[LINK] People Make Poor Monitors for Computers

[Craig Sanders]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 07:50:43AM +1000, Kim Holburn wrote:
> > Manual control is a highly skilled activity, and skills need
> > to be practised continuously in order to maintain them. Yet an
> > automatic control system that fails only rarely denies operators
> > the opportunity for practising these basic control skills. One
> > of the consequences of automation, therefore, is that operators
> > become de-skilled in precisely those activities that justify their
> > marginalised existence. But when manual takeover is necessary
> > something has usually gone wrong; this means that operators
> > need to be more rather than less skilled in order to cope with
> > these atypical conditions. Duncan (1987, p. 266) makes the same
> > point: “The more reliable the plant, the less opportunity there
> > will be for the operator to practise direct intervention, and the
> > more difficult will be the demands of the remaining tasks requiring
> > operator intervention.”

this would seem to be a good use for the 'gamification' fad - a game
where the operators try to second-guess (or even do better than) the
automated systems, with point scores and leaderboards and prizes to
encourage regular practice.

most gamification implementations are just marketing-driven privacy
intrusions - but this application would actually be useful and
beneficial.

a secondary benefit is that if they are involved in the programming
and improvement of the simulation/game, that would also be a way for
the operators to increase their understanding of the systems they are
looking after. and teaches/encourages them to be more observant of
the the system's processes (e.g. mechanical, hydraulic, logical etc)
actually work, rather than just thinking of the system as one big
black box.

this game programming may even result in real-world improvements in the
automated processes.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>