Search results

This paper investigates effective human-robot collaboration (HRC) and presents implications for Human Resource Management (HRM). A brief review of current literature on HRM in the smart industry context showed that there is limited research on HRC in hybrid teams and even less on effective management of these teams. This book chapter addresses this issue by investigating factors affecting intention to collaborate with a robot by conducting a vignette study. We hypothesized that six technology acceptance factors, performance expectancy, trust, effort expectancy, social support, organizational support and computer anxiety would significantly affect a users' intention to collaborate with a robot. Furthermore, we hypothesized a moderating effect of a particular HR system, either productivity-based or collaborative. Using a sample of 96 participants, this study tested the effect of the aforementioned factors on a users' intention to collaborate with the robot. Findings show that performance expectancy, organizational support and computer anxiety significantly affect the intention to collaborate with a robot. A significant moderating effect of a particular HR system was not found. Our findings expand the current technology acceptance models in the context of HRC. HRM can support effective HRC by a combination of comprehensive training and education, empowerment and incentives supported by an appropriate HR system.

DoD accidents are classified according to the severity of injury, occupational illness, and vehicle and/or property damage costs (Department of Defense, 2000). All branches of the military have similar accident classification schemes, with Class A being the most severe. Table 1 shows the accident classes for the Army. The Air Force and Navy definitions of Class A–C accidents are very similar to the Army's definition. However, they do not have a Class D. As the total costs of some Army UAVs are below the Class A criteria ($325,000 per Shadow aircraft; Schaefer, 2003), reviewers have begun to add Class D data into their analyses (Manning, Rash, LeDuc, Noback, & McKeon, 2004; Williams, 2004).

Research on strategy in new ventures has increasingly drawn upon resource-based theory, and thus has emphasized intangible factors that confer sustainable competitive advantage. These include dynamic and combinative capabilities, networks, routines, and knowledge as resources of new ventures. Yet antecedent to every one of these intangible resources is the management of the venture. But research has seldom considered management and the human resources of new ventures as a critical dimension of strategy content. This paper develops such an argument, and explores the performance contribution of human resources as strategy content in a longitudinal study of technology new ventures.

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is the product of over a decade of research in the instructional science domain (Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Sweller & Chandler, 1994), and its applications to other areas of inquiry continues to expand (see Cuevas, Fiore, & Oser, 2002; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003a; Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003b; Scielzo, Fiore, Cuevas, & Salas, 2004). The core of CLT is based on two sets of what are termed cognitive load factors that are either endogenous or exogenous from the viewpoint of an operator interacting with the environment. Endogenous (or intrinsic) factors are sources of cognitive load in terms of the general amount and complexity of information with which the operator has to interact. In training environments, intrinsic load is directly proportional to the amount of materials that trainees need to acquire. As such, the more complex the information is in terms of volume and conceptual interactivity, the higher the cognitive load will be. In operational settings, high intrinsic load can occur whenever informational demands that need to be processed are high. Within the context of human–robot team environments, there is likely to be unique intrinsic load factors emerging from this hybrid teamwork interaction (e.g., information produced by synthetic team members). Another source of cognitive load comes from exogenous or extraneous factors. In training and operational settings alike, extraneous cognitive load may occur dependent upon the manner in which information needing attention is presented. Specifically, the more complex the human–robot team interface is in relation to the process by which information is displayed and/or communicated, the more extraneous cognitive load can be present. For example, the technological tools involved in the communication of information, and the associated modalities used to process information may inadvertently result in cognitive load. Simply put, high extraneous cognitive load can be produced as a result of using sub-optimal information presentation and communication. Overall, exogenous factors can stem from the added complexity of human–robot operations in terms of distinct command-and-control systems that emerge from using novel technology. Within such operations, it is particularly important to control sources of extraneous cognitive load that have been shown to produce two distinct negative effects on information processing – redundancy of information and split-attention. These have been shown to attenuate processing capacity thereby minimizing optimal information processing (e.g., Sweller, 1994; Mayer, 1999).

Since much of the design work for vessels and offshore installations occurs in countries other than where the vessel may operate or where the installation may be located, it is particularly important that the expected user be considered and accommodated through the design and operational phases of a project.

Within the framework of engineering design and marine operations, this chapter will discuss “soft” issues, such as organizational and line management decisions and personnel selection procedures, as well as “hardware” issues related to design of living and working environments. In particular, the chapter will address how culture should be considered while identifying “user” needs and requirements.

Purpose – This chapter gives an overview of methods for defining and analysing crash severity.

Methodology – Commonly used methods for defining crash severity are surveyed and reviewed. Factors commonly found to be associated with crash severity are discussed. Approaches for formulating and estimating models for predicting crash severity are presented and critiqued. Two examples of crash severity modelling exercises are presented and findings are discussed. Suggestions are offered for future research in crash severity modelling.

Findings – Crash severity is usually defined according to the outcomes for the persons involved. The definition of severity levels used by law enforcement or crash investigation professionals is less detailed and consistent than what is used by medical professionals. Defining crash severity by vehicle damage can be more consistent, as vehicle response to crash forces is more consistent than that of humans. Factors associated with crash severity fall into three categories – human, vehicle/equipment and environmental/road – and can apply before, during or after the crash event. Crash severity can be modelled using ordered, nominal or several different types of mixed models designed to overcome limitations of the ordered and nominal approaches. Two mixed modelling examples demonstrate better prediction accuracy than ordered or nominal modelling.

Research Implications – Linkage of crash, roadway and healthcare data sets could create a more accurate picture of crash severity. Emerging statistical analysis methods could address remaining limitations of the current best methods for crash severity modelling.

Practical Implications – Medical definitions of injury severity require observation by trained medical professionals and access to private medical records, limiting their use in routine crash data collection. Crash severity is more sensitive to human and vehicle factors than environmental or road factors. Unfortunately, human and vehicle factor data are generally not available for aggregate forecasting.

Understanding how health status and physiological factors affect performance is a daunting task. This chapter will discuss physiological, behavioral, and psychological factors that influence or determine the capacity to fight, and will consider metrics that can be used to measure their status. The premise of this discussion is that there is a set of physiological and psychological factors that intimately affect performance and that the relative contribution of these variables is individually unique. These factors can be identified and assessed, and are amenable to modification. A fuller understanding of these variables can lead the effort to maintain and improve performance in the adverse and challenging environments of military operations.

Human performance, particularly that of the warfighter, has been the subject of a large amount of research during the past few decades. For example, in the Medline database of medical and psychological research, 1,061 papers had been published on the topic of “military performance” as of October 2003. Because warfighters are often pushed to physiological and mental extremes, a study of their performance provides a unique glimpse of the interplay of a wide variety of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the functioning of the human brain and body. Unfortunately, it has proven very difficult to build performance models that can adequately incorporate the myriad of physiological, medical, social, and cognitive factors that influence behavior in extreme conditions. The chief purpose of this chapter is to provide a neurobiological (neurochemical) framework for building and integrating warfighter performance models in the physiological, medical, social, and cognitive areas. This framework should be relevant to all other professionals who routinely operate in extreme environments. The secondary purpose of this chapter is to recommend various performance metrics that can be linked to specific neurochemical states and can accordingly strengthen and extend the scope of the neurochemical model.