Human Resource Factors and Performance Relationships in Nuclear Missile Handling Tasks.

107 Pages·2008·27.03 MB·English

-
Q—AO’42 6O e SYSTEMS RESEARCH LABS INC DAYTON OHIO FIG 5/5
~
HUMAN RESOURCE FACTORS AND PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS IN NUCLEAR——ETC(tJ)
0 W SAUCR’ W B CAMPBELL, F33615—76—C—00k2
UNcLASSIFIED AFHRL—TR—76—85
-
1.0 ~28 ~25
2
IiI
~ ~~
0
I(lIl
I I ~
.
o
I HHI IllUl
~ ~
Ill ~ ~~~~
AFHRL-TR-76-85
/
AFWL-TR-76-301 /
~~~ -,
Al R F 0 R C E
~~~~ HUMAN RESOURCE FACTORS AND PERFORMANCE
RELATIONSHIPS IN NUCLEAR MISSILE
HANDLING TASKS
U
By
Daniel W. Sauer
Wendy Bohnett Campbell
Norman R. Potter
A Systems Research Laboratories. Inc.
2800 Indian Ripple Ro~”i
~ Dayton, Ohio 45440
Id
• i William B. Askren
~~
ADVANCED SYSTEMS DIVISION
il~1~ Wright.Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
AIR FORCE WEAPONS LABORATORY
Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico 87117
E
S
May 1977
Final Report for Period October 1975 — November 1976
0
U
;~~~~ ~~ t r pii}~hc ~~~~~ i
C
R
~~~~~~
C
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E
S LABORATORY
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
BROOK S AIR FORCE BASE ,TEXAS 78235
T:1.._: T
-
~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~
I
~~teii VS Government drawings. specifications, or other data are used
for an V purpose other than a deliniielv related Governtiietit
procurement operation . the (‘ovemnient tiiereh~ incurs ho
4 responsibility nor an~ obligation wilats Ieser, and the tact that tile
(iovernme n t niay have formulated, turn shed, or in an~ wa~ supplied
4 the said drawings. speei ticatioiis. ot otlici data to he regarded h
is lot ~
utiplication or otherwise , as iii an~ Inannec htcciisiiie the holder or ali~
other person or corporation, or ~~uvc\ lie ,IIi~ rights or pentnSSion to
manutacture, Use, or sell any patetited tivei11i i~ that iIa~ in .iii~ wa~
he related thereto.
This final report was submitted by Systems Research Laboratories. Inc..
2800 Indian Ripple Road. Da~ toll. Ohio 4 ~44O under contract
F3361 5-7( 4’-0042 Adsanced S stems Division. Air Force I hilliian
~
Resources Laboratory I Al’S( ). \i’ right-Patterson Air l irce Base. Ohio
under protect It 24 and Air t ree Weapons Laboratory
~~~~~~ ~
AFSC ), Kirtland Air Foice Base. Nes’, Mexico 87117. undet project
2007, with IIQ \ir Force Iluniati Resources I ahoratoi Brooks \il
~
Base, Texas
hIre ~~~~~
Titis report has been reviewed and cleared for ojieti publication atId ‘01
public release by the appropriate Ofilce ot InkIrulatioll (OIl
ill
accordance with AIR I )0-l 7 and DoDD 230.’). There is no objection
~ ~
to unlimited distribution of tins report to tile public at large. or by
DD( to the Niltiotlal Technical Information Service (N FISt
Tills technical report ii as been reviewed and is approved for publication.
GORDON A. E(’KSTRAND. Director
Advanced Systems I)ivision. AFIIRL
GUSTAV J. FREY FR. Colonel tISAF
-
Coni tttatider. Al WI.
DAN D. FULGIIAM, (‘olonel, LISAF
Commander, AFIIRL
Unclassified
__________
SECURITy CLASSIFIC ~~~~~CN OF ‘ I S PACE ‘145,., flare I
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
~
I REPORT N,j’,,BER OC~’~ A:LEs~~IC’. NO .: ~~~~~~ ‘•
-\I’hIR t.-JR-76-SS
~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘RI’ LA1 IONSIIII S I’S \LJ~ II AR MISS II ~~ Ns~~~~ dD ‘~
ltANDL1N(,1.\SlxS~ J t,~~ ,,~~~
(/ ~“, . ~~~WIN~)~a~oe~n~tn~ii~oed~~l.~ ~ nV~~h ~~’t~R. o~.~~~~l~~i~,i~~ii~Ire~c~tt~ryk~,,~~, r’a ~r~ n~~p~~b~~,e~~~~j~~~,~ ,~~~~~~W~~~i~l~l~ia~~m~ B‘.J(‘s~k~‘~r~e~—~n~ ~ ~~1 -i ~~~~~kI sI— : ,~i .h’~~- ~7~~-~-( o~~~ — ~~~~-~~~~~~
— —
9~ ~S~y~P~sE~tRe~~mF~Os~R ~RM~~eI~Ns~e~~a,~ r~0c~Ih~~ ~.,L~A~aN~h~IoZ~~Ara~ ~to~I~~~n.~Ne~ s~N.~ ~AIn~M~cE~. ~ ~A~N~ ~~~A .[~~LS5 ~~A-” 14 ~—~~. L~V~I~’~. ~~~‘ . -. ~~ ~~~
2800 Indian Ripple Road 2~()~ I All IRI II ‘II
Davton, Ohio 4~440 I t F .~tF’ik 1 ~f t TI
-- -
—-
Ii CONTROLLING OC’HJL NAML AND AGGRESS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I-IQ Air Force Ihunian Resources Laboratory (AI St I //I \1:i~ 1r’ _
BrOOkS Air Force Base. le\as ~~~~ ‘ - ~~~~~~~ .~ ~~~ ~~~tJ~~
102 .‘ ,~
14 MONITORING AGENCY NAME & E~~”’I f Ifr~~~~~~r~~’- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘_
Advanced Systems Division I riel;osilied
Air force llunian Resources Laboratory
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Ohio 4~4~~ .,,, - ~, ~, ,~~, N
6 DISTRm8uTI~~4”TTA EMENT ~i iu~~~i l 4 ,.
Approsed for public retease ’. distribution unlim ited. ‘~~~~‘~~~ ~‘ -~~~~~~~~~~‘,,,
;m r 4 niThT~ ,
41
J~ ~~ ~~ : ‘/
~~ ~~
18 SIJOPLEMENTAR, NOTES
lT’l’iNis-A sit-uVd~s I .wOCa(s) Si-n i;t_ia-(t‘te‘4.d hs- LA-~~i!~—r~ -~‘ ~I-~ ICf/e— -~)~t-c a/poncst LIa~ bo-ui’to/r‘ .~ l”e--c lm imoI m~/v rN‘ ee d .,/5 .. ——— -~.- -—-~/v
~ -
9 K F V * ~OS ‘CnrlIflue on reverie qWr 1 r,rce,.’.nr ~~ -fr ‘‘ ‘‘‘
aptito ‘ ‘naititenance aii,d. SIS iI’.Oli,litl(Iiial i:i1*is
ClOth nil stability naintenatlee task perlorolahicL’ i.isk i -liability
huinait taei irs itiorale 1, 1 r-Ii esmSciI, ’ss
liii l’an ’c~ ‘lilAcs nlotiVatioit
nuclear ‘cml ‘i
- -
-n, O~~.,, ,.. ;. ,, fv IF v.~~~, C ~~~lvnC4 S I- ,An~~’’ ”~
The ohlcctivc was to deterniinc qnanhitatise relatimmim~~ops ‘‘tv I timimmiami mr’s ’LmreC \,Iil,lk’l n md ICCI l I, III,
pertoirnanec on illaiiiienatmce iasks for nuclear imissil sy ,teoms . hloiiian s Ill, - samiatiles R’lL’\,llIl to IilaintL’hlammcc
mipe rations were iden ti fled. ‘lnst ru went s It mticasm: rtn~’ the titi nan ii’ SOlO re ‘cm,i II1ICS 5’. ‘IC LiCE5’ I impL’d I .sk
performance measures were developed. An elr’vs’nc:miei’~r~ tJ\oil ’ill\ oits Is’I pvt Iii 0 liii~’ thi~’ iiiamimtcilaiiec
tasks. Oat a on task perlormance . Ii untan rr’smmii tee a rithlcs. and t ccli mmcm in opinions s’. crc -tI C I 1.1 rio i II I i cc
records or front technicians working at live Air I-ores’ bases. Stitmsi i il Coals sn I tile data sr ’ pcrtonmi ’d. I
resu’ts tndicate that task p(’rtorrn;ihmS ’ ~:i1~:ibilitv is signmtkmn tl\ lai d ml ,m niimmibs’i ol limiriran 1510Cr ’ s,mii:ii’l n
such as satisfaction with the Air I’orcc in general. satistas liii with asSt~iimiemll imicahits . ihitr’lm’St dunn1’ boll sUlomil
DD jAN 13 1473 FDi T1ON O~ I NOV iS OLIn 1 1 F t iILI,IsSiiI, ’l
As “. -~~ ~~‘ ,A. , “- v’~~~i’O’ .
