ML20237D313
| ML20237D313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/20/1998 |
| From: | Gest C, Mace M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), WISCONSIN, UNIV. OF, MADISON, WI |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237D309 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-97-064, CON-NRC-4-97-64 NUDOCS 9808260017 | |
| Download: ML20237D313 (4) | |
Text
co o
MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. NRC-04-97-064 BEWEEN UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN AT MADISON CENTER F0Ps HUMAN PERFORMANCE IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS AND THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION The purpose of this modification is to provide a third Statement of Work describing the effort agreed upon by NRC and the Cooperator. Accordingly, the following change is hereby made:
l l
l 1.
Block No. 9, Project Will Be Conducted Per Government's Proposal, is j
mooified by adding the following statement to the existing statement:
l
" Project will be conducted per the third Statement of Work entitled l
" Workload Variability and Crew Performance." (attached) in conjunction l
with the first and second Statements of Work provided in Modification l
No. 2 and Appendix A - Project Cooperative Agreement Provisions" l
A summary of obligations for this Cooperative Agreement, from award date l
through the date of this action, is given below:
Total FY97 Obligation Amount:
$325.000 Total FY98 Obligation Amount:
$ Total NRC Obligations:
$325.000 l
This modification obligates FY98 funds in the amount of $ -0.
All other terms and conditions, including the Cooperative Agreement ceiling amount of $325.000, remain the same.
I EXECUTED:
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 0 MADISON UNITED STATES OF AMER,ICA,,
RESEARCH AND SPONSORE PROGRAMS U.S. NUCLEAR REGU'ATpRY C MMISSION BY:
[1 01/
O. U/A BY:
Nd'
/IN E.
mn.pHw NAME:
Harv H.
ace
.NAME:
.__ w r.e-
-r.vysms TITLE:
TITLE:
Contracting Officer 20m DATE:
Y
[
DATE:
]/'
98o8260o17 900005 NR -O 064 PDR
V f
i Workload Variability and Crew Performance -
l Research Cuttine - Mary J. Waller, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin, Madison Introduction.
Similar to teams in other types of high reliability organizations, nuclear power plant control room
- crews must maintain high levels of performance under extremely variable workload conditions.
The ability of crews working under dynamic conditions to respond accura'ely and quickly to variable workloads is critical for task performance and error avoidance. While we know that different teams cope with dynamic workloads in different ways, "neither optimal team behaviors i
nor the performance consequences of other behaviors have been systematically identified" (Huey j
& Wickens,1993. 4). Successful crews must "think on their feet and do the 'right thing' in novel situations" (Weick & Roberts,' 1993: 358). This study will examine nuclear power plant control l
room crew processes that may explain why some crews are able to avoid errors in dynamic l
workload environments while other crews are not.
Hypotheses.
Research on small group and team performance, high reliability teams and organizations, and high velocity environments suggests that three key behaviors may affect control room crew performance real-time information collection and transfer, task prioritization, and task distribution activities (Waller,1997,1998). First, information collection and transfer activities are extremely important to crew performance under dynamic conditions (Stanton,1996: 201; L
Kawano, Fujiie, Ujita, Kubota, Yoshimura & Ohtsuka,1991). Second, crew task prioritization L
activities are necessary to allow crews to adapt operations from task prioritization schemes for
. normal workloads to task prioritization schemes for variable or high workload conditions (Helmreich & Foushee,1993: 23). Finally, task distribution activities allow the effective delegation of responsibility for tasks, and are " crucial in high reliability systems" (Stanton,1996:
203).
I Given the importance of these behaviors in dynamic work settings characterized by non-routine events and variable workloads, we can hypothesize that these behaviors may also be critical for nuclear power plant control reom crews. A non-routine event for control room crews is any event that invokes an abnormal or emergency operating procedure. Hypothesized relationships between key behaviors and crew performance in this setting are:
Hla: After information concerning non-routine events is collected and transferred, crews that increase information collection and transfer activities will exhibit higher performance levels than crews that do not.
