This link has been bookmarked by 2 people . It was first bookmarked on 17 Dec 2009, by Olivier Biot.
-
17 Dec 09
-
Victor Riley, associate technical fellow in Boeing Flight Deck, Crew Operations, argues that there needs to be a two-way dialogue between the operator and the automated system.
”The operator-to-the-system part of the dialogue is more important than the system-to-the-operator part,” Riley says. ”People see what they expect to see, and what they expect to see is based on what they thought they told the system to do.”
-
-
-
”When we start removing active learning for the operator, the operator begins to overtrust the automation,”
-
effective
-
when you are only a system’s monitor, especially for an automated system that rarely, if ever, fails, it is hard not to get fatigued or bored and start taking shortcuts.
-
”We draw a system’s boundary in the wrong place,” Thomas states. ”There is an assumption that the system boundary that the engineer should be interested in [sits] at the boundary of the sensors and actuators of the box that is being designed by the engineers. The humans who are interrelating with these systems are outside it. Whether they are operators, pilots, controllers, or clinicians, they are not part of the system.
”That is just wrong,” Thomas adds. ”The system’s designer, engineer, and overall architect all need to accept responsibility for the ways those people are going to act.”
-
there needs to be a two-way dialogue between the operator and the automated system
-
The operator-to-the-system part of the dialogue is more important than the system-to-the-operator part
-
People see what they expect to see, and what they expect to see is based on what they thought they told the system to do.
-
operators of highly reliable automated systems will often perform worse than if they were operating a lower-reliability system
-
if the system is 90 percent reliable, operators will be better at picking up the 10 percent of the errors than if the system is 99 percent reliable
-
The goal for us as designers is to provide an interface that allows a drill-down if the operator needs to query the system, in the event they have a different perspective of the decision than the automation has given them
-
Or if not a drill-down, there should be some visibility or transparency right up front about what the underlying constraints or variables are that make this decision not totally reliable
-
If we don’t want people to depend on automated systems, we need to turn them off sometimes
-
People, after all, are the backup systems, and they aren’t being exercised.
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.