Scheduling theory is proposed as a normative model for strategic behavior when operators are confronted by several tasks, all of which should be completed within a fixed time span, and when they are free to choose the order in which the tasks should be done. Three experiments are described to investigate the effect of knowing the correct scheduling rule on the efficiency of performance, subjective workload, and choice of strategy under different conditions of time pressure. The most potent effects are from time pressure. The reasons for the weak effect of knowing the rules are discussed, and implications for strategic behavior, displays, and decision aids are indicated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
French, S. (1982). Sequencing and scheduling: An introduction to the mathematics of the job-shop. Chichester, England: Harwood.
2.
Hart, S. G., and Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139-184). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3.
Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.
4.
Jex, H. R., and Clement, W. F. (1979). Defining and measuring perceptual-motor workload in manual control tasks. In N. Moray (Ed.), Mental workload: Its theory and measurement (pp. 125-178). New York: Plenum.
5.
Kahnemann, D. (1970). Attention and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
Liao, J. (1990). A simulation study of human performance deterioration and mental workload. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.
7.
Moore, J. M. (1968). An n job, one machine sequencing algorithm for minimizing the number of late jobs. Management Science, 15, 102–109.
8.
Moray, N. (1967). Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. Attention and Performance, 1, 84–92.
9.
Moray, N. (1982). Subjective mental load. Human Factors, 23, 25–40.
10.
Moray, N. (1990). Prologomena to the study of strategic behavior (Tech. Report EPRL-90-04). Urbana: University of Illinois, Engineering Psychology Research Laboratory.
11.
Moray, N., and Liao, J. (1988). A quantitative model of excess workload, subjective workload estimation, and perfonnance degradation (Tech. Report EPL-88-03). Urbana: University of Illinois, Engineering Psychology Research Laboratory.
12.
Parks, D. L. (1979). Current workload methods and emerging challenges. In N. Moray (Ed.), Mental workload, its theory and measurement (pp. 387-416). New York: Plenum.
13.
Sanderson, P. M. (1989). The human planning and scheduling role in advanced manufacturing systems: An emerging human factors domain. Human Factors, 31, 635–666.
14.
Shannon, C., and Weaver, W. (1947). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
15.
Tulga, M. K., and Sheridan, T. B. (1980). Dynamic decisions and workload in multi task supervisory control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-10, 217–232.
16.
Welford, A. T. (1967). Single channel operation in the brain. Attention and Performance, 1, 5–22.
17.
Wickens, C. D. (1991). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
