Fig 1.
The relationship between “task load”, “workload”, and “personal perception”.
Fig 2.
The relationship between “task load”, “workload”, “basic task load”, and “personal capacity”.
Fig 3.
The relationship between basic time load and time pressure.
Fig 4.
The static and dynamic effect when worker “A” is exposed to circumstantial stressors.
Fig 5.
Example about task reception of perceived situational demand and perceived capability of an imaginary worker.
Fig 6.
The accumulation and transformation mechanism of different types of stress.
Fig 7.
The Overall Labor Effectiveness with relevant factors, in the format of drivers and restrainers in a Force Field Analysis.
Fig 8.
The components of the use case, with the constructed “personal profile”, “personal capacity”, along with “primary stressor” and “circumstantial stressor” as inputs, while “stress-induced state” and “performance profile” are the outputs of the simulation.
Fig 9.
The simulated working schedules in the use case, with two shifts with a lunch break (a), with additional hourly breaks (b), and with a reduced work pace after the lunch break (c).
Fig 10.
The work behavior of the worker “A” in an 8-hour working day in the “normal load” scenario.
Fig 11.
The behavior of the worker “A” in the “overload” scenario throughout the 8-hour working day.
Fig 12.
The work behavior of the worker “A” in a working day with introduced interventions of additional breaks added hourly (left) and reduced work pace after the lunch break (right).
Fig 13.
The sensitivity of the “age” of operators on “Sustained attention” (upper), with the uniform distribution from 20 to 40 years old.
The sensitivity of the “failure rate” on “Sustained attention” (lower), with the normal distribution between the mean value of 40 minutes for each occurring fault.