Cognitive Task Analysis—A Review - Fundamentals and Assessment Tools for Occupational Ergonomics - page 725

7. Poor interpretation of CTA outputs — It is apparent that there are problems associated with the
interpretation of the outputs offered from CTA analyses. Exactly what the outputs mean in
relation to the project goals is often misinterpreted. As a result, the applicability and benefits
of the approaches are often misunderstood. 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.
8. Limited reliability and validity evidence associated with CTA techniques — The problem of the
validation of HF techniques remains a primary concern when considering HF method appli-
cations. As with other method types such as human error identification (HEI), situation aware-
ness (SA) measurement, and mental workload (MWL) assessment, the literature revealed a
distinct lack of CTA validation studies.
9. Lack of TCTA techniques — At the moment, there appears to be only a limited number of CTA
techniques that can be applied in team settings. The provision of TCTA techniques is a critical
requirement when considering the application of CTA in C4i environments. Exactly how to
measure the cognitive processes involved in team performance and collaboration requires
further investigation.
10. Lengthy training requirements associated with CTA techniques — Typical CTA approaches require
a lengthy training procedure, and practitioners are required to be proficient in a number of
different techniques (e.g., knowledge elicitation, task analysis, etc.) in order to use the techniques
efficiently.
11. Requirement of a multidisciplinary team in order to conduct CTA analyses effectively — A typical
CTA analysis effort requires a multidisciplinary team. According to Shute et al. (2000), a vast
number of appropriately skilled personnel are required if a CTA is to be conducted properly.
It is often difficult to assemble such multidisciplinary teams, let alone gather them together at
one location for any period of time.
Despite the problems associated with the use of CTA techniques, their provision during the design life-
cycle is essential. The original aim of the CTA methods review was to evaluate the suitability of existing
CTA methods for use during the design, development, and evaluation of C4i systems. The methods
review highlighted a subset of CTA techniques that appear to be suitable for use in C4i environments.
These techniques are presented in Table 36.12.
Furthermore, the methods review highlighted that the different CTA approaches are more suitable at
different stages of the CADMID design lifecycle. Thus, it is tentatively concluded that the selection of the
most appropriate CTA approach is dependent upon the stage in the CADMID (Concept, Assessment,
Demonstration, Manufacture, In-service, and Disposal) lifecycle that the CTA analysis is required. The
CADMID cycle (SEA Technologies, 2002) refers to the series of stages that are designed to take the
project in question through its whole life, from the initial concept stage to its disposal. There is a require-
ment for human factors integration (HFI) input at each stage in the CADMID cycle. A brief description
of each of the CADMID stages is given subsequentyly (adapted from Anon, 2002):
. Concept — The concept stage represents the beginning of any project, and requires an analysis of
the human issues related to the proposed project, and also an assessment of the associated risks and
requirements. The concept process is normally referred to as early human factors analysis (EHFA).
. Assessment — During the assessment stage, more detailed work is conducted in order to quantify
the HFI issues and risks. Information regarding the user tasks, working conditions, and expected
performance is normally required during this stage. Issues such as manpower reduction, workload,
and performance shortfalls are also assessed during this stage. The main objective during the assess-
ment stage is to focus on the human-related issues arising from the project in question.
. Demonstration — During the demonstration stage, specifications are refined to ensure robust HFI
content, and clear human performance targets are specified.