Method for measuring the usability of a system and for task analysis and re-engineering

• US 5,724,262 A
• Filed: 10/11/1994
• Issued: 03/03/1998
• Est. Priority Date: 05/31/1994
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Paradyne Corporation (Dasan Networks Incorporated)
• Original Assignee: Paradyne Corporation (Dasan Networks Incorporated)
• Inventors: Ghahramani, Bahador
• Primary Examiner(s): Ramirez, Ellis B.
• Assistant Examiner(s): Stamber, Eric W.
• Application Number:
  US08/320,810
• Time in Patent Office: 1,239 Days
• Field of Search: 364/419.2, 364/551.01, 364/554, 364/468.18, 395/207, 395/211, 395/201, 395/210, 434/350, 434/236, 434/322, 434/323, 434/362, 434/363
• US Class Current: 702/186
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3419 by assessing time
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3452 Performance evaluation by statistical analysis
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3616 using software metrics
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06375 Prediction of business process outcome or impact based on a proposed change
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/02 Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising

Abstract

A method for quantitatively and objectively measuring the usability of a system. The method provides quantitative measures for usability satisfaction, usability performance, and usability performance indicators. Usability satisfaction is measured by acquiring data from a system user population with respect to a set of critical factors that are identified for the system. Usability performance is measured by acquiring data for quantifying the statistical significance of the difference in the mean time for an Expert population to perform a task on a particular number of trials and the estimated mean time for a Novice population to perform the task on the same number of trials. The estimated mean time is calculated according to the Power Law of Practice. Usability Performance Indicators include Goal Achievement Indicators, Work Rate Usability Indicators, and Operability Indicators which are calculated according to one or more measurable parameters which include performance times, numbers of problems encountered, number of actions taken, time apportioned to problems, learning time, number of calls for assistance, and the number of unsolved problems. A task analysis and re-engineering methodology statistically compares quantitative usability measurements according to various classified subsets of the overall population. Such subsets or categories include population, critical factors, a critical factor, vital critical factors, other demographic groups, etc. Preferably, such subsets are set forth in a hierarchical manner such that the statistical comparison identifies a root task characteristic for re-engineering. Task analysis and re-engineering may also be performed according to activity on arrows, and activity in nodes techniques.

Claims

1. A method for task analysis and re-engineering of a system, said system including means for performing a task, said task including at least one step, said method comprising the steps of:

measuring usability of said system to provide quantitative measurements of said task for a population of users, wherein the quantitative measurements include a time characteristic that is computed by converting time segments into a digital performance time, and a satisfaction characteristic of the users;

determining a population statistical index for a set of said population according to values based on said quantitative measurements, wherein the population statistical indexes are based on the variance between said quantitative measurements;

determining a comparable statistical index for each of a plurality of subsets of said set of said population;

processing said comparable statistical index for the plurality of subsets to identify a feature for re-engineering.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said subsets of the population further includes

a plurality of additional subsets, and further comprising the step of determining an additional subsets statistical index for the plurality of additional subsets.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said quantitative measurements provide the satisfaction of the group of users with respect to a critical factor.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein said quantitative measurements provide a satisfaction of a given user with respect to a set of critical factors.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein said step of measuring the usability of the system includes the steps of:

identifying critical factors for said system;

identifying at least one bipolar adjective pair for each critical factor, said bipolar adjective pair consisting of a positive adjective and a negative adjective having opposite semantic meaning;

acquiring adjective pair data from each member of a system user population for each said bipolar adjective pair, said adjective pair data for each bipolar adjective pair having a numerical value within a range bounded by a first value assigned to said positive adjective and a second value assigned to said negative adjective and linearly related to a characteristic of the positive adjective relative to a characteristic of the negative adjective of said critical factor according to the member;

acquiring significance data from each member of said system user population for each said critical factor, said significance data numerically representing the relative significance of said critical factor according to the member; and

generating a usability satisfaction value according to said adjective pair data and said significance data.

6. The method according to claim 5, wherein said usability satisfaction value includes a sum of said product for each critical factor for a given user.

7. The method according to claim 5, wherein said usability satisfaction value includes a sum of said product for each user for a given critical factor.

8. The method according to claim 1, wherein said step of measuring usability includes generating at least one usability performance indicator according to measured parameters.

9. The method according to claim 1, wherein said system is a computer system.

10. The method according to claim 1, wherein said step of measuring usability includes the steps of:

acquiring first data for measuring usability satisfaction according to a set of critical factors of said system;

acquiring second data for measuring usability performance according to the difference between performance time for an Expert population and a Novice population to perform a task;

acquiring third data for measuring a usability performance indicator;

processing said first, second, and third data to provide quantitative values for said usability satisfaction, said usability performance, and said Usability Performance Indicator.

11. The method according to claim 1, wherein the population and comparable statistical indexes are based on control limits.

12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the population and comparable statistical indexes are based on range of the values for each said plurality of subsets.

13. The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of ranking the features according to the population and comparable statistical indexes.

14. A method for task analysis and re-engineering of a system, said system including means for performing a task, said task including at least one step, said method comprising the steps of:

identifying activities of the task and characteristics of each of the identified activities, the characteristics including time, sequences, and interdependencies, wherein the time characteristic is computed by converting time segments into a digital performance time value;

computing an average performance time value for each of a plurality of novice users performing the task for one of a plurality of trials;

computing an average performance time value for each of a plurality of expert users performing the task for one of a plurality of trials by using a different task analysis technique;

comparing the average performance time value of novice users with the average performance time value of expert users to compute a system average performance time value; and

outputting a measure of the system average usability performance value indicating the confidence level of novice and expert users acceptance.

15. The method according to claim 14, wherein said different task analysis technique is an activities in nodes method.

16. The method according to claim 14, wherein said different task analysis technique is an activities on arrows method.

17. The method according to claim 14, wherein said different task analysis technique is a Bar Graph method.

18. The method according to claim 14, wherein said different task analysis technique is a Milestone Chart method.

19. The method according to claim 14, wherein said different task analysis technique is a Network Diagram method.