Hierarchical Task Analysis and Training Decisions

Abstract

The technique of hierarchical task analysis (HTA), proposed by Annett et al. (1971), which requires the analyst to describe a task in terms of a hierarchy of operations and plans, is reviewed and examined as a basis for making training decisions. The basic ideas as originally stated are in the main accepted, with some qualifications. The benefit of neutrally stated operations is emphasized as a means of establishing agreement between the analyst and the sponsor of the work, before more speculative human factor decisions are undertaken. The necessity of plans as statements of the conditions under which operations are carried out is stressed. The benefits of a hierarchical description in terms of economy of analysis and a means of accounting for complex performance are outlined. But the value of retaining the input‐action‐feedback classification as an integral part of HTA is questioned. HTA facilitates training design in a number of ways: by raising non‐training issues and thereby clarifying training content; by clarifying training objectives and requiring training hypotheses to be stated routinely; and by indicating how the training of even complex decision‐making tasks can be programmed. While emphasizing that the analyst must often bring to bear other techniques and knowledge of training to make full use of HTA, suggestions are made regarding research into training classification schemes which could simplify training decisions for non‐experts.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 50 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.