,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
"Finally, we consider the challenge offered by proponents of automation. Some researchers in the automation community have promulgated the myth that more automation can obviate the need for humans, including experts. The enthusiasm for technologies is often extreme."
"Too many technologists believe that automation can compensate for human limitations and substitute for humans. They also believe the myth that tasks can be cleanly allocated to either the human or the machine."
"These misleading beliefs have been questioned by cognitive systems engineers for more than 35 years, yet the debunking has to be periodically refreshed in the minds of researchers and program managers."
"The misleading be- liefs persist because of the promissory note that more automation means fewer people, fewer people means fewer errors, and (especially) fewer people means reduced costs."
"Nearly every funding program that calls for more automation is premised with the claim that the introduction of automation will entail a need for fewer expert operators..."
"...at potentially lower cost to the organization. But the facts are in plain view:
The introduction often requires more experts.
Case studies show that automation creates new kinds of cognitive work for the operator, often at the wrong times."
The introduction often requires more experts.
Case studies show that automation creates new kinds of cognitive work for the operator, often at the wrong times."
"Automation often requires people to do more, to do it faster, or to do it in more complex ways. The explosion of features, options, and modes often creates new demands, new types of errors, and new paths toward failure."
"Ironically, as these facts became apparent, decision makers seek additional automation to compensate for the problems triggered by the automation."
