Measuring Interaction Using Levels of Automation over TIme

Predictability of product quality and cycle and lead-times is vital for companies in order to improve production system performance and competitiveness. Ways of increasing predictability are e.g. elimination of identified problems and standardization of tasks. A frequent cause of problems in production systems is humanautomation interaction, a topic frequently approached by several research domains. This paper proposes that by analyzing changes in the production system’s physical and cognitive levels of automation (LoA) over time, system performance as well as effects of improvements can be predicted. A case study was conducted to test a proposed LoA-Time method, where a taxonomy for physical and cognitive LoA assessment was used. Preliminary results indicate that LoA-Time can be used to identify differences in skill and interaction patterns in order to suggest system improvements, in terms of reduced sub-task time and better support.

[1]  Johan Stahre,et al.  Analysing changeability and time parameters due to levels of Automation in an assembly system , 2008 .

[2]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  The Toyota way : 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer , 2004 .

[3]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Johan Stahre,et al.  Measuring and analysing Levels of Automation in an assembly system , 2008 .

[5]  M. Endsley Automation and situation awareness. , 1996 .

[6]  Johan Stahre,et al.  iPod touch – an ICT tool for operators in factories of the future? , 2010 .

[7]  Johan Stahre,et al.  Levels of automation in manufacturing , 2008 .

[8]  Mikell P. Groover,et al.  Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing , 1987 .

[9]  Jörgen Frohm,et al.  Levels of Automation in Production Systems , 2008 .

[10]  Thomas B. Sheridan Human centered automation: oxymoron or common sense? , 1995, 1995 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century.

[11]  Åsa Fasth Measuring and analysing Levels of Automation in assembly systems - For future proactive systems , 2009 .

[12]  M R Endsley,et al.  Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[13]  J. Diebold Automation , 1955, Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

[14]  E. Hollnagel Handbook of Cognitive Task Design , 2009 .

[15]  J. Liker The Toyota Way , 2003 .

[16]  Jessica Bruch,et al.  Designing proactive assembly systems – Criteria and interaction between automation, information, and competence , 2009 .

[17]  N. Moray,et al.  Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[18]  Oliver Wessel,et al.  Case study: Automation Strategies at Volkswagen , 2007, World Congress on Engineering.

[19]  Liling Ren,et al.  Interaction of Automation and Time Pressure in a Route Replanning Task , 2002 .

[20]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  Ten Challenges for Making Automation a "Team Player" in Joint Human-Agent Activity , 2004, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[21]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004 .

[22]  Julian Sanchez Conceptual Model of Human-Automation Interaction , 2009 .

[23]  Kristina Säfsten,et al.  Produktionsutveckling - utveckling och drift av produktionssystem , 2005 .

[24]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Human-Automation Interaction , 2005 .