1.8 SUPPORT USAGE IN BOTH TIME CRITICAL AND TIME UNCRITICAL CONDITIO...

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.