SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Decisions made in the earliest phases of system development have the most leverage to influence the success of the entire development effort, and yet must be made when information is incomplete and uncertain. We have developed a scalable cost-benefit model to support this critical phase of early-lifecycle decision-making.
This paper describes the implications of a naturalistic decision making (NDM) perspective for training air crews to make flight-related decisions. The implications are based on two types of analyses: (a) identification of distinctive features that serve as a basis for classifying a diverse set of decision events actually encountered by flight crews, and (b) performance strategies that distinguished more from less effective crews flying full-mission simulators, as well as performance analyses from NTSB accident investigations. Six training recommendations are offered: (1) Because of the diversity of decision situations, crews need to be aware that different strategies may be appropriate for different problems; (2) Given that situation assessment is essential to making a good decision, it is important to train specific content knowledge needed to recognize critical conditions, to assess risks and available time, and to develop strategies to verify or diagnose the problem; (3) Tendencies to oversimplify problems may be overcome by training to evaluate options in terms of goals, constraints, consequences, and prevailing conditions; (4) In order to provide the time to gather information and consider options, it is essential to manage the situation, which includes managing crew workload, prioritizing tasks, contingency planning, buying time (e.g., requesting holding or vectors), and using low workload periods to prepare for high workload; (5) Evaluating resource requirements ("What do I need?") and capabilities ("'What do I have?" ) are essential to making good decisions. Using resources to meet requirements may involve the cabin crew, ATC, dispatchers, and maintenance personnel; (6) Given that decisions must often be made under high risk, time pressure, and workload, train under realistic flight conditions to promote the development of robust decision skills.
Despite efforts to design systems and procedures to support 'correct' and safe operations in aviation, errors in human judgment still occur and contribute to accidents. In this paper we examine how an NDM (naturalistic decision making) approach might help us to understand the role of decision processes in negative outcomes. Our strategy was to examine a collection of identified decision errors through the lens of an aviation decision process model and to search for common patterns. The second, and more difficult, task was to determine what might account for those patterns. The corpus we analyzed consisted of tactical decision errors identified by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) from a set of accidents in which crew behavior contributed to the accident. A common pattern emerged: about three quarters of the errors represented plan-continuation errors, that is, a decision to continue with the original plan despite cues that suggested changing the course of action. Features in the context that might contribute to these errors were identified: (a) ambiguous dynamic conditions and (b) organizational and socially-induced goal conflicts. We hypothesize that 'errors' are mediated by underestimation of risk and failure to analyze the potential consequences of continuing with the initial plan. Stressors may further contribute to these effects. Suggestions for improving performance in these error-inducing contexts are discussed.
Significant technology advances will enable future aerospace systems to safely and reliably make decisions autonomously, or without human interaction. The decision-making may result in actions that enable an aircraft or spacecraft in an off-nominal state or with slightly degraded components to achieve mission performance and safety goals while reducing or avoiding damage to the aircraft or spacecraft. Some key technology enablers for autonomous decision-making include: a continuous state awareness through the maturation of the prognostics health management field, novel sensor development, and the considerable gains made in computation power and data processing bandwidth versus system size. Sophisticated algorithms and physics based models coupled with these technological advances allow reliable assessment of a system, subsystem, or components. Decisions that balance mission objectives and constraints with remaining useful life predictions can be made autonomously to maintain safety requirements, optimal performance, and ensure mission objectives. This autonomous approach to decision-making will come with new risks and benefits, some of which will be examined in this paper. To start, an account of previous work to categorize or quantify autonomy in aerospace systems will be presented. In addition, a survey of perceived risks in autonomous decision-making in the context of piloted aircraft and remotely piloted or completely autonomous unmanned autonomous systems (UAS) will be presented based on interviews that were conducted with individuals from industry, academia, and government.
Decisions requiring passenger comfort technology were shown to depend on: the relationship between comfort and other factors (e.g., cost, urgency, alternate modes) in traveler acceptance of the systems, serving a selected market require technology to quantify effects of comfort versus offsetting factors in system acceptance. Public predict the maximum percentage of travelers who willingly accept the overall comfort of any trip ride. One or the other of these technology requirements apply to decisions on system design, operation and maintenance.
Flight crews must make decisions and take action when systems fail or emergencies arise during flight. These situations may involve high stress. Full-missiion flight simulation studies have shown that crews differ in how effectively they cope in these circumstances, judged by operational errors and crew coordination. The present study analyzed the problem solving and decision making strategies used by crews led by captains fitting three different personality profiles. Our goal was to identify more and less effective strategies that could serve as the basis for crew selection or training. Methods: Twelve 3-member B-727 crews flew a 5-leg mission simulated flight over 1 1/2 days. Two legs included 4 abnormal events that required decisions during high workload periods. Transcripts of videotapes were analyzed to describe decision making strategies. Crew performance (errors and coordination) was judged on-line and from videotapes by check airmen. Results: Based on a median split of crew performance errors, analyses to date indicate a difference in general strategy between crews who make more or less errors. Higher performance crews showed greater situational awareness - they responded quickly to cues and interpreted them appropriately. They requested more decision relevant information and took into account more constraints. Lower performing crews showed poorer situational awareness, planning, constraint sensitivity, and coordination. The major difference between higher and lower performing crews was that poorer crews made quick decisions and then collected information to confirm their decision. Conclusion: Differences in overall crew performance were associated with differences in situational awareness, information management, and decision strategy. Captain personality profiles were associated with these differences, a finding with implications for crew selection and training.
Research on human decision making has traditionally focused on how people actually make decisions, how good their decisions are, and how their decisions can be improved. Recent research suggests that this model is inadequate. Affective as well as cognitive components drive the way information about relevant outcomes and events is perceived, integrated, and used in the decision making process. The affective components include how the individual frames outcomes as good or bad, whether the individual anticipates regret in a decision situation, the affective mood state of the individual, and the psychological stress level anticipated or experienced in the decision situation. A focus of the current work has been to propose empirical studies that will attempt to examine in more detail the relationships between the latter two critical affective influences (mood state and stress) on decision making behavior.
Human decision making in manned space flight including topics on memory models, signal detection, and pilot performance
The National Airspace System s capacity will experience considerable growth in the next few decades. Weather adversely affects safe air travel. The FAA and NASA are working to develop new technologies that display weather information to support situation awareness and optimize pilot decision-making in avoiding hazardous weather. Understanding situation awareness and naturalistic decision-making is an important step in achieving this goal. Information representation and situation time stress greatly influence attentional resource allocation and working memory capacity, potentially obstructing accurate situation awareness assessments. Three naturalistic decision-making theories were integrated to provide an understanding of the levels of decision making incorporated in three operational situations and two conditions. The task characteristics associated with each phase of flight govern the level of situation awareness attained and the decision making processes utilized. Weather product s attributes and situation task characteristics combine to classify weather products according to the decision-making processes best supported. In addition, a graphical interface is described that affords intuitive selection of the appropriate weather product relative to the pilot s current flight situation.
The importance of crew decision making to aviation safety has been well established through NTSB accident analyses: Crew judgment and decision making have been cited as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents in commercial air transport, general aviation, and military aviation. Yet the bulk of research on decision making has not proven helpful in improving the quality of decisions in the cockpit. One reason is that traditional analytic decision models are inappropriate to the dynamic complex nature of cockpit decision making and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions. A new model of dynamic naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove more useful for training or aiding cockpit decision making. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulation and National Transportation Safety Board accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation and reflect the crew's metacognitive skill. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relation between communication that serves to build performance. Implications of these findings for crew training will be discussed.
Innovation, technology, and the making of decisions are tightly intertwined in what can generally be called, strategic decision making. Although true for all firms, it is especially true in innovative, high technology firms that operate in a turbulent, fast moving environment where strategic decisions must be made accurately and quickly to survive. This paper looks at some factors reported in the literature that affect how and why the strategic decision process is so important, especially in companies in fast-moving, competitive environments. The work of several prominent authors who looked critically at past theory and research, and the current state of knowledge and practice, provides a perspective of how firms make strategic decisions.
In traditional laboratory studies of decision making, the experimenter structures the problem, defines the goal and specifies available information. In contrast, when people make decisions in non-laboratory environments characterized as complex, dynamic and consequential, they must first identify the problem and determine what information and responses are relevant. The present research was designed to investigate which situational aspects are important to experienced pilots making aviation decisions. Twenty-eight professional pilots were asked to sort descriptions of 22 aircraft incidents into piles involving similar types of major decisions. Preliminary analyses suggest four underlying variables: time pressure, risk level, available resources, and certainty of goal attainment.
The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.
The Importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful In improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking In response to a problem, This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.
Significant findings of three studies undertaken to provide the NASA Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) Office with information regarding how aircraft manufacturers and commercial airlines make investment decisions concerning the acquisition of new and derivative technology are analyzed and their general implications explored. Topics discussed include: the market for airline aircraft, factors affecting the corporate decision making process of air transport manufacturers, and flight equipment purchasing practices of representative air carriers.
The human capability of making complex decision is one of the most fascinating facets of human intelligence, especially if vague, judgemental, default or uncertain knowledge is involved. Unfortunately, most existing rule based forward chaining languages are not very suitable to simulate this aspect of human intelligence, because of their lack of support for approximate reasoning techniques needed for this task, and due to the lack of specific constructs to facilitate the coding of frequently reoccurring decision block to provide better support for the design and implementation of rule based decision support systems. A language called BIRBAL, which is defined on the top of CLIPS, for the specification of decision blocks, is introduced. Empirical experiments involving the comparison of the length of CLIPS program with the corresponding BIRBAL program for three different applications are surveyed. The results of these experiments suggest that for decision making intensive applications, a CLIPS program tends to be about three times longer than the corresponding BIRBAL program.
Despite decision-making being a vital goal of data visualization, little work has been done to differentiate decision-making tasks within the field. While visualization task taxonomies and typologies exist, they often focus on more granular analytical tasks that are too low-level to describe large complex decisions, which can make it difficult to reason about and design decision-support tools. In this paper, we contribute a typology of decision-making tasks that were iteratively refined from a list of design goals distilled from a literature review. Our typology is concise and consists of only three tasks: CHOOSE, ACTIVATE, and CREATE. Although decision types originating in other disciplines exist, we provide definitions for these tasks that are suitable for the visualization community. Our proposed typology offers two benefits. First, the ability to compose and hierarchically organize the tasks enables flexible and clear descriptions of decisions with varying levels of complexities. Second, the typology encourages productive discourse between visualization designers and domain experts by abstracting the intricacies of data, thereby promoting clarity and rigorous analysis of decision-making processes. We demonstrate the benefits of our typology through four case studies, and present an evaluation of the typology from semi-structured interviews with experienced members of the visualization community who have contributed to developing or publishing decision support systems for domain experts. Our interviewees used our typology to delineate the decision-making processes supported by their systems, demonstrating its descriptive capacity and effectiveness. Finally, we present preliminary findings on the usefulness of our typology for visualization design.
A model for human decision making is an adaptation of an optimal control model for pilot/vehicle systems. The models for decision and control both contain concepts of time delay, observation noise, optimal prediction, and optimal estimation. The decision making model was intended for situations in which the human bases his decision on his estimate of the state of a linear plant. Experiments are described for the following task situations: (a) single decision tasks, (b) two-decision tasks, and (c) simultaneous manual control and decision making. Using fixed values for model parameters, single-task and two-task decision performance can be predicted to within an accuracy of 10 percent. Agreement is less good for the simultaneous decision and control situation.