This case study describes a user-centered system design process that was undertaken by a team of multidisciplinary engineers supporting the Joint Tactical Radio System Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Fit Program. Motivated by the need to manage the risk associated with designing a compact, software-programmable radio to meet the diverse needs of the joint forces, the team applied cognitive engineering methods at key points during the system development and demonstration phase of the acquisition process. To make sound, data-driven design decisions, the team conducted four research efforts with warfighters to understand their tactical communication needs and the impact that proposed designs would have on mission and individual performance. Key insights and lessons learned from the application of cognitive engineering methods during the process and their impact on system design are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmannE. M.GrayW. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychological Science, 13, 27–33.
2.
AnnettJ. (2004). Hierarchical task analysis. In DiaperD.StantonN. A. (Eds.), The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction (pp. 6–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
BeyerH.HoltzblattK. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
DrillingsM. (2003, January). The U.S. Army MANPRINT Program. Paper presented at the MANPRINT Practitioner's Workshop. Available from HQDA, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, MANPRINT Directorate, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0300.
7.
EndsleyM. R.BoltéB.JonesD. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. London: Taylor & Francis.
8.
FrancisP. L. (2005, June). Resolving development risks in the army's networked communications capabilities is key to fielding future force. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05669.pdf.
9.
FrancisP. L. (2006, September). Defense acquisitions: Restructured JTRS program reduces risk, but significant challenges remain. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06955.pdf.
10.
HudlickaE. (1999). Knowledge elicitation in complex military environments. In Proceedings of ECBS ′99, IEEE Conference and Workshop of Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (pp. 328–334). Lincoln, MA: Psychometrix Association.
11.
KulakD.GuineyE. (2003). Use cases: Requirements in context (2nd ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
12.
LaplanteP. A.NeillC. J. (2004). The demise of the waterfall model is imminent and other urban myths. ACM Queue, 1(10), 10–15.
13.
MonsellS.DriverJ. (Eds.) (2000). Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
NoyesJ.BaberC. (1999). User-centered design of systems. London: Springer-Verlag.
15.
PewR. W.MavorA. S. (Eds.) (2007). Human-system integration in the system development process: A new look. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16.
RossonM. B.CarrollJ. (2002). Usability engineering: Scenario-based development of human-computer interaction. New York: Morgan Kaufmann.
17.
RubinsteinJ. S.MeyerD. E.EvansJ. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797.
18.
SavageP. (1996). User interface evaluation in an iterative design process: A comparison of three techniques. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 96 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vol. 2, pp. 307–308). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
19.
SavageP. A.PearsallS. (1998). A case study in iterative design. Ergonomics in Design, 6(1), 18–25.
20.
Savage-KnepshieldP. A. (2008). Incorporating reverse engineering and competitive analysis techniques into system design: A JTRS HMS case study. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1969–1973). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
21.
ShepherdA. (2001). Hierarchical task analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.
22.
StantonN. A.HedgeA.BrookhuisK.SalasE.HendrickH. (Eds.) (2005). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
23.
StelzerE. M.WieseE. E.StonerH. A.PaleyM.GrierR.MartinE. A. (2007). Facilitating human systems integration methods within the acquisition process. In Proceedings of the Human Systems Integration Symposium. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Naval Engineers. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://www.simcreator.com/documents/TRACE_SE_HSIS_2007_Final.pdf.
24.
StonerH. A.StelzerE. M.WieseE. E.PaleyM.DarowskiA.MizrahiG., et al. (2006). The resource for applied cognitive and systems engineering (TRACE-SE): An approach to understanding the gap. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 1872–1876). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
