Ironies of Automation

Bainbridge, Lisanne

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-029348-6.50026-9

Cited by 385 publications

(388 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

366

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In That is, automatic equipment seems to function best when the workload is light and the task routine: When the task requires assistance, when the workload is highest, this is when the automatic equipment is of least assistance---this is the "irony" of automation (Bainbridge, 1987; see also S. Norman & Orlady, 1989). What of the fact that the people are "out of the loop"?…”

Section: The Problem Is Not Automation It Is Lack Of Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ‘problem ’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’

1990

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B

353

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As automation increasingly takes its place in industry, especially high risk industry, it is often blamed for causing harm and increasing the chance of human error when failures do occur. I propose that the problem is not the presence of automation, but rather its inappropriate design. The problem is that the operations under normal operating conditions are performed appropriately, but there is inadequate feedback and interaction with the humans who must control the overall conduct of the task. When the situations exceed the capabilities of the automatic equipment, then the inadequate feedback leads to difficulties for the human controllers. The problem, I suggest, is that the automation is at an intermediate level of intelligence, powerful enough to take over control that used to be done by people, but not powerful enough to handle all abnormalities. Moreover, its level of intelligence is insufficient to provide the continual, appropriate feedback that occurs naturally among human operators. This is the source of the current difficulties. To solve this problem, the automation should either be made less intelligent or more so, but the current level is quite inappropriate. The overall message is that it is possible to reduce error through appropriate design considerations. Appropriate design should assume the existence of error, it should continually provide feedback, it should continually interact with operators in an effective manner, and it should allow for the worst situations possible. What is needed is a soft, compliant technology, not a rigid, formal one.

show abstract

Section: The Problem Is Not Automation It Is Lack Of Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ‘problem ’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’

1990

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B

353

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has long been known that introducing automation might have unexpected side effects on human performance [1,2]. For instance, consider a computer tool designed to highlight targets of interest on a radar screen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Are People’s Decisions Sometimes Worse with Computer Support?

Alberdi

Strigini

Povyakalo

et al. 2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Abstract. In many applications of computerised decision support, a recognised source of undesired outcomes is operators' apparent over-reliance on automation. For instance, an operator may fail to react to a potentially dangerous situation because a computer fails to generate an alarm. However, the very use of terms like "over-reliance" betrays possible misunderstandings of these phenomena and their causes, which may lead to ineffective corrective action. For instance, training or procedural changes are favored responses, but they do not address all causes of apparently "over-reliant" behaviour. We review relevant literature in the area of "automation bias" and describe the diverse mechanisms that may be involved in human errors when using computer support. We discuss these mechanisms, with reference to errors of omission when using "alerting systems", with the help of examples of novel counterintuitive findings we obtained from a case study in a health care application, as well as other examples from the literature. Permanent repository link

show abstract

“…Wilson (1991) indicated that operator local control is related to the job characteristic of autonomy, seen at the core of individual and group work design changes as well as of job design models and theories. Bainbridge (1982) expressed the opinion that "the more advanced a control system is, so the more crucial may be the contribution of the human operator." The degree of control and breadth of influence exerted by operators will be determined by the skill-, rule-, or knowledge-based behaviors that the task interface will support (Rasmussen, 1986).…”

Section: Review Of the Literature Advanced Manufacturing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of multitasking on quality inspection in advanced manufacturing systems

Pesante

Williges

Woldstad

2001

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological and strategic developments have changed the role of human operators in the manufacturing environment. The highly specialized work force of the low-tech manufacturing system has evolved into the multi-functional work force of the high-tech manufacturing system. Among the multiple tasks that an operator is expected to conduct in advanced manufacturing systems (AMS) are job scheduling, inventory planning, machine set-up, problem solving, and quality inspection.The quality inspection task in AMS consists of a search component, frequently conducted by a machine, and a decision making component conducted by the operator.This quality inspection system is often referred to as a hybrid inspection system (HIS). It has been demonstrated that in general the performance of HIS is better than that of pure human or pure automated inspection systems. This research investigated the effects of different types of defects (presented at the same time in the inspected parts), multitasking (concurrently conducting independent tasks), and their interaction on the operator's performance in the quality inspection task (with a memorized quality criteria) in an AMS.The results indicate that the performance of the operator in the quality inspection task while multitasking in an AMS will be determined not only by the variety of defects that can be present in the inspected parts, but also by the mental processing resources required to meet the demand imposed by the multiple independent tasks and the memorized quality criteria. The best performance will be obtained when the additional tasks' load minimizes the monotony of the quality inspection task without interfering with the processing resources needed for the memorized quality criteria.iii Dedicated to the memory of my father, José Pesante iv

show abstract

Ironies of Automation

Cited by 385 publications

References 9 publications

The ‘problem ’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’

The ‘problem ’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’

Why Are People’s Decisions Sometimes Worse with Computer Support?

The effects of multitasking on quality inspection in advanced manufacturing systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About