The concept of the “lumberjack effect” addresses important concerns regarding the role of automation (and impact of automation failure) in complex engineering systems such as aviation, power plant control rooms, and others. Conflicts between “narrow” and “broad” definitions of automation failures uncover logical inconsistencies regarding human-automation interactions processes in maintaining system performance. However, the “lumberjack effect” debate obscures essential considerations that automation tools exist as components in complex systems with multiple levels of abstraction hierarchies (Rasmussen). A sole focus on automation failure conflates the automation components with the overall system function. Elaborating operating conditions associated with human-automation interaction conflicts and failures supports an improved approach to failure mode and effects analysis techniques for improving system safety. Detecting system failure modes and operating conditions, poorly quantified in other risk priority determinations, are important contributions at the overall system analysis level, not as an isolated emphasis on the automation itself.
BuedeD. M. (2000). The engineering design of systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2.
CaldwellB. S. (2005a). Analysis and modeling of information flow and distributed expertise in space-related operations. Acta Astronautica, 56(9-12), 996–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2005.01.027
3.
CaldwellB. S. (2005b). Multi-team dynamics and distributed expertise in mission operations. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 76(6), B145–B153. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15943207.
4.
CaldwellB. S. (2008). Tools for developing a quality management program: Human factors and systems engineering tools. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 71(1 Suppl), S191–S194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.083
5.
CaldwellB. S. (2014). Cognitive challenges to resilience dynamics in managing large-scale event response. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8(4), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343414546220
6.
CaldwellB. S. (2023). Space exploration and astronomy automation. In Springer handbook of automation (pp. 1139–1157). Springer.
7.
CaldwellB. S.ByrdK. S.OnkenJ. C.RobertsM. C. (2007). Flight controller information technology use for task coordination in mission operations. International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety.
8.
CaldwellB. S.OnkenJ. D. (2012). Simulation and human factors in modeling of spaceflight mission control teams. International Symposium on Resilient Control Systems.
FittsP. M.PosnerM. I. (1967). Human performance. Brooks/Cole.
11.
FittsP. M.VitelesM. S.BarrN. L.BrimhallD. R.FinchG.GardnerE.StevensS. S. (1951). Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system, and appendixes 1 thru 3. Ohio State Univ Research Foundation Columbus.
HauptmanA. I.McNeeseN. J. (2022). Overcoming the lumberjack effect through adaptive autonomy. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Sage.
14.
LindM. (2003). Making sense of the abstraction hierarchy in the power plant domain. Cognition, Technology & Work, 5(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-002-0109-4
15.
LiuD.McSorleyJ.BlickensderferE.VincenziD. A.MacchiarellaN. D. (2008). Transfer of training. In Human factors in simulation and training (pp. 109–124). CRC Press.
16.
LiuH.-C.LiuL.LiuN. (2013). Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.010
OnkenJ. D.CaldwellB. S. (2009). Towards information coordination and reduced team size in space flight mission operations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 53(1), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120905300122
20.
OnkenJ. D.CaldwellB. S. (2011). Problem solving in expert teams: Functional models and task processes. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 55th annual meeting -- 2011. Sage.
21.
RasmussenJ. (1985). The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decisionmaking and system management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 15(2), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313353
22.
RasmussenJ. (1988). Human factors in high-risk systems. In Conference Record for 1988 IEEE conference on human factors and power plants. IEEE.
23.
ReasonJ. (1988). Framework models of human performance and error: A consumer guide. In GoodsteinL. P.AndersonH. B.OlsenS. E. (Eds.), Tasks, errors, and mental models (pp. 35–49). Taylor & Francis.
24.
ReasonJ. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press.
25.
ReisingD. V. C. (2000). The abstraction hierarchy and its extension beyond process control. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 44(1), 194–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004400152
26.
SarterN. (2008). Investigating mode errors on automated flight decks: Illustrating the problem-driven, cumulative, and interdisciplinary nature of human factors research. Human Factors, 50(3), 506–510. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X312233
27.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049516
28.
SharmaK. D.SrivastavaS. (2018). Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) implementation: A literature review. J Adv Res Aeronaut Space Sci, 5(1-2), 1–17.
29.
SheridanT.VerplankW.BrooksT. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Man-Machines Systems Lab.
30.
SheridanT. B. (1987). Supervisory control. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 1243–1268). John Wiley and Sons.
31.
SheridanT. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. MIT Press.
32.
SheridanT. B. (2011). Adaptive automation, level of automation, allocation authority, supervisory control, and adaptive control: Distinctions and modes of adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 41(4), 662–667. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmca.2010.2093888
SkraaningG.JamiesonG. A. (2023). The failure to grasp automation failure. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, Article, 15553434231189375. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434231189375
35.
SurantoB. (2015). Systems engineering; Why is it important? International conference on information technology and business applications. Palembang, Indonesia.
36.
SwainA. D. (1990). Human reliability analysis need status trends and limitations. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 29(3), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(90)90013-d
37.
ThomadsenB. R.LinS.-W.LaemmrichP.WallerT.ChengA.CaldwellB. S.RankinR.StittJ. (2003). Analysis of treatment delivery errors in brachytherapy using formal risk analysis techniques. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 57(5), 1492–1508. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(03)01622-5
38.
VicenteK.RasmussenJ. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22(4), 589–606. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.156574
