Abstract

ObjectiveThis paper presents the Binary-Based Model (BBM), a new approach to Human Factors (HF) method selection. The BBM helps practitioners select the most appropriate HF methodology in relation to the complexity within the target system.BackgroundThere are over 200 HF methods available to the practitioner and little guidance to help choose between them.MethodThe BBM defines a HF “problem space” comprising three complexity attributes. HF problems can be rated against these attributes and located in the “problem space.” In addition, a similar HF “approach space” in which 66 predictive methods are rated according to their ability to confront those attributes is defined. These spaces are combined into a “utility space” in which problems and methods coexist. In the utility space, the match between HF problems and methods can be formally assessed.ResultsThe method space is split into octants to establish broad groupings of methods distributed throughout the space. About 77% of the methods reside in Octant 1 which corresponds to problems with low levels of complexity. This demonstrates that most HF methods are suited to problems in low-complexity systems.ConclusionThe location of 77% of the rated methods in Octant 1 indicates that HF practitioners are underserved with methods for analysis of HF problems exhibiting high complexity.ApplicationThe BBM can be used by multidisciplinary teams to select the most appropriate HF methodology for the problem under analysis. All the materials and analysis are placed in the public domain for modification and consensus building by the wider HF community.

Highlights

  • An Inconvenient TruthRecent Human Factors (HF) literature converges on a core idea

  • The location of 77% of the rated methods in Octant 1 indicates that HF practitioners are underserved with methods for analysis of HF problems exhibiting high complexity

  • Application: The Binary-B­ased Model (BBM) can be used by multidisciplinary teams to select the most appropriate HF methodology for the problem under analysis

Read more

Summary

Background

There are over 200 HF methods available to the practitioner and little guidance to help choose between them. Method: The BBM defines a HF “problem space” comprising three complexity attributes. HF problems can be rated against these attributes and located in the “problem space.”. A similar HF “approach space” in which 66 predictive methods are rated according to their ability to confront those attributes is defined. These spaces are combined into a “utility space” in which problems and methods coexist. The match between HF problems and methods can be formally assessed

Results
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
Selecting the method which maximizes PE
Method
Methods
Across Method Space Octants
CONCLUSION
KEY POINTS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call