An Architecture for Intelligent Interfaces

Abstract

What are the requirements on computer-an d telecommunications-based tools to aid groups i n producing intellectual products? In this article we examine research collaborations as a particularl y informative example of group work and propose a framework for describing research collaboratio n that should provide guidance to those developin g technology to support collaborative work. Th e framework is based on 50 semistructured interview s with researchers in psychology, managemen t science, and computer science . It focuses on th e problems in forming and maintaining persona l relationships and completing tasks that researcher s must solve to have a successful collaboration . Thes e problems occur when collaborators are initiatin g projects, executing them, and documenting results .

A Human–Automation Interface Model to Guide Automation Design of System Functions

“…The proposed process includes the development of a functional architecture that comprises both human tasks and automation functions for the total system. In effect, it constitutes the design methodology and automation philosophy, as espoused by Rouse, Geddes, and Curry (1987–1988). It is based on function decomposition with a paradigm to conceptualize the shared roles between human and automation.…”

“…In many cases, however, soldiers will still be very much involved in system operations. To combat the increasing complexity and serious potential for information overloads, Rouse, Geddes, and Curry (1987–1988) argued that two methodological issues must be addressed (explicitly or implicitly) before beginning the development of a support system concept: choose a design methodology and adopt an automation philosophy .…”

“…Rouse, Geddes, and Curry (1987–1988) argued that any human–machine interface should involve a few common methodological ingredients: an understanding of the user–system interaction, human capabilities and limitations in performing the general tasks identified, and the potential barriers to using the interface. In addition, “use of advanced hardware and software technology should not be an end in itself; it should be the means to providing the desired functionality.…”

“…Rouse, Geddes, and Curry (1987–1988) caution against simply automating all that is possible, stating that “this technology‐driven approach is understandable, but is increasingly unacceptable as the technology that is driving automation efforts becomes more likely to be incomprehensibly complex” (p. 91). They argue for the adoption of an operator‐centered automation philosophy, which emphasizes human operators in control and technology that provides support, a concept that “requires a comprehensive architecture for an intelligent interface” (p. 92).…”

“…A top‐down, overarching approach is proposed that enables engineers to explicitly define and design the interaction between alternative automation schemes and the human crew. In effect, it constitutes the design methodology and automation philosophy, as espoused by Rouse et al (1987–1988). With this tool in hand, the exact role of the soldier operators as the central component of the vehicle systems is clearly understood well before the fielding of the vehicle systems.…”