Oregon State University
School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering

IE 546, Human-Machine Systems Engineering

Spring Term 2008

Description | Learning Outcomes | Instructor | Readings |HMSE Project | Exams | Grading | HFES | Academic Honesty | Schedule

IE 546 is a graduate level course presenting a human-centered systems approach to engineering more effective and safer systems. The course is organized around a guided team project of substantial significance and complexity.

OSU Catalog Description

Development of safe, high performance human-machine systems. System/function/task analysis, function allocation, design, mockups and rapid prototyping, human factors test and evaluation. PREREQ: IE 445/IE 545.

Learning Outcomes

After completing this course, students should be able to

1. clearly describe the human-machine systems engineering process;
2. develop and manage requirements for a human-machine system, based upon a Statement of Need, analyses, and human factors principles and guidelines;
3. analyze the system, processes, and tasks to understand the system and write formal requirements;
4. design processes, workstations, human-machine interfaces, and procedures to meet requirements;
5. implement models, mockups, or prototypes according to design specifications; and
6. evaluate models, mockups, or prototypes with respect to the requirements and general human factors considerations.

Instructor

Dr. Ken Funk
E-mail: funkk@engr.orst.edu
Phone: 541-737-2357
Office: 212 Rogers Hall
Office Hours: Mondays, Wednesdays 1:30 – 2:50

Readings

The following readings will be used in the order shown in the schedule. Students shall read these before class and be prepared to discuss them.

Bailey, R.W. (1996). Written instructions. In R.W. Bailey, Human Performance Engineering (pp. 419 - 462). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bailey, R.W. (1996b). Written instructions. In R.W. Bailey, Human Performance Engineering (pp. 419 - 462). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chapanis, A. (1996). System requirements. In A. Chapanis, Human Factors In Systems Engineering (pp. 270 – 287). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 270 - 287.

Chapanis, A. (1996b). "Task Analysis, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis". In A. Chapanis, Human Factors In Systems Engineering (pp. 270 – 287). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 105 - 109, 113 - 115.

Crow, K. (2002). Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Palos Verdes, CA: DRM Associates. Retrieved 18 April 2008 from http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html.

Degani, A. & Wiener, E.L. (1997). Procedures in complex systems: the airline cockpit, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, 27 (3), pp. 302 – 312. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/3468/12355/00568739.pdf?arnumber=568739.

Department of Defense (2004). Chapter 6, Human System Integration (HSI), in Defense Acquisition Guidebook. Retrieved 30 May 2008 from https://akss.dau.mil/dag/GuideBook/PDFs/Chapter_6.pdf.

Funk II, K.H., Bauer, J.D., Doolen, T.D., Telasha, D. Nicolalde, R.J., Reeber, M., & Long, M. (in preparation). The use of modeling to identify vulnerabilities to human error in surgical processes: a case study in closed laparoscopy. Manuscript in preparation.

Funk, K. & Braune, R. (1999). The AgendaManager: A knowledge-based system to facilitate the management of flight deck activities, SAE 1999-01-5536, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, presented at 1999 World Aviation Congress, San Francisco, CA, October 19-21, 1999.

Gawande, A. (2007). The checklist. The New Yorker, December 10, 2007. Retrieved 27 March 2008 from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande.

Harris, D., Stanton, N.,A., Marshall, A., Young, M.S., Demagalski, J., Salmon, P. (2005). Using SHERPA to predict design-induced error on the flight deck, Aerospace Science and Technology, 9 (2005), pp. 525 – 532). Retrieved 1 April 2008 from https://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/980/2/Using%20SHERPA-Revised.pdf.

Hooks, I. (1993). Writing Good Requirements. Retrieved 27 March 2008 from http://www.complianceautomation.com/papers/writingreqs.htm.

Jansen, C. & Steehouder, M. (1997). Designing procedures as a foundation for instruction. In IPPC ’97 Proceedings, ‘Crossroads in Communication’, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 22 – 25, 1997, pp. 9 – 15. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/5022/13778/00637025.pdf?arnumber=637025.

Lee, S, Funk II, K.H., Feuerbacher, R., Hsiao, Y.C. (2007). Development of an emergency C-section facilitator using a human-machine systems engineering approach, Proceedings of the IIE Annual Conference and Expo 2007, Nashville, TN, May 19-23 2007, pp. 1630-1635.

Mast, J. (2007). Human Factors Engineering Design and Evaluation Checklist. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Department of Industrial and Manuc.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (1993). Integration Definition For Function Modeling (IDEF0), Draft Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 183. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 27 March 2008 from http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/idef02.doc.

Sharit, J. (1998). Applying human and system reliability analysis to the design of written procedures in high-risk industries. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 8 (3), pp. 265 – 281. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/38923/PDFSTART.

Williams, K., A. Yost, J. Holland, & R.R. Tyler (2002). Assessment of Advanced Cockpit Displays for General Aviation Aircraft – The Capstone Program. Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. Retrieved 27 March 2008 from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/capstone/media/Bethel%20Data%20Collection%20Summary.pdf.

>>

Human-Machine Systems Engineering Project

Students will work in teams to develop and evaluate human-machine systems selected by the instructor. Assignments for each project phase will be given in class and each team shall prepare progress reports according to the course schedule.

Each progress report shall consist of a one-to-two page cover memo and copies of the work products completed in the period just ending. Authorship of the memos shall rotate among team members and each memo shall include the following information.

• Purpose of the project (i.e., the HMS in development)
• Objectives for the period just ending.
• Method used to complete the work.
• Summary of work completed.
• Difficulties encountered.
• Objectives and plans for the next work period, including how to address the difficulties.

In addition to the written progress report submitted to the instructor in class on the day specified in the schedule, each team shall give a brief oral progress report to the class on the same day.

At the end of the term, each team shall prepare a final report containing the following.

• A project summary, including
  • the statement of need;
  • a description of the analysis, design, and evaluation processes; and
  • a description of the final prototype, detailing how it will meet the need.
• The final requirements.
• Final versions of all other work products, including
  • system models,
  • user and environment descriptions,
  • IDEF0 process models,
  • task descriptions, and
  • prototype images (e.g., screen shots, photos).

Each team shall give an oral presentation at the end of the term summarizing the content of the final report.

Additional assignments related to the projects may be made by the instructor, such as literature reviews or technology assessments. Results from these shall be incorporated into appropriate progress reports.

Examinations

Examinations will cover readings and discussions. The midterm examination will be over all of them covered from the beginning of the term through the preceding class meeting. The exam will be closed book, closed notes, except that students may bring to the exam and use one 4” x 6” notecard with handwritten notes (both sides) for each reading and discussion. The final examination will cover material from the class after the midterm examination through the end of the term. The exam will be closed book, closed notes, but one notecard may be used for each reading and discussion.

Grading

The grading scale is as follows:

Oral and written progress reports and the final report will be graded on content criteria, including

• completeness – the extent to which the report meets all of the requirements assigned;
• technical accuracy – the extent to which the work uses appropriate methods correctly; and
• timeliness – the extent to which the report was delivered on time.

Written reports will be graded on content criteria and writing criteria, including

• factual accuracy – the extent to which the text is factually correct;
• logic – the extent to which conclusions drawn in the text follow logically from the premises;
• organization – the extent to which the text follows a rational, understandable order;
• clarity – the extent to which the writing makes the content understandable to a reader;
• style – the use of person, voice, and other elements of writing style appropriate to a technical audience;
• wording – the choice of correct and appropriate words;
• sentence structure – syntactically correct and readable sentence construction;
• grammar – the extent to which the writing conforms with accepted rules of English grammar;
• spelling – the extent to which words are spelled correctly;
• punctuation – the use of correct punctuation;
• formatting – the extent to which document formatting (headings and subheadings, text font, face, indentation, bullets and numbering, page breaks, etc.) are used to enhance readability, organization, and clarity; and
• length – whether the length of the document is within the limits set by the instructor.

Any questions or concerns about the grading of specific work must be brought to the attention of the instructor within one week of when the graded work is returned.

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Membership

Students who find the topic of this course particularly interesting are encouraged to join the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society as student affiliates. The annual student fee of $35 is a bargain. The instructor is a member and would be happy to endorse student applications.

Academic Honesty

This statement is provided in compliance with Oregon State University policy. Academic dishonesty is prohibited, it is considered a violation of the OSU Student Conduct Regulations, and any instances of it will be dealt with accordingly. Academic dishonesty includes cheating (the intentional use of unauthorized materials, information, or study aids), fabrication (intentional falsification or invention of any information), assisting in dishonesty (intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another commit an act of dishonesty), tampering (altering or interfering with evaluation instruments or documents), and plagiarism (intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another person's as ones' own). Any questions regarding academic honesty should be referred to the instructor or to the OSU Student Conduct & Mediation page, from which the above definitions were derived.

Schedule

(subject to change)

Description | Learning Outcomes | Instructor | Readings |HMSE Project | Exams | Grading | HFES | Academic Honesty | Schedule

Revised 30 May 2008