Function Allocation Considerations in the Era of Human Autonomy Teaming

Roth, Emilie M.; Sushereba, Christen; Militello, Laura G.; Diiulio, Julie; Ernst, Katie

doi:10.1177/1555343419878038

Cited by 53 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the question of what functions or tasks that should be automatized has no simple answer. Lists of function allocation, or "Men Are Better At -Machines Are Better At" lists, and how these can be used in humanautomation teamwork (E. M. Roth, Sushereba, Militello, Diiulio, & Ernst, 2019) have been provided by several researchers (Fitts, 1951;Chapanis, 1965;Thomas B Sheridan, 1987). However, such lists have a presumption that humans and machines/automation have fixed strengths and weaknesses.…”

Section: Human-automation Teamwork Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-automation teamwork : Current practices and future directions in air traffic control

Svensson

2020

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This dissertation explores the topic of human-automation teamwork in Air Traffic Control (ATC). ATC is a high stakes environment where complex automation is being introduced while the human operator has the legal responsibility. With increasing demands on productivity in various industries (as also in ATC), automation is introduced for efficiency, maintaining safety, and to keep the workload of the human operator within acceptable limits. However, previous research has shown that automation may cause negative effects on the human operator and performance, such as forcing the operator out of the control loop, which might lead to problems or confusion. Previous research suggests a need for strengthening human-automation collaboration where automation is seen as a team member to keep the operator in the loop. In order to achieve such teamwork, the design of the automation needs to be human-centred, i.e. that the automation is designed for the underlying need of the operator.The aim of this dissertation is to explore teamwork in ATC from several angles to understand how the air traffic controllers are working in current ATC environments and how automation could be designed to support humanautomation teamwork. The included studies rely on interviews, simulations, and questionnaires, all with operational air traffic controllers as participants.The results indicate that for both human-human teamwork and humanautomation teamwork, teamwork factors such as adaptability and mutual performance monitoring (knowing what the other team members are doing) are important for the work performance in current ATC environments, where mutual performance monitoring is especially important during stressful situations.When designing automation, lessons learned from human-human teamwork should be considered. The work within the scope of this dissertation identifies and concerns two human-automation teamwork aspects: boundary awareness and implicit communication. These are proposed to support the operator's knowledge about the automation and the communication flow between the iv operator and the automation. Boundary awareness is the operator's knowledge of the automation's abilities, its boundaries (what it can or cannot manage), and about consequences if it would go outside of these boundaries. Implicit communication is the unspoken or implied small cues that the operator and the automation can use to communicate with each other. It is proposed that implicit communication can be based on the work patterns of the operator. The knowledge gained through the work in this dissertation can be used as a foundation for further research and design of automation regarding operator knowledge about the automation boundaries and the communication within the team. v vii INCLUDED PUBLICATIONS

show abstract

Section: Human-automation Teamwork Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-automation teamwork : Current practices and future directions in air traffic control

Svensson

2020

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Klein et al also brought up aspects such as mutual predictability and understanding. Roth et al (2019) focused on function allocation and emphasized that cooperation is an important aspect that must be considered. Earlier, Bradshaw et al (2013) brought up the need for a focus on cooperation, but at the same time criticized the use of LOA for autonomous systems.…”

Section: Humans and Automation Working Side-by-sidementioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced autonomy workspace (RAW)—an interaction design approach for human-automation cooperation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lack of support for handling a reduction of autonomy in a highly autonomous automation may lead to a stressful situation for a human when forced to take over. We present a design approach, the Reduced Autonomy Workspace, to address this. The starting point is that the human and the automation work together in parallel control processes, but at different levels of autonomy cognitive control, such as setting goals or implementing plans, which is different from levels of automation. When autonomy is reduced, the automation should consult the human by providing information that has been aligned to the level at which the human is working, and the timing of the provision should be adapted to suit the human’s work situation. This is made possible by allowing the automation to monitor the human in a separate process. The combination of these processes, information level alignment and timing of the presentation, are the key characteristics of the Reduced Autonomy Workspace. The Reduced Autonomy Workspace consists of four phases: Identification of the need; evaluation of whether, and, if so, when, and how to present information; perception and response by the human; implementation of a solution by the automation. The timing of the information presentation should be adapted in real-time to provide flexibility, while the level of the information provided should be tuned offline and kept constant to provide predictability. Use of the Reduced Autonomy Workspace can reduce the risk for surprising, stressful hand-over situations, and the need to monitor the automation to avoid them.

show abstract

“…It consists of allocating tasks to either humans or machine agents simply by studying their respective strengths and limitation, derived from a pre‐defined inventory of capabilities (Table 2). Another traditional approach, which appeared much later in 1978, is the Levels of Automation (LoA) approach (Endsley, 1999; Parasuraman et al, 2000; Roth et al, 2019). It introduces an objective basis for making human‐automation allocation choices by assigning recommended levels of automation to technologies.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, it could be argued that there is a third approach, being a body of literature that dismisses the MABA‐MABA and LoA approaches as oversimplifications of the problems space (de Winter & Dodou, 2014; Dekker & Woods, 2002; Jordan, 1963; Roth et al, 2019). The critics argue that in both approaches functional allocation is treated as a simple act of substitution, whereas what is needed is a transformation of the interdependencies between how humans and autonomous technologies interact, additionally embedded in changes of operational context.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaming with industrial cobots: A socio‐technical perspective on safety analysis

Adriaensen

Costantino

Gravio

et al. 2021

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative human–machine interaction will be progressively intensified in industrial applications. The aim of this article is to examine current approaches to cobot safety by showing that these approaches can additionally benefit from systems thinking methods. The first part of this article covers a narrative literature review on predominantly techno‐centric robot safety approaches, with a strong focus on containing kinetic energy and ensuring separation with humans. The second part introduces systems thinking methods to analyze a socio‐technical perspective on cobot safety, including joint cognitive systems and distributed cognition perspectives. This explorative research dimension is expected to overcome an overly narrow interpretation of safety issues, anticipating the challenges ahead in ever more complex cobot applications. This article embraces a socio‐technical perspective to explore the potential of Joint Cognitive Systems to manage risk and safety in cobot applications. Three systemic safety analysis approaches are presented and tested with a demonstrator case study concerning their feasibility for cobot applications: System‐Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP); Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM); and Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork (EAST). These methods each provide interesting extensions to complement the traditional understanding of risk as required by current and future industrial cobot implementations. The power of systemic methods for safer and more efficient cobot operations lies in revealing the distributed and emergent result from joint actions and overcoming the reductionist view from individual failures or single agent responsibilities. The safe operation of cobot applications can only be achieved through alignment of design, training, and operation of such applications.

show abstract

Function Allocation Considerations in the Era of Human Autonomy Teaming

Cited by 53 publications

References 67 publications

Human-automation teamwork : Current practices and future directions in air traffic control

Human-automation teamwork : Current practices and future directions in air traffic control

Reduced autonomy workspace (RAW)—an interaction design approach for human-automation cooperation

Teaming with industrial cobots: A socio‐technical perspective on safety analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About