Advertisement

Can Human Operators and High-Level Automatic Systems Work Together?

  • Ann Britt Skjerve
  • Gyrd SkraaningJr.
  • Ray Saarni
  • Stine Strand
Conference paper

Abstract

The interaction between nuclear power plant operators and high-level automatic systems has been addressed by the OECD Halden Reactor Project (HRP) in four simulator studies across the last decade. The general motivation for the studies has been to obtain better insights into how operators work with automatic systems to contribute to safe and efficient nuclear process control. This chapter reviews the four studies to assess the lessons learned about operators’ ability to work with high-level automatic systems. The studies suggest that assessment of operators’ ability to recover unforeseen events should be prioritized when evaluating the adequacy of human-automation interaction. When unforeseen events occur, the mitigation and recovery process cannot be guided by operating procedures alone, and the operators heavily depend on the information provided in the human-system interface. The studies, further, suggest that explicit representation of the automatic system’s activity, including the use of verbal feedback from the automatic system on its activity, facilitate operators’ ability to work efficiently with high-level automatic systems. Finally, the studies suggest that even with the above characteristics, an automatic system cannot replace the need for a co-located human colleague in a recovery situation.

Keywords

Automatic System Verbal Feedback Operator Trust Turbine Operator Automatic Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bainbridge L (1987) Ironies of automation. In: Rasmussen J, Duncan KD, Leplat J (eds) New technology and human error. Wiley, UK, pp 271–283Google Scholar
  2. Billings CE (1991) Human-centered aircraft automation: a concept and guidelines. NASA Technical Memorandum 103885, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000Google Scholar
  3. Billings CE (1997) Aviation automation. the search for a human-centred approach. series: human factors in transportation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  4. Braarud PØ (2000) Subjective task complexity in the control room (HWR-621). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  5. Endsley MR (1996) Automation and situation awareness. In: Parasuraman R, Mouloua M (eds) Automation and human performance: theory and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, US, pp 163–183Google Scholar
  6. Fiore SM, Johnston JH, Smith CAP (2005) Evaluating computerized decision support systems for teams: using cognitive load and metacognition theory to develop team cognition measures. In: Proceedings from the 11th international conference on human-computer interaction (HCI 2005), Las Vegas, NevadaGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitts PM (ed) (1951) Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control. Ohio State University Research Foundation report, National Research Council, Division of Antrophology and Psychology, Committee on Aviation Psychology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Grote G, Wäfler T, Weik S (1995) Complementary function allocation as basis for safety in process control. In: Nooros L (ed) 5th European conference on cognitive science approaches to process control. Espoo, Finland, August 30–September 1, 1995, VTT, Technical Research Centre of Finland, pp 8–18Google Scholar
  9. Hollnagel E, Miberg AB (1999) Human-centred automation: an explorative study (HWR-595). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  10. Mackworth NH (1950) Researches on the measurement of human performance. Medical research council, special report series, no. 268. His Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Moracho MJ (1998) Plant performance assessment system (PPAS) for crew performance evaluation. Lessons learned from an alarm system study conducted in HAMMLAB (HWR-504). OECD Halden Reactor Project Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Moray N, Hiskes D, Lee J, Muir B (1995) Trust and human intervention in automatic systems. In: Hoc JM, Cacciabue PC, Hollnagel E (eds) Expertise and technology. Cognition & Human-Computer Cooperation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, US, pp 183–195Google Scholar
  13. Norman DA (1990) The ‘problem’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’. In: Broadbent DE, Baddeley A, Reason JT (eds) Human factors in hazardous situations. Clarendon Press, Oxford, US, pp 585–593Google Scholar
  14. Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors 39(2):230–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perrow C (1994) Normal accidents. Living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Rasmussen J (1986) Information processing and human-machine interaction. An approach to cognitive engineering. North-Holland series in System Science and Engineering. Series Volume 12, USGoogle Scholar
  17. Rempel JK, Holmes JG, Zanna MP (1985) Trust in close relationships. J Personal Soc Psychol, 49(1):95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rouse WB (1991) Design for success: a human-centered approach to designing successful products and systems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Sarter NB, Woods DD (1995) How in the World did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors 37(1):5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarter NB, Woods DD (1997) Team play with a powerful and independent agent: operational experiences and automation surprises on the airbus A-320. Human Factors 39(4):553–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skjerve ABM (2002) The Halden co-operation scale. Human-automation co-operation in control room settings (HWR-685). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  22. Skjerve ABM, Skraaning G Jr (2004) The quality of human-automation co-operation in human-system interface for nuclear power plants. Int J Human-Comput Stud 61:649–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skjerve ABM, Andresen G, Saarni R, Skraaning G Jr (2001a) The influence of automation malfunctions on operator performance. Study plan for the HCA-2000 experiment (HWR-659). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  24. Skjerve ABM, Andresen G, Skraaning G Jr, Saarni R, Brevig LH (2001b) The human-centred automation 2000 experiment. Preliminary results (HWR-660). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  25. Skjerve ABM, Strand S, Saarni R, Skraaning G Jr (2002) The influence of automation malfunctions and interface design on operator performance. The HCA-2001 experiment (HWR-686). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  26. Skjerve ABM, Strand S, Skraaning G Jr, Nihlwing C, Helgar S, Olsen A, Kvilesjø HØ, Meyer G, Drøivoldsmo A, Svengren H (2005a) The extended teamwork 2004/2005 exploratory study. Study plan (HWR-791). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  27. Skjerve ABM, Strand S, Skraaning G Jr, Nihlwing C (2005b) The extended teamwork 2004/2005 exploratory study. Preliminary results (HWR-812). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  28. Skjerve AB, Nihlwing C, Nystad E (2008) Lessons learned from the extended teamwork 2004/2005 study, (HWR-867). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  29. Skraaning G Jr (2003) Experimental control versus realism: methodological solutions for simulator studies in complex operating environments. Dissertation of the degree of Doctor Philosophiae, NTNU, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  30. Skraaning G Jr, Skjerve ABM (2006) Trust in automation and metacognitive accuracy in NPP operating crews. In: 5th International topical meeting on nuclear plant instrumentation, controls, and human machine interface technology (NPIC&HMIT 2006), November 12–16, 2006. Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp 447–451Google Scholar
  31. Strand S (2001) Trust and automation: the influence of automation malfunctions and system feedback on operator trust (HWR-643). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  32. Thackray RI, Touchstone RM (1989) Effects of high visual taskload on the behaviors involved in complex monitoring. Ergonomics 32(1):27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wickens CD (1992) Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd edn. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiener EL, Curry RE (1980) Flight-deck automation: promises and problems. Ergonomics 23(10):995–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Woods DD (1996) Decomposing automation: apparent simplicity, real complexity. In: Parasuraman R, Mouloua M (eds) Automation and human performance: theory and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, US, pp 3–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Britt Skjerve
    • 1
  • Gyrd SkraaningJr.
    • 1
  • Ray Saarni
    • 1
  • Stine Strand
    • 1
  1. 1.OECD Halden Reactor ProjectInstitutt for EnergiteknikkHaldenNorway

Personalised recommendations