Workload Modeling using Time Windows and Utilization in an Air Traffic Control Task

Abstract

In this paper, we show how to assess human workload for continuous tasks and describe how operator performance is affected by variations in break-work intervals and by different utilizations. A study was conducted examining the effects of different break-work intervals and utilization as a factor in a mental workload model. We investigated the impact of operator performance on operational error while performing continuous event-driven air traffic control tasks with multiple aircraft. To this end we have developed a simple air traffic control (ATC) model aimed at distributing breaks to form different configurations with the same utilization. The presented approach extends prior concepts of workload and utilization, which are based on a simple average utilization, and considers the specific patterns of break-work intervals.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bechtold

S.E.

Janaro

R.E.

Sumners

D.L.

(1984). Maximization of labor productivity through multi-rest break scheduling. Management Science 30, 1442–1458.

Beevis

Essens

(1996). State of-the art report; Improving function allocation for integrated systems design. ALLFN’97Ð Revisiting the allocation of functions issue, Galway, IEAPress, Louisville.

Cain

(2007). Review of the mental workload literature. Report #RTO-TRHFM121Part-II. Defense Research and Development Canada, Toronto.

Carnahan

B.J.

Redfern

M.S.

Norman

(2000). Designing safe job rotation schedules using optimization and heuristic search. Ergonomics 43 (4), 543–560.

Cummings

Clare

Hart

(2010). The role of human-automation consensus in multiple unmanned vehicle scheduling, Human Factors, 52(1), 17–27.

Cummings

Guerlain

(2007). Developing Operator Capacity Estimates for Supervisory Control of Autonomous Vehicles, Human Factors, 49(1), pp. 1–15.

Crandall

J. W.

Cummings

M. L.

Penna

M. D.

deJong

P. M. A.

(2010). Computing the Effects of Operator Attention Allocation in Human Control of Multiple Robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics -- Part-A.

Endsley

M. R.

Rodgers

M. D.

(1998). Distribution of attention, situation awareness, and workload in a passive air traffic control task: Implications for operational errors and automation. Air Traffic Control Quarterly, 6(1), 21–44.

Gopher

Braune

(1984). On the psychophysics of workload: Why bother with subjective measures?, Human Factors 26(5): 519–532.

10.

Hendy

K. C.

Liao

Milgram

(1997). Combining time and intensity effects in assessing operator information processing load. Human Factors, 39, 30–47.

11.

Lindsay

Connelly

(2002). Modelling erroneous operator behaviours for an airtraffic control task. In Grundy

Calder

editors Third Australasian User Interfaces Conference (AUIC2002), volume 7 of Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, pages 43–54. Australian Computer Society, Inc.

12.

Loft

Sanderson

Neal

Mooij

(2007). Modeling and predicting mental workload in en route air traffic control: Critical review and broader implications. Human Factors, 49, 376–399.

13.

Neerincx

M. A.

(2003). Cognitive task load design: model, methods and examples. In Hollnagel

(Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Task Design: 283–305. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Paul

Kuijer

F.M.

Visser

Han

Kemper

1999. Job rotation as a factor in reducing physical workload at a refuse collecting department. Ergonomics 42(8), 1167–1178.

15.

Parasuraman

Manzey

(2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration, Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410.

16.

Reed

(1992). A plant local panel review. In: Kirwan

Ainsworth

L.K.

(Eds.), A Guide to Task Analysis. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 267–288.

17.

Rouse

W. B.

(1981). Human-computer interaction in the control of dynamic systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 13, 1 (Mar.), 99.

18.

Schmidt

D. K.

(1978). A queuing analysis of the air traffic controller’s workload. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 8, 492–498.