COMPARING THE USE OF ARTICLE NUMBERS TO ALTERNATE INFORMATION SYNTAXES

Transcription

1 COMPARING THE USE OF ARTICLE NUMBERS TO ALTERNATE INFORMATION SYNTAXES Thorvald, P Virtual Systems Research Centre, University of Skövde, Box 408, Skövde, Sweden Peter.Thorvald@his.se Using article numbers as identifiers in industry is a well-established practice. However, previous investigations have indicated, although failed to confirm, shortcomings in this tradition when used in human based assembly. This paper will report findings from an experimental study where subjects were asked to perform a reaction test designed to test the response to different types of syntaxes. These syntaxes where article numbers (control), symbols, and names of famous figures. Results show that subjects were able to significantly faster identify a trigger and respond accordingly when dealing with triggers with semantic content (symbols and names) than with article numbers. Keywords: information syntax, article number, information presentation, manual assembly. 1 Introduction The use of part numbers can be traced far back in manufacturing history and their designs have been very diverse. What all types of part numbers have in common though is that they have to uniquely identify a certain part. In doing this, there are several ways to design a part numbering system, and perhaps the following three are the most common ones (Stewart, 2010); Intelligent part numbers Where all characters represent an attribute of the part they are referring to. Semi-intelligent part numbers Where some of the characters represent an attribute of the part. Random part numbers Where characters are random. Intelligent part numbers have been in use for a long time, perhaps nowhere as common as in the field of electrical components such as capacitors, resistors etc., and perhaps the argument that gives intelligent part numbering the most merit is the fact that they allow for accurate identification of component properties. However, the use of intelligent and semi-intelligent part numbering is often criticized 1 as they are complex and such a system is very costly, often requiring manual setup and extensive maintenance. 1.1 Part numbering in manufacturing The suggestion of using symbols as opposed to article numbers in information presentation for assembly is based on the idea that symbols carry semantic content 1 Design Chain Associates have criticized the use of intelligent part numbering in their white paper Intelligent Part Numbering Systems for Off-The-Shelf Components Why?, published in 2002.

2 about themselves that article numbers do not, and therefore they are easier to percept, process and recall. A previous experiment investigated only the differences between symbols and article numbers (Thorvald, et al., 2012) whereas this second experiment investigates symbols, article numbers and names of famous characters. It is evident that it is most likely to be easier to process symbol representation over article numbers, as the symbols are shorter, consisting of one character, whereas article numbers usually consist of several characters. However, the number of characters within a representing element is not argued to be the reason for this difference. Rather, any difference found between the two is argued to be a result of the semantic content that the two representational modes include. An article number, , has no connection to the long-term memory of the user and is therefore subject to the risk of short-term memory limitations (Jonides, et al., 2008). A symbol, Ω, on the other hand, is most likely established in the user s long-term memory as Omega and is very likely to have personal meaning to the user. For example, the user might associate it to Greece and the Greek alphabet; it might be associated to electrical engineering as Ω is used as the symbol for ohm, a unit of electrical resistance, etc. The associative possibilities are great and this is believed to result in better recognition, recall and matching with the same symbol on the parts shelf. While reading, it has long been established, that humans do not read each letter and form them into words (Bouma & De Voogd, 1974, Garzia & Sesma, 1993, Rookes & Willson, 2000). Rather, reading is a pattern recognition task of the entire word, assuming that the word is not too uncommon or too long. Therefore, this study includes the use of names of famous characters from history or popular culture. Just as Ω is believed to already be coded into the user s long-term memory, Jesus or Chewbacca, are thought to be as well and the user most likely has some kind of personal association with these historical or fictional figures that will aid memory and perception in matching it to the correct item to be assembled. The hypothesis states that symbols are better suited to present assembly information than article numbers due to the semantic connection already existing between the symbol and the brain. Symbols are recognized in long-term memory and are easily available for recognition, recall and memory. Article numbers are not connected to long-term memory and thus will need to be kept in short term memory while the task is carried out. However, using only article numbers and symbols may give rise to legitimate criticism as the number of characters in the two types of representation differs. Common sense indicates that it is easier to remember one character or digit as opposed to six of them. This uncontrolled variable, article length, will give rise to a confounding of the results which can only be counteracted by also comparing symbols and article numbers with something that has multiple characters and also semantic content, thereby justifying the use of famous names. The names consist of several letters and thus correspond with article numbers whereas they also include the semantic grounding to the long-term memory. The expected outcome is that article numbers should generate the worst results whereas names and symbols should be equally good in supporting the idea of the semantic content of the trigger being the most important part.