Hib: After information conceming non-routine events is collected and transferred, crews that increase task prioritization activities will exhibit higher performance levels than crews that do not.
U 8
Hic: After information concerning non-routine events is collected and transferred, crews that increase task distribution activities will exhibit higher performance levels than crews that do not.
H2a: After workload levels increase, crews that increase information collection and transfer activities will exhibit higher performance levels than crews that do not.
l l
l H2b: After workload levels increase, crews that increase task prioritization activities will exhibit higher performance levels than crews that do not.
H2c: After workload levels increase, crews that increase task distribution activities will exhibit higher performance levels than crews that do not.
Research also indicates that overall workload characteristics may affect a crew's ability to engage in adaptive activities such as task prioritization and task distribution after non-routine events or increases in workloads occur. Specifically, the " time constraint of transition" relates to the abruptness with which a change in workload unfolds over time (Huey & Wickens,1993). This change may be conceptualized as the slope of a line or curve indicating workload increase or decrease. If the slope is steep (and thus the time constraint is high), crews may have very little time for planning or anticipatory actions. If the slope is gradual and the time constraint low, crews may have the time necessary to reprioritize and reallocate tasks. Thus, the variability of a crew's workload may affect the crew's ability to adapt behaviors such as task prioritization and task distribution to increases or decreases in workload.
H3a: After workload levels increase, crews working under more variable workloads will be less likely to engage in task prioritization activities than will crews working under less variable workloads.
H3b: After workload levels increase, crews working under more variable workloads will be less likely to engage in task distribution activities than will crews working under less variable workloads.
Method.
The sample will consist of 30 five-person control room crews working during simulated events durit g an evaluation scenario at a nuclear power plant located in the Southwestern U.S. The crews will follow the same simulation protocol. The simulation period will be approximately 60 l
f minutes and subjects will be videotaped during the simulation. During simulated events, both routine and non-routine events will be presented to the control room crews, and workloads will vary from very low to very high. Videotapes will be coded in 104econd intervals by two independent coders for occurrence of behaviors of interest, and performance measures will be based on plant trainers' evaluations of crews' performance. The data will be analyzed using conditional likelihood logic models.
Future Directions.
The research proposed here will result in an extension of knowledge both theoretic and practical.
First, most researc.h on workload has focused on the individual level of analysis. By examining i
1
'1 1
u j
workload effects at the team level of analysis, important differences and boundary conditions may be identified between the two levels. Second, in a practical sense, the empirical evidence gathered in this study may help answer the question of why some teams are able to adapt to workload transitions while other teams fall apart. The results of this study will ultimately lead to managerial interventions aimed at training teams how to manage workload transitions more proactively and effectively.
Literature Cited:
- 1. Helmreich, R.L. & Foushee, H.C. (1993). Why crew resource management?
Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in aviation. In E. Wiener, B. Kanki, and R. Helmreich (eds.), Cockpit Resource Management.
San Diego: Academic Press.
- 2. Huey, B.M., & Wickens, C.D. (1993). Workload transition: Implications for individual and team perfonnance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- 3. Kawano, R., Fujiie, M., Ujita, H., Kubota, R., Yoshimura, S., & Ohtsuka, T. (1991). Plant operators behaviour in emergency situations by using training simulators. In Y Queinnec and F. Daniellou (eds.), Designing for Everyone. London: Taylor & Francis.
- 4. Stanton, N.1996. Human factors in nuclear safety. London: Taylor & Francis.
- 5. Waller, M.J.1997. How work groups juggle multiple tasks. In Beyerlein, M. (ed.),
Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Greenwich, CT: JAl Press.
- 6. Waller, M.J.1998. The timing of group responses to non-routine events. Working paper, University of Wisconsin - Madison. Currently underjournal review.
- 7. Weick, K.E., & Roberts, K.H.1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedfuli. terrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly,38: 357-381.
i l
i l