Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
normally require the provision of a multidisciplinary team over a lengthy period of time. For example,
a CTA of a military-based task would, at least, require the following personnel:
.
Cognitive psychologists
.
Human factors engineers
.
System designers
.
Research staff
.
Various military subject matter experts
Of course, it is often difficult to assemble such multidisciplinary teams, let alone gather them together at
one location for any period of time. The problems of cost and personnel shortages ensure that the process
of merely getting to the stage where a CTA analysis can actually commence is a very difficult one. As a
result, the problems associated with the cost, time invested, and personnel required may far outweigh
the benefits associated with conducting the CTA in the first place. Consequently, organizations may
be put off conducting CTA-type analyses by the cost-effectiveness issue alone, let alone the other
problems associated with it.
Alongside the resource intensiveness of CTA techniques, there are also a number of associated meth-
odological concerns. An analysis of the literature reveals a common problem associated with the format
and presentation of the results of cognitive task analyses. It is apparent that once a CTA has been con-
ducted and the results obtained, exactly what the results mean in relation to the problem goals is often
difficult to understand or is often misinterpreted. It is also evident that it is often not clear what to do
with the results of a CTA. Shute et al. (2000) highlight the imprecise and vague nature of CTA techniques.
It seems that the great amount of resources that are invested in a CTA effort are often wasted as the output
fails to be interpreted adequately by the system designers and their counterparts. Potter et al. (2000)
describe a bottleneck that occurs during the transition from CTA to system design, and suggest that
the information gained during the CTA must be effectively translated into design requirements and
specifications.
Potter et al. (2000) conducted a review of CTA techniques in order to evaluate the current state of prac-
tice in CTA. They discovered that there was a wide diversity in the CTA techniques employed, the type of
information generated, and also the manner in which the information is presented. According to Potter
et al. (2000), this diversity has led to confusion as to what CTA actually refers to, what results are expected
from CTA, and how the results will effect system development and evaluation. It was also concluded that
typical CTA approaches are labor intensive and generate huge amounts of data, which, of course, leads to
a lengthy transcription process.
Schraagen et al. (2000) conducted a review of existing CTA techniques and computer-based CTA tools.
The review indicated that although there were a large number of CTA techniques available, they were
generally limited. It was also concluded that there is limited guidance available in assisting practitioners
in the selection of the most appropriate CTA techniques, in how to use the available CTA techniques, and
also how to use the output of the CTA. As a result of the review of existing CTA techniques, Schraagen
et al. (2000) identified the following issues surrounding CTA that require further investigation:
1. Validity and reliability of CTA techniques
2. CTA for novel tasks and systems
3. CTA for tasks that are difficult to verbalize (e.g., spatial tasks)
4. Requirements for analysts (e.g., level of training required)
5. Conditions under which CTA techniques should be employed
6. Relation between the purpose of the CTA and the results of the activity
7. Team CTA
8. Relationship between CTA techniques and theories of cognition
9. Individual differences and their implications for solutions
10. Effects of environmental stressors on the conduct of CTA
11. Defining and selecting expertise
Search WWH ::
Custom Search