%0 Journal Article %1 naikar01 %A Naikar, N. %A Sanderson, P. M. %C Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Australia. neelam.naikar@dsto.defence.gov.au %D 2001 %J Human Factors %K work hierarchy analysis cognition 1406 abstraction %N 4 %P 529--542 %T Evaluating design proposals for complex systems with work domain analysis %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12002003 %V 43 %X In this paper we propose a new framework for evaluating designs based on work domain analysis, the first phase of cognitive work analysis. We develop a rationale for a new approach to evaluation by describing the unique characteristics of complex systems and by showing that systems engineering techniques only partially accommodate these characteristics. We then present work domain analysis as a complementary framework for evaluation. We explain this technique by example by showing how the Australian Defence Force used work domain analysis to evaluate design proposals for a new system called Airborne Early Warning and Control. This case study also demonstrates that work domain analysis is a useful and feasible approach that complements standard techniques for evaluation and that promotes a central role for human factors professionals early in the system design and development process. Actual or potential applications of this research include the evaluation of designs for complex systems.

@article{naikar01, abstract = {In this paper we propose a new framework for evaluating designs based on work domain analysis, the first phase of cognitive work analysis. We develop a rationale for a new approach to evaluation by describing the unique characteristics of complex systems and by showing that systems engineering techniques only partially accommodate these characteristics. We then present work domain analysis as a complementary framework for evaluation. We explain this technique by example by showing how the Australian Defence Force used work domain analysis to evaluate design proposals for a new system called Airborne Early Warning and Control. This case study also demonstrates that work domain analysis is a useful and feasible approach that complements standard techniques for evaluation and that promotes a central role for human factors professionals early in the system design and development process. Actual or potential applications of this research include the evaluation of designs for complex systems.}, added-at = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, address = {Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Australia. neelam.naikar@dsto.defence.gov.au}, author = {Naikar, N. and Sanderson, P. M.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2d23619c072b483c11c83dd46bafa6fc2/neilernst}, citeulike-article-id = {142748}, comment = {- previous systems would evaluate physical needs and human needs separately, with unrealistic scenarios - this stuff seems similar to i* approach - indentifying conflicting goals or constraints - cost insignificant (although took 1 year) compared to system cost - tendency towards silos in analysis (radar team, weapons team) - prior techniques probably operated at the physical function level and failed to consider impact on higher-level goals.}, description = {sdasda}, interhash = {63a8125194926f070dca5ae1d3f58c49}, intrahash = {d23619c072b483c11c83dd46bafa6fc2}, issn = {0018-7208}, journal = {Human Factors}, keywords = {work hierarchy analysis cognition 1406 abstraction}, number = 4, pages = {529--542}, priority = {0}, timestamp = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, title = {Evaluating design proposals for complex systems with work domain analysis}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve\&db=pubmed\&dopt=Abstract\&list_uids=12002003}, volume = 43, year = 2001 }