Design of a Cooperative Problem-Solving System for En-Route Flight Planning: An Empirical Evaluation

Both optimization techniques and expert systems technologies are popular approaches for developing tools to assist in complex problem-solving tasks. Because of the underlying complexity of many such tasks, however, the models of the world implicitly or explicitly embedded in such tools are often incomplete and the problem-solving methods fallible. The result can be "brittleness" in situations that were not anticipated by the system designers. To deal with this weakness, it has been suggested that "cooperative" rather than "automated" problem-solving systems be designed. Such cooperative systems are proposed to explicitly enhance the collaboration of the person (or a group of people) and the computer system. This study evaluates the impact of alternative design concepts on the performance of 30 airline pilots interacting with such a cooperative system designed to support en-route flight planning. The results clearly demonstrate that different system design concepts can strongly influence the cognitive processes and resultant performances of users. Based on think-aloud protocols, cognitive models are proposed to account for how features of the computer system interacted with specific types of scenarios to influence exploration and decision making by the pilots. The results are then used to develop recommendations for guiding the design of cooperative systems.

[1]  L. Shulman,et al.  Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning , 1978 .

[2]  G. Miller,et al.  Plans and the structure of behavior , 1960 .

[3]  David L. Post,et al.  Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning , 1979 .

[4]  William B. Rouse,et al.  Studies of planning behavior of aircraft pilots in normal, abnormal, and emergency situations , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[5]  Paul E. Lehner,et al.  Cognitive Factors in User/Expert-System Interaction , 1987 .

[6]  Earl D. Sacerdoti,et al.  Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces , 1974, IJCAI.

[7]  A. Tversky.  Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[8]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing: Social, , 1987 .

[9]  Philip J. Smith,et al.  Knowledge-Based Search Tactics , 1993, Inf. Process. Manag..

[10]  Mark Stefik,et al.  Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1) , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Mark Jeffrey Stefik.  Planning with constraints , 1980 .

[12]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[13]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Planning , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  R. Wilensky.  Planning and Understanding: A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning , 1983 .

[15]  Philip J. Smith,et al.  A Catalog of Errors , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[16]  John A. Sorensen.  Generation and Evaluation of Near-Optimum Vertical Flight Profiles , 1983, 1983 American Control Conference.

[17]  James L. Alty,et al.  Expert Systems: An Alternative Paradigm , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[18]  J. B. Black,et al.  Cognition, computing, and cooperation , 1990 .

[19]  Philip J. Smith,et al.  Design concepts for the development of cooperative problem-solving systems , 1992 .

[20]  George A. Sexton,et al.  Diverter Decision Aiding for In-Flight Diversions , 1990 .

[21]  A. Battersby.  Plans and the Structure of Behavior , 1968 .