Transformation of Work Systems - Towards Remotely Supervised Controlled Work

  • Pernilla UlfvengrenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 821)


The world of operational and work systems is changing not only because of increased commercial pressures to cut costs but also because the deployment of new technologies. Digitalization creates opportunities for new ways of organizing and managing existing work systems. Being able to achieve change and to design future systems are the core capabilities to meet future digitalization without compromising sustainable work systems. It is argued that the increase of automation and robots in theses work systems calls for a new approach. Paradoxically with increased automation and more advanced technology it is now more than ever essential to view these operational systems as people systems.


Sociotechnical system Remote control System change 


  1. Rasmussen J (1997a) Safety Science; Risk Management in a Dynamic Society. 27Google Scholar
  2. McDonald N, Cogn Tech Work (2015) 17:193.
  3. Bertallanffy L (1969) General system theory: foundations, development, applications Google Scholar
  4. Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19:775–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter G, Rooksby J, Wang Y, Khajeh-Hosseini A (2012) The ironies of automation … still going strong at 30? In: Proceedings of ECCE 2012 Conference, 29th–31st August, Edinburgh, North BritaisGoogle Scholar
  6. Boy GA (2009) The orchestra: a conceptual model for function allocation and scenario-based engineering in multi-agent safety-critical systems. Paper presented at the European conference on cognitive ergonomics, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Boy GA (1998) Cognitive function analysis for human-centered automation of safety-critical systems. Paper presented at the CHI 1998, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. Dencker K, Stahre J, Mårtensson L, Fasth Å, Akillioglu H (2009) Proactive assembly systems – realizing the potential of human collaboration with automation. Special Issue of the annual reviews in control. Elsevier
  9. Fasth Å, Bruch J, Dencker K, Stahre J, Mårtensson L, Lundholm T (2010) Designing proactive assembly systems (ProAct) – criteria and interaction between automation, information, and competence. Asian Int. J. Sci. Technol. Prod. Manufact. Eng. (AJISTPME) 2(4)Google Scholar
  10. Mårtensson L (1996) The operator’s requirements on work in automated systems. In: The international journal of human factors in manufacturing, vol. 6 (1) 1996. WileyGoogle Scholar
  11. Parasuraman R, Wickens CD (2008) Humans: still vital after all these years of automation. Hum. Factors, 5(3): 511–520. Copyright © 2008, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
  12. Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 13:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rasmussen J (1997b) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci 27(2–3):183–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sheridan TB (1987) Supervisory control. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors. Wiley, New York, pp 1243–1263Google Scholar
  15. Sheridan TB (1990) Task allocation and supervisory control. In: Helander M (ed) Handbook of human-computer interaction. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 159–173Google Scholar
  16. Sheridan TB (2002). Humans and automation: system design and research issues. Wiley in cooperation with the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Wickens CD, Hollands JG (1999) Engineering psychology and Human performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. p. 07458, ISBN 0-321-04711-7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INDEK, KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations