An Interaction Taxonomy of Human–Agent Teaming in Next Generation Combat Vehicle Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1210)


Next Generation Combat Vehicles (NGCVs) are incorporating more advanced technology which will enable humans and intelligent artificial agents to team up on the battlefield. Effective system design and evaluation for these human–agent teams require an understanding of individual and team tasks in the context of larger-scale operations. Previous taxonomies of human–automation interaction and human–agent teaming have been proposed, however, there is a lack of work focused on team interactions in the military domain and the teamwork dynamics required for our purposes are not captured. Unstructured interviews with subject matter experts, manuals, and relevant literature were synthesized, and a task analysis was conducted to develop a novel interaction taxonomy approach consisting of three primary categories, each with multiple dimensions: task, team composition, and communication. This taxonomy may generalize into human–agent teaming within a variety of NGCV crews and serve as a model for characterizing human–agent team interactions in other domains.


Human–agent teaming Taxonomy Communication Military 



We thank our sponsor, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, under the Cooperative Agreement No. W911-NF-18-2-0271. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. government.


  1. 1.
    Cummings, M.: Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare. Chatham House for the Royal Institute of International Affairs (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fahey, K.M., Miller, M.J.: DoD Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 2017–2042. Department of Defense. Technical report (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strauch, B.: Ironies of automation: still unresolved after all these years. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 48(5), 419–433 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endsley, M.R.: From here to autonomy: lessons learned from human–automation research. Hum. Factors 59(1), 5–27 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, M., Bradshaw, J.M., Feltovich, P.J., Jonker, C.M., Van Riemsdijk, M.B., Sierhuis, M.: Coactive design: designing support for interdependence in joint activity. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 3(1), 43–69 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooke, N.J., Gorman, J.C., Myers, C.W., Duran, J.L.: Interactive team cognition. Cogn. Sci. 37(2), 255–285 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beer, J.M., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 3(2), 74–99 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dudek, G., Jenkin, M., Milios, E.: A taxonomy of multirobot systems, Robot Teams Divers. Polymorph 3–22 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Save, L., Feuerberg, B., Avia, E.: Designing human-automation interaction: a new level of automation taxonomy. Proc Hum. Factors Syst. Technol (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yanco, H.A., Drury, J.: Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy. In: 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37583), vol. 3, pp. 2841–2846 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang, L., Johnson, C.J., Holder, E., Lematta, G.J., Bhatti, S., Barnes, M.J., Cooke, N.J.: Human–Autonomy Teaming: Interaction Metrics and Models for Next Generation Combat Vehicle Concepts (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitchell, D.K.: Workload analysis of the crew of the Abrams V2 SEP: Phase I baseline IMPRINT model. Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    US Army: ATP 3-20.15 Tank platoon. Headquarters, Department of the Army (2019)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hollan, J., Stornetta, S.: Beyond being there. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 119–125 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cooke, N.J., Gorman, J.C.: Interaction-based measures of cognitive systems. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 3(1), 27–46 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hollenbeck, J.R., Beersma, B., Schouten, M.E.: Beyond team types and taxonomies: a dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Acad. Manag. Rev. 37(1), 82–106 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baker, A.L., Schaefer, K.E., Hill, S.G.: Teamwork and Communication Methods and Metrics for Human–Autonomy Teaming. CCDC Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground (2019)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wickens, C.D.: Multiple resources and mental workload. Hum. Factors 50(3), 449–455 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cooke, N.J., Gorman, J.C., Kiekel, P.A.: Communication as team-level cognitive processing. In: Macrocognition in Teams, pp. 51–64. CRC Press (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grudin, J.: Computer-supported cooperative work: history and focus. Computer 27(5), 19–26 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityMesaUSA
  2. 2.CCDC Army Research LabSierra VistaUSA
  3. 3.Center for Human, Artificial Intelligence, and Robot TeamingArizona State UniversityMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations