Today, engineers are relying more on modern computer tools and techniques to visualize complex data sets; however, few studies have examined the effect of fast, graphical design interfaces on user performance during system design. The objective in this paper is to extend our previous findings in this area by examining the impact of fast, graphical design interfaces on design efficiency and design effectiveness within the context of a job-shop design problem. We accomplish this by investigating the effect of an artificial response delay, intended to mimic computationally intensive analyses, on user performance. Experimental results indicate that user performance deteriorates significantly when a small response delay of 1.5 s is introduced: percent error and task completion time increase, on average, by 9.4% and 81 s, respectively, when the delay is present. The use of first-order, stepwise, and second-order polynomial regression models for approximating the system responses (outputs) is also investigated, and user performance is found to improve when stepwise polynomial regression models are used instead of first- or second-order models. The stepwise models yielded 12% lower error and 91 s faster completion times, on average, over the first-order models; error was 13.5% lower and completion time was 62 s faster, on average, than when second-order models were used. The results confirm our previous findings about the negative impact of response delay on task completion time while demonstrating that delay can also significantly decrease the efficacy of a metamodel-driven graphical design interface.

Keywords:
job design, product development, manufacturing data processing, graphical user interfaces, data visualisation, digital simulation, human computer interaction, optimisation, regression analysis, CAD/CAM, production engineering computing, Visualization, Human-Computer Interaction, Simulation, Regression
Topics:
Delays, Design, Machine shops, Optimization
1.
Simpson, T. W., and Meckesheimer, M., 2004, “Evaluation of a Graphical Design Interface for Design Space Visualization,” 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA, AIAA-2004-1683.
2.
Gu, L., 2001, “A Comparison of Polynomial Based Regression Models in Vehicle Safety Analysis,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Automation Conference, A. Diaz, ed., ASME, New York, Paper No. DETC2001/DAC-21063.
3.
Boesel, J., Bowden, Jr., R. O., Glover, F., Kelly, J. P., and Westwig, E., 2001, “Future of Simulation Optimization,” Proc. of 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, B. A. Peters, J. S. Smith, D. J. Medeiros, and M. W. Rohrer, eds., IEEE, New York, pp. 1466–1469.
4.
Law, A. M., and Kelton, W. D., 2000, Simulation Modeling and Analysis, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
5.
Fu, M., 2001, “Simulation Optimization,” Proc. of 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, B. A. Peters, J. S. Smith, D. J. Medeiros, and M. W. Rohrer, eds., IEEE, New York, pp. 53–61.
6.
Burgess
,
S.
,
Pasini
,
D.
, and
Alemzadeh
,
K.
,
2004
, “
Improved Visualization of the Design Space Using Nested Performance Charts
,”
Des. Stud.
,
25
(
1
), pp.
51
–
62
.
7.
Eddy, J., and Lewis, K., 2002, “Multidimensional Design Visualization in Multiobjective Optimization,” 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA, Reston, VA, AIAA-2002-5621.
8.
Hirschi
,
N. W.
, and
Frey
,
D. D.
,
2002
, “
Cognition and Complexity: An Experiment on the Effect of Coupling in Parameter Design
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
13
(
3
), pp.
123
–
131
.
9.
Lewis, K., and Bloebaum, C. L., 2000, “The Use of Visualization to Aid Multidisciplinary Decision Making in Design,” Proc. of NSF Grantees Conference, NSF, Arlington, VA.
10.
Messac
,
A.
, and
Chen
,
X.
,
2000
, “
Visualizing the Optimization Process in Real-Time Using Physical Programming
,”
Eng. Optimiz.
,
32
(
6
), pp.
721
–
747
.
11.
Stump, G., Yukish, M., Simpson, T. W., and Harris, E. N., 2003, “Design Space Visualization and Its Application to a Design by Shopping Paradigm,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Automation Conference, K. Shimada, ed., ASME, New York, ASME Paper No. DETC2003/DAC-48785.
12.
Winer
,
E. H.
, and
Bloebaum
,
C. L.
,
2002
, “
Development of Visual Design Steering as an Aid in Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. Part I: Method Development
,”
Struct. Multidisciplinary Optim.
,
23
(
6
), pp.
412
–
424
.
13.
Winer
,
E. H.
, and
Bloebaum
,
C. L.
,
2001
, “
Visual Design Steering for Optimization Solution Improvement
,”
Struct. Optim.
,
22
(
3
), pp.
219
–
229
.
14.
Jones
,
C. V.
,
1994
, “
Visualization and Optimization
,”
ORSA J. Comput.
,
6
(
3
), pp.
221
–
257
.
15.
National Research Council, 1998, “Visionary Manufacturing Challenges for 2020,” Committee on Visionary Manufacturing Challenges, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
16.
Kleijnen, J. P. C., 1987, Statistical Tools for Simulation Practitioners, Marcel Dekker, New York.
17.
Barton, R. R., 1998, “Simulation Metamodels,” Proc. of 1998 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC’98), D. J. Medeiros, E. F. Watson, J. S. Carson, and M. S. Manivannan, eds., IEEE, New York, pp. 167–174.
18.
Jin
,
R.
,
Chen
,
W.
, and
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
2001
, “
Comparative Studies of Metamodeling Techniques Under Multiple Modeling Criteria
,”
Struct. Multidisciplinary Optim.
,
23
(
1
), pp.
1
–
13
.
19.
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
Peplinski
,
J.
,
Koch
,
P. N.
, and
Allen
,
J. K.
,
2001
, “
Metamodels for Computer-Based Engineering Design: Survey and Recommendations
,”
Eng. Comput.
,
17
(
2
), pp.
129
–
150
.
20.
Ligetti
,
C.
,
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
Frecker
,
M.
,
Barton
,
R. R.
, and
Stump
,
G.
,
2003
, “
Assessing the Impact of Graphical Design Interfaces on Design Efficiency and Effectiveness
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
,
3
(
2
), pp.
144
–
154
.
21.
Goodman
,
T.
, and
Spence
,
R.
,
1978
, “
The Effect of System Response Time on Interactive Computer-Aided Design
,”
Comput. Graph.
,
12
, pp.
100
–
104
.
22.
Barron, K., Simpson, T. W., Rothrock, L., Frecker, M., Barton, R. R., and Ligetti, C., 2004, “Graphical User Interfaces for Engineering Design: Impact of Response Delay and Training on User Performance,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Theory and Methodology Conference, ASME, New York, ASME Paper No. DETC2004/DTM-57085.
23.
Myers, R. H., and Montgomery, D. C., 1995, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, Wiley, New York.
24.
Ligetti, C. B., 2003, “Metamodel-Driven Visualization in Engineering Design: Studies on Design Efficiency and Effectiveness Using Graphical Design Interfaces,” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Indust. and Manuf. Eng., Penn State University, University Park, PA.
25.
Montgomery, D. C., 1997, Design and Analysis of Experiments, Fourth Edition, Wiley, New York.
26.
Draper, N. R., and Lin, D. K. J., 1996, “Response Surface Designs,” Handbook of Statistics, S. Ghosh and C. R. Rao, eds., Elsevier Science, New York, pp. 343–375.
27.
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
Lin
,
D. K. J.
, and
Chen
,
W.
,
2001
, “
Sampling Strategies for Computer Experiments: Design and Analysis
,”
Int. J. Reliability Appl.
,
2
(
3
), pp.
209
–
240
.
28.
Koehler, J. R., and Owen, A. B., 1996, “Computer Experiments,” Handbook of Statistics, S. Ghosh and C. R. Rao, eds., Elsevier Science, New York, pp. 261–308.
29.
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W., 1996, Applied Linear Statistical Models, 4th Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
30.
Miller
,
G. A.
,
1956
, “
The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information
,”
Psychol. Res.
,
63
, pp.
81
–
97
.
31.
Rothrock, L., Barron, K., Simpson, T. W., Frecker, M., Barton, R. R., and Ligetti, C., 2004, “Applying the Proximity Compatibility and the Control-Display Compatibility Principles Engineering Design Interfaces,” Human Factors Ergonomics Manuf., (to appear).
Copyright © 2005
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.