Influence of Cultural, Organizational and Automation Factors on Human-Automation Trust: A Case Study of Auto-GCAS Engineers and Developmental History
This paper examines the influence of cultural, organizational and automation capability upon human trust in, and reliance on, automation in the context of an extended case study of the US Air Force Automatic Ground Collisions Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS). The paper focuses on the analyses of the system’s developmental history and the perspectives of engineers involved in its development. Key findings indicate that the success of the system was a result of the innovative solutions developed; and a strong alignment between the engineering and experimental test pilot cultures. The findings suggest that the Auto-GCAS system was designed and tested in such a way as to promote effective trust calibration. A summary of the foundational lessons about how trust is influenced by cultural and organizational factors, implications of this research for adding to the body of knowledge on human-automation trust, and future research avenues, are also discussed.
KeywordsTrust automation reliance F-16 military organization engineer culture extended case study methodology automatic ground collision avoidance
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Swihart, D.E.: Automatic Collision Avoidance Technology. Wright Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Research Laboratory (2007)Google Scholar
- 4.Skoog, M.: Digital Terrain Data Compression and Rendering for Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance Systems. NASA, Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards (2008)Google Scholar
- 5.Koltai, K., Ho, N., Masequesmay, G., Niedober, D., Skoog, M., Cacanindin, A., Johnson, W., Lyons, J.: Influence of Cultural, Organizational, and Automation Capability on Human Automation Trust: A Case Study of Auto-GCAS Experimental Test Pilots. In: HCI-Aero 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
- 6.Koltai, K., Ho, N., Masequesmay, G., Niedober, D., Skoog, M., Johnson, W., Cacanindin, A., Lyons, J.: An Extended Case Study Methodology for Investigating Influence of Cultural, Organizational, and Automation Factors on Human-Automation Trust. In: CHI 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
- 7.Skoog, M.: Automatic Collision Avoidance Technology: Fighter Risk Reduction Report. PowerPoint presentation. NASA DFRC, Edwards, CA (August. 2012)Google Scholar
- 8.Sears, K.: Auto-GCAS ready for take-off (2007), http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article2461.html (retrieved on February 1, 2014)
- 9.Mapes, P.B.: Fighter/Attack Automation Collision Avoidance Systems Business Case. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base (2006)Google Scholar
- 10.Prosser, K.: Nuisance Criteria Development. AFTI, Edwards (1996)Google Scholar
- 11.Sheridan, T.B., Verplank, W.: Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators. Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering. MIT, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
- 12.Sheridan, T.B.: Considerations in modeling the human supervisory controller. In: Proceedings of the IFAC 6th World Congress, International Federation of Automatic Control, Laxenburg (1975)Google Scholar
- 13.Sheridan, T.B., Hennessy, R.T.: Research and modeling of supervisory control behavior. National Academy, Washington, DC (1984)Google Scholar