Authority and Level of Automation

Lessons to Be Learned in Design of In-vehicle Assistance Systems
  • Anders Jansson
  • Patrik Stensson
  • Ida Bodin
  • Anton Axelsson
  • Simon Tschirner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8512)


Motor vehicles and drivers’ relationship with them will change significantly in the next decades. Still, most driving tasks are likely to involve humans behind the wheel, emphasizing the design of in-vehicle assistance systems. A framework for distribution of control between human beings and technology is presented, as well as a model to be used in analysis, design, development, and deployment of decision support systems. The framework and the model are applied in a project aiming for design of in-vehicle systems for future long-haul vehicles. The empirical investigations conducted support the design-as-hypotheses approach. The search for improvements of design concepts and levels of automation leads to a shift away from abstract ideas of autonomous cars to empirical issues such as how to support the driver. The need to discuss authority in relation to levels of automation is recognized, emphasizing the fact that human-machine interaction takes place on two distinct levels.


Automation Autonomy Authority Decision-making 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration): Statement of policy concerning automated vehicles. U.S. Department of Transportation (2013) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Billings, C.E.: Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olsson, E., Jansson, A.: Work on the bridge: Studies of officers on high-speed ferries. Behaviour & Information Technology 25, 37–64 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sandblad, B., Andersson, A.W., Kauppi, A., Wikström, J.: Implementation of a Test System for Evaluation of New Concepts in Rail Traffic Planning and Control. In: Wilson, J., Norris, B., Clarke, T., Mills, A. (eds.) People and Rail Systems: Human Factors at the Heart of the Railways. Ashgate Publ. Comp., Farnham (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stensson, P., Jansson, A.: Autonomous technology – Sources of confusion: A model for explanation and prediction of conceptual shifts. Ergonomics 57, 455–470 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dekker, S.W.A., Woods, D.D.: MABA-MABA or abracadabra? Progress on human-automation co-ordination. Cognition, Technology & Work 4, 240–244 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woods, D.D.: Commentary - Designs are hypotheses about how artifacts shape cognition and collaboration. Ergonomics 41, 168–173 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brehmer, B.: Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta Psychologica 81, 211–241 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krupenia, S., Selmarker, A., Fagerlönn, J., Delsing, K., Jansson, A., Sandblad, B., Grane, C.: The ‘Methods for Designing Future Autonomous Systems’ (MODAS) project. In: Ahram, T., Karwowski, W., Marek, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sarter, N.B., Woods, D.D.: Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: Operational experiences with the flight management system. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 2, 303–321 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golightly, D., Andersson, A.W., Dadashi, N., Sandblad, B., Sharples, S., Tschirner, S.: A sociotechnical comparison of automated traffic control between GB and Sweden. In: Dadashi, N., Scott, A., Wilson, J.R., Mills, A. (eds.) Rail Human Factors: Supporting Reliability, Safety and Cost Reduction, pp. 367–376. Taylor & Francis, Oxford (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balfe, N., Wilson, J.R., Sharples, S., Clarke, T.: Development of design principles for automated systems in transport control. Ergonomics 55, 37–54 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campbell, M.: Intelligent autonomous systems,
  14. 14.
    Kant, I.: Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals,
  15. 15.
    Laaksoharju, M.: Let us be philosophers! Computerized support for ethical decision making. IT Licentiate thesis 2010-005. Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wood, S.P., Chang, J., Healy, T., Wood, J.: The potential regulatory challenges of increasingly autonomous motor vehicles. 52nd Santa Clara Law Review 4(9), 1423–1502 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ATA (Air Transport Association of America): National plan to enhance aviation safety through human factors improvements. ATA, Washington (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kavathatzopoulos, I.: Robots and systems as autonomous ethical agents. In: Towards creative technology for the 21st century, 11th International Conference on Intelligent Technologies. Assumption University, Bangkok (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kahneman, D., Klein, G.: Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist 64, 515–526 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brehmer, B.: Man as a stabilizer of systems: From static snapshots of judgment processes to dynamic decision making. Thinking and Reasoning 2, 225–238 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jansson, A., Tschirner, S., Sandblad, B., Andersson, A.W.: Trading rigor for relevance: GMOC – a conceptual model for cognitive field studies. Unpublished manuscript (2014) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tschirner, S., Jansson, A., Andersson, A.W., Sandblad, B.: GMOC – A conceptual model for analysis and design of human-work interaction. Unpublished manuscript (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MODAS (Methods for Designing Autonomous Systems): Scope and Scenario, Deliverable 8.0. Internal project document (2013) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jansson, A., Olsson, E., Erlandsson, M.: Bridging the gap between analysis and design: Improving existing driver interfaces with tools from the framework of cognitive work analysis. Cognition, Technology & Work 8, 41–49 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Erlandsson, M., Jansson, A.: Collegial verbalisation: A case study on a new method on information acquisition. Behavior & Information Technology 26, 535–543 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Erlandsson, M., Jansson, A.: Verbal reports and domain specific knowledge: a comparison between collegial and retrospective verbalisation. Cognition, Technology & Work 15, 239–254 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: A model of types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 30, 286–297 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vicente, K.J.: Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders Jansson
    • 1
  • Patrik Stensson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ida Bodin
    • 1
  • Anton Axelsson
    • 1
  • Simon Tschirner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Informatics and MediaUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of Military TechnologySwedish Defence CollegeStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations