Human Engineering Class.
w03a1 – Audit Memo: Manager Review of Task Analysis
Instructions:
Engineering is rarely a solitary endeavor. The majority of your professional time will be spent auditing, verifying, and refining the work of colleagues.
Today, I am sad to inform you, there has been an incident. As a result, your company has begun a process: materials related to the incident are being audited. This includes the task analyses created last week.
You, individually, will assume the role of a Senior Human Systems Engineer auditing one “In-class Human-systems Fit” task analysis submitted by another team last week: the team that has your number +1. If you were a member of Team 10, you will audit Team 1. Independent individuals will audit Team 5. All anonymized analyses and GenAI transcripts will be posted in Modules by COB Monday. The actual individual teams may have them sooner, if you care to reach out to another team, and they care to help… Don’t burn any bridges. You might need good relationships later.
In writing this audit letter, your objective is not to be “nice,” but to be rigorous. WhileReview the assigned analysis and produce a Audit Memo (PDF) addressed to the submitting team. Your concise memo must be divided into four distinct sections:
Section 1: Compliance Audit- Verify that the analysis met all stated requirements of the original brief (w02a1). Mark each item as PASS or FAIL with a brief justification.
- Object Description: Did they provide a clear description of the physical device?
- Usage Listing: Did they list a defensibly full set of common/customary uses (goals) rather than a sparse list, simply mechanical operations, etc…
- Scope Selection: Did they explicitly select one specific use for detailed analysis?
- Method Application: Is a recognized Task Analysis method clearly applied?
- Format Compliance: Is the output concise and formatted correctly?
- Other issues?
Section 2: Technical & Managerial Critique- As an expert manager , evaluate the quality and utility of their analysis. Concisely critique their work based on the following engineering indicators:
- Granularity: Is the analysis at the correct level of detail? (e.g., Did they write “Make coffee” as a single step, or break it down into “Open reservoir,” “Pour water,” etc.? Managers reject analyses that are too vague to be actionable).
- The “Happy Path” Fallacy: Did the team assume the user never makes a mistake? A strong analysis includes decision nodes for errors (e.g., “If water level is low, then refill”).
- Method Suitability: Did the chosen method fit the task? (e.g., Using a physical HTA for a purely cognitive decision-making task is a misapplication of the tool).
- Assumption of Knowledge: Did the analysis assume the user is an expert? (e.g., “Calibrate machine” is not a valid step unless the user is known to be a technician; it hides complexity).
- Cognitive Loading: Did the analysis identify where the user must remember something or make a calculation, or did it focus only on physical button presses?
- Other issues?
Section 3: GenAI Use Critique- As an expert manager, compare the team’s GenAI Transcript against their final Analysis Document. Evaluate whether the team used this system appropriately. Critique their work based on the following indicators, citing evidence from their transcript:
- Engineering Agency: Does the transcript show an iterative engineering process (e.g., “Critique this step,” “Identify error modes”), or a lazy one-shot request (e.g., “Write a task analysis for X”)? If the final submission is a verbatim copy of the AI output, or overly similar, the team has cfailed to provide human oversight, effectively letting the AI sign off on safety-critical work.
- Hallucination Management: Did the AI invent buttons, features, or feedback loops that do not exist on the physical object? Did the human catch and remove these hallucinations, or did they allow them into the final documentation? The presence of “ghost features” indicates a dangerous level of over-trust in the system.
- Other issues?
Section 4: Global Determination As the auditing Senior Engineer, you must render a final judgment on the file. Given the recent accident, your signature indicates your confidence in the safety of this workflow. Select ONE of the following outcomes and provide a single paragraph of justification:
- PASS: The task analysis is robust, accurate, and verified. The documentation is safe; the recent accident likely stemmed from mechanical failure or environmental factors, not from the procedures described here.
- TRAINING NEEDED: The analysis contains ambiguities, “tribal knowledge,” or minor formatting errors that increase cognitive load. The workflow is not currently dangerous, but the team requires retraining on documentation standards before they touch safety-critical systems again.
- INVESTIGATE: The analysis contains critical flaws (e.g., missing safety steps, missing documentation, AI hallucinations, or incorrect order of operations). The workflow as described is inherently unsafe and likely contributed directly to the accident. Stop work immediately and launch a full inquiry.
Submit your response as a MS Word document. Length is ‘concise, but enough to answer the question well’.
Use of Generative AI: Generative AI may be used on this assignment. The ideas and arguments should reflect your own, and you’re responsible for full understanding of all content. Provide a brief statement of how you used Generative AI technologies, and their contribution of the work you produce.
This homework based on work was done in class. I will upload all the materials of the previous hw to be able to complete this one. Please read the instruction of using Ai If you want to use it.
Requirements: 1.5 page
Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts.
Secure 100% Original On Time Delivery