MABA-MABA or Abracadabra? Progress on Human-Automation Co-ordination

Abstract

In this paper we argue that substitution-based function allocation methods (such as MABA-MABA, or Men-Are-Better-At/Machines-Are- Better-At lists) cannot provide progress on human–automation co-ordination. Quantitative ‘who does what’ allocation does not work because the real effects of automation are qualitative: it transforms human practice and forces people to adapt their skills and routines. Rather than re-inventing or refining substitution-based methods, we propose that the more pressing question on human–automation co-ordination is ‘How do we make them get along together?’