Advertisement

A Framework for Understanding Human Factors Issues in Border Control Automation

  • Minna KuljuEmail author
  • Mari Ylikauppila
  • Sirra Toivonen
  • Laura Salmela
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 544)

Abstract

New security threats and increasing traveler flows as well as needs to enhance facilitation and security in EU external cross-border traffic have accelerated the use of novel technologies in border control. Especially at airports, automated border control, more commonly known as e-gates, have been taken widely into use. With e-gates, travelers perform border check as self-service, and the role of the border guards is to monitor or possibly also assist travelers passing the border. The introduction of automated systems significantly reshapes current ways of conducting border control from the border guard’s perspective, and automation thus requires new skills from them. Understanding the effects of automation on the work tasks and work performance of border guards requires thorough examination. This paper introduces key Human Factors issues affecting border guard and border control system performance. The results are based on literature review and field studies conducted in different border control points within six European countries. The paper presents a Human Factors framework for understanding the complex nature of the border control and different factors influencing to both border control process and border guard performance within it.

Keywords

EU Schengen area Automated border control Border digitalization Human factors Human factors framework 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted under the BODEGA project (Proactive Enhancement of Human Performance in Border Control; http://bodega-project.eu). This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grand agreement No. 653676. Authors would like to thank project partners for their valuable co-operation in gathering and analyzing the data.

References

  1. 1.
    Frontex Agency, Frontex launches a course on automated border control, Press Rel., 14 March 2017Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toivonen, S., Kojo, H. (eds.): Recommendations for Future ABC Installations - Best Practices, vol. 303. VTT Technology (2017). http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2017/T303.pdf
  3. 3.
    EUROCONTROL 2017. Forecast of Annual Number of IFR Flights (2017 - 2023), September 2017Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Accenture: Crossing boundaries: Emerging technologies at the border (2017). https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-border-agencies-emerging-technologies
  5. 5.
    Frontex Agency. Best practice operational guidelines for automated border control (ABC) systems, European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Technical report (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Parliament, “Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)” (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orav, A., D’Alfonso, A.: European Parliament, EPRS. Smart Borders: EU Entry/Exit System, Legislative briefing, June 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586614/EPRS_BRI(2016)586614_EN.pdf
  8. 8.
    Endsley, M., Kaber, D.: Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42(3), 462–492 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, J.D., Seppelt, B.D.: Human factors in automation design. In: Nof, S. (ed.) Springer Handbook of Automation. Springer Handbooks, pp. 417–436. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78831-7_25CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39(2), 230–253 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riley, V., Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M.: Operator Reliance on Automation: Theory and data. In: Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, pp. 19–35. Erlbaum (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B.: 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langan-Fox, J., Sankey, M.J., Canty, J.M.: Human factors measurement for future air traffic control systems. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 51(5), 595–637 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraemer, S., Carayon, P., Sanquist, T.F.: Human and organizational factors in security screening and inspection systems: conceptual framework and key research needs. Cogn. Technol. Work 11(1), 29–41 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ylikauppila, M., Toivonen, S., Kulju, M., Jokela, M.: Understanding the factors affecting UX and technology acceptance in the context of automated border controls. In: IEEE Joint Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference, The Hague, pp. 168–175 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    EN ISO 26800:2011. Ergonomics. General approach, principles and conceptsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dul, J., et al.: A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55(4), 377–395 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    EN ISO 6385:2016 Ergonomics principles in the design of work systemsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Ergonomics Association. Definition and domains of Ergonomics. http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html
  20. 20.
    HSE. Health and Safety Executive. HSG48. Reducing error and influencing behaviour (1999). http://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/hsg48.pdf
  21. 21.
    Fergusson, J.: Twelve seconds to decide. Frontex (2014). https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/General/12_seconds_to_decide.pdf. ISBN 978-92-95033-92-4
  22. 22.
    Le Guellec, E., et al.: Human factors approach to study border control automation impacts and needs: methodology and preliminary results of field studies. In: Ahram, T., Karwowski, W. (eds.) AHFE 2017. AISC, vol. 598, pp. 16–24. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60011-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Keyser, V.: Work analysis in French language ergonomics. Ergonomics 34, 653–669 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gianni, R., Ikonen, V.: D2.3 RRI Methodology for Project and Development of Initial Scenarios – Summary. Public summary of Bodega project Deliverable 2.3. 2016. http://bodega-project.eu/Deliverables-Publications
  25. 25.
    Pinder, C.C.: Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Poutiainen, T.: Rajavartioaseman johtaminen: Rajavartioaseman päälliköiden ja varapäälliköiden käsityksiä rajavartioaseman johtamisesta. Master’s thesis. National Defence University (in Finnish only) (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    EN-ISO 10075-1:2017. Ergonomic principles related to mental workloadGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 2(2), 140–160 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoff, K.A., Bashir, M.: Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 57(3), 407–434 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Endsley, M.R., Kiris, E.O.: The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 37, 381–394 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Helton, W., Russell, P.: Rest is best: the role of rest and task interruptions on vigilance. Cognition 134, 165–173 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Donald, F., Donald, C.: Task disengagement and implications for vigilance performance in CCTV surveillance. Cogn. Technol. Work 17(1), 121–130 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 46(1), 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Hayes, T.L.: Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87(2), 268–279 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roto, V., Palanque, P., Karvonen, H.: Engaging automation at work – a literature review. In: 5th IFIP WG Working Conference on Human-Work Interaction Design (HWID 2018) – Designing Engaging Automation, Espoo, Finland, 20–21 August 2018Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Minna Kulju
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mari Ylikauppila
    • 1
  • Sirra Toivonen
    • 1
  • Laura Salmela
    • 1
  1. 1.VTTTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations