A Human-Centred Design to Break the Myth of the "Magic Human" in Intelligent Manufacturing Systems

The techno-centred design approach, currently used in industrial engineering and especially when designing Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) voluntarily ignores the human operator when the system operates correctly, but supposes the human is endowed with “magic capabilities” to fix difficult situations. But this so-called magic human faces with a lack of elements to make the relevant decisions. This paper claims that the Human Operator’s role must be defined at the early design phase of the IMS. We try to show with examples of systems from manufacturing as well as from energy or transportation that the Human Centred Design approaches place explicitly the “human in the loop” of the system to be automated. We first show the limits of techno-centred design methods. Secondly we propose the principles of a balanced function allocation between human and machine and even a real cooperation between them. The approach is based on the system decomposition into an abstraction hierarchy (strategic, tactical, operational). A relevant knowledge of the human capabilities and limits leads to the choice of the adequate Level of Automation (LoA) according to the system situation.

[1]  Patrick Millot,et al.  Human-machine cooperation: a solution for life-critical systems? , 2012, Work.

[2]  Damien Trentesaux,et al.  Integration of the human operator into responsive discrete production management systems , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Duncan C. McFarlane,et al.  Product intelligence in industrial control: Theory and practice , 2013, Annu. Rev. Control..

[4]  Jay Lee,et al.  A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems , 2015 .

[5]  Nouara Achour,et al.  Human-in-the-Loop Cyber-Physical Production Systems Control (HiLCP2sC): A Multi-objective Interactive Framework Proposal , 2015, Service Orientation in Holonic and Multi-agent Manufacturing.

[6]  Kara Schmitt Automations influence on nuclear power plants: a look at three accidents and how automation played a role. , 2012, Work.

[7]  José Barbosa,et al.  Dynamic self-organization in holonic multi-agent manufacturing systems: The ADACOR evolution , 2015, Comput. Ind..

[8]  Marco Carvalho,et al.  Cooperation models between humans and artificial self-organizing systems: Motivations, issues and perspectives , 2013, 2013 6th International Symposium on Resilient Control Systems (ISRCS).

[9]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control , 2003 .

[10]  Paulo Leitão,et al.  ADACOR: A holonic architecture for agile and adaptive manufacturing control , 2006, Comput. Ind..

[11]  Damien Trentesaux,et al.  A multicriteria decision support system for dynamic task allocation in a distributed production activity control structure , 1998, Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf..

[12]  Patrick Millot,et al.  Designing Human-Machine Cooperation Systems: Millot/Designing Human-Machine Cooperation Systems , 2014 .

[13]  Bart L. MacCarthy,et al.  Organizational, Systems and Human Issues in Production Planning, Scheduling and Control , 2006 .

[14]  Hendrik Van Brussel,et al.  Predicting the unexpected , 2011, Comput. Ind..

[15]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Frédéric Vanderhaegen,et al.  Levels of automation and human-machine cooperation: Application to human-robot interaction , 2011 .

[17]  André Thomas,et al.  Coupling predictive scheduling and reactive control in manufacturing hybrid control architectures: state of the art and future challenges , 2017, J. Intell. Manuf..

[18]  Przemysław Oborski,et al.  Man-machine interactions in advanced manufacturing systems , 2004 .

[19]  Luc Bongaerts,et al.  Reference architecture for holonic manufacturing systems: PROSA , 1998 .