergency Medical Services, 46
Trauma Centers and Emergency Rooms, 48
Cautious Generalizations, 50
References, 51
.28
3 WORKLOAD FACTORS 54
Workload Characteristics, 54
Sources, 54
Consequences, 55
Measures, 55
Relationship Between Workload and Performance, 55
Workload Drivers: Review of Research, 57
Task Structure, 57
Task Requirements and Procedures, 68
Input Variables, 69
Information Processing Variables, 74
Output Variables, 80
Computer Aiding and Automation, 82
Summary, 84
References, 86
4 STRESS
..... 94
Stress in the Work Environment, 96
OCR for page R13
CONTENTS
Stress and Human Performance, 97
Qualitative Pattern of Stress Effects, 100
Attentional Tunneling, 100
Working Memory Loss, 102
Communications, 103
Long-Term Memory, 103
Strategic Shifts, 104
Decision Making, 104
Attention and Arousal, 106
Conclusion, 107
Mediating Effects, 107
Coping with Stress, 108
Design Solutions, 108
Strategies, 109
Training, 109
Team Models: Implications for Stress Management, 111
Summary, 115
References, 115
5 SLEEP DISRUPTION AND FATIGUE ......................
Circadian Effects on Prolonged Performance, 122
Sleep Deprivation, 126
Laboratory Studies, 126
Operational Settings, 127
Sleep Inertia, 129
Impact on Performance in Extended-Duty Operations, 129
Potential Countermeasures, 130
References, 132
6 VIGILANCE AND TARGET DETECTION
Historical Background, 139
World War II, 139
Implications of Automation for Vigilance, 140
Implications for Armor Personnel, 141
Psychophysical Determinants, 141
A Functional Equation, 141
Sensing and Decision Making, 146
Task Taxonomy, 147
Environmental Stress, 148
Environment and Task, 148
Temperature, 148
Noise, 149
Vibration, 151
. . .
X111
.122
139
OCR for page R14
XIV
SleepLoss, 151
Task-Induced Stress in Vigilance, 152
Operational Relevance, 155
Workload Transition, 155
Remediation, 157
References, 160
7 GEOGRAPHIC ORIENTATION...........................................................
What is Geographic Orientation?, 172
Real-World Constraints on Spatial Awareness, 173
Frames of Reference, 174
Reference Frame Comparisons, 175
Biases in Geographic Memory, 176
Language, 179
Timing, 180
Mental Models of Navigational Tasks, 182
Geographic Orientation: Tanks and Helicopters, 183
Navigation and Workload Transition, 189
The Premission Phase, 190
The Operational Phase, 191
Transition From Rear Staging Position to Initial
Fighting Position, 191
The Preengagement Phase, 192
The Post-Mission Phase, 193
Summary, 193
References, 195
8 DECISION MAKING.......................................
Heuristics and Biases in Hypothesis Formation, 199
Expertise in Diagnosis, 201
Choice, 202
Transition Effects, 205
Pre-Post Exchange, 205
Stress Effects, 206
Remediation, 208
Summary, 210
References, 211
CONTENTS
171
.198
9 STRATEGIC TASK MANAGEMENT 214
Cognitive Switching, 214
Strategy Switching, 215
Task Switching, 216
Implications for Workload Transition, 219
OCR for page R15
CONTENTS
XV
Task Priority Management, 221
References, 225
10 TEAM LEADERSHIP AND CREW COORDINATION 229
Aviation Research Findings on Leadership and
Crew Coordination, 231
Crew Resource Management Training, 232
Voice Communications, 233
Flight Deck Communications, 234
Systematic Observational Studies of Crew
Performance, 235
Leader Behavior, 236
Leader Personality, 237
Automation, Leadership, and Crew Coordination, 239
Organizational Cultures and Subcultures, 239
Engineering Models of Coordination, 240
Crew Performance Research, 241
References, 243
11 TRAINING FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSES 248
Training Challenges, 250
Training and Skill Retention, 250
Type of Task, 250
Amount of Practice, 251
Type of Practice, 252
Testing, 253
Level of Original Learning, 253
Training and Workload, 254
Training Approaches, 254
Training Complex Tasks through Simulation
Networking (SIMNET), 256
Embedded Training for Practicing Procedural Tasks
in the Operational Setting, 257
Training to Improve Communications and
Coordination, 258
Summary, 261
References, 262
12 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH 265
Workload, 266
Stress, 267
Sleep Patterns and Fatigue, 269
Target Detection and Vigilance, 270
OCR for page R16
XVI
INDEX
CONTENTS
Geographic Orientation, 271
Communications and Decision Making, 272
Strategic Task Management, 272
Team Leadership and Crew Coordination, 273
Training, 274
References, 275
277
OCR for page R17
WORKLOAD
TRANSITION
Implica~cions for Inctividual
anct Team Performance
OCR for page R18