S. - _._ ‘ , _ -- ,,, , -— ,,_a .j~~~~~~ S~~~~ ‘- -~~~~~~
-‘ ~~~~‘T~~~ - — ----- — -~~~~~~~~---—-— -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
iicl.ositi ’d
~ ~
SECURI’ S CLASnIFI~~A Cs QF n91~ PA,E Ito,, D~r. EoZe,.,m.
Ite ii 20 (‘ontinucdl.,s ’ S
in e\tracurriclil;Ir activities, atnmmuimt it trait fatigue. rmi mntlis in career field. wilhitlg3iess to assuimme responsibility, level
rmmmmtivat ismri. and level of wmmrk im,’aIiI timo~aJc. Mj ilmematical equations were developed which use human resource
data t,m predict task perforimtancc pi mliememicy. Results also indicate that technicians aurmm~ three career lI~lds. live Au
I IlIAC bases. aimd three ittissile systems li:ivc the ()~~itIimiri that the following lactmmr, have the niost influence mm task
pertorniance: team cohesiveness. em otional ~tahmlmi~ . fatigue, equipriment reliability, weather conditions. and
equ ipment operability. Task perfmirmance reliahilit~ values were calcu lated for ten of thm~ clc.eri mmmaintenance task
categories. Those value~ranged l’romi~ mi,~5 for service masks to 1 .0000 fmim test tasks.
‘ i :,o~~’ .
- ii ,l,L’shS 1”~ - 1
Ii . ,_. . .
I~~~~~
I
I
L
u b _1
L
j
I ii l.mssmlie l
‘1 164 ’ , ‘I A. ’~~~’ A’ ‘. iF ‘,O’, r 14 .4 ~~~~ in, . ?-
_
-5--
_ -. —_ .. ~~~~~~ ~-
~
SUMMARY
l’roblein and Obj ective
-,
‘
it the request of the Air Force Weapons Laboratory , Kirtland Air
Force Base, Now Mexico , a research effort was initiated to gain a better
uruderstandl,ng of the role the human plays in nuclear safety. in the first
part of the research, already published , 13 human resource factors were
which
identified were thought to be relevant to nuclear safety. Five of
these factors were quantitatively related to measures of nuclear hazard
potential and task times for a series of around handling and maintenance
tasks associated with the B—52/short range attack missile (SRAM ) system.
These relationships were developed to assess the feasibility of using
this type of dat i as input to a computer simulation technique to be used
~
for system safety analyses.
The quantitative relationships established between the human resource
factors and maintenance safety performance in the first study were
based on the subjective estimates of human factors specialists in the
laboratory. The study reported here was designed to collect field data
to empirically establish these relationships. These more valid equ ations
representing the relationships could be incorporated into the simulation
program as well as used in other engineecirig analyses of nuclear systems
and
safety performance.
App
roach
The approach was an extension of the earlier study and used the
maintenance and ground handling tasks associated with the R—52/SRAM
system. The 13 human resource factors identified in the first investiga-
tion were re—examined for use in this study. Measurement instruments
were developed for each selected human resource factor. Biogriplile daL i
forms were developed . Task performance measures were developed which
included the number of task errors and task completion times reported
os standardized Air Force task evaluation forms, and supervisor rankings
of accuracy and speed of task performance. The three—category mairite—
nance task taxonomy developed in the first study was reevuluatevl arid
expanded to 11 categories of maintenance tasks.
Data on task performance, human resource factors and biographic
variables were collected from 135 SRAM. technicians at five Air Pl’rcc
bases. In addition , opinion data on the influence of human resource
I aCtors .mn~i equijlrnent/envrrml nmental factors. were’ m’,llpctpd from T’ lU
lhiitteman I II , niml :I’NIF AIR—2. \ ter’jmrii mjans at the lIve \i.r Force 1,u-us
~
to provide in iudim:mt ion of gemsmt ralizalilit v of the re-;ult across
inii-isjls’ svsLc’ms , c uroor fields and bases.
11J..4!ill
—---.-.-~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ——s. --- _—.., ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ““~~~~~~ ’~~ ~l
~ ‘‘ “ ‘—i i~~~~~’~~~ I’ ”~ T”::: ~’~~~ ~~~““~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ :~~~~~~~~~‘‘~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I.-.~ —‘I,
Results. and Conclusions
An itisul f j’.’~~~.’iit amount of t usk error and time data’ ~“-r~’ i ’m i l.uhl~
arid resul ted in is!f 11Gi ce-c sIm~~us.ures vi tla little variability among
maintenance technic i,uns. Consequently, it was not possible to conduct
sian v of rims. p1 unned all-C I v -~es , CS~~CC ia liv those re 1 ;.ut leg perle il:hiflce LI)
Lire ll—catec1 rv’ mainten mIi :c- task t m::1In ’mv . ilowi’ver , ;mii ulvse~ relating
supervisor r,mn~ logs ol performance to human resource rotors wm.’re
performed .
The results of the analyses of supervisor rankings indicated that
those technic iaiis ranked high had nor’ months of experience, higher
aptitude levels , were more emetilna .I!v stable , reported fewer fatigue
symptoms, had hi gher levels of ml! itary Ill )ru Ic and tended to be more
satisfied v it.hu their work group than did those technicians ranked low
on these pert’or’rii ursce nlcusures
Corr~’ it jei ,uu,m ivs’.’s i.o~i i-ut el that the number of years an
individual spent iii the Air Force, the number of months art individual
spent in hsi~; c,ur5”.’r field , the ability to handle responsibility, the
level of mu it urY mori I’ - and the level of group morale were ill
posit ively correlated with ranked .ic ’ur.ucv and speed ‘jI task performance.
The luurnan resour.-c I met re wti ich corrv-1 ited ruegut ivel v with task 1:-
perfors :rnce Inc lel~’si tr,uit uIiXjetV l cl, mud tit, number of fatigue
~~
symptoms rs 1’’ rted .
~~ epwise mull ipie regress ion miii vses were n’mitiductn U LI) develop
equations Lor predicting the coiuih irued effect 01 the human resomire-
factors urs task performance. I 1umtions v ie’ devv-loped to predi’t
ranked is-cu racy oil task perfo mliii ,- e arid r itikell speed ~‘ I t i uk pm’ r ii rmmis-
for two groups of SRA2’l techni - i urus.
Opinion data md icat vi that missile Ls’chri I c ians from three systems.
three career fields and five Air Force bases mgrm’ed ic tm this- effe’ m of
human resource and equipment/environmental factors mmli tisk perfnrmanc~~.
Their opinion was that the human resm1mir s f,uctml re of tm’ mn cohesiveness ,
~
emotional stability and psychological fatigue had the most influence
that the equipment!
on task performance. The opinion data also indicate
and
environmental factors of equipment rsl lability , weather condit ions
operation of equipment had the most it-st luencs’ on S mel: pei’lo riuiuusm e.
Task performance reliability values were c,mlm ’ il, mt ’l for 10 of this-
~ ~
11 categories of maintenance tasks using the limit esl unl islnL of mvii 1;mbl ’
error data. These values ranged from .9688 ftm i~rerv ice tasks tm 1.0000
for test tasks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -—-—4———-——- —- __-__—---4_,, ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~‘tl. - ~~~~~~~‘l”
----- -4— — -- - -
IIREF;(;5
This study was performed by System., Rmcsesm ’T .‘i L4- i1 -itmit I es , it.
