Group-view displays present information to multiple personnel simultaneously. Recent developments in human-system interface technologies have the potential of increasing the effectiveness of group-view displays in control centers. While established human factors guidelines exist for many visual characteristics of group-view displays, limited guidance has been available regarding the functions that these display systems should provide to enhance crew performance in control room settings. This paper draws research findings from the areas of teamwork, computer-supported cooperative work, and human-computer interface design to describe four functions that group-view displays may perform to support various aspects of team performance in advanced control centers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlahaR. J. (1992). Emerging large-screen display technology (Tech. Report ESD-TR-92-226). Hanscom AFB, MA: U. S. Air Force: Electronic Systems Division.
2.
EPRI (1994). Guidelines for large screen displays in control rooms (TR-102710). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
3.
EPRI (1992). Advanced light water reactor utility requirements document, Volume II ALWR evolutionary plant, Chapter 10 Man-machine interface systems.Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
4.
GreenbergS. (Ed.). (1991). Computer-supported cooperative work and groupware.San Diego: Academic Press Inc. Ltd.
5.
GriefI. (Ed.). (1988). Computer-supported cooperative work: A book of readings.San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
6.
HochbergJ.BrooksV. (1979). Film cutting and visual momentum. In SendersJ. W.FisherD. F.MontyR. A. (Eds.) Eye movements and higher psychological functions. (pp. 293–313). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
HofmannH. (1989). Cockpit concept: Small and simple. Nuclear Engineering International, 43–44.
8.
HutchinsE. (1990). The technology of team navigation. In GalegherJ.KrautR.EgidoC. (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technical bases of cooperative work. (pp. 191–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
KrasnerH. (1991). Groupware research and technology issues with application to software process management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21 (4), 704–712.
10.
KindborgM.KollerbaurA. (1987). Graphical tools for description of dynamic models - Problems and prospects. In BullingerH. J.ShackelB. (Eds.), INTERACT1987 (pp. 631–636). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.
11.
O'HaraJ.BrownW. (1994). Advanced human system interface design review guideline (NUREG/CR-5908). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12.
O'HaraJ.BrownW.StublerW.WachtelJ.PersenskyJ. (1995). Human system interface design review guideline (Draft NUREG-0700, Rev 1.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
13.
O'HaraJ.StublerW.BrownW.WachtelJ.PersenskyJ. (1995). Comprehensive guidance for the evaluation of human-systems interfaces in complex systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
14.
O'HaraJ.HigginsJ.StublerW.GoodmanC.EckenrodeR.BongarraJ.GallettiG. (1994). Human factors engineering program review model (NUREG-0711). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15.
OserR.McCallumG.SalasE.MorganB. B. (1989). Toward a definition of team work: An analysis of critical team behaviors (Tech. Report 89-004). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center, Human Factors Division.
16.
ReiersenC.BakerS.MarshallE.VerleA.GertmanD. (1987). Further evaluations exercises with the integrated process status overview - IPSO (Tech. Report HWR-184). Halden, Norway: Halden Reactor Project.
17.
SalasE.DickinsonT. L.ConverseS. A.TannenbaumS. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training, In SwezeyR. W.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
18.
SegalL. D. (1995). Effects of Checklist Interface on Non-Verbal Crew Communications. NASA Contractor Report 177639. Moffett Field; NASA Ames Research Center.
19.
StublerW.O'HaraJ. (1995). Group-view displays: Functional characteristics and review criteria (Tech. Report E2090-T4-4-12/94). Upton, New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
20.
StublerW. F.RothE. M.MumawR. J. (1991). Evaluation issues for computer-based control rooms. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, (pp 383–387). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
21.
TangJ. C. (1991). Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. In GreenbergS. (Ed.), Computer-supported cooperative work and groupware (pp. 11–28). San Diego: Academic Press Inc. Ltd.
22.
U. S. Department of Defense (1989). Military standard - human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipment and facilities (MIL STD-1472D). Washington, D.C.: Office of Management and Budget.
23.
WoodsD. D. (1984). Visual momentum: A concept to improve the cognitive coupling of a person and computer. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 21, 229–244, London: Academic Press Inc. Ltd.
24.
WoodsD. D.EliasG. S. (1988). Significance messages: An integral display concept, In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp 1350–1354). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
25.
WoodsD. D.RothE. M.StublerW. F.MumawR. J. (1990). Navigating through large display networks in dynamic control applications. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 396–399). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
26.
ZinserK.FrischenschlagerF. (1994). Multimedia's push into power, IEEE Spectrum, July, 44–48.
