Getting to Know the User of ARTHUR Weapon Locating System a Step Towards Use-Oriented Product Development
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Getting to Know the User of ARTHUR Weapon Locating System A Step towards Use-Oriented Product Development Master of Science Thesis [in the Master Degree Programme Industrial Design Engineering] FREDRIK ANDERSSON TAINA FLINK Department of Product and Production Development Division of Design & Human Factors CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Göteborg, Sweden, 2010 Getting to Know the User of ARTHUR Weapon Locating System A Step towards Use-Oriented Product Development FREDRIK ANDERSSON TAINA FLINK Getting to Know the User of ARTHUR Weapon Locating System A Step towards Use-Oriented Product Development FREDRIK ANDERSSON TAINA FLINK © FREDRIK ANDERSSON, TAINA FLINK, 2010 Published and distributed by Department of Product and Production Development Division of Design & Human Factors Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Göteborg Sweden Telephone + 46 (0)31-772 1000 Cover: [The ARTHUR Weapon Locating System and the two personas developed, see chapter 3.2 and 7.1 for further informtion. Pictures by Saab Group, Boston, ImageryMajestic, Denson and Irusta] [Chalmers Reproservice] Göteborg, Sweden 1999 IV ABSTRACT ARTHUR WLS is an ARTillery HUnting Radar Weapon Locating System, used - mate the impact points so that people on the ground can be warned. AR- THURto locate is developedfiring artillery by Saab weapons Electronic so that Defence they can Systems. be disarmed This thesis and to studies esti the users of ARTHUR and is an example of how a company can study their users’ needs and behaviors in order to take human factors into account. It demonstrates how this knowledge can be conveyed into the product devel- opment organization, so that it comes to use. This will be done by creating a booklet of information on the user and includes pointers and methods of how to take the user and usage in account in the design process. product development turns use-oriented, large competitive advantages will beIn thegained. field Theory of human suggests factors, that knowing human your factors user integration is the key tocan success. be achieved When in three ways; education, enforcement and end-user involvement. The basis for understanding user’s needs is not the study of needs as such, but the study of activities and actions since needs cannot be detected directly. In this thesis, this is further complicated by the military culture and the fact that the users themselves are hard to reach. The extensive data collection was carried out through interviews within the company and a telephone interview with an operator, surveys sent out to ARTHUR operators in four countries, observing deployment of the system as well as reading articles from the Danish artillery’s mission in Afghanistan. - quences for the problems, issues and disturbances found. By analyzing the engineersThe data was as intended analyzed users by, among of the other booklet things, as well finding as their causes existing and conse design process, requirements for the booklet were found. One of these require- ments was to make the user present in the mind of the designer during the design process, and for this scenarios and personas were created out of the collected data. Conclusively, the research carried out adds substantially to the knowledge of ARTHUR users and ARTHUR user behavior at Saab. The fact that the authors have not met the users in person probably contributes to the extent of the result but not the reliability of the result itself. The most important recom- mendation to succeed in human factors integration and in developing more usable products is to involve the end-user to a greater extent. V VI PREFACE This is the master’s thesis of Fredrik Andersson and Taina Flink and has been com- pleted as a part of the master in Industrial Design Engineering. It has been carried out at the division of Design and Human Factors at the department of Product and Production Development at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Swe- den. The initiator of the project is Saab Electronic Defence Systems in Gothenburg where the project has been conducted. The master thesis has been running from February 2010 to August 2010 and constitutes 30 ETCS. We would like to thank our examiner, Anna-Lisa Osvalder, for her warm support, and our tutor at Chalmers, Lars-Ola Bligård, for his deep involvement and for shar- ing his experience of both theory and practice of human factors. We would also like to thank the many employees of Saab Electronic Defence Sys- tems who have taken the time to be interviewed and letting us observe them in their work. A special thanks also to Torgny Hansson, the initiator of the project, for giving us the opportunity to undertake this project and for his valuable insights as well as our tutor at Saab, Jan Rydén, for his support, willingness to help and keen interest in our work. Last but not least, we would like to thank Gustav Klock and Robert Nilsson who are advocates of human factors at Saab, and have been mentor- ing us throughout the project. Thank you for your feedback and encouragement. VII VIII ABBREVIATIONS ARTHUR Artillery Hunting Radar DEFSTAN Defence Standard by the British Ministry of Defence EDS Electronic Defence Systems FOB Forward operating base HF Human Factors HFE Human Factors Engineering HFI Human Factors Integration INS Inertial Navigation System MOTS Military off the shelf RCU Remote Control Unit TRU Transceiver Unit WLS Weapons Loctaing System IX TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Purpose 3 1.3 Goal 4 1.4 Delimitations 4 1.5 Research Questions 4 1.6 Work Structure 4 2 Theory 7 2.1 Human Factors 7 2.2 The User 12 3 Context 16 3.1 Military Culture 16 3.2 The Product 17 3.3 The Company 19 4 Data Collection 21 4.1 Process description 21 4.2 Interviews 22 4.3 Surveys 24 4.4 Participation 29 4.5 Documentation Analysis 30 4.6 User Observation 31 4.7 Graphic System View 34 4.8 Online Research 36 4.9 Summary 38 5 Analysis 39 5.1 KJ-analysis 39 5.2 Priority Matrix 40 5.3 Problem and Cause Matrix 41 5.4 Operator Needs Analysis 43 5.5 Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) 43 X 6 Meta-study 45 6.1 Process 45 6.2 Result 45 6.3 Requirements 46 7 Synthesis 48 7.1 Personas 48 7.2 Scenarios 54 7.3 Booklet 57 8 Evaluation 62 8.1 Data Collection 62 8.2 Booklet 64 9 Discussion 66 9.1 Purpose and Goal 66 9.2 User Involvement 66 9.3 Human Factors 67 9.4 Process 68 10 Recommendations 69 11 Conclusion 71 12 References 72 XI 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background In the product development area there are major gains in considering human factors and adapting a product to its user, especially in performance. Tradition- ally, humans are thought of as adaptable compared to the tools they use in their work and therefore they have often had to adapt to less than perfect working situations. Adaptability is indeed a human quality, but it comes at a price. When adapting to a bad working situation, such as having to lean extensively to reach an often-used button, total system performance will decrease. If a user is under- stimulated from repetitive or monotonous tasks, remaining alert for any long that we are humans, which means that we need to adapt the technology around usperiod to our of humantime will needs, be difficult. weaknesses Human and factors strengths. is about Otherwise admitting we and will accepting be continu - ously disappointed by poor performance of human-machine systems, which is any system in which a human interacts with a physical object to reach a goal. Companies developing products used by humans therefore have everything to gain by considering human factors in their product development process. To do this, one needs to truly know the users of the product being developed. Learning about their needs and behaviors is vital for a successful design. These things are especially important in a military context where system performance can affect the outcome of a mission and staying alert or not can be the difference between life and death. Yet, in this context, where the need for user adaption is great, - sonal limitations is not something commonly associated with a military mindset andachieving it takes it canhard be work very with difficult. proper Complaining requirements about elicitation problems methods and admitting to get to per that information. In addition, secrecy surrounding everything that concerns mili- tary organizations can be a problem. It might be impossible to even meet with the users for this reason. Saab Electronic Defence Systems (Saab EDS) is a business unit within Saab Group, which is a company that focuses on military defense and civil security. Saab Group shares no ownership structure what so ever with the Swedish car manu- facturer Saab and they should not be confused. One of the products developed at Saab EDS is the ARTillery HUnting Radar Weapon Locating System abbreviated to “ARTHUR WLS” or “ARTHUR” for short. The product basically reassembles a con- mid air and to calculate their origin and landing spot. tainer truck with an antenna on the roof and is used to find artillery projectiles in 2 Introduction ARTHUR is a successful product, but there is little communication between the - Theory ously develop the system at Saab. Current customer contact can be found within theradar departments operators who that use deal ARTHUR with service out in and the repairs, field, and the the customer engineers education that continu department and the market department. These departments of course have other interests than requirements elicitation and user studies and little information Context useful to the design process is gathered here.