Ecological Interface to Enhance User Performance in Adjusting Computer-Controlled Multihead Weigher

Decision Support for Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Application of the Cognitive Systems Engineering and Ecological Interface Design Approach

“…Upton and Doherty (2006, p. 27) used the CSE abstraction/aggregation analytical tools and EID principles of design in developing decision support for a semiconductor manufacturing plant, but found it necessary "… to make adjustments to both of these frameworks." Several FMS researchers have found these tools to be unsuitable for FMS (e.g., Higgins, 1998Higgins, , 1999Krosner et al, 1989):…”

“…239-240). Higgins (1998Higgins ( , 1999 struggled with the question of where the "function of scheduling" fits into the abstraction hierarchy. As our AH analyses reveal (see Figures 1 and 2), there is a production schedule (constraints at the top AH level) and the objects being manufactured are flowing through the system (topologies at the next level down).…”

“…In this section we address a number of concerns raised by Higgins (1998Higgins ( , 1999 with regard to the adequacy of the decision ladder for analyzing behavior in the FMS work domain.…”

“…There have been a number of previous attempts to apply the CSE/EID framework to FMS (e.g., Upton & Doherty, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008; Furukawa, 2009, 2010; Higgins, 1998; Horiguchi et al, 2007; Horiguchi et al, 2010; Kinsley et al, 1994; Krosner et al, 1989). However, many of these efforts have not proven successful; several researchers have raised concerns regarding the suitability of CSE/EID for FMS.…”

Ecological Interface Design Two Decades On: Whatever Happened to the SRK Taxonomy?

“…Sharp and Helmicki (1998) [88] "[WDA] captured the constraints that govern the behaviour of the system at various levels of abstraction and enable the identification of the variables important for system understanding" (p. 3) Burns (2000) [93] "10 views [in the interface] were designed to demonstrate the information in each cell of the AH" (p. 114) [6] "from the model of how the system works, critical information for the displays can be identified" (p. 370) Cummings et al (2004) [102] "the AH provided not only structure for domain information but also directly informed the design process" (p. 493) Memisevic et al (2005) [110] Levels in the AH "underscore the connection between functional properties and the physical components of the complex system" (p. 3) Seppelt et al (2005) [37] "The abstraction hierarchy identifies the information requirements for an interface through a systematic analysis of the drivers' environment" (p. 10) Horiguchi et al (2007) [122] The AH "can give designers a useful guide for organizing the display of all relevant information variables" (p. 885) Bennett et al (2008) [124] The AH and ADS "provide a structured approach for a designer to determine the informational content that needs to be present in the display" (p. 354) Hilliard and Jamieson (2008) [131] The WDA reveals "what needs to be presented" (p. 7) [133] The AH/ADS reveals "the constraints, invariants and parameters crucial to problem solving that should be contained within an interface" (p. 3582) Lee et al (2008) [136] The AH is about "gathering these relationships in the form of information requirements" (p. 388) Horiguchi et al (2010) [147] WDA reveal "what kind of information should be specified for supporting quick and correct decisions" (p. 2) Cleveland et al (2011) [148] The AH "is the 'map' that lays out the structure and constraints of the system" (p. 209) Young and Birrell (2012) [8] "The AH can be used to establish what kind of information is to be displayed, as well as where, when and how it should be presented, and finally how to integrate pieces of information which need to be associated" (p. 227) Segall et al (2013) [154] "Means-ends relationships among variables [from the AH] are reflected in the grouping of data fields" (p. 62) The SRK "provides a basis for determining the form of information on the interface" (p. 233) Vicente (1996) …”