The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.05 - September/October (2008 vol.23)
pp: 78-81
Robert R. Hoffman , Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Steven V. Deal , Deal Corporation
The collaboration of cognitive systems engineers with systems engineers is motivated by the goal of creating human-centered systems. However, there can be a gap in this collaboration. In presentations at professional meetings about cognitive systems engineering projects, we often hear that one or another method of cognitive task analysis was employed in order to inform design. But what software developers need is designs. This is the first of two essays about the gap between the products of cognitive task analysis and the needs of the software engineers. We discuss a success story of cognitive systems engineering for a large-scale system, a project that coped with the practical constraints of time pressure and the challenge of designing for an envisioned world when system elements could not be fully specified in advance. This project relied on a particular product from cognitive task analysis, the abstraction-decomposition matrix, that speaks in a language that corresponds with the needs and goals of the software designers.
Cognitive task analysis, software engineering, abstraction-decomposition, requirements analysis, interface design, naval systems, human-system integration
Robert R. Hoffman, Steven V. Deal, "Influencing versus Informing Design, Part 1: A Gap Analysis", IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol.23, no. 5, pp. 78-81, September/October 2008, doi:10.1109/MIS.2008.83
1. B. Crandall, G. Klein, and R.R. Hoffman, Working Minds: A Practitioner's Guide to Cognitive Task Analysis, MIT Press, 2006.
2. R.R. Hoffman and L.G. Militello, Perspectives on Cognitive Task Analysis: Historical Origins and Modern Communities of Practice, CRC Taylor &Francis Press, 2008.
3. D.A. Norman, Things That Make Us Smart, Addison-Wesley, 1993.
4. A. Endsley and R. Hoffman, "The Sacagawea Principle," IEEE Intelligent Systems, Nov./Dec. 2002, pp. 80–85.
5. T.B. Sheridan, "Task Analysis, Task Allocation, and Supervisory Control," Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd ed., M.G. Helander, T.K. Landauer, and P. Prabhu, eds., Elsevier Science, 1997, pp. 87–105.
6. L. Bainbridge, "Ironies of Automation," Automatica, vol. 19, no. 6, 1983, pp. 775–779.
7. D.D. Woods and N.B. Sarter, "Learning from Automation Surprises and 'Going Sour' Accidents," Cognitive Engineering in the Aviation Domain, N.B. Sarter and R. Amalberti, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000, pp. 327–353.
8. R.R. Hoffmann and W.C. Elm, "HCC Implications for the Procurement Process," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 21, no. 1, 2006, pp. 74–81.
9. N.J. Cooke and F. Durso, Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes, CRC Press, 2007.
10. A.M. Bisantz et al., "Integrating Cognitive Analyses in a Large-Scale System Design Process," Int'l J. Human-Computer Studies, vol. 58, no. 2, 2002, pp. 117–206.
11. J. Rasmussen, A.M. Pejtersen, and L.P. Goodstein, eds., Cognitive Systems Engineering, John Wiley &Sons, 1994.
12. J. Rasmussen, A.M. Pejtersen, and K. Schmidt, Taxonomy for Cognitive Work Analysis, tech. report RISØ-M-2871, RisøNat'l Laboratory, 1990.
13. K.J. Vicente, Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.
14. R.R. Hoffman and G. Lintern, "Eliciting and Representing the Knowledge of Experts," Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, K.A. Ericsson et al., eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006, pp. 203–222.
15. N. Naikar and P. Sanderson, "Evaluating System Design Proposals with Work Domain Analysis," Human Factors, vol. 43, 2001, pp. 529–542.
17 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool