Achieving the United States' Vision for future Space Exploration will necessitate far greater collaboration between humans and automated technology than previous space initiatives. However, the development of methodologies to optimize this collaboration currently lags behind development of the technologies themselves, thus potentially decreasing mission safety, efficiency and probability of success. This paper discusses the human supervisory control (HSC) implications for use in space, and outlines several areas of current automated space technology in which the function allocation between humans and machines/automation is sub-optimal or under dispute, including automated spacecraft landings, Mission Control, and wearable extra-vehicular activity computers. Based on these case studies, we show that a more robust HSC research program will be crucial to achieving the Vision for Space Exploration, especially given the limited resources under which it must be accomplished.

Business underperformance in the upstream oil and gas industry, and the failure of many decisions to return expected results, has led to a growing interest over the past few years in understanding the impacts of decisionmaking tools and processes and their relationship to decision outcomes. A primary observation is that different decision types require different decision-making approaches to achieve optimal outcomes.Optimal decision making relies on understanding the types of decisions being made and tailoring the type of decision with the appropriate tools and processes. Yet the industry lacks both a definition of decision types and any guidelines as to what tools and processes should be used for what decisions types. We argue that maximising the chances of a good outcome in real-world decisions requires the implementation of such tailoring.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract