An integrated human‑automation teaming framework is presented that facilitates TDP development and supports cross‑disciplinary dialogue between designers, engineers, command staff, and policy‑makers and provides a structured basis for designing flexible and context‑appropriate adaptive automation in VUCA environments.
Abstract
Rapid advances in Information Technology (IT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have resulted in increasingly complex socio‑technical systems, placing new demands on human–automation collaboration. These demands are particularly acute in VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) environments, where failures can have immediate and severe consequences. Effective human‑automation teams must therefore adapt task and control allocation dynamically, while maintaining safety, accountability, and operator understanding. Adaptive automation (AA) has been widely studied as a means to support such flexibility, often described using Levels of Automation (LoA) frameworks. However, many existing LoA frameworks do not align well with decision‑cycle models commonly used to reason about responsibility distribution in VUCA contexts. This misalignment complicates the design and reuse of AA-solutions for real‑world applications. Team Design Patterns (TDPs) offer a promising approach by capturing reusable solutions to recurring challenges in human–automation teamwork. Yet, the systematic construction of coherent TDP sets remains difficult due to a lack of structured design support. To address this, we present an integrated human‑automation teaming framework that facilitates TDP development and supports cross‑disciplinary dialogue between designers, engineers, command staff, and policy‑makers. The framework extends NASA’s eight‑level LoA framework by assigning descriptive level names, explicit human‑loop status (in/on/out‑of‑the‑loop), and visual responsibility mapping inspired by the European Defence Agency’s methods‑of‑control framework. Based on a naval Uncrewed Surface Vessel use case, we developed and evaluated three TDPs with domain experts: uniform task delegation, uniform goal delegation, and a mixed‑level pattern combining different LoA across decision-cycle stages. Expert evaluation confirmed that mixed‑level TDPs best reflect operational, regulatory, and technological realities. Overall, the framework provides a structured basis for designing flexible and context‑appropriate adaptive automation in VUCA environments.
An initial characterization of LLM-supported design in self-adaptive systems in SASS is contributed, research directions are outlined, and discussion within the community on advancing LLM-supported architectural design for self-adaptive and autonomous software systems is stimulated.
Nadeem Abbas, Nazia Shahzadi· WiPiEC Journal - Works in Pr...· 0 citations
This research demonstrates that when designed with ergonomics, human values, and socio‑technical principles at the center, agentic AI become powerful enablers of human‑centric, resilient, and adaptive enterprises.
Elizabeth Koumpan, Laurentiu Gabriel Ghergu, Łukasz Strack et al.· AHFE International· 0 citations
A Domain-Specific Language (DSL), named RI language, designed for the declarative description of microservices, along with a supporting tool, TSE (Toolbox Service Executor), implemented in Python and based on the RI grammar, enables the representation of structural and operational aspects of services in a technology-ag...
Cássio Ritse, Machado Dos, S. Silva et al.· 0 citations
A controlled experiment conducted at a large Brazilian enterprise that compares manual development, DS-only development, and DS-aware AI-assisted development across Angular, iOS, and Android stacks provides empirical evidence that DS-aware AI tools can significantly accelerate development, improve design fidelity, and...
Luciane Silva, T. Rocha, Nicole Davila et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
An interdisciplinary network of influencing factors is derived that makes explicit the dependencies between consistency mechanisms, organizational and technical conditions, and key agility outcomes such as responsiveness, transparency, and the realizability of development increments.
Albert Albers, A. Koziolek, Thomas Alexander Voelk et al.· 0 citations
The increasing availability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools has generated significant interest within the project management community; however, structured guidance tailored specifically to Project Managers remains limited. This paper proposes a standardized AI-enabled prompt architecture aligned with the PMBOK®...
Vittal Anantamula, Rajendra Harsh· 2026 6th International Confe...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.