Carl Westin

2-4 Strategic conformance 31 size-fits-all” automation. Yet, like our physical configuration, it can be expected that an individual-sizing convention would better support our cognitive configura- tion. As such, we agree with other researchers who argue that automation design would fare better in the operational environment if it acknowledged the individual differences that exist between operators. 97–99 Strategic conformance can also be applied to complement design approaches. For example, consider the Ecological Interface Design paradigm, which strives to facilitate coordination between human and machine by making interface represen- tations that reflect the shared work domain. 121, 122 Ecological interfaces typically show constraints on action that have an ecological validity (e.g., laws of physics governing work), but the decisions and strategies on how to maneuver through those constraints can differ between humans and machine. Take for instance the street map analogy and car navigation systems: within all possibilities to travel from point A to point B, one person might prefer to take the scenic route, whereas another person prefers to take the route that increases the likelihood of finding gas stations, malls, or food courts along the way. An automated decision aid, on the other hand, might only suggest the shortest route, optimal in terms of travel time and gas mileage. Thus decision aids that cannot be attuned to individual personal preferences are likely to be less accepted. Similarly, increasing the level of au- tomation’s control authority in ecological information aids might require attunement to operator-preferred problem-solving styles in order to ensure acceptance and au- tomation use. 2-4-2 Acknowledging individual preferences and diversity Strategic conformance acknowledges the diversity in problem-solving. Consider strategic conformance in the context of solving a conflict between two aircraft (same type) crossing each other at right angles. In Figure 2-3, aircraft A and B are ap- proaching each other at the same speed, with the closest point of approach being zero nautical miles. If one would rely on ICAO established right-of-way rules 123 the aircraft with the other on its right shall give way (see Figure 2-3(a)). When asking controllers, an often cited preferred strategy (if only considering horizontal changes) consists of turning one behind the other (a “set-and-forget” solution requir- ing less monitoring 24, 35 ), without consideration for ICAO rules (see Figure 2-3(a) and (b)). Another often-cited strategy consists of slightly turning both aircraft (“one command is no command”), which minimizes track deviations and more “fairly” shares solution between both involved aircraft (see Figure 2-3(d)). Although the so- lution in Figure 2-3(c) may seem unreasonable, given the extra miles required and likely increase in monitoring, it is still a viable alternative. Mathematically, an optimal solution could consist of any of the four alternatives