Verification and validation (V&V) for human performance models (HPMs) can be likened to building a house with no bricks, since it is difficult to obtain metrics to validate a model when the system is still in development. HPMs are effective for performing trade-offs between the human system designs factors including number of operators needed, the role of automated tasks versus operator tasks, and member task responsibilities required to operate a system. On a recent government contract, our team used a human performance model to provide additional analysis beyond traditional trade studies. Our team verified the contractually mandated staff size for using the system. This task demanded that the model have sufficient fidelity to provide information for high confidence staffing decisions. It required a method for verifying and validating the model and its results to ensure that it accurately reflected the real world. The situation caused a dilemma because there was no actual system to gather real data to use to validate the model. It is a challenge to validate human performance models, since they support design decisions prior to system. For example, crew models are typically inform the design, staffing needs, and the requirements for each operator’s user interface prior to development. This paper discusses a successful case study for how our team met the V&V challenges with the US Air Force model accreditation authority and successfully accredited our human performance model with enough fidelity for requirements testing on an Air Force Command and Control program.
An Overview of Human Performance Models in Human-Computer Interactions
