Michael D. McNeese

AKADAM: Eliciting user knowledge to support participatory ergonomics

A participatory ergonomics approach to design requires knowledge of users, their tasks, and their task environments. User participation is a necessity because designers often misjudge the impact of design artifacts on users. As a consequence of misunderstanding their respective domains of expertise, designers may generate inappropriate solutions, and users may formulate cryptic descriptions and specifications. Because obtaining and incorporating users knowledge is difficult, designers are increasingly emphasizing knowledge elicitation as a research issue. This paper presents the Advanced Knowledge And Design Acquisition Methodology (AKADAM), intended to elicit knowledge from domain experts (i.e., the users). Eight case studies applying AKADAM are described. The implications of these applications and directions for future research are discussed. The term ecography is introduced to highlight AKADAMs unique aspects.

Socio-Cognitive Factors in the Acquisition and Transfer of Knowledge

Abstract: Within cooperative learning great emphasis is placed on the benefits of ætwo heads being greater than oneÆ. However, further examination of this adage reveals that the value of learning groups can often be overstated and taken for granted for different types of problems. When groups are required to solve ill-defined and complex problems under real world constraints, different socio-cognitive factors (e.g., metacognition, collective induction, and perceptual experience) are expected to determine the extent to which cooperative learning is successful. Another facet of cooperative learning, the extent to which groups enhance the use of knowledge from one situation to another, is frequently ignored in determining the value of cooperative learning. This paper examines the role and functions of cooperative learning groups in contrast to individual learning conditions, for both an acquisition and transfer task. Results for acquisition show groups perform better overall than individuals by solving more elements of the Jasper problem as measured by their overall score in problem space analysis. For transfer, individuals do better overall than groups in the overall amount of problem elements transferred from Jasper. This paradox is explained by closer examination of the data analysis. Groups spend more time engaged with each other in metacognitive activities (during acquisition) whereas individuals spend more time using the computer to explore details of the perceptually based Jasper macrocontext. Hence, results show that individuals increase their perceptual learning during acquisition whereas groups enhance their metacognitive strategies. These investments show different pay-offs for the transfer problem. Individuals transfer more overall problem elements (as they explored the context more) but problem solvers who had the benefit of metacognition in a learning group did better at solving the most complex elements of the transfer problem. Results also show that collective induction groups (ones that freely share) – in comparison to groups composed of dominant members – enhance certain kinds of transfer problem solving (e.g., generating subgoals). The results are portrayed as the active interplay of socio-cognitive elements that impact the outcomes (and therein success) of cooperative learning.

Handling complex real-world data with two cognitive engineering tools: COGENT and MacSHAPA

The ultimate concern of cognitive engineering is how complex sociotechnical systems might be designed so that humans can work within them and control them safely and effectively. Because of this, large amounts of observational data analysis and knowledge elicitation are incorporated in cognitive engineering. At many points, these two methodologies coalesce. In this paper, we describe two complementary cognitive engineering software tools—MacSHAPA and COGENT—that are being developed alongside each other. MacSHAPA is designed for observational data analysis, and COGENT is designed for knowledge elicitation and cognitive engineering, but both sup-port requirements gathering. We first outline current trends in cognitive engineering that have given rise to the need for tools like MacSHAPA and COGENT. We then describe the two tools in more detail, and point to their similarities and differences. Finally, we show how the two tools are complementary, and how they can be used together in engineering psychology research.

Humane Intelligence: A Human Factors Perspective for Developing Intelligent Cockpits

A human factors perspective for creating intelligent cockpits is described and explained. A conceptualized interface among the pilots, mental models, and human information technologies is proposed wherein knowledge concerning human cognition is meshed with the capabilities and limitations of artificial intelligence (AI). Necessarily, a different way of looking at the pilots role in the intelligent cockpit is developed.

Knowledge as Design: A Methodology for Overcoming Knowledge Acquisition Bottlenecks in Intelligent Interface Design

This paper documents the historical perspective of ‘knowledge as design’ as a natural human philosophy which necessarily resulted in user centered design praxis. A revival of this philosophy is called for in the presentation of the advanced knowledge and design acquisition methodology. The application of this methodology for overcoming bottleneck problems and alleviating brittleness in the Pilots Associate is described and evaluated. The paper discusses three specific techniques designed to capture these perspectives: IDEF modeling, concept mapping, and design storyboarding. An integrative structure combining these techniques is proposed as an interactive way to let users, as well as other design team members, assimilate, progressively deepen, and combine knowledge for the purpose of developing intelligent systems and human-machine interface designs. Results indicate that pilots were able to successfully reveal their own comprehension of an air-to-ground mission and transform conceptual knowledge into actual designs for an intelligent pilot-vehicle interface.

Augmenting group sense making in ill‐defined, emerging situations: Experiences, lessons learned and issues for future development

Describes how, in ill‐defined, emerging situations, team members struggle to make sense of the situation, react to stimuli from the external environment, and interact with each other and human artefacts to develop an interpretation of the environment. Presents a general model of this process, lessons derived from experiences in trying to support it, and issues for future development.

Understanding the Context of Multidisciplinary Design: Establishing Ecological Validity in the Study of Design Problem Solving

The need to understand the design process in all its complexity is motivated by an interest in the development of tools and technologies that would be capable of aiding collaborative design teams. This development effort depends upon an understanding of design activities as they occur within a real world context. Observations of design activities that are made without direct communication with the design team members may fail to capture many of the subtler aspects of the process - aspects that are best understood when described by the design team members themselves. In order to supplement observational studies, this paper presents a case study in which a dialog with members of a variety of collaborative design teams was established in order to elicit information about the nature of collaborative design. A knowledge acquisition technique, concept mapping, was used to achieve an understanding of the role of human factors specialists within the collaborative design process specific to the Air Forces system acquisition program. Results highlight various findings about the nature of design problem solving such as the way different organizational settings influence human factors input in the design process/product. The paper discusses the usefulness of concept mapping to capture in-depth design knowledge and how this type of knowledge complements other approaches to understanding design.

Knowledge acquisition of tactical air-to-ground mission information using concept mapping

Describes the application of the concept mapping technique to elicit and formulate domain knowledge from experienced tactical fighter pilots for identifying and validating a detailed set of user requirements in support of the Pilots Associate program. This effort is intended to be a demonstration that concept mapping is a highly effective means of capturing the users understanding of a problem domain primarily for creating a pilot-vehicle interface. Thus, the results presented should not be considered definitive, but rather indicative of the type of information that this technique can portray. For this investigation, the mapping sessions focused only on the target acquisition phase of the tactical fighter mission, and were directed toward uncovering the pilots information requirements for target acquisition involving a pilot-vehicle interface.<<ETX>>

Computer-supported collaborative work: a new agenda for human factors engineering

Discusses the concept of collaborative work and the ways in which the emerging computer technologies may or may not support these group efforts. The domain of computer-supported collaborative work sets a new agenda for human factors engineering, and, in keeping with a human factors perspective, a group-centered approach to collaborative system design is proposed and discussed.<<ETX>>

Cockpit Automation Technology: A Further Look

Cockpit automation is receiving much attention for both commercial and military applications. In particular, Aretz (1984) presented an overview of a United States Air Force Advanced Development Program aimed at developing a structured human factors crew station design methodology. In the past year, lessons have been learned, thinking has matured, and as is inevitable, new questions have arisen. This paper discusses several of these questions and issues. These further thoughts indicate that a well human factored methodology is no simple matter, yet remains important to develop.