- Email: [email protected]
Discussion Of Session 6
DISCUSSION OF SESSION 6
6.1 S
must be weighted . Some parts of the system may fail or cause damage with smaller "error" than others .
MEASURING, MODELING AND AUGMENTING RELIABILITY OF MAN- MACHINE SYSTEMS
Johannsen: You have shown cuts in the model of the system partitioning this into parts, in order to separate failed parts . With different cuts, redundancy can also be achieved . How do you measure and display the many variables generated through the proposed technique for the human operator?
6.2 T
HUMAN RELIABILITY AND SAFETY EVALUATION OF MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS
Question : Do you think that the differences in subjects ' reliability between "cooperation" mode and "competition" mode are dependent on nationality or culture? Would you expect other results if the same experiments were carried out outside Japan?
Sheridan: The display is computer- graphic , one or more VDUs. A mimic of the whole system is shown. The operator may select which "cut" he would like to make and sees both the raw data discrepancy for each side of the cut as well as a Bayesian odds ratio of failure/no-failure for each side.
Terano : In my personal opinion, there exists more or less the correlation between human reliability and nationality. Generally speaking, the Japanese aspires to promote himself as much as he can. In such a case, European people intend to change the circumference surrounding them, but the Japanese tries to achieve the goal by increasing his ability. This attitude may be the reason why the subjects competed even in the cooperation mode. We have studied the relation between the human reliability and the personality by checking the results of psychological tests, but no clear relations were obtained. One of the interesting trends is that the older subjects were much more cooperative than the younger one, anyway .
Nzeako: How do we know at which points (parts of the system) to select feedback information to be presented to the human operator, and how is the feedback error weighted against the consequence (economic, safety, and/or personal consequence) of the error (human error) ? In other words, what is the relationship between the magnitude of the feedback error and the consequence of the human error? Sheridan: This is a good point. Somehow the importance of a discrepancy from the model
355
6.1 S
must be weighted . Some parts of the system may fail or cause damage with smaller "error" than others .
MEASURING, MODELING AND AUGMENTING RELIABILITY OF MAN- MACHINE SYSTEMS
Johannsen: You have shown cuts in the model of the system partitioning this into parts, in order to separate failed parts . With different cuts, redundancy can also be achieved . How do you measure and display the many variables generated through the proposed technique for the human operator?
6.2 T
HUMAN RELIABILITY AND SAFETY EVALUATION OF MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS
Question : Do you think that the differences in subjects ' reliability between "cooperation" mode and "competition" mode are dependent on nationality or culture? Would you expect other results if the same experiments were carried out outside Japan?
Sheridan: The display is computer- graphic , one or more VDUs. A mimic of the whole system is shown. The operator may select which "cut" he would like to make and sees both the raw data discrepancy for each side of the cut as well as a Bayesian odds ratio of failure/no-failure for each side.
Terano : In my personal opinion, there exists more or less the correlation between human reliability and nationality. Generally speaking, the Japanese aspires to promote himself as much as he can. In such a case, European people intend to change the circumference surrounding them, but the Japanese tries to achieve the goal by increasing his ability. This attitude may be the reason why the subjects competed even in the cooperation mode. We have studied the relation between the human reliability and the personality by checking the results of psychological tests, but no clear relations were obtained. One of the interesting trends is that the older subjects were much more cooperative than the younger one, anyway .
Nzeako: How do we know at which points (parts of the system) to select feedback information to be presented to the human operator, and how is the feedback error weighted against the consequence (economic, safety, and/or personal consequence) of the error (human error) ? In other words, what is the relationship between the magnitude of the feedback error and the consequence of the human error? Sheridan: This is a good point. Somehow the importance of a discrepancy from the model
355