Assessing operational impacts of automation using functional resonance analysis method

  • Pedro N. P. FerreiraEmail author
  • José Juan Cañas
Original Article


Interaction with automated systems and other types of technologies seems inevitable and almost a requirement of human work. The aviation sector, and in particular air traffic control, is devoting considerable efforts towards automation, to respond to the increased demand for capacity. Project AUTOPACE investigated the impacts of foreseeable automation over human performance and behaviour. The purpose was to identify new training requirements for air traffic controllers under foreseeable automation scenarios. In addition to the research carried out under the remit of AUTOPACE, the functional resonance analysis method was used to explore how the interactions between human operators and technology may change, as new automation features would be introduced into ATC operations. The FRAM model was developed based on AUTOPACE concept of operations, two levels of automation (E2 and E1) and was then used to instantiate three different non-nominal situations that were also investigated by the project. This paper presents the FRAM-based analysis carried out and discusses the potential impacts of automation, considering uncertainty and variability as two critical aspects that emerge from complex operation scenarios. The relation with AUTOPACE work is continuously established and the added value of FRAM for the pursuit of further AUTOPACE work is argued.


Human–automation interactions Uncertainty and variability Interdependency and complexity 



  1. AUTOPACE (2016) Deliverable D2.1: future automation scenarios. Accessed 09 Jul 2018
  2. AUTOPACE (2017a) Deliverable D3.1: ATCo psychological model with automation. Accessed 09 Jul 2018
  3. AUTOPACE (2017b) Deliverable D3.2: competence and Training requirements. Accessed 09 Jul 2018
  4. Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19 (6):775 –559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balfe N, Wilson JR, Sharples S, Clarke T (2012) Development of design principles for automated systems in transport control. Ergonomics 55(1):37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boag C, Neal A, Loft S, Halford GS (2006) An analysis of relational complexity in an air traffic control conflict detection task. Ergonomics 49:1508–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burdea GC, Coiffet P (2017) Virtual reality technology. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  8. Cañas JJ, Ferreira P, López de Frutos P, Puntero E, López E, Gómez-Comendador F, De Crescenzio F, Lucchi F, Netjasov F, Mirkovic B (2018) Mental workload in the explanation of automation effects on ATCo performance. In: The 2nd international symposium on human mental workload: models and applications (H-WORKLOAD 2018), The Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR), September 20–21Google Scholar
  9. Christoffersen K, Woods DD (2002) How to make automated systems team players. In: Salas E (ed) Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research, vol 2. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cinaz B, Arnrich B, Marca R, Tröster G (2013) Monitoring of mental workload levels during an everyday life office-work scenario. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17(2): 229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corver S, Grote G (2016) Uncertainty management in enroute air traffic control: a field study exploring controller strategies and requirements for automation. Cogn Technol Work 18:541–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Crescenzio F, Lucchi F, Gómez-Comendador FG, Puntero Parla E, López de Frutos P, Netjasov F, Cañas JJ (2017) Analysis on future automation scenarios in the framework of 2050 ATC. In: SESAR innovation days 2017—Belgrade, Serbia, November 28–30Google Scholar
  13. Dekker S, Hollnagel E (2004) Human factors and folk models. Cogn Technol Work 6(2):79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dekker S, Cilliers P, Hofmeyr JH (2011) The complexity of failure: implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Saf Sci 49:939–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Djokic J, Lorenz B, Fricke H (2010) Air traffic control complexity as workload driver. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 18:930–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards T, Sharples S, Wilson JR, Kirwan B (2012) Factor interaction influences on human performance in air traffic control: The need for a multifactorial model. Work 41:159–166Google Scholar
  17. Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergonom Soc 37(1):32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission-EC (2009) Commission Regulation No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009: laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky (OJ L 13, 17.1.2009), p 3Google Scholar
  19. Flach JM (2012) Complexity: learning to muddle through. Cogn Technol Work 14:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fothergill S, Neal A (2008) The effect of workload on conflict decision making strategies in air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 52, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  21. Grote G (2015) Promoting safety by increasing uncertainty—implications for risk management. Saf Sci 71:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Histon JM, Hansman RJ (2008) Mitigating complexity in air traffic control: the role of structure-based abstractions. report no. ICAT-2008-05. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Hollnagel E (2009) The ETTO principle—efficiency-thoroughness trade-off: why things that go right sometimes go wrong. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  24. Hollnagel E (2012a) FRAM, the functional resonance analysis method: modelling complex socio-technical systems. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Hollnagel E (2012b) Coping with complexity: past, present and future. Cogn Technol Work 14:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollnagel E, Woods DD (1983) Cognitive systems engineering: new wine in new bottles. Int J Man Mach Stud 18:583–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) (2006) Resilience engineering—concepts and precepts. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  28. Kontogiannis T (2010) Adapting plans in progress in distributed supervisory work: aspects of complexity, coupling, and control. Cogn Technol Work 12:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kontogiannis T, Malakis S (2013) Strategies in coping with complexity: development of a behavioural marker system for air traffic controllers. Saf Sci 57:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leveson N (2004) A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf Sci 42(4):237–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Netjasov F, Mirkovic B, Krstic Simic T, Babic O (2017) Hazard identification approach for future highly automated air traffic management concept of operation: experiences from AUTOPACE project. In: 7th International conference on safety and security engineering (SAFE 2017), Rome, Italy September 6–8Google Scholar
  32. Patriarca R, Di Gravio G, Costantino F (2017a) A Monte Carlo evolution of the functional resonance analysis method (FRAM) to assess performance variability in complex systems. Saf Sci 91:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patriarca R, Di Gravio G, Costantino F (2017b) myFRAM: an open tool support for the functional resonance analysis method. In: IEEE 2nd international conference on system reliability and safety, 20–22 December, Milan, pp 439–443Google Scholar
  34. Prandini M, Piroddi L, Puechmorel S, Brázdilová SL (2011) Toward air traffic complexity assessment in new generation air traffic management systems. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 12(3):809–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rivière T (2004) Redesign of the European route network for sector-less. In: The 23rd digital avionics systems conference (IEEE Cat. no. 04CH37576), vol 1, pp 2.A.2–2.1Google Scholar
  36. Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 6:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tian J, Wu J, Yang Q, Zhao T (2016) FRAMA: a safety assessment approach based on functional resonance analysis method. Saf Sci 85:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vanderhaegen F, Jimenez V (2018) The amazing human factors and their dissonances for autonomous cyber-physical & human systems. In: 2018 IEEE industrial cyber-physical systems (ICPS) 15–18 May, St. Petersburg, pp 597–602Google Scholar
  39. Wiener EL, Curry RE (1980) Flight-deck automation: promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23(10):995–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woods DD (2015) Four concepts for resilience and their implications for systems safety in the face of complexity. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 141:5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang Q, Tian J, Zhao T (2017) Safety is an emergent property: Illustrating functional resonance in air traffic management with formal verification. Saf Sci 93:162–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Young MS, Stanton NA (2002) Malleable attentional resources theory: a new explanation for the effects of mental underload on performance. Hum Fact 44(3):365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeleny M (1981) Multiple criteria decision-making. Mcgraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean EngineerigUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Mind, Brain and Behaviour Research CentreUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations