Beyond Levels of Automation: An Architecture for More Flexible Human-Automation Collaboration

Abstract

Supervisory control has long been recognized as a design concept for enhancing the effectiveness of human-automation interaction, but real time supervisory relationships with automation have rarely approached the flexibility of human-human supervisory relationships. In part, this may be because our models of human-automation relationships— primarily, Sheridan and Verplank's (1978) concept of Levels of Automation—have been unidimensional and too coarse-grained. Parasuraman, Wickens and Sheridan (2000) acknowledged this limitation and extended the levels of automation model to include a second, albeit coarse-grained, dimension based on stages of information processing. We argue that, for the purpose of providing a detailed architecture to support collaborative delegation interactions, this process needs to be taken further. By applying the levels of automation spectra across a detailed task model of tasks in a work domain, we create a suitably complex and flexible model of task performance which can be shared between humans and automation and used as the vocabulary for delegation interactions. This architecture is illustrated in human tasking of multiple Unmanned Air Vehicles.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Billings

(1997). Aviation Automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bright

(1958). “Does automation raise skill requirements?,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 36, July-August, pp. 85–98.

Card

Moran

Newell

(1983). The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction, Mawah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Diaper

(1989). Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Chichester, U, Ellis Horwood.

Geddes

(1989). Understanding human operators' intentions in complex systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Jones

Jasek

(1997). “Intelligent Support for Activity Management (ISAM): An architecture to support distributed supervisory control,” IEEE Trans, on Sys. Man & Cyber.—Pt. A: Sys & Hum, vol. 27, pp. 274–288.

Klein

(1998). Sources of Power; How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.

Martinich

(1996). Production and Operations Management: An Applied Modem Approach, New York; John Wiley.

Miller

Goldman

Pelican

(2000). ‘Tasking’ Interfaces for Flexible Interaction with Automation: Keeping the Operator in Control. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Interaction with Complex Systems. Urbana-Champaign, Ill. May.

10.

Mitchell

(1987). “GT-MSOCC: A domain for research on HCl and decision aiding in supervisory control systems,” IEEE Trans. on Sys., Man and Cybern., vol. 17(4), pp. 553–572.

11.

Murata

(1989). “Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 77(4), pp. 541–580.

12.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

Wickens

(2000). “A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.—Part A: Syst. And Hum., vol. 30, pp. 286–297.

13.

Sheridan

, (1987). “Supervisory Control,” in Handbook of Human Factors. Salvendy

, Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1244–1268.

14.

Sheridan

Verplank

, (1978). “Human and Computer control of underea teleoperators,” MIT Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. Technical Report.

15.

Suchman

(1987). Plans & Situated Actions; The problem of human machine communication, Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

16.

Vicente

(1999). Cognitive work analysis: Towards safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum.

17.

Woods

(1996). “Decomposing automation: Apparent simplicity, real complexity,” in Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, Parasuraman

Mouloua

, Eds., Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 1–16.