Distefano, M J and O'Brien, W J (2009) Comparative analysis of infrastructure assessment methodologies at the small unit level. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(2), pp. 96-107. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of three different infrastructure assessment tools currently used by the U.S. Army's combat engineer small units (squad, platoon, company). The infrastructure assessment tools included one pen and paper checklist and two software-based tools based on specialized handheld hardware for data collection in combat conditions. Evaluation was conducted using macroergonomic and applied cognitive task analysis methods with soldiers of varying levels of infrastructure assessment expertise. Each assessment method was evaluated based on performance (time, errors, and accuracy) and usability (ergonomic and cognitive challenges). We found that soldiers documented more accurate data using handheld digital devices instead of pen-and-paper assessment forms, but there was little difference in time between the methods. Contrary to initial expectation, we also found that most soldiers prefer a slightly more difficult to use handheld assessment device with customized checklists rather than an easier to use, less restrictive device. Critiques developed by this research can be used to improve engineering and construction organizations as well as add to our design guidelines for portable infrastructure assessment tools and methods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | assessments; computer analysis; human factors; infrastructure |
| Index terms: | human factor, methodology, infrastructure assessment, usability, accuracy, comparative analysis, task analysis, hardware, engineer, critique, construction organization |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, profession, organization, user-centered design, computer hardware, scope management, data analysis and analytics, research methods, professional development, infrastructure engineering, occupational health and safety management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here