Abstract
Automation can be considered as a design alternative that brings the benefits of reducing the potential for human error and of increasing performance. However, badly designed automations, of which some of them are called automation surprises, can have a very negative impact on the overall performance of the couple operator/system. Automation design requires the definition of three specific aspects defining the relationship between the user and the system: allocation of functions, authority and responsibility. While these abstract concepts are usually well understood at a high level of abstraction, their integration within a development process is cumbersome. This paper presents an approach based on task models to explicitly handle those concepts. We show how such concepts can be integrated in a task modeling notation and illustrate on a case study how this notation can be used to describe design alternatives with different allocation of functions, authority and responsibility between the user and the system. Exploiting the case study, we demonstrate that embedding explicitly these concepts in a notation supports analysis and assessment of automation designs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See page 5: 17 projects and 13 PhD funded by SESAR Joint Undertaking towards higher automation levels in aviation http://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/events/sesar2020-20150504/3_SESAR2020_ER_Info_Day_FV_David_Bowen.pdf.
References
Bainbridge, L.: Ironies of automation. Automatica 19, 775–780 (1983)
Barboni, E., Ladry, J-F., Navarre, D., Palanque, P., Winckler, M.: Beyond modelling: an integrated environment supporting co-execution of tasks and systems models. In: Proceedings of EICS 2010, pp. 143–152. ACM
Basnyat, S., Navarre, D., Palanque, P.: Usability service continuation through reconfiguration of input and output devices in safety critical interactive systems. In: International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP 2008), Newscastle, UK (2008)
Boy, G.: Cognitive function analysis for human-centered automation of safety-critical systems. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 1998, pp. 265–272 (1998)
Boy, G.: Orchestrating situation awareness and authority in complex socio-technical systems. In: Aiguier, M., Caseau, Y., Krob, D., Rauzy, A. (eds.) CSDM 2012, pp. 285–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34404-6_19
Bradshaw, J.M., Hoffman, R.R., Woods, D.D., Johnson, M.: The seven deadly myths of “autonomous systems”. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28(3), 54–61 (2013)
Cummings, M.L., Bruni, S.: Collaborative human–automation decision making. In: Nof, S. (ed.) Springer Handbook of Automation, pp. 437–447. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78831-7_26
Dearden, A., Harrison, M.D., Wright, P.C.: Allocation of function: scenarios, context and the economics of effort. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 52(2), 289–318 (2000)
Dictionary. English dictionary. www.dictionary.com/browse/automation. Accessed Sept 2018
Dittmar, A., Forbrig, P.: Selective modeling to support task migratability of interactive artifacts. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6948, pp. 571–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23765-2_39
Flemisch, F., Heesen, M., Hesse, T., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A., Beller, J.: Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: Authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations. Cogn. Technol. Work 14(1), 3–18 (2012)
Flemisch, F., Adams, C., Conway, S., Goodrich, K., et al.: The H metaphor as a guideline for vehicle automation and interaction, NASA TM, 2003-212672 (1975)
Fahssi, R., Martinie, C., Palanque, P.: Enhanced task modelling for systematic identification and explicit representation of human errors. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9299, pp. 192–212. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22723-8_16
Gombolay, M.C., Gutierrez, R.A., Clarke, S.G., Sturla, G.F., Shah, J.A.: Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human—robot teams. Auton. Robots 39(3), 293–312 (2015)
J3016 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems SAE International (2014)
Loer, K., Hildebrandt, M., Harrison, M.: Analysing dynamic function scheduling decisions. In: Johnson, C.W., Palanque, P. (eds.) Human Error, Safety and Systems Development. IIFIP, vol. 152, pp. 45–60. Springer, Boston, MA (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8153-7_4
Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Winckler, M.: Structuring and composition mechanisms to address scalability issues in task models. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6948, pp. 589–609. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23765-2_40
Martinie, C., et al.: Formal tasks and systems models as a tool for specifying and assessing automation designs (regular paper). In: 1st International Conference on Application and Theory of Automation in Command and Control Systems (ATACCS 2011), Barcelona, Spain. ACM DL, May 2011
Miller, C.A., Parasuraman, R.: Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Hum. Factors 49, 57–75 (2007)
Misra, J., Cook, W.R.: Computation orchestration: a basis for wide-area computing. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 6(1), 83–110 (2007). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10270-006-0012-1
Oxford. English Dictionnary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition. Accessed Apr 2018
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)
Pocock, S., Harrison, M.D., Wright, P.C., Johnson, P.: THEA: a technique for human error assessment early in design. In: INTERACT 2001, pp. 247–254 (2001)
Rovatsos, M., Diochnos, D.I., Wen, Z., Ceppi, S., Andreadis, P.: SmartOrch: an adaptive orchestration system for human-machine collectives. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2017), pp. 37–44. ACM, New York (2017)
Vagia, M., Transeth, A.A., Fjerdingen, S.A.: A literature review on the levels of automation during the years. What are the different taxonomies that have been proposed? Appl. Ergon. 53, 190–202 (2016)
Wright, P.C., Dearden, A., Fields, B.: Function allocation: a perspective from studies of work practice. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 52(2), 335–355 (2000)
Yerkes, R.M., Dodson, J.D.: The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. J. Comp. Neurol. Psychol. 18, 459–482 (1908)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bouzekri, E., Canny, A., Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Gris, C. (2019). Using Task Descriptions with Explicit Representation of Allocation of Functions, Authority and Responsibility to Design and Assess Automation. In: Barricelli, B., et al. Human Work Interaction Design. Designing Engaging Automation. HWID 2018. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 544. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05297-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05297-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05296-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05297-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)