This paper explores the current state of automated systems in the Royal Navy (RN), as well as exploring where personnel view systems would have the most benefit to their operations in the future. In addition, personnel’s views on the current consultation process for new systems are presented. Currently serving RN personnel (n = 46) completed a questionnaire distributed at the Maritime Warfare School. Thematic analysis was conducted on the 5,125 words that were generated by personnel. Results show that RN personnel understand the requirement to utilize automated systems to maintain capability in the increasingly complex environments they face. This requirement will increase as future warfare continues to change and increasingly sophisticated threats are faced. However, it was highlighted that current consultation and procurement procedures often result in new automated systems that are not fit for purpose at time of release. This has negative consequences on operator tasks, for example by increasing workload and reducing appropriate system use, as well as increasing financial costs associated with the new systems. It is recommended that an increase in communication and collaboration between currently serving personnel and system designers may result in preventing the release of systems that are not fit for purpose.
AlisonL.PowerN.van den HeuvelC.HumannM.PalasinksiM.CregoJ. (2015). Decision inertia: Deciding between least worst outcomes in emergency responses to disasters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 295–321. doi:10.1111/joop.12108
3.
AronsonJ. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1–3.
BandaraW. (2006). Using NVivo as a research management tool: A case narrative. In RuthA. (Ed.), Quality and impact of qualitative research: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT & IT in Qualitative Research (pp. 6–19). Brisbane, Australia: Griffith University.
6.
BazeleyP.JacksonK. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
BenaskeurA. R.IransoustH.KabanzaF.BeaudryE. (2011). Decision support tool for anti-ship missile defence operations (No. ADA546901). Defence Research and Development Canada. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA546901
8.
BigleyG. A.RobertsK. H. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1281–1299. doi:10.2307/3069401
9.
Boehm-DavisD. A.DursoF. T.LeeJ. D. (Eds.). (2015). APA handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of human systems integration. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14528-000
10.
BooherH. R. (2003). Handbook of human systems integration. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
11.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
12.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (Eds.). (1998). Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10278-000
13.
CasnerS. M.GravenR. W.ReckerM. P.SchoolerJ. W. (2014). The retention of manual flying skills in the automated cockpit. Human Factors, 56, 1506–1516. doi:10.1177/0018720814535628
14.
CohenM.FreemanJ.ThompsonB. (1997). Integrated critical thinking training and decision support for tactical anti-air warfare. In Proceedings of the 1997 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (pp. 257–268). Retrieved from http://www.cog-tech.com/papers/DSS/C2paperDSS_Columns6.pdf
15.
CrandallB.KleinG.HoffmanR. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
Department of Defence. (2012). Task force report: The role of autonomy in DoD systems. Washington, DC: Defense Science Board.
17.
DzindoletM. T.BeckH. P.PierceL. G.DaweL. A. (2001). A framework of automation use (No. ARL-TR-2412). Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground MD. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA390225
18.
DzindoletM. T.PetersonS. A.PomrankyR. A.PierceL. G.BeckH. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International-Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697–718. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7
19.
DzindoletM. T.PierceL. G.BeckH. P. (2010). An examination of the social, cognitive and motivational factors that affect automation reliance. In AndrewsD. H.HerzR. P.WolfM. B. (Eds.), Human factors issues in combat identification (pp. 277–298). Farnham, UK: Ashgate Gower.
20.
ElgafossS.SkramstadT.DalbergV. (2009). Maritime automation, and emergency handling-software: Design, systems integration and quality. In Proceedings from IEEE Electric Ship Technologies Symposium (pp. 86–92). doi:10.1109/ESTS.2009.4906498
21.
EndsleyM. R.KinisiE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381–394. doi:10.1518/001872095779064555
GhazizadehM.LeeJ. D.BoyleL. N. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to assess automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14(1), 39–49. doi:10.1007/s10111-011-0194-3
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57, 407–434. doi:10.1177/0018720814547570
27.
HoffmanR. R.MilitelloL. (2008). Perspectives on cognitive task analysis: Historical origins and modern communities of practice. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
28.
HooverR.KoerberA. (2011). Using NVivo to answer the challenges of qualitative research in professional communication: Benefits and best practices. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(1), 68–82. doi:10.1109/TPC.2009.2036896
29.
JeanG. V. (2008). Success of simulation-based training is tough to measure. National Defense, 93(661), 46.
30.
JenvaldJ.MorinM. (2004). Simulation-supported live training for emergency response to hazardous environments. Simulation & Gaming, 35, 363–377. doi:10.1177/1046878104266223
31.
KaberD. B.PerryC. M.SegallN.McClernonC. K.PrinzelL. J. (2006). Situation awareness implications of adaptive automation for information processing in an air traffic control-related task. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 447–462. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2006.01.008
32.
KirkmanM. A.AhmedM.AlbertA. F.WilsonM. H.NandiD.PhilD.SevdalisN. (2014). The use of simulation in neurosurgical education and training: A systematic review. Journal of Neurosurgery, 121, 228–246. doi:10.3171/2014.5.JNS131766
KleinH. A. (2004). The cultural lens model. In KaplanM. (Ed.), Cultural ergonomics: Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering (pp. 249–280). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
35.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
36.
LarkinJ. (2002). Military commander: Royal Navy. In FlinR.ArbuthnotK. (Eds.), Incident command: Tales from the hot seat (pp. 105–137). Abingdon, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
37.
MadhavenP.WiegmanD. A.LacsonF. C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Human Factors, 48, 241–256. doi:10.1518/001872006777724408
38.
McAndrewC.GoreJ. (2013). Understanding preferences in experienced-based choice: A study of cognition in the “wild.”Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7, 179–197. doi:10.1177/1555343412463922
39.
MilitelloL. G.KleinG. (2013). Decision-centered design. In LeeJ. D.KirlickA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive engineering (pp. 261–271). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
MillerC. A. (2017). The risks of discretization: What is lost in (even good) levels-of-automation schemes. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12, 74–76. doi:10.1177/1555343417726254
41.
Ministry of Defence. (2011). Joint doctrine publication 0-10 British Maritime Doctrine. Shrivenham, UK: Author.
42.
Ministry of Defence. (2014). Strategic trends programme: Global strategic trends-out to 2045 (5th ed.). Shrivenham, UK: Author.
43.
NaikarN. (2017). Human-automation interaction in self-organizing sociotechnical systems. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 121(1), 62–66. doi:10.1177/1555343417731223
44.
ParasuramanR. (2010). Designing automation for human use: Empirical studies and qualitative models. Ergonomics, 43, 931–951. doi:10.1080/001401300409125
45.
ParasuramanR.de VisserE.LinM.-K.GreenwoodP. M. (2012). Dopamine beta hydroxylase genotype identifies individuals less susceptible to bias in computer-assisted decision making. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e39675. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039675
46.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Human and automation: Use, misuse, disuse and abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253. doi:10.1518/001872097778543886
47.
ParasuramanR.WickensC. (2008). Humans still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors, 50, 511–520. doi:10.1518/001872008X312198
48.
PewR. W. (2008). Some new perspectives for introducing human-systems integration into the systems development process. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2, 165–180.
49.
RiffenburghR. H. (1991). Tactical Decision Making Under Stress (TADMUS) Program Study (No. NOSC/TD-2217). San Diego, CA: Naval Ocean Systems Center.
50.
RobertsA.StantonN.FayD. (2015). The command team experimental test-bed stage 1: Design and build of a submarine command room simulator. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2800–2807. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.745
51.
RobertsonD. W.MartinD. K.SingerP. A. (2003). Interdisciplinary research: Putting the methods under the microscope. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3(20), 1–5. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-20
52.
RothE. M.PewR. W. (2008). Integrating cognitive engineering in the systems engineering process: Opportunities, challenges and emerging approaches. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2, 161–164.
53.
RöttgerS.BaliK.ManzeyD. (2009). Impact of automated decision aids on performance, operator behaviour and workload in a simulated supervisory control task. Ergonomics, 52, 512–523. doi:10.1080/00140130802379129
54.
RouseW. B. (1991). Design for success. New York, NY: John Wiley.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D.BillingsC. E. (1997). Automation surprises. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 1926–1943). New York, NY: Wiley.
58.
St. JohnM.SmallmanH. S.ManesD. I.FeherM. A.MorrisonJ. G. (2005). Heuristic automation for decluttering tactical displays. Human Factors, 47, 509–525. doi:10.1518/001872005774860014
59.
StrauchB. (2017). The automation-by-expertise-by-training interaction: Why automation-related accidents continue to occur in sociotechnical systems. Human Factors, 59, 204–228. doi:10.1177/0018720816665459
60.
WaringS.AlisonL.CarterG.Barrett-PinkC.HumannM.SwanL.ZlinskyT. (2018). Information sharing in interteam responses to disaster. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 591–619. doi:10.1111/joop.12217
61.
WoodsD. D. (2016). The risks of autonomy: Doyle’s catch. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 10, 131–133. doi:10.1177/1555343416653562
