Download Mission simulation specification

Project:
Filename:
Status:
Date:
MECA – Mission Execution Crew Assistant
MECA-HEART-WP3-D2b-MissionSimulationSpecs.docx
Final SRR Input
03-June-2015
3.3 V ARIABLES
In the scenario there are important events where we expected differences between the
conditions:

When communication fails

Wrong positioned wheel

Albert stresses

Failure of safety function for mission is detected with ePartner
3.4 D ATA COLLECTION
During the experiment we will collect data from various sources, i.e.:

The low-level interaction logs of the ePartner software (e.g. which tabs are selected,
which buttons are clicked etc.)

The observed behavior and decisions made by the test subjects, i.e. how did they
perform their tasks, and how much time did this take. For example, did they change the
battery, did they succeed in building the cache, how long did the complete mission take,
etc.

Questionnaires which indicate the subjective experience of using the software.
We will collect the above types of data in the condition with MECA support and without MECA
support. Furthermore, we will collect data from expert reviews, which describe the ideal course of
events from an arm chair perspective without doing any real experimentation. This allows us to
evaluate the MECA prototype against the 13 measures of performance (effectiveness, satisfaction,
situation awareness, efficiency, safety, etc.) that have been described in Chapter 5 of D1a. For
each of these 13 measures, a comparison will be made between the ideal performance (described
by the expert assessment), the condition with MECA support, and the condition without MECA
support. As hypothesized in D1a, we expect the performance with MECA to be closer to the ideal
performance than the condition without MECA.
MECA-HEART WP3 D2b Draft Mission Simulation Specification
35 of 97