Abstract
The operation of process plants can be supported by assistance systems that rely on engineering models to answer various questions. However, suitable answers can only be computed when the questions posed by the operators using the assistance are compatible with those considered by the engineers developing the models. Such compatibility cannot be taken for granted, because operator cognition and action rarely play a role during plant engineering. How can we determine whether a model is useful for answering particular operator questions? A promising strategy is to apply compatible frameworks for describing the domain concepts captured by the models and the cognitive action representations of operators. To this end, we introduce the concept of abstraction hierarchies that are used both by engineers to model the technical system and by humans to identify their actions. Thus, they provide an opportunity for matching the two. We argue that such matching cannot be performed algorithmically. If humans are to be responsible for the matching, this presupposes that models are equipped with understandable descriptions of their capabilities. Accordingly, we argue that model descriptions are a cornerstone of successful model-based operator assistance. We discuss the challenges of this approach and identify directions for future work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bamberg, A., Urbas, L., Bröcker, S., Kockmann, N., & Bortz, M. (2020). What makes the digital twin an ingenious companion? Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 92(3), 192–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201900168
Bennett, K. B. (2017). Ecological interface design and system safety: One facet of Rasmussen's legacy. Applied Ergonomics, 59(Part B), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.08.001.
Cruz, K. S., & Pinto, J. (2019). Team focus in focus: Its implications for real teams and their members. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a14
Dörner, D., & Funke, J. (2017). Complex problem solving: What it is and what it is not. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1153), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153
Drath, R. (2010). Datenaustausch in der Anlagenplanung mit AutomationML. Springer.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
Endsley, M. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816681350
Ewell, P. J., Hamilton, J. C., & Guadagno, R. E. (2018). How do videogame players identify their actions? Integrating Action Identification Theory and videogame play via the Behavior Identification Form-Gamer. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.019
Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). The process of solving complex problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 4(1), 9–42. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1118
Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0
Goble, C., Cohen-Boulakia, S., Soiland-Reyes, S., Garijo, D., Gil, Y., Crusoe, M. R., Peters, K., & Schober, D. (2020). FAIR computational workflows. Data Intelligence, 2(1–2), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00033
Hajdukiewicz, J. R., & Vicente, K. J. (2002). Designing for adaptation to novelty and change: Functional information, emergent feature graphics, and higher-level control. Human Factors, 44(4), 592–610. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024496980
Hall, T. J., Rudolph, J. W., & Cao, C. G. L. (2006). Fixation and attention allocation in anesthesiology crisis management: An abstraction hierarchy perspective. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (pp. 1064–1067), San Fransisco, CA.
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2014). Wandel von Produktionsarbeit - Industrie 4.0. WSI Mitteilungen, 6, 421–429.
Hollnagel, E. (2012). Coping with complexity: Past, present and future. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14(3), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0202-7
Janzen, M. E., & Vicente, K. J. (1998). Attention allocation within the abstraction hierarchy. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48(4), 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1997.0172
Kelly, T., & Weaver, R. (2004). The goal structuring notation–a safety argument notation. In Proceedings of the Dependable Systems and Networks 2004 Workshop on Assurance Cases (pp. 1–6).
Lamprecht, A.-L., Garcia, L., Kuzak, M., Martinez, C., Arcila, R., Martin Del Pico, E., Capella-Gutierrez, S., et al. (2020). Towards FAIR principles for research software. Data Science, 3(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-190026
Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 8(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839519408945442
McIlroy, R. C., & Stanton, N. A. (2011). Getting past first base: Going all the way with Cognitive Work Analysis. Applied Ergonomics, 42(2), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.006
Meineri, S., & Morineau, T. (2014). How the psychological theory of action identification can offer new advances for research in cognitive engineering. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15(5), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2013.815286
Mizoguchi, R., & Ikeda, M. (1998). Towards ontology engineering. Journal-Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 13, 1–10.
Moussaoui, L. S., & Desrichard, O. (2016). Act local but don’t think too global: The impact of ecological goal level on behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(5), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1135780
Müller, R., Kessler, F., Humphrey, D. W., & Rahm, J. (2021). Data in context: How digital transformation can support human reasoning in cyber-physical production systems. Future Internet, 13(6), 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13060156
Müller, R., & Oehm, L. (2019). Process industries versus discrete processing: How system characteristics affect operator tasks. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(2), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0511-1
Murillo, A. P. (2020). An examination of scientific data repositories, data reusability, and the incorporation of FAIR. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), e386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.386
Naikar, N. (2017). Cognitive work analysis: An influential legacy extending beyond human factors and engineering. Applied Ergonomics, 59(Part B), 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.001.
Naikar, N., Hopcroft, R., & Moylan, A. (2005). Work domain analysis: Theoretical concepts and methodology (Technical Report, Issue).
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. Freeman.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books.
Plant, K. L., & Stanton, N. A. (2015). The process of processing: Exploring the validity of Neisser’s perceptual cycle model with accounts from critical decision-making in the cockpit. Ergonomics, 58(6), 909–923. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.991765
Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-13(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313160.
Rasmussen, J. (1985). The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decisionmaking and system management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-15(2), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313353.
Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. North-Holland.
Schmidt, J., & Müller, R. (in preparation). Disciplinary differences in mental models: How mechanical engineers and automation engineers evaluate machine processes.
Şengür, D., & Turhan, M. (2018). Prediction of the action identification levels of teachers based on organizational commitment and job satisfaction by using k-nearest neighbors method. Turkish Journal of Science and Technology, 13(2), 61–68.
Sheridan, T. B. (2011). Adaptive automation, level of automation, allocation authority, supervisory control, and adaptive control: Distinctions and modes of adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part a: Systems and Humans, 41(4), 662–667. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2093888
Spriggs, J. (2012). GSN-the goal structuring notation: A structured approach to presenting arguments. Springer Science & Business Media.
Stachowiak, H. (1973). Allgemeine modelltheorie. Springer.
Urbas, L., & Doherr, F. (2011). AutoHMI: A model driven software engineering approach for HMIs in process industries. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Automation Engineering (pp. 627–631). IEEE.
Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), 93–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888900007797
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory of action identification. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Towards safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vicente, K. J. (2002). Ecological interface design: Process and challenges. Human Factors, 44, 62–78.
Vicente, K. J., Christoffersen, K., & Pereklita, A. (1995). Supporting operator problem solving through ecological interface design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 25(4), 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.370186
Vicente, K. J., & Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 1–18.
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Mons, B., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Acknowledgements
Parts of this work were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) grants for project HyTec (PA 1232/12-3) and Research Training Group CD-CPPS (GRK 2323/1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Müller, R., Urbas, L. (2023). Model-Based Operator Assistance: How to Match Engineering Models with Humans’ Cognitive Representations of Their Actions?. In: Mukherjee, S., Dutt, V., Srinivasan, N. (eds) Applied Cognitive Science and Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3966-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3966-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-3965-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-3966-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)