Advertisement

The Human-Tech Matrix: A Socio-Technical Approach to Evaluation of Automated Transport Systems

  • Jonas AnderssonEmail author
  • Tor Skoglund
  • Niklas Strand
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 876)

Abstract

An automated transport system has the potential to improve traffic safety and flow, but also to the accessibility and comfort for users of the transport system. Realizing the positive effects with automated transport is about shaping regulatory, organizational and technical systems. Here, appropriate evaluation enables steering efforts in the desired direction. The overall aim of this study was to develop a methodological framework that could identify effects of an automated transport system, and outline methods and metrics for evaluation of these effects. We propose a tentative case-based methodology to define measures of the effects of an automated transport system that will give key stakeholders new possibilities to evaluate research and development projects and efforts connected to automation of the transport system, and thereby manage these in a human-centered direction.

Keywords

Human factors Automated transport systems Evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The project was partly funded by Sweden’s innovation agency Vinnova, The Swedish research council for sustainable development and The Swedish Energy Agency, through the strategic innovation program Drive Sweden. We would also like to address a special thank you to Dr. Annika Larsson (Autoliv) and Dr. Johan Strandroth (the Swedish Transport Agency) who made substantial contributions to the presented work during the course of the project.

References

  1. 1.
    Brookhuis, K.A., de Waard, D., Janssen, W.H.: Behavioural impacts of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems – an overview. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 1(3), 245–253 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rydmell, C.: PLUTO Evaluation Planning. Technical report 2002:60E, Vägverket, Sweden (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilmink, I., Janssen, W., Jonkers, E., Malone, K., et al.: Impact assessment of intelligent vehicle safety systems. Technical report eIMPACT Deliverable D4, version 2.0 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brook-Carter, N., Parkes, A., Ernst, A.C., Jaspers, I., et al.: Development of multiparameter criteria and a common impact assessment methodology. ADVISORS Deliverable D4.1 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kulmala, R., Luoma, J., Lähesmaa, J., Pajunen-Muhonen, H., et al.: Guidelines for the evaluation of ITS projects. Technical report FITS Publications 4/2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang, X., Kompfner, P., White, C., Sexton, B., et al.: Guidebook for assessment of transport telematics applications: updated version. Technical report CONVERGE TR 1101 D2.3.1 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grane, C.: Assessment selection in human-automation interaction studies. The Failure-GAM2E and review of assessment methods for highly automated driving. Appl. Ergon. 66, 182–192 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vicente, K.: The human factor: revolutionizing the way we live with technology (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RISE Viktoria, Research Institutes of SwedenGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Sweco Society ABGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.VTI, the Swedish National Road and Transport Research InstituteGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations