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

  • Damien TrentesauxEmail author
  • Patrick Millot
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 640)


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.


Techno-centred design Human centred design Human in the loop Levels of automation Human-machine cooperation Intelligent manufacturing systems 


  1. 1.
    Cardin, O., Trentesaux, D., Thomas, A., Castagna, P., Berger, T., El-Haouzi, H.B.: Coupling predictive scheduling and reactive control in manufacturing hybrid control architectures: state of the art and future challenges. J. Intell. Manuf. doi: 10.1007/s10845-015-1139-0 (2016)
  2. 2.
    Van Brussel, H., Wyns, J., Valckenaers, P., Bongaerts, L., Peeters, P.: Reference architecture for holonic manufacturing systems: PROSA. Comput. Ind. 37, 255–274 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leitão, P., Restivo, F.: ADACOR: a holonic architecture for agile and adaptive manufacturing control. Comput. Ind. 57, 121–130 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbosa, J., Leitão, P., Adam, E., Trentesaux, D.: Dynamic self-organization in holonic multi-agent manufacturing systems: The ADACOR evolution. Comput. Ind. 66, 99–111 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McFarlane, D., Giannikas, V., Wong, A.C.Y., Harrison, M.: Product intelligence in industrial control: theory and practice. Annual Rev. Control 37, 69–88 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, J., Bagheri, B., Kao, H.-A.: A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manuf. Lett. 3, 18–23 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaham, M., Bouzouia, B., Achour, N.: Human-in-the-Loop Cyber-Physical Production Systems Control (HiLCP2sC): a multi-objective interactive framework proposal, service orientation in holonic and multi-agent manufacturing, pp. 315–325, Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zambrano Rey, G., Carvalho, M., Trentesaux, D.: Cooperation models between humans and artificial self-organizing systems: Motivations, issues and perspectives. In: 6th International Symposium on Resilient Control Systems (ISRCS), pp. 156–161 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oborski, P.: Man-machine interactions in advanced manufacturing systems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 23, 227–232 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mac Carthy, B.: Organizational, systems and human issues in production planning, scheduling and control. In: Handbook of production scheduling, pp. 59–90, Springer, US (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trentesaux, D., Dindeleux, R., Tahon, C.: A multicriteria decision support system for dynamic task allocation in a distributed production activity control structure. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 11, 3–17 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valckenaers, P., Van Brussel, H., Bruyninckx, H., Saint Germain, B., Van Belle, J., Philips, J.: Predicting the unexpected. Comput. Ind. 62, 623–637 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Millot, P.: Designing human-machine cooperation systems. ISTE-Wiley, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pacaux-Lemoine, M.-P., Debernard, S., Godin, A., Rajaonah, B., Anceaux, F., Vanderhaegen, F.: Levels of Automation and human-machine cooperation: application to human-robot interaction. In: IFAC World Congress, pp. 6484–6492 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmitt, K.: Automations influence on nuclear power plants: a look at three accidents and how automation played a role. Int. Ergon. Assoc. World Conf., Recife, Brazil (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 37, 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trentesaux, D., Moray, N., Tahon, C.: Integration of the human operator into responsive discrete production management systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109, 342–361 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control, MIT Press (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sentouh, C., Popieul, J.C.: Human–machine interaction in automated vehicles: The ABV project. In: Risk management in life-critical systems, pp. 335–350, ISTE-Wiley (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Millot, P.: Cooperative organization for enhancing situation awareness. In: Risk management in life-critical systems, pp. 279–300, ISTE-Wiley, London (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Millot, P., Boy, G.A.: Human-machine cooperation: a solution for life-critical systems? Work, 41 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LAMIH, UMR CNRS 8201University of Valenciennes and Hainaut-CambrésisValenciennesFrance

Personalised recommendations