2800 Indian Ripple Road , Dayton , Ohio. Techni1 al direction was
provided by the Advanced Systems DiViu, iori, air . r..e Haiin Resurices
~
Laboratory (AFHRL) , Wright—Patr ~rsoi Air ~orc0 ~~~~~~~~ ii~mlo . ‘1e- studs’
was requested h’. lcchno 1.og~’ Need J s—AE .’,L--Ji1g5—72—IJ.~, ,~ tiou: ,.u rma~ rforr~i’-,..cu
Model for N’m~ hea r S,imety h mlCileeLil:g .~ppli~ 6t iuui. The :‘~ lrmlr,iatea
by the Air Force ke.ip-oums LahoraLorv (AFWL) , Kirtl in-a Air l-’urc~ fma~~m ,
N~w >tcsxico. Contractor funds were provided by AWL.
time AFFIRL support was pr-r1’lded ui~der Project I1 2~., Human Peeo-mt’-:..~s
in Aerospace S-m’steni Development and Operations , Dr. Ross L. Morgan ,
Project Scientist; and Task 112401, Personae] , Training and Manning
Factors in the Conception and Development ot Aerospace S”st tns,
~
Dr. William B. Askren, Task Scientist. [he AFW’L support was provided
under AFWL Project/task 200708, the Impact il Human Fm:’rformar.:e/
Reliability on Nuclear Safety, Mr. William R. Barry . Ire icct Lng1~~~~’e .
Systems Resv’irch Laboratories, Inc. (SKL) a-i’ orm:ied rime ree eirm -Iu
‘eider Cmintrumct F3361.5—7h—C—0O-~d with Dr. L-i ’rume l~. ]‘,~rm ci’ ms ‘i ~~~~~~~
fnvestigator and Mr. Daniel W. Sauer as Associate Prin’ipoI In\estigator.
Ms. Uendy Bohr’iett Campbell was also an Associate Principal liuvestig4 ’or
~~i tim SRI. during much of the study.
The authors wish to acknowledge the many individuals who m’ord-ri’iluLtud
m) this effort. Appr sc iation is extended to the miujiflerouS ~1t li Leg, i1
Air Command personnel in units .it Minot Air For.e i3ase , North D-P~ot a~
Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota; Wurtsmith Air Force Base,
Mi higan; Kin .iieloe Air Force Base, Michigan; and K. 1. Sawyer Air Force
Base, Michigan; and Aerospace Defense Command personnel in unets st
Gr ind Forks Air Force Base and K. I. Saywer Air Force Base for their
assistance and participation in the data collection phase.. Special
SRAM
appreciation is extended to CMSGT Fred M. Duncan (retired) of the
Program Off
ice, Wright—Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. His os imsultatiori
provided a great deal of insight into the work environment of the SL \N
~
missile technicians and , e feel, made our data collection effm’ri, sore
~
meaningful to field personnel. Appreciation is extended to M, . R~m:~~1ia
L. McPherson, Strategic Air Command Liaison to the S’~\~I Progr.u: Ill five ,
Wright—Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio and Lt. Col. ,Ic-lmn P. tt,mats’ m ,
Air
Defense Command Representative to ASD, Wright—Patterson Air For t’
Base, Ohio for their support in arranging data cm’llm ’ctieu i visits to the
various Air Force bases. The cou nsel and support of Mr. James ~~s’em i1s ’
and Mr. William Barry of the Air Force Wc ipmu.s Laboram m-.ry w,is xtrermrm.lv
valuable.
3
_ _ _ _ ‘5 “-- -—‘ —-*-- - -~~~~~~--—
-
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PACE
SUMMARY
1
PREFACE 3
LIST OF TABLES 7
INTRODUCTION 11
Back
ground 11
Purpose 13
RESEARCH APPROACH 14
Human Resource Factors and Measures 14
Biographic/Demographic Data 18
Opinion Questionnaire 18
Reevaluation of Task Performance Measures 22
Reevaluation of Maintenance Task Categories 23
Use of Taxonomy in Determining Relationships 23
Between Human Resource Factors and Task Performance
Field Data Collection 26
RESULTS 28
h on
Characteristics of Technicians Ranked Hig 28
Performance versus Technicians Ranked Low
on Performance
Correlations Between Human Resource Factors! 33
Biographic Variables and Supervisor Rankings
of Accuracy and Speed of Task Performance
Regression Equations to Predict Task Performance 38
Summary of the Human Resource Factor — Task 41
Performance Analyses
Evaluation of Human Resource and Equipment! 41
Environmental Factors Across Missile Systems
Task Performance Reliability Values 51
DISCUSSION 53
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55
REFERENCES • 56
BIBLIOGRAP HY 58
5
.-‘-~~~~~~~---- -
_ _ _ _