This paper discusses the ways in which automation of industrial processes may expand rather than eliminate problems with the human operator. Some comments will be made on methods of alleviating these problems within the 'classic' approach of leaving the operator with responsibility for abnormal conditions, and on the potential for continued use of the human operator for on-line decision-making within human-computer collaboration. Irony: combination of circumstances, the result of which is the direct opposite of what might be expected. Paradox: seemingly absurd though perhaps really well-founded statement. The classic aim of automation is to replace human manual control, planning and problem solving by automatic devices and computers. This paper suggests that the increased interest in human factors among engineers reflects the irony that the more advanced a control system is, so the more crucial may be the contribution of the human operator. This paper is particularly concerned with control in process industries, although examples will be drawn from flight-deck automation. In process plants the different modes of operation may be automated to different extents, for example normal operation and shut-down may be atomatic while start-up and abnormal conditions are manual. The problems of the use of automatic or manual control are a function of the predictability of process behaviour, whatever the mode of operation. The first two sections of this paper discuss automatic on-line control where a human operator is expected to take-over in abnormal conditions, the last section introduces some aspects of human-computer collaboration in online control. (Author/publisher)
Abstract