3 2 Hypothesis As our previous study (Thorvald, et al., 2012) did not find significant differences between the use of article numbers and symbols, possibly due to a floor effect and a small sample size, this paper will investigate a similar hypothesis: Using identifiers with semantic meaning reduces errors and assembly time. The hypothesis is tested in an experiment using three independent groups of assembly workers, used to handling article numbers as identifiers. A piece of software was created where the subjects are asked to match article numbers, symbols and famous names to themselves an identifier appears on the screen and the task is to click on a corresponding button. For this, reaction time and accuracy is recorded and analysed for differences depending on what state of the independent variable the subjects are assigned to, article numbers, symbols or names. Whereas falsifying or confirming the hypothesis is very important to the experiment, perhaps it is not the most interesting result that may come from this study. It is already heavily suggested by looking at existing literature that article numbers will fare worse in this experiment than symbols or words since article numbers by nature can be equated to nonsense-syllables (Bartlett, 1995, Ebbinghaus, 1913). A rather more interesting analysis is how much worse article numbers are than the other two variables given that the above hypothesis can be confirmed. One should not forget that, even if article numbers are generally not considered to be very suitable for human use, they do carry several benefits. Perhaps the greatest one being that there is an infinite number of them. So the eventual move towards eliminating article numbers in favour of other, more meaningful, identifiers would require this new syntax to be significantly better than article numbers to make the transition economically viable. Therefore, statistical measurements such as effect size will be of great interest to investigate how much better symbols and words fare in comparison to article numbers. 3 Method A total of 39 participants, all experienced assembly workers underwent the test, all equally distributed among the three conditions. Three of the participants were female (about 7%) and 36 were male. Though a better mix of genders would have been preferable, the assembly lines where subjects were recruited had this biased distribution of gender. The three women who were included in the test were distributed evenly across the three groups. The software was created in Microsoft Visual Basic 2010 and consists of three main parts, one for each condition. At startup, a selection screen is shown where the subject or the experimenter can choose what condition is to be tested. Upon selection the user sees one large start-button and 14 target buttons. On pressing the start button, a random stimulus is visible (Figure 3-1) for one second and the subject carries out the selection of the appropriate target. After pressing the correct or incorrect target, reaction time and accuracy is recorded and to call for the next stimulus, the start button must be pressed again. Reaction time is measured as elapsed time from pressing start to pressing any target, correct or incorrect.

4 Figure 3-1. Article number to be matched to the corresponding button. Symbol and names groups had the exact same task but rather than article numbers, they were presented with symbols or common names. 3.1 Article numbers The article numbers were created using a random number generator set to generate 6- digit numbers between and A 6-digit article number is a very common length, at times there may be more digits (up to 8) but it is very rare that article numbers in the automotive industry contain less than 6 digits. 3.2 Symbols The symbols used all came from the ANSII table with 255 possible symbols to use as triggers. The symbols chosen for the test were selected on the basis of their physical properties and size, thus excluding dots, commas etc. 3.3 Names Using only article numbers and symbols in the test would have left it open to criticism due to the large difference in the number of characters that made up the stimulus. Not only would there be a difference in semantics where symbols have a meaning and article numbers do not, there is also a difference in target length that could confound the experiment. Therefore the decision to also use a combination of characters was made. This ultimately led up to the use of the names of famous persons as stimulus. The names used were selected upon their recognisability using only surname, given name or nickname, this to reduce the number of letters. 3.4 Implementation For the briefing of the test, the subjects were shown how the software worked and informed of what they were expected to do. To avoid any type of priming of targets, the article number group was shown the symbols part of the software, the symbol group was shown the names part and the names group was shown the article numbers part of the program. All groups were told that the only things that would change were the targets. 4 Results The results showed clearly how the article number group performed significantly worse than the other two groups (p < 0.001). Table 4-1 shows descriptive results

5 from the experiment. As is evident from the table below, the symbols and names groups performed considerably better than the article numbers group. Table 4-1. Descriptive statistics of all three independent variables. Quality Group Mean Std. Deviation Total Article numbers Symbols Names 2,31 3,04 1,88 2,02 0,60 0,36 0,28 0,24 A homogeneity of variances test showed that the variances were equal and a one-way Anova produced the results in Table 4-2 below, confirming that the difference between the groups is statistically significant. Table 4-2. One- way Anova Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 10, ,201 59,185,000 Within Groups 3,164 36,088 Total 13, As mentioned, comparisons between groups showed significant differences between article number and symbol group p < 0.001, and between article number and name group p < As expected, no significant differences between symbol and name groups could be found.. Table 4-3 below, shows multiple comparisons between all three groups. Group Table 4-3. Multiple comparisons between groups. Group Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Art.nr Symbol, ,000, , Names, ,000, , Symbol Art.nr, ,000-1, , Names, ,434 -, , Names Art.nr, ,000-1, , Symbol, ,434 -, ,

6 5 Discussion and conclusions After viewing the results of this experiment, it is important to recognize that they do not necessarily suggest a major paradigm shift where the assembly industry should abandon article numbers in favour of symbol identifiers altogether. Assigned with the use of article numbers are several practical benefits that will not be thoroughly discussed in this brief paper, such as the fact that they do have certain robustness to their nature and they are also combinable into an infinite number of identifiers. Rather, what this experiment and these results advertise is some afterthought on the area from workplace designers and technicians. It is not necessarily the physical properties of the symbols themselves that create more efficient work but rather the information that they entail and carry. Using identifiers that have inherent meaning, whether they are numbers, symbols, names or whatever, is what should be learnt from this experiment. The fact that the article number group fared considerably worse in this experiment than both the symbol and name groups strengthens the hypothesis that using identifiers with semantic content is preferred. As hypothesized, there was no statistically significant difference between symbol and name groups. This suggests that whatever difference in character length or differences in any other type of identifier structure is negligible. It most likely is easier to remember one digit as opposed to several digits if there is no semantic content. If semantic content is present, as in the case of symbols and names, this nullifies the difference in character length and equalizes their intrusiveness into the human mind. The argument made about the importance of semantic structure is heavily inspired by the idea of chunking in short term memory (Jonides, et al., 2008). Just as chunking is a matter of connecting information to long term memory, to something that is already familiar to the subject, the idea of using identifiers with semantic content draws on the same idea. If the subject can associate information to something they already know, recognition, recall, matching and overall cognitive processing will be faster and more accurate. 6 References Bartlett, S. (1995). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge Univ Press. Bouma, H. & De Voogd, A. (1974). On the control of eye saccades in reading. Vision Research, 14 (4), Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Teachers College, Columbia University. Garzia, R. P. & Sesma, M. (1993). Vision and reading. Journal of Opthalmic Vision Development (24), Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L. & Nee, D. E. (2008). The Mind and Brain of Short-Term Memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 (1), Rookes, P. & Willson, J. (2000). Perception: Theory, Development and Organisation. London: Routledge. Stewart, D PLM Perspective: A Brief History of Part Numbering Systems. [Available from: ]. Thorvald, P., Bäckstrand, G., Högberg, D. & Case, K. (2012). Syntax and Sequencing of Assembly Instructions. In Rebelo, F. & Soares, M. M. (eds.). Advances in Usability Evaluation Part II.