Ijmperd - Multitasking
Uploaded by
TJPRC PublicationsIjmperd - Multitasking
Uploaded by
TJPRC PublicationsInternational Journal of Mechanical and Production
Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD)
ISSN(P): 2249-6890; ISSN(E): 2249-8001
Vol. 6, Issue 2, Apr 2016, 37-44
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd
MULTITASKING
VYANKATESH S. KULKARNI1 & BRAJESH TRIPATHI2
1
Research Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, JSPM-BIT, Barshi, Solapur, Maharashtra, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Kota, Rajasthan, India
ABSTRACT
Multitasking (often referred to as timesharing) has been extensively studied from a mental workload and
humanperformance perspective. However, a relatively small amount of research has been conducted in the
manufacturingdomain (Wickens, 1992). As the level of system automation increases, the role of the human has shifted
from thatof a manual controller to system supervisor (Sheridan and Johannsen, 1976). According to Sheridan
(1994),human operators in AMS make their way among machines, inspecting parts, observingdisplays, and
modifyingcontrol settings or keying in commands, most of it through computer-mediated control panels adjacent to
variousmachines. This role of human operators in AMS has been identified as supervisory control in this paper
KEYWORDS: Human Supervisory Control, General paradigm of supervisory control (Sheridan, 1976), Capabilities of
human and computer in planning/scheduling tasks of AMS (Nakamura, and Salvendy, 1994), Different type of
multitasking (Wickens, 1992)
Received: Mar 01, 2016; Accepted: Mar 10, 2016; Published: Apr 07, 2016; Paper Id.: IJMPERDAPR20164
INTRODUCTION
Original Article
disturbances in AMS (Kuivanen, 1996) , Determinants of Multitasking Performance, Performance-resource function for
Multitasking (often referred to as timesharing) has been extensively studied from a mental workload and
human performance perspective. However, a relatively small amount of research has been conducted in the
manufacturing domain (Wickens, 1992). As the level of system automation increases, the role of the human has
shifted from that of a manual controller to system supervisor (Sheridan and Johannsen, 1976). According to
Sheridan (1994), human operators in AMS make their way among machines, inspecting parts, observing displays,
and modifying control settings or keying in commands, most of it through computer-mediated control panels
adjacent to various machines. This role of human operators in AMS has been identified as supervisory control. 26
Human Supervisory Control
Supervisory control refers to one or more human operators programming and receiving information from a
computer that interconnects through artificial effectors and sensors to the controlled process or task environment
(Sheridan, 1987). Ammons, Govindaraj, and Mitchell (1988) described the supervisory controller as an operator
responsible for a group of complex machinery where the operations require intermittent attention and depend
on higher-levelperceptual and cognitive functions. Sheridan (1976) defined a general paradigm of supervisory
control consisting of five functions: 1) Plan, 2) Teach, 3) Monitor, 4) Intervene, and 5) Learn. For each of the main
supervisory functions the computer provides decision-aiding and implementation capabilities, as shown in Figure 1.
A description of these functions is presented in Figure 2.
Job scheduling, inventory planning, and problem solving (disturbance control) have been among
www.tjprc.org
editor@tjprc.org
38
Vyankatesh S. Kulkarni & Brajeshtripathi
the supervisory control responsibilities commonly assigned to human operators in AMS (Suri and Whitney, 1984;
Ammons et al., 1988). The capabilities of humans and computers in AMS planning/scheduling tasks are presented in Table
1 (Nakamura and Salvendy, 1994). Table 2 shows examples of different types of unexpected contingencies (disturbances)
in AMS (Kuivanen, 1996). Ammons et al. (1988) stated that two ways in which the unique skills of the human decision
maker are used in supervisory control are to fine-tune or refine standard operating procedures for particular system states
and to compensate for unplanned events and unexpected contingencies.
Figure 1: General Paradigm of Supervisory Control (Sheridan, 1976)
Plan
Model the physical system to be controlled
Decide on overall goal or goals, the objective function, tradeoffs among goals, and criteria for handling
uncertainties
Formulate a strategy or general procedure
Teach
Select the control action to best achieve the desired goal
Select and execute the commands to computers to achieve the goal
Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6934
NAAS Rating: 2.45
Multitasking
39
Monitor
Allocate attention appropriately among the various subsystems to measure salient state variables
Estimate the current state of the system
Detect and diagnose any abnormality
Intervene
Make minor adjustments of system parameters when necessary, as the automatic control continues take over
Manual control if there has been a failure of the automatic control
Abort the process in case of a major failure
Learn
Develop understanding of and trust in the system
Gain experience so as to do better next time
Figure 2: Temporal Nesting of the General Paradigm of Supervisory Control Functions (Sheridan, 1976)
www.tjprc.org
editor@tjprc.org
40
Vyankatesh S. Kulkarni & Brajeshtripathi
Table 1: Capabilities of Human and Computer in Planning/Scheduling Tasks of AMS
(Nakamura, and Salvendy, 1994)
Table 2: Different Type of Disturbances in AMS (Kuivanen, 1996)
Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6934
NAAS Rating: 2.45
Multitasking
41
Determinants of Multitasking Performance
Different mental models have been used to describe multitasking performance. Scheduling, switching, confusion,
cooperation, and processing resources are mechanisms often identified as determinants of multitasking performance
(Damos, 1991; Adams, Tenney, and Pew, 1991; Wickens, 1992). In particular, the concept of processing resources is the
basis for understanding the other mechanisms, and hence for multitasking performance. According to Wickens (1991), the
resources concept is founded on the underlying assumption that the human operator has a limited capacity for processing
resources that may be allocated to task performance; therefore, multitasking can lead to one or more tasks with less
resources than required, causing a performance deterioration. This deterioration in the performance of one task because of
competition with another task for critical resources is known as interference.
Two major processing resources theories of task performance areSingle-Resource Theory and MultipleResources Theory. The Single-Resource theory proposed by Kahneman (1973) postulates one undifferentiated limited pool
of resources available to all tasks and mental activities. According to this theory, multitasking performance declines as the
difficulty of one of the tasks increases, because it demands more resources from the limited pool, thus leaving fewer
resources for performing the other tasks. Sanders and McCormick (1993) indicated that the Single-Resource Theory has
difficulty explaining: 1) why tasks that require the same memory codes or processing modalities interfere more than tasks
not sharing the same memory codes or processing modalities, 2) why with some combinations of tasks increasing the
difficulty of one task has no effect on the performance of the others, and 3) why some tasks can betime-shared perfectly.
According to Sanders and McCormick (1993), these three issues can be explained by the Multiple-Resources Theory
proposed by Wickens (1984).
The Multiple-Resources Theory proposes that there are three dimensions along which resources can be allocated.
The first dimension is stages (encoding and central processing vs. responding), which explains why tasks requiring
response selection and allocation resources are not disrupted by tasks requiring central processing resources.32
The second dimension is input modality (auditory vs. visual), which explains why multitasking is better when the
tasks do not require resources from the same modality than when they do. The third dimension is processing codes (spatial
vs. verbal), which explains why multitasking is performed better when one task involves moving or positioning objects in
space and the other involves language or logical operations. In addition to the three dimensions mentioned above, this
theory suggests a response dimension (vocal vs. manual), which explains why multitasking is performed better when the
tasks responses are of opposite types. Although the Multiple-Resources Theory was developed based on dual task
multitasking, it can be used to explain more complex multitasking.
Scheduling and switching are highly influential on performance for both dual-taskand more complex multitasking.
The operators scheduling and switching ability depends on an understanding of the temporal constraints, the objective,
and the cost associated with each task (Wood, 1982; Moray, Dessouky, Kijowski, and Adapathya,1990). Poor scheduling,
inefficient switching between tasks, or insufficient time to do the multiple tasks sequentially will force the person to
engage in concurrent processing. Wickens (1991) indicated that when the operator is engaged in concurrent processing,
multitasking performance will be influenced by: 1) confusion (elements of one task become confused with the processing
of another task because of their similarity), 2) cooperation between task processes (caused by high similarity of processing
routines), and 3) competition for task resources. When the amount of resources demanded by the multiple tasks exceeds the
amount of the operators mental resources available, he or she will experience mental workload, consequently decreasing
www.tjprc.org
editor@tjprc.org
42
Vyankatesh S. Kulkarni & Brajeshtripathi
multitasking performance (McCloy, Derrick, and Wickens, 1983; Bi and Salvendy, 1994). Figure 3 shows the relationship
among theperformance-resource function for multitasking (Wickens, 1992). Sheridan (1994) stated that mental workload is
very important for supervisory control in AMS where the human operator is constantly called upon to do multiple complex
sensory and judgmental tasks. The central issue for vigilance research is to determine the effect of the additional tasks to
the vigilance performance (Craig, 1991).
Figure 3: Performance-Resource Function for Multitasking (Wickens, 1992)
Research Objectives
There are still a surprising number of parts in AMS that can only be inspected by means of human visual sensory
detection. Even when the quality inspection search component has been automated, human operators must make a final
decision on the acceptability of a manufactured part. In many cases, this judgment must be made on the basis of a
comparison with a memorized criteria for acceptable parts. The objective of this research was to characterize the operators
performance in the quality inspection task while conducting multitasking in an AMS.
CONCLUSIONS
The experiment tested the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The operators decision making component of the quality inspection task in AMS will be
significantly affected by the appearance of different types of defects in the units being produced.
Hypothesis 2: The operators decision making component of the quality inspection task in AMS will be
significantly affected by multitasking.
Hypothesis 3: The operators decision making component of the quality inspection task in AMS will be
significantly affected by the interaction of multitasking with the appearance of different types of defects in the units being
produced.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my Guide and Parents for their expertise, encouragement, invaluable assistance, guidance, advice and their
patience with me throughout my study. All the learners who selflessly volunteered to be part of this study and most of all
their parents for giving them permission to participateI wish to express my sincere gratitude
Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6934
NAAS Rating: 2.45
Multitasking
43
REFERENCES
1.
Juran and Gryna, 1980
2.
Bennet, 1975; Konz, Peterson, and Joshi, 1981; Schilling, 1982
3.
Drury, 1992b
4.
Wang and Drury, 1989
5.
Drury and Prabhu, 1994
6.
Morawski, Drury, and Karwan, 1980
7.
Howarth and Bloomfields, 1971
www.tjprc.org
editor@tjprc.org