Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams | Autonomous Robots Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams

  • Published:
Autonomous Robots Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In manufacturing, advanced robotic technology has opened up the possibility of integrating highly autonomous mobile robots into human teams. However, with this capability comes the issue of how to maximize both team efficiency and the desire of human team members to work with these robotic counterparts. To address this concern, we conducted a set of experiments studying the effects of shared decision-making authority in human–robot and human-only teams. We found that an autonomous robot can outperform a human worker in the execution of part or all of the process of task allocation (\(p<0.001\) for both), and that people preferred to cede their control authority to the robot \((p<0.001)\). We also established that people value human teammates more than robotic teammates; however, providing robots authority over team coordination more strongly improved the perceived value of these agents than giving similar authority to another human teammate \((p< 0.001)\). In post hoc analysis, we found that people were more likely to assign a disproportionate amount of the work to themselves when working with a robot \((p<0.01)\) rather than human teammates only. Based upon our findings, we provide design guidance for roboticists and industry practitioners to design robotic assistants for better integration into the human workplace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. SocketTest v3.0.0 2003-2008 Akshathnkumar Shetty (http://www.sockettest.sourceforge.net/).

References

  • Adams, J. A. (2009). Multiple robot-single human interaction: Effects on perceived workload and performance. Behavior and Information Technology, 28(2), 183–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsever, J. (2011). Robot workers take over warehouses. CNN Money. Retrieved November 9, 2011 from http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/09/smallbusiness/kiva_robots/.

  • Ardissono, L., Petrone, G., Torta, G., & Segnan, M. (2012). Mixed-initiative scheduling of tasks in user collaboration. In Proceedings of WEBIST 2012—eight international conference on web information systems and technologies (pp. 342–351).

  • Barnes, M. J., Chen, J. Y. C., Jentsch, F., & Redden, E. S., (2011). Designing effective soldier–robot teams in complex environments: Training, interfaces, and individual differences. In Proceedinggs of the international conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (EPCE) (pp. 484–493). Berlin: Springer.

  • Bazaraa, M. S., Jarvis, J. J., & Sherali, H. D. (2010). Linear programming and network flows (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, P., Peintner, B., Conley, K., Gervasio, M., Uribe, T., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2006). Deploying a personalized time management agent. Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS ’06 (pp. 1564–1571). New York: ACM.

  • Bertsimas, Dimitris, & Weismantel, Robert. (2005). Optimization over Integers. Belmont: Dynamic Ideas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Cross-training and team performance. making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 299–311). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, J., & Roberson, R. R. (2004). Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMCS), 34(2), 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., & Qu, Z. (2010). Roboleader: An agent for supervisory control of mobile robots. In Proceedings of the international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI).

  • Clare, A. S., Cummings, M. L., How, J. P., Whitten, A. K., & Toupet, O. (2012). Operator objective function guidance for a real-time unmanned vehicle scheduling algorithm. Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, 9(4), 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, M. L., Brzezinski, A. S., & Lee, J. D. (2007). Operator performance and intelligent aiding in unmanned aerial vehicle scheduling. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(2), 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durfee, E. H., Boerkoel, J. C, Jr, & Sleight, J. (2013). Using hybrid scheduling for the semi-autonomous formation of expert teams. Future Generation Computer Systems, 31, 200–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors, 41, 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, S., Whitman, E., Xinjilefu, X., & Atkeson, C. G. (2015). Optimization-based full body control for the darpa robotics challenge. Journal of Field Robotics, 32(2), 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. (2003). Adapting the sample size in particle filters through kld-sampling. International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR), 22, 985–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gombolay, M. C., Wilcox, R. J., & Shah, J. A. (2013). Fast scheduling of multi-robot teams with temporospatial constrints. In Proceedings of the robots: Science and systems (RSS) (pp. 24–28). Berlin.

  • Goodrich, M. A., Morse, B. S., Engh, C., Cooper, J. L., & Adams, J. A. (2009). Towards using UAVs in wilderness search and rescue: Lessons from field trials. Interaction Studies, Special Issue on Robots in the Wild: Exploring Human-Robot Interaction in Naturalistic Environments, 10(3), 453–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamasaki, M., Takeda, H., Ohmukai, I., & Ichise, R. (2004). Scheduling support system for academic conferences based on interpersonal networks. In Proceedings of ACM Hypertext.

  • Haynes, T., Sen, S., Arora, N., & Nadella, R. (1997). An automated meeting scheduling system that utilizes user preferences. In Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents, AGENTS ’97 (pp. 308–315). New York: ACM.

  • Hebert, P., Bajracharya, M., Ma, J., Hudson, N., Aydemir, A., Reid, J., et al. (2015). Mobile manipulation and mobility as manipulationdesign and algorithms of robosimian. Journal of Field Robotics, 32(2), 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, G. (2013). Evaluating fluency in human-robot collaboration. In International conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), workshop on human robot collaboration.

  • Hoffman, G., & Breazeal, C. (2007). Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork: Efficiency, fluency, and perception of team. In Proceedings of the international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 1–8).

  • Hooten, E. R., Hayes, S. T., & Adams, J. A. (2011). A comparison of communicative modes for map-based tasking. In IEEE internation conference on systems, man, and cybernetics.

  • Johnson, M., Shrewsbury, B., Bertrand, S., Wu, T., Duran, D., Floyd, M., et al. (2015). Team ihmc’s lessons learned from the darpa robotics challenge trials. Journal of Field Robotics, 32(2), 192–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, H. L., Rock, S. M., Burns, D., & Morris, S. (2002). Autonomous robots in SWAT applications: Research, design, and operations challenges. AUVSI.

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1977). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. Technical Report.

  • Kidd, C. D., & Breazeal, C. (2004). Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems IROS 2004, Vol 4, (pp. 3559–3564).

  • Lee, K. M., Jung, Y., Kim, J., & Kim, S. R. (2006). Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in humanrobot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(10), 962–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macho, S., Torrens, M., & Faltings, B. (2000). A multi-agent recommender system for planning meetings. In Proceedings of workshop on agent-based recommender systems, autonomous agents 2000, ACM.

  • Mackenzie, C. F., Xiao, Y., & Horst, R. (2004). Video task analysis in high performance teams. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 6, 139–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. R. (2015). Meta-analysis of autonomy at the darpa robotics challenge trials. Journal of Field Robotics, 32(2), 189–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscettola, N., Morris, P., & Tsamardinos, I. (1998). Reformulating temporal plans for efficient execution. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R), Trento.

  • Nikolaidis, S., & Shah, J. (2013). Human-robot cross-training: Computational formulation, modeling and evaluation of a human team training strategy. In Proceedings of the international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 33–40).

  • Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52, 381–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R., Mustapha, M., & Hilburn, B. (1999). Adaptive aiding and adpative task allocation enchance human-machine systems. Automation Technology and Human Performance: Current Research and Trends, 1999, 119–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, A., Kiesler, S., Fussell, S., & Torrey, C. (2007). Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 145–152).

  • Ryan, J. C., Banerjee, A. G., Cummings, M. L., & Roy, N. (2013). Comparing the performance of expert user heuristics and an integer linear program in aircraft carrier deck operations. IEEE Transaction on Cybernetics, 9(4), 669–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Fowlkes, J. E., Stout, R. J., Milanovich, D. M., & Prince, C. (1999). Does CRM training improve teamwork skills in the cockpit? Two evaluation studies. Human Factors, 41, 326–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, J., Wiken, J., Williams, B., & Breazeal, C. (2011). Improved human-robot team performance using chaski, a human-inspired plan execution system. In Proceedings of the international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 29–36).

  • Stentz, A., Herman, H., Kelly, A., Meyhofer, E., Clark Haynes, G., Stager, D., et al. (2015). Chimp, the cmu highly intelligent mobile platform. Journal of Field Robotics, 32(2), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volpe, C., Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, E., & Spector, P. (1996). The impact of cross training on team functioning. Human Factors, 38, 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D. J., Shell, D. A., Matarić, M. J. (2007). Embodiment and human-robot interaction: A task-based perspective. In The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 872–877).

  • Wilcox, R. J., Nikolaidis, S., & Shah, J. A. (2012). Optimization of temporal dynamics for adaptive human-robot interaction in assembly manufacturing. In Proceedings of robotics: science and systems (RSS) (pp. 9–13). Sydney.

  • Zhang, H., Law, E., Miller, R., Gajos, K., Parkes, D., & Horvitz, E. (2012). Human computation tasks with global constraints. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’12 (pp. 217–226). New York: ACM.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Matthew C. Gombolay, Reymundo A. Gutierrez, Shanelle G. Clarke, Giancarlo F. Sturla & Julie A. Shah

Authors
  1. Matthew C. Gombolay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reymundo A. Gutierrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shanelle G. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giancarlo F. Sturla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julie A. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew C. Gombolay.

Additional information

This is one of several papers published in Autonomous Robots comprising the “Special Issue on Robotics Science and Systems”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gombolay, M.C., Gutierrez, R.A., Clarke, S.G. et al. Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams. Auton Robot 39, 293–312 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9457-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9457-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation