7.1.8 Support usage in both time critical and time uncritical
conditions
When the user is under time pressure, a satisficing decision-making process takes place,
suppressing the importance of making optimal decisions and solutions. When time is less
of the essence, the focus will shift towards making these more optimal, resulting in two
different ways of using the system. When under time pressure, it is important that the
Operations Monitor responds to the user’s interactions in a quick manner.
If the Operations Monitor is carrying out work, it should show the work process
by displaying for example a progress bar, and preferably the estimated time of when it
will be finished. Also, information and actions should never be “far away” from the user,
i.e. no further than a few clicks. Keep relevant information close at hand. Toolbars are a
way of achieving this, providing easy access to often-used functions by clicking a toolbar
button. It is also important that the crew controller can quickly get the information of an
alert.
When the user has more time, more attention can be paid to creating more
optimal solutions, using optimal decision-making. In this phase, the operations monitor
should support the user by providing, for instance, a scenario tool as stated in 7.1.5c, so
that the user can focus on creating and comparing different solutions.
8 A N S W E R I N G T H E Q U E S T I O N S T A T E M E N T
From the extensive research conducted we are now able to address the questions that
were formulated in the introduction chapter of this master thesis.
What is the purpose of the Operations Monitor?
The purpose of the Operations Monitor is basically to provide the crew controller with a
tool that can present information about problems involving crewmembers. As our user
and task analysis proved, the crew controller currently spends a substantial amount of
time searching for information on problems and their effects, when they should be using
that time resolving it instead. The Operations Monitor supports the crew controller in
this manner by facilitating the process of discovering, and retrieving information about, a
problem so that he or she can instead focus on the process of solution generation.
How will the incorporation of the Operations Monitor change the way the user
works?
The answer to the previous question has somewhat already answered this. Due to the
fact that the user’s work will be more focused on solving problems than detecting them,
his or her way of working has consequently been subject to change. The crew controller
will spend less time searching for problems and surrounding information, using the
Operations Monitor for the primary source of information. However, in the task analysis
chapter, under new ways of working, and also in the guidelines, we have established that
to what extent it will change is dependent on to which degree and what purpose the crew
controller chooses to use the Operations Monitor.
The Operations Monitor is flexible in the sense that it allows usage in different
degrees. The crew controller can use it as simply a monitoring source, becoming aware of
potential problems. Another possibility is to use it for the purpose of information
retrieval, looking up details on specific crewmembers, flights etc. Finally, he may also use
the Operations Monitor in it’s full capacity, utilizing both of the functions just mentioned
and also the function of creating a disruption from the information provided by the
Operations Monitor and sending it to the Disruption Manager, using the rest of the
Descartes system for solution generation.
What present ways of working must be taken into account?
The user and task analysis has provided us with the conclusion that the crew controller is
very familiar with his domain and relies heavily on experience gained throughout his
working period. Furthermore, our tests and evaluations have concluded that this
experience is of great importance in their day-to-day work, and that experience cannot be
totally replaced by a system like the Operations Monitor and Descartes.
It has also given us the conclusion that if we provide the means of effectively
making the crew controller aware of an alert and its scope, and providing quick access to
information on resources that are affected by it, this will greatly relieve the crew
controller in the phase of gathering information. His current experience in for instance
seeing which problems, i.e. the alerts in the Operations Monitor, are related, which
method of attacking the problem and generating a solution should be used, which rules
can effectively be broken etc must be preserved. This knowledge is, as stated above, the
result of the experiences of working as a crew controller and is very difficult to duplicate
in automated systems.
What is the users context and how are they organized?
The user analysis has shown that the environment in which the crew controller works,
i.e. the operations control room, is highly dynamic, containing both auditory and visual
disturbances. They are situated near other resource areas, which they currently rely on for
information and that affect their own work.
What visualization techniques are suitable for this type of work task and
environment?
On the day of operation, many problems can occur at any given time, as stated by the
task analysis. The crew controller may be forced to work with several related or unrelated
problems at the same time, and parallel to this keep an eye on the overall situation for
any new problems that may occur. In the guidelines, we conclude that a suitable
alternative to allow the crew controller to both work with a detailed view of an alert and
at the same time perceiving the overall situation is by implementing a focus+context
visualization technique.
How do different aspects in the work environment and the user’s tasks affect the
use of an Operations Monitor?
In the background chapter we conclude that the priority of a problem and the time
constraint placed on the crew controller greatly influences in what manner he or she uses
the Operations Monitor. If the crew controller under a tight time frame handles a
problem of high priority and great impact, he or she will most likely be using satisficing
decision-making, concentrating on quickly solving the issue instead of creating good
solutions. Given time, however, this will probably shift towards optimal decision-making,
where the user can focus on creating an effective solution to the problem. This affects
how the crew controller will use the Operations Monitor; as a quick source of
information, or as a tool for, with Descartes, creating optimal solutions.
9 D I S C U S S I O N
In this chapter the results will be discussed, as well as the method used, and the over all
work. What factors have affected the results will be discussed, what could have been
done differently, what could have been made better, what have been learnt from this and
what have the Interaction Designer perspective contributed with.
Bạn đang xem 7. - AIRLINE CREW CONTROL OPERATIONS MONITOR: PART 2