research-article

The best task allocation process is to decide on one’s own: effects of the allocation agent in human–robot interaction on perceived work characteristics and satisfaction

Authors:

Annette KlugeAuthors Info & Claims

Cognition, Technology & Work, Volume 24, Issue 1

Pages 39 - 55

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00656-7

Published: 01 February 2022 Publication History

Abstract

New technologies are ever evolving and have the power to change human work for the better or the worse depending on the implementation. For human–robot interaction (HRI), it is decisive how humans and robots will share tasks and who will be in charge for decisions on task allocation. The aim of this online experiment was to examine the influence of different decision agents on the perception of a task allocation process in HRI. We assume that inclusion of the worker in the allocation will create more perceived work resources and will lead to more satisfaction with the allocation and the work results than a decision made by another agent. To test these hypotheses, we used a fictional production scenario where tasks were allocated to the participant and a robot. The allocation decision was either made by the robot, by an organizational unit, or by the participants themselves. We then looked for differences between those conditions. Our sample consisted of 151 people. In multiple ANOVAs, we could show that satisfaction with the allocation process, the solution, and with the result of the work process was higher in the condition where participants themselves were given agency in the allocation process compared to the other two. Those participants also experienced more task identity and autonomy. This has implications for the design of allocation processes: The inclusion of workers in task allocation can play a crucial role in leveraging the acceptance of HRI and in designing humane work systems in Industry 4.0.

References

[1]

Abdallah S, Lesser V (2005) Modeling task allocation using a decision theoretic model. In: Proceedings of 4th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS

[2]

Alami R, Clodic A, Montreuil V, Sisbot EA, Chatila R (2005) Task planning for human–robot interaction. In: Bailly G, Crowley JL (eds) Proceedings of the 2005 joint conference on Smart objects and ambient intelligence innovative context-aware services usages and technologies, ACM, New York, NY, p 81.

[3]

Alami R, Clodic A, Montreuil V, Sisbot EA, Chatila R (2006) Toward human-aware robot task planning. In: AAAI spring symposium: to boldly go where no human–robot team has gone before, pp 39–46

[4]

Baker M, Yanco HA (2004) Autonomy mode suggestions for improving human–robot interaction. In: 2004 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, IEEE, pp 2948–2953

[5]

Bakker AB and Demerouti E Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward J Occup Health Psychol 2017 22 273-285

[6]

Brockner J and Wiesenfeld BM An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures Psychol Bull 1996 120 189

[7]

Bucknall T and Thomas S Critical care nurse satisfaction with levels of involvement in clinical decisions J Adv Nurs 1996 23 571-577

[8]

Cheung JH, Sinclair RR, Shi J, and Wang M Do job demands of Chinese manufacturing employees predict positive or negative outcomes? A test of competing hypotheses Stress Health 2015 31 432-442

[9]

Cosenzo K, Chen J, Reinerman-Jones L, Barnes M, Nicholson D (2010) Adaptive automation effects on operator performance during a reconnaissance mission with an unmanned ground vehicle. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 25, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 2135–2139

[10]

Dabholkar PA and Sheng X Consumer participation in using online recommendation agents: effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions Serv Ind J 2012 32 1433-1449

[11]

Debernard S, Vanderhaegen F, and Millot P Strassen HG An experimental investigation of dynamic allocation of tasks between air traffic controller and AI systems Analysis, design and evaluation of man-machine systems 1992 1993 The Hague Elsevier 95-100

[12]

Driscoll JW Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction Acad Manag J 1978 21 44-56

[13]

Fantini P, Pinzone M, Sella F, Taisch M (2017) Collaborative robots and new product introduction: capturing and transferring human expert knowledge to the operators. In: International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, Springer, pp 259–268

[14]

Fitts PM (1951) Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system. National Research Council, Division of Anthropology and Psychology, Committee on Aviation Psychology

[15]

Fitzsimons GJ, Greenleaf EA, Lehmann DR (1997) Decision and consumption satisfaction: implications for channel relations. Marketing Studies Center Working Paper Series 313

[16]

Flemisch F, Heesen M, Hesse T, Kelsch J, Schieben A, and Beller J Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations Cognit Technol Work 2012 14 3-18

[17]

Flemisch F, Abbink DA, Itoh M, Pacaux-Lemoine M-P, and Weßel G Cognit Technol Work 2019 21 555-568

[18]

Freedy A, de Visser E, Weltman G, Coeyman N (2007) Measurement of trust in human–robot collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on collaborative technologies and systems, IEEE, Orlando, FL, pp 106–114

[19]

Frey D and Jonas E Frey D and Martin I Die Theorie der kognizierten Kontrolle [theory of cognized control] Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, Band III 2002 3 Bern Verlag Hans Huber 13-50

[20]

