Advertisement

Engaging Automation at Work – A Literature Review

  • Virpi Roto
  • Philippe Palanque
  • Hannu Karvonen
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 544)

Abstract

Automation pervades workplaces in an increasing pace and its effects on work practices and roles are far-reaching. Work tasks are typically automated with efficiency, effectiveness and safety in mind, but less attention is paid on the user experience aspects. As the amount of direct human control over technology is often decreased with automation, the human aspect of those systems might seem less essential and thus human-system interaction designers may not be consulted when automation is designed. Yet, fully autonomous and unmanned systems are rare, as humans often still have to monitor, intervene, maintain and control the automated environments – be it on-site or remotely. This paper discusses the need for better interaction design of automated systems with a focus on engaging user experiences in work environments. Results of a systematic literature on engaging user experience design in automation solutions used at work revealed that experiential human-automation interaction design is a neglected research topic. Therefore, we call for more research on automation design that improves not only efficiency, i.e., the pragmatic aspects of user experience, but also employee engagement and other emotional aspects of user experience. It is time for a turn to the experiential to take place also in the work automation context.

Keywords

Work automation Interaction design User experience Engagement Human-computer interaction Human factors Literature review 

References

  1. 1.
    Hancock, P.A., Jagacinski, R.J., Parasuraman, R., Wickens, C.D., Wilson, G.F., Kaber, D.B.: Human-automation interaction research: past, present, and future. Ergon. Des. 21(2), 9–14 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumfer, W.J., Levulis, S.J., Olson, M.D., Burgess, R.A.: A human factors perspective on ethical concerns of vehicle automation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1844–1848. Sage CA, Los Angeles (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghazizadeh, M., Lee, J.D., Boyle, L.N.: Extending the technology acceptance model to assess automation. Cogn. Technol. Work 14(1), 39–49 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Savioja, P., Liinasuo, M., Koskinen, H.: User experience: does it matter in complex systems? Cogn. Technol. Work 16(4), 429–449 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hassenzahl, M., Klapperich, H.: Convenient, clean, and efficient?: the experiential costs of everyday automation. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, pp. 21–30. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bainbridge, L.: Ironies of automation. Automatica 19, 775–780 (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 30(3), 286–297 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39(2), 230–253 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings, M.L., Gao, F., Thornburg, K.M.: Boredom in the workplace: a new look at an old problem. Hum. Factors 58(2), 279–300 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., Bakker, A.B.: The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3(1), 71–92 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahu, E.R.: Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 38(5), 758–773 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turner, P.: The anatomy of engagement. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bødker, S.: When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, pp. 1–8. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramsay, J., Barbesi, A., Preece, J.: A psychological investigation of long retrieval times on the World Wide Web. Interact. Comput. 10(1), 77–86 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cousin, G., Deepwell, F.: Designs for network learning: a communities of practice perspective. Stud. High. Educ. 30(1), 57–66 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dickey, M.D.: Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 53(2), 67–83 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hawthorn, D.: Interface design and engagement with older people. Behav. Inf. Technol. 26(4), 333–341 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kay, R.: Evaluating learning, design, and engagement in web-based learning tools (WBLTs): the WBLT evaluation scale. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(5), 1849–1856 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Przybylski, A.K., Rigby, C.S., Ryan, R.M.: A motivational model of video game engagement. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 14(2), 154–166 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacucci, G., et al.: Worlds of information: designing for engagement at a public multi-touch display. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2267–2276. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sidner, C.L., Kidd, C.D., Lee, C., Lesh, N.: Where to look: a study of human-robot engagement. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 78–84. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bargas-Avila, J.A., Hornbæk, K.: Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2689–2698. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merat, N., Jamson, A.H., Lai, F.C., Daly, M., Carsten, O.M.: Transition to manual: Driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 27, 274–282 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Khalil, M.: Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J. Syst. Softw. 80(4), 571–583 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carver, L., Turoff, M.: Human-computer interaction: the human and computer as a team in emergency management information systems. Commun. ACM 50(3), 33–38 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fitts, P.M.: Human engineering for an effective air navigation and traffic control system. National Research Council, Washington, DC (1951)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goom, M.K.: Function allocation and MANPRINT. In: Beevis, D., Essens, P., Schuffel, H. (eds.) Improving Function Allocation for Integrated Systems Design, pp. 45–61. Technical report CSERIAC SOAR 96-01. Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Centre, Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, OH, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dearden, M., Harrison, P.: Wright: Allocation of function: scenarios, context and the economics of effort. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 52(2), 289–318 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The model human processor: an engineering model of human performance. In: Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., Thomas J.P. (eds.) Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, vol. 2. Cognitive Processes and Performance. Wiley, Oxford (1986)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reason, J.: Generic error modelling system (GEMS): a cognitive framework for locating common human error forms. In: Rasmussen, J., Duncan, K., Leplat, L. (eds.) New Technology and Human Error. Wiley, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 1(1), 11–33 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heimonen, T., Hakulinen, J., Turunen, M., Jokinen, J.P.P., Keskinen, T., Raisamo, R.: Designing gesture-based control for factory automation. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8118, pp. 202–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_13Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Palviainen, J., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: User experience in machinery automation: from concepts and context to design implications. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 1042–1051. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_119Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cao, H., Suu, Y.A.: Case study of air cleaner by the intelligent interaction and emotion. J. Phys: Conf. Ser. 976(1), 012011 (2018)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Merritt, S.: Affective processes in human-automation interactions. Hum. Factors 53(4), 356–370 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bodker, S., Andersen, P.B.: Complex mediation. Hum. Comput. Interact. 20(4), 353–402 (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hao, Y., Helo, P.: The role of wearable devices in meeting the needs of cloud manufacturing: a case study. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 45, 168–179 (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Silva Filho, R.S., Huang, C.-L., Tewari, A., Jobin, J., Modi, P.: Using wearable and contextual computing to optimize field engineering work practices. In: Yamamoto, S. (ed.) HCI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9173, pp. 522–533. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20618-9_52Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Watanuki, K.: A mixed reality-based emotional interactions and communications for manufacturing skills training. In: Fukuda, S. (ed.) Emotional Engineering, pp. 39–61. Springer, London (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-423-4_3Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kymäläinen, T., et al.: Evaluating future automation work in process plants with an experience-driven science fiction prototype. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), pp. 54–61. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schmidt, A., Herrmann, T.: Intervention user interfaces: a new interaction paradigm for automated systems. Interactions 24(5), 40–45 (2017)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dekker, S.W., Wright, P.C.: Function allocation: a question of task transformation not allocation. In: Fallon, E., Bannon, L., McCarthy, J. (eds.) ALLFN 1997 Revisiting the Allocation of Functions Issue: New Perspectives, pp. 31–40. IEA Press (1997)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Matthews, G., Warm, J.S., Shaw, T.H., Finomore, V.: Predicting battlefield vigilance: a multivariate approach to assessment of attentional resources. Ergonomics 57(6), 856–875 (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rich, C., Ponsler, B., Holroyd, A., Sidner, C.L.: Recognizing engagement in human-robot interaction. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 375–382. IEEE, March 2010Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    APA 2017: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition. http://www.apastyle.org/manual/
  46. 46.
    van Dam, A.: Post-WIMP user interfaces. Commun. ACM 40(2), 63–67 (1997)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts, Design and ArchitectureAalto UniversityEspooFinland
  2. 2.ICS-IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier – Toulouse IIIToulouseFrance
  3. 3.VTT, Technical Research Centre of Finland LtdEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations