ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluating Technicians' Workload and Performance in Diagnosis for Corrective Maintenance.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advancement in digital technology is transforming the world. It enables smart product-service systems that improve productivity by changing tasks, processes, and the ways we work. There are great opportunities in maintenance because many tasks require physical and cognitive work, but are still carried out manually. However, the interaction between a human and a smart system is inevitable, since not all tasks in maintenance can be fully automated. Therefore, we conducted a controlled laboratory experiment to investigate the impact on technicians' workload and performance due to the introduction of smart technology. Especially, we focused on the effects of different diagnosis support systems on technicians during maintenance activity. We experimented with a model that replicates the key components of a computer numerical control (CNC) machine with a proximity sensor, a component that requires frequent maintenance. Forty-five participants were evenly assigned to three groups: a group that used a Fault-Tree diagnosis support system (FTd-system), a group that used an artificial intelligence diagnosis support system (AId-system), and a group that used neither of the diagnosis support systems. The results show that the group that used the FTd-system completed the task 15% faster than the group that used the AId-system. There was no significant difference in the workload between groups. Further analysis using the NGOMSL model implied that the difference in time to complete was probably due to the difference in system interfaces. In summary, the experimental results and further analysis imply that adopting the new diagnosis support system may improve maintenance productivity by reducing the number of diagnosis attempts without burdening technicians with new workloads. Estimates indicate that the maintenance time and the cognitive load can be reduced by 8.4 s and 15% if only two options are shown in the user interface.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.