Gaede C, Ranz F, Echelmeyer W, and Hummel V A study on challenges in the implementation of human–robot collaboration J Eng Manag Oper 2018 1 29-39

[21]

Gombolay MC, Gutierrez RA, Clarke SG, Sturla GF, and Shah JA Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams Auton Robot 2015 39 293-312

[22]

Goodrich MA, Olsen DR, Crandall JW, Palmer TJ (2001) Experiments in adjustable autonomy. In: Proceedings of IJCAI workshop on autonomy, delegation and control: interacting with intelligent agents, Seattle, WA, pp 1624–1629

[23]

Habib L, Pacaux-Lemoine M, and Millot P A method for designing levels of automation based on a human–machine cooperation model IFAC Pap Online 2017 50 1372-1377

[24]

Hacker W and Sachse P Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie: Psychische Regulation von Tätigkeiten [work psychology: psychological regualtion of tasks] 2014 Göttingen Hogrefe

[25]

Hackman JR and Oldham GR Development of the job diagnostic survey J Appl Psychol 1975 60 159

[26]

Hackman JR and Oldham GR Work redesign 1980 Reading Addison-Wesley

[27]

Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, de Visser EJ, and Parasuraman R A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction Hum Factors 2011 53 517-527

[28]

Hervé M, Pavie X, and O'Keeffe M Valuing people to create value: an innovative approach to leveraging motivation at work 2000 Singapore World Scientific

[29]

Hoc J-M and Lemoine M-P Cognitive evaluation of human-human and human–machine cooperation modes in air traffic control Int J Aviat Psychol 1998 8 1-32

[30]

Hughes R Considering the vignette technique and its application to a study of drug injecting and HIV risk and safer behaviour Sociol Health Illn 1998 20 381-400

[31]

Inagaki T and Itoh M Human’s overtrust in and overreliance on advanced driver assistance systems: a theoretical framework Int J Veh Technol 2013 2013 1-8

[32]

Jian JY, Bisantz AM, and Drury CG Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems Int J Cogn Ergon 2000 4 53-71

[33]

Kaber DB and Riley J Adaptive automation of a dynamic control task based on secondary task workload measurement Int J Cogn Ergon 1999 3 169-187

[34]

Keen PG (1980) Decision support systems: a research perspective. In: Decision support systems: issues and challenges: proceedings of an international task force meeting, pp 23–44

[35]

Lantz PM et al. Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer Health Serv Res 2005 40 745-767

[36]

Locke EA, Schweiger DM, and Latham GP Participation in decision making: when should it be used? Organ Dyn 1986 14 65-79

[37]

Michalos G, Spiliotopoulos J, Makris S, and Chryssolouris G A method for planning human robot shared tasks CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 2018 22 76-90

[38]

Moray N, Inagaki T, and Itoh M Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks J Exp Psychol Appl 2000 6 44

[39]

Morgeson FP and Humphrey SE The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work J Appl Psychol 2006 91 1321-1339

[40]

Munzer T, Mollard Y, Lopes M (2017) Impact of robot initiative on human–robot collaboration. Paper presented at the HRI 2017 - ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, Vienna

[41]

Nikolakis N, Kousi N, Michalos G, and Makris S Dynamic scheduling of shared human–robot manufacturing operations Proc CIRP 2018 72 9-14

[42]

Older MT, Waterson PE, and Clegg CW A critical assessment of task allocation methods and their applicability Ergon 1997 40 151-171

[43]

Onnasch L, Wickens CD, Li H, and Manzey D Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: an integrated meta-analysis Hum Factors 2014 56 476-488

[44]

Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, and Wickens CD A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 2000 30 286-297

[45]

Rajaonah B, Tricot N, Anceaux F, and Millot P The role of intervening variables in driver–ACC cooperation Int J Hum Comput Stud 2008 66 185-197

[46]

Romero D, Noran O, Stahre J, Bernus P, Fast-Berglund Å (2015) Towards a human-centred reference architecture for next generation balanced automation systems: human-automation symbiosis. In: IFIP international conference on advances in production management systems, Springer, pp 556–566

[47]

Rücker D, Hornfeck R, Paetzold K (2018) Investiagting ergonomics in the context of human–robot collaboration as a sociotechnical system. Paper presented at the advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems, AHFE 2018

[48]

Ryan JC, Banerjee AG, Cummings ML, and Roy N Comparing the performance of expert user heuristics and an integer linear program in aircraft carrier deck operations IEEE Trans Cybern 2014 44 761-773

[49]

Rystedt LW, Devereux J, and Sverke M Comparing and combining the demand-control-support model and the effort reward imbalance model to predict long-term mental strain Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2007 16 261-278

[50]

Schmidt K Cooperative work and its articulation: requirements for computer support Trav Hum 1994 57 345-366

[51]

Schmidtler J, Knott V, Hölzel C, and Bengler K Human centered assistance applications for the working environment of the future Occup Ergon 2015 12 83-95

[52]

Shaw JC, Wild E, and Colquitt JA To justify or excuse?: a meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations J Appl Psychol 2003 88 444

[53]

Sheridan TB Rouse WB Supervisory control of remote manipulators, vehicles and dynamic processes: experiments in command and display aiding Advances in man-machine systems research 1984 New York JAI Press 49-137

[54]

Sims HP, Szilagyi AD, and Keller RT The measurement of job characteristics Acad Manag J 1976 19 195-212

[55]

Slemp GR and Vella-Brodrick DA Optimising employee mental health: the relationship between intrinsic need satisfaction, job crafting, and employee well-being J Happiness Stud 2013 15 957-977

[56]

Spector PE Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work Hum Relat 1986 39 1005-1016

[57]

Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH, Baber C, and Jenkins DP Human factors methods. A practical guide for engineering and design 2005 Farnham Ashgate

[58]

Stegmann S, van Dick R, Ullrich J, Charalambous J, Menzel B, Egold N, and Wu TT-C Der Work Design Questionnaire [the work design questionnaire] Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 2010 54 1-28

[59]

Thielsch MT, Meeßen SM, and Hertel G Trust and distrust in information systems at the workplace PeerJ 2018 6 e5483

[60]

Trist E (1981) The evolution of socio-technical systems: a conceptual framework and an action research program. Occas Pap 2 http://sistemas-humano-computacionais.wdfiles.com/local--files/capitulo%3Aredes-sociotecnicas/Evolution_of_socio_technical_systems.pdf

[61]

Tsarouchi P, Matthaiakis A-S, Makris S, and Chryssolouris G On a human–robot collaboration in an assembly cell Int J Comput Integr Manuf 2017 30 580-589

[62]

Van den Steen E (2006) The limits of authority: motivation versus coordination. MIT Sloan Research Paper No 4626-06

[63]

Wieland R and Hammes M Wuppertaler Screening Instrument Psychische Beanspruchung (WSIB) – Beanspruchungsbilanz und Kontrollerleben als Indikatoren für gesunde Arbeit J Psychol Alltagshandelns 2014 7 30-50

[64]

Williams LA and DeSteno D Pride and perseverance: the motivational role of pride J Personal Soc Psychol 2008 94 1007-1017

[65]

Zhang S and Fitzsimons GJ Choice-process satisfaction: the influence of attribute alignability and option limitation Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1999 77 192-214

Cited By

Rieth MOnnasch LHagemann V(2024)Adaptable automation for a more human-centered work design? Effects on human perception and behaviorInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103246186:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103246
Ponti MKasperowski DGander A(2024)Narratives of epistemic agency in citizen science classification projects: ideals of science and roles of citizensAI & Society10.1007/s00146-022-01428-939:2(523-540)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00146-022-01428-9
Jacob FGrosse EMorana SKönig C(2023)Picking with a robot colleagueComputers and Industrial Engineering10.1016/j.cie.2023.109262180:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109262
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Learning and exploiting knowledge in multi-agent task allocation problems
GECCO '07: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation

Imagine a group of cooperating agents attempting to allocate tasks amongst themselves without knowledge of their own capabilities. Over time, they develop a belief of their own skill levels through failed attempts at completing the tasks they are ...
Task Allocation for Undependable Multiagent Systems in Social Networks

Task execution of multiagent systems in social networks (MAS-SN) can be described through agents' operations when accessing necessary resources distributed in the social networks; thus, task allocation can be implemented based on the agents' access to ...
High reliable and efficient task allocation in networked multi-agent systems

Task allocation in networked multi-agent systems refers to agents' coordination and cooperation in order to provide the required resources of task in a way to increase the efficiency of the system as a whole. One of the important goals pursued in task ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Cognition, Technology and Work

Cognition, Technology and Work Volume 24, Issue 1

Feb 2022

202 pages

ISSN:1435-5558

EISSN:1435-5566

Issue’s Table of Contents

© The Author(s) 2020.

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 February 2022

Accepted: 16 November 2020

Received: 21 November 2019

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA) (4229)

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 20 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Rieth MOnnasch LHagemann V(2024)Adaptable automation for a more human-centered work design? Effects on human perception and behaviorInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103246186:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103246
Ponti MKasperowski DGander A(2024)Narratives of epistemic agency in citizen science classification projects: ideals of science and roles of citizensAI & Society10.1007/s00146-022-01428-939:2(523-540)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00146-022-01428-9
Jacob FGrosse EMorana SKönig C(2023)Picking with a robot colleagueComputers and Industrial Engineering10.1016/j.cie.2023.109262180:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109262
Karakikes MNathanael D(2022)The effect of cognitive workload on decision authority assignment in human–robot collaborationCognition, Technology and Work10.1007/s10111-022-00719-x25:1(31-43)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10111-022-00719-x

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents