This article details the motivation and design of an experiment to investigate the effects of artificially intelligent cognitive assistive agents on coordination efforts in manufacturing teams. As automation solutions become more accessible and products rapidly grow in complexity, there are significant calls to leverage abilities of both artificial agents and human workers to maximize team functioning and product output. As such, we propose an experimental design where we introduce a cognitive agent with two levels of autonomy (low, and high) into a team of participants during an assembly task. We hypothesized that cognitive assistive technologies would enhance coordination within assembly teams, leading to higher productivity and reduced errors, with initial data suggesting trends in support of these hypotheses. We seek to demonstrate the value of cognitive agents in augmenting human workers, allowing manufacturers to see the benefit of increased productivity while retaining value and relevance of human labor in the face of technological development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Cannon-BowersJ.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared Mental Models in Expert Team Decision Making. In CastellanN. J. (Ed.), Individual and Group Decision Making (1st ed., p. 26). Psychology Press.
2.
DemlehnerQ.SchoemerD.LaumerS. (2021). How can artificial intelligence enhance car manufacturing? A Delphi study-based identification and assessment of general use cases. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102317
3.
EspinosaJ. A.LerchF. J.KrautR. E. (2004). Explicit versus implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all. In Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. (pp. 107–129). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10690-006
4.
FioreS. M.JentschF.Becerra-FernandezI.SalasE.FinkelsteinN. (2005). Integrating Field Data with Laboratory Training Research to Improve the Understanding of Expert Human-Agent Teamwork. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.327
5.
FisherD. M.BellS. T.DierdorffE. C.BelohlavJ. A. (2012). Facet personality and surface-level diversity as team mental model antecedents: Implications for implicit coordination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027851
6.
GliksonE.WoolleyA. W. (2020). Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
7.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y. C.de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
8.
HarbersM.BradshawJ. M.JohnsonM.FeltovichP.van den BoschK.MeyerJ.-J. (2011). Explanation and Coordination in Human-Agent Teams: A Study in the BW4T Testbed. 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/WIIAT.2011.83
LewisK. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.88.4.587
11.
McNeeseN. J.DemirM.CookeN. J.MyersC. (2018). Teaming With a Synthetic Teammate: Insights into Human-Autonomy Teaming. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60(2), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817743223
12.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2020). Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 001872082096086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865
13.
PeresR. S.JiaX.LeeJ.SunK.ColomboA. W.BarataJ. (2020). Industrial Artificial Intelligence in Industry 4.0 - Systematic Review, Challenges and Outlook. IEEE Access, 8, 220121–220139. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042874
14.
RicoR.Sánchez-ManzanaresM.GilF.GibsonC. (2008). Team Implicit Coordination Processes: A Team Knowledge–Based Approach. Academy of Management Review, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27751276
SalasE.DickinsonT. L.ConverseS. A.TannenbaumS. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In SwezeyR. W.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3– 29). Ablex Publishing.
17.
SalasE.ShufflerM. L.ThayerA. L.BedwellW. L.LazzaraE. H. (2015). Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21628
18.
SimsD. E.SalasE. (2007). When teams fail in organizations: What creates teamwork breakdowns? In Langan-FoxJ.CooperC. L.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 302–318). Edward Elgar.
19.
StewartG. L. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance. Journal of Management, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277792
20.
TrakadasP.SimoensP.GkonisP.SarakisL., et al. (2020). An Artificial Intelligence-Based Collaboration Approach in Industrial IoT Manufacturing: Key Concepts, Architectural Extensions and Potential Applications. Sensors, 20(19), 5480. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20195480
21.
WangL.LiuZ.LiuA.TaoF. (2021). Artificial intelligence in product lifecycle management. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 114(3–4), 771–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06882-1
