The question of what the operator of a dynamic system needs to know was investigated in an experiment using PLANT, a generic simulation of a process. Knowledge of PLANT was manipulated via different types of instructions, so that four different groups were created: 1) Minimal instructions only; 2) Minimal instructions + guidelines for operation (Procedures); 3) Minimal instructions + dynamic relationships (Principles); 4) Minimal instructions + Procedures + Principles. Subjects then controlled PLANT in a variety of familiar and unfamiliar situations. Despite the fact that these manipulations resulted in differences in subjects' knowledge as assessed via a written test at the end of the experiment, instructions had no effect upon achievement of the primary goal of production; however, those groups receiving Procedures controlled the system in a more stable manner. Principles had no apparent effect upon subjects' performance. There was no difference between groups in diagnosis of unfamiliar events.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnyakoraS. N.LeesF. P.Detection of instrument malfunction by the process operator. Chemical Engineer, 1972, 264, 304.
2.
BorgmanC. L.Mental models: Ways of looking at a system. ASIS Bulletin, 1982, 9, 38–39.
3.
BrauneR. J.TrollipS. R.Towards an internal model in pilot training. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 1982, 53, 996–999.
4.
CrossmanE. R. F. W.CookeJ. E.Manual control of slow-response systems. Proceedings of the International Congress on Human Factors in Electronics, Long Beach, Calif., 1962.
5.
CurryR. E.GaiE. G.Detection of random process failures by human monitors. In SheridanT. B.JohannsenG. (Eds.), Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control. New York: Plenum, 1976.
6.
FathJ. L.Design and evaluation of a process plant simulator. M.S.I.E. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, September, 1982.
7.
GoodsteinL. P.Discriminative display support for process operators. In RasmussenJ.RouseW. B. (Eds.), Human Detection and Diagnosis of System Failures. New York: Plenum, 1981.
8.
IEEE Standards Workshop on Human Factors and Nuclear Safety,The Man-Machine Interface and Human Reliability: An Assessment and Projection. Myrtle Beach, s. c., August 30-September 4, 1981.
9.
KierasD. E.BovairS.The role of a mental model in learning to operate a device. Tuscon, Arizona: University of Arizona, 1983. Technical Report No. 13 (UARZ/DP/TR-83/ONR-13).
10.
KragtH.LandeweerdJ. A.Mental skills and process control. In EdwardsE.LeesF. P. (Eds.), The Human Operator in Process Control. London: Taylor & Francis, 1974.
11.
MorrisN. M.The human operator in process control: A review and evaluation of the literature. Atlanta, Georgia: Center for Man-Machine Systems Research, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1982, 82–1.
12.
MorrisN. M.Human problem solving in process control. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1983.
13.
NormanD. A.Human cognition and skills. Workshop on Cognitive Modeling of Nuclear Plant Control Room Operators, Dedham, Mass., August 15–18, 1982.
14.
RasmussenJ.Outlines of a hybrid model of the process plant operator. In SheridanT. B.JohannsenG. (Eds.), Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control. New York: Plenum, 1976.
15.
RasmussenJ.On the structure of knowledge–a morphology of mental models in a man-machine system context. Roskilde, Denmark: Riso National Laboratory, Riso-M-2192, 1979.
16.
RasmussenJ.Models of mental strategies in proces plant diagnosis. In RasmussenJ.RouseW. B. (Eds.), Human Detection and Diagnosis of System Failures. New York: Plenum, 1981.
17.
RouseW. B.HuntR. M.Human problem solving performance in fault diagnosis tasks. In RouseW. B. (Ed.), Advances in Man-Machine Systems Research. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1983. Volume 1.
18.
RouseW. B.MorrisN. M.Human problem solving in a process control task. Proceedings of the First Annual European Conference on Manual Control, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, May 1981.
19.
RouseW. B.MorrisN. M.Studies of human problem solving in a process control task. Proceedings of the 1981 International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, Atlanta, October 1981.
20.
RumelhartD. E.AbrahamsonA. A.A model of analogical reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 5, 1–28.
21.
SchankR. C.AbelsonR. P.Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.
22.
ShepardA.MarshallE. C.TurnerA.DuncanK. D.Diagnosis of plant failures from a control panel: A comparison of three training methods. Ergonomics, 1977, 20, 347–361.
23.
SheridanT. B.Toward a general model of supervisory control. In SheridanT. B.JohannsenG. (Eds.), Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control. New York: Plenum, 1976.
24.
SheridanT. B.Cognitive models and computer aids for nuclear plant control room operators. Workshop on Cognitive Modeling of Nuclear Plant Control Room Operators, Dedham, Mass., August 15–18, 1982.
25.
SmallwoodR. D.Internal models and the human instrument monitor. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1967, HFE-8.
26.
StassenH.van der VeldtR. J.Human operator models: A useful tool in MMIF design?Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, Laboratory for Measurement and Control, 1982.
