Tasking Teams: Supervisory Control and Task Management of Autonomous Unmanned Systems

  • Robert S. GutzwillerEmail author
  • Douglas S. Lange
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9740)


How does one collaborate with and supervise a team? Here, we discuss a novel interface for managing tasks, developed as part of a multi-heterogeneous unmanned systems testbed, that aids cognitive operations and teaming. Existing models of team effectiveness among humans can frame cooperative teaming of computer agents and human supervisors. We use the three main characteristics of the input – process – output model to frame discussions of the task manager interface as a potential teaming facilitator, finding it should facilitate effectiveness on several elements. We conclude with the expectation of examination and support from future experiments.


Teams Autonomous systems Supervisory control Task management 



This work was supported by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific Naval Innovative Science and Engineering Program. The US Department of Defense Autonomy Research Pilot Initiative under the project entitled “Realizing Autonomy via Intelligent Adaptive Hybrid Control” also supported this work.

This manuscript is submitted with the understanding that it is the work of a U.S. government employee done as part of his/her official duties and may not be copyrighted. We request that the publication of this work include a notice to this effect.


  1. 1.
    DoD, Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Department of Defense Science Board, “The role of autonomy in DoD systems”, Off. Undersecretary Def. Acquis. Technol. Logist., July 2012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishop, R.: Record-breaking drone swarm sees 50 UAVs controlled by a single person, Popular Mechanics, p. 2 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Squire, P.N., Parasuraman, R.: Effects of automation and task load on task switching during human supervision of multiple semi-autonomous robots in a dynamic environment. Ergonomics 53(8), 951–961 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruff, H.A., Calhoun, G., Draper, M., Fontejon, J.V., Guilfoos, B.J.: Exploring automation issues in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. In: Proceedings of Human Performance, Situation Awareness, Automaion Technology Conference, pp. 218–222 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller, C.A., Parasuraman, R.: Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Hum. Factors 49(1), 57–75 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: a review of human factors issues. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. 44(1), 13–29 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hardin, B., Goodrich, M.: On using mixed-initiative control: a perspective for managing large-scale robotic teams. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 165–172 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dismukes, R.: Remembrance of things future: prospective memory in laboratory, workplace, and everyday settings. Rev. Hum. factors Ergon. 6, 1–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G., Hambrick, D.Z.: Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142(1), 1–12 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M., Jundt, D.: Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56, 517–543 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mathieu, J.E., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., Gilson, L.: Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J. Manage. 34(3), 410–476 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Procci, K., Boyce, M., Wright, J., Garcia, A., Barnes, M.: Situation awareness–based agent transparency, ARL Technical report 6905 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., Epley, N.: Who sees human?: the stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5(3), 219–232 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kolbe, M., Künzle, B., Enikö, Z., Wacker, J., Grote, G.: Measuring coordination behaviour in anaesthesia teams during induction of general anaesthetics. In: Flin, R., Mitchell, L. (eds.) Safer Surgery: Analysing Behaviour in the Operating Theatre, pp. 203–221. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burtscher, M.J., Manser, T.: Team mental models and their potential to improve teamwork and safety: a review and implications for future research in healthcare. Saf. Sci. 50(5), 1344–1354 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malin, J.T., Schreckenghost, D.L., Woods, D.D., Potter, S.S., Johannesen, L., Holloway, M., Forbus, K.D.: Making intelligent systems team players: Case studies and design issues. volume 1: human-computer interaction design. NASA Technol. Memo. 104738, 1–276 (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klein, G., Bradshaw, J.M., Feltovich, J.M., Woods, D.D.: Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In: Rouse, W.B., Boff, K.R. (eds.) Organizational Simulation, pp. 139–184. John Wiley & Sons, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46(1), 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Agent transparency for human-agent teaming effectiveness. In: IEEE International Conference on System Man and Cybernetics, pp. 1381–1385 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McIntyre, R., Salas, E.: Measuring and managing for team performance: emerging principles from complex environments. In: Guzzo, R., Salas, E. (eds.) Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, pp. 9–45. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cummings, M.L., How, J., Whitten, A., Toupet, O.: The impact of human-automation collaboration in decentralized multiple unmanned vehicle control. In: Proceedings of IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Patterson, E.S., Watts-Perotti, J., Woods, D.D.: Voice loops as coordination aids in space shuttle mission control. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 8(4), 353–371 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schuster, D., Ososky, S., Phillips, E., Lebiere, C., Evans, A.W.: A research approach to shared mental models and situation assessment in future robot teams. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 456–460 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fiore, S.M., Jentsch, F., Becerra-fernandez, I., Salas, E., Finkelstein, N.: Integrating field data with laboratory training research to improve the understanding of expert human-agent teamwork. In: Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Science, pp. 1–10 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klein, G.: Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gutzwiller, R.S., Lange, D.S., Reeder, J., Morris, R.L., Rodas, O.: Human-computer collaboration in adaptive supervisory control and function allocation of autonomous system teams. In: Shumaker, R., Lackey, S. (eds.) VAMR 2015. LNCS, vol. 9179, pp. 447–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cummings, M., Bertucelli, L., Macbeth, J., Surana, A.: Task versus vehicle-based control paradigms in multiple unmanned vehicle supervision by a single operator. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. 44(3), 353–361 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific (SPAWAR)San DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations