This session rolled off with talks on human factor in the paper: There Is More to Monitoring a Nuclear Power Plant than Meets the Eye. By Randall J. Mumaw, Emilie M. Roth, Kim J. Vicente, Catherine M. Burns. Attached below:there-is-more-to-monitoring-a-nuclear-power-plant-than-meets-the-eye.doc
Paola talked about the nature of monitoring practice and implications for modelling: Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) operators are engaged in a number of tasks “Monitoring is interweaved with other ongoing responsibilities of managing tasks to generate power” pg. 37
Paola comment: Hypothesis: knowing the structural relations among these other tasks might reveal possible integration patterns. But we do not hear about this.
“Cognitive” hypothesis focused on selected processes are inadequate
• primary challenge to monitoring is operator vigilance;
• the primary demands in monitoring relate to selective attention;
• major difficulty in monitoring is one of visual perception;
• None of these hypotheses does justice to the richness of the phenomena we observed.
She further observed that individual recognition in interacting with the device also affects the way they translate the alarms. She noted that the designers have assumed the efficiency and effectiveness of the system/plant without any major emphasis on managerial or historical factors.The paper challenges that devices can not be designed based on individual cognition.
The meaning of monitoring these values and understanding the interactions among states of the components, and other variables. Absolute values does exist in isolation, there should be an understanding in relation to others.
Started as usual with a little natter before getting into the main business of the day, Andy and Bob was early trying to connect and steady the cameras, display unit the laptop ready to support/ enable project presentations.
Dikshit presented his progress on the augmented reality in architecture project; he talked about how to install multiple markers in one exe file, and how to change the colours, size and shape of the AR building blocks.
After the lunch break, Anoi briefly presented his EPG (electronic programme guide). Then I explained to the team that in order to extract some ideas, I have applied Jakob Nielsen’s ten heuristic principles in evaluating an exiting website similar to my service design idea, I also showed my storyboard. Furthermore, I prepared a hierarchical task analysis for my project. In my feedback they advised that through my research and requirement gathering, I should lay some emphasis on service ecology, service blue print and persona.
After me was David who illustrated his project progress with some graphic presentation and an article on lead user innovation in social media.
Finally, Halil got a feedback based on what he showed the team, same as Madushani who had already used the lunch break to get clarifications from Bob on the next line of action for her work.
