Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Automated Systems and Trust: Mineworkers' Trust in Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines

  • Swanson, LaTasha R. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Mining Research Division) ;
  • Bellanca, Jennica L. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Mining Research Division) ;
  • Helton, Justin (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Mining Research Division)
  • Received : 2018.10.19
  • Accepted : 2019.09.18
  • Published : 2019.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Collisions involving workers and mobile machines continue to be a major concern in underground coal mines. Over the last 30 years, these collisions have resulted in numerous injuries and fatalities. Recently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) proposed a rule that would require mines to equip mobile machines with proximity detection systems (PDSs) (systems designed for automated collision avoidance). Even though this regulation has not been enacted, some mines have installed PDSs on their scoops and hauling machines. However, early implementation of PDSs has introduced a variety of safety concerns. Past findings show that workers' trust can affect technology integration and influence unsafe use of automated technologies. Methods: Using a mixed-methods approach, the present study explores the effect that factors such as mine of employment, age, experience, and system type have on workers' trust in PDSs for mobile machines. The study also explores how workers are trained on PDSs and how this training influences trust. Results: The study resulted in three major findings. First, the mine of employment had a significant influence on workers' trust in mobile PDSs. Second, hands-on and classroom training was the most common types of training. Finally, over 70% of workers are trained on the system by the mine compared with 36% trained by the system manufacturer. Conclusion: The influence of workers' mine of employment on trust in PDSs may indicate that practitioners and researchers may need to give the organizational and physical characteristics of each mine careful consideration to ensure safe integration of automated systems.

Keywords

References

  1. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Fact sheet: proposed rule on proximity detection systems for mobile machines in underground mines [Internet]. West Virginia (US): MSHA. 2015 [cited 2018 Mar 7]. 2 pp. Available from: https://arlweb.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/PROPOSED/2015/proximity-detection- mobile/final-fact-sheet.pdf.
  2. Taylor K. US agency studying obstacles to use proximity detection devices in coal mines. Arlington, VA (US): SNL Energy Coal Report; 2018.
  3. Parasuraman R, Riley V. Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Fact 1997;39(2):230-53. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
  4. Sheridan TB, Hennessy RT. Research and modeling of supervisory control: report of a workshop, vol. 72. Washington, D.C. (US): National Academy Press, National Research Council; 1984. RD- A149621.
  5. Lee J, Moray N. Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in humanmachine systems. Ergonomics 1992;35(10):1243-2127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967392
  6. Hoff KA, Bashir M. Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence of factors that influence trust. Human Fact 2015;57(3):407-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
  7. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Report of investigation: underground coal mine - fatal machinery accident June 13, 2017 2017 [Internet]. . West Virginia (US): MSHA; 2017 [cited 2017 Mar 7]. 21 pp. CAI-2017-08. Available from: https://www.msha.gov/data-reports/fatality- reports/search?combine=&field_mine_category_tid=191&field_arep_fatal_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5B date%5D=2008-01-01&field_arep_fatal_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=2018- 12-31&province=All.
  8. Noll J, Matetic RJ, Li J, Zhou C, DuCarme J, Reyes M, Srednicki J. Electromagnetic interference from personal dust monitors and other electronic devices with proximity detection systems. Min Eng 2018;70(5):61-8. https://doi.org/10.19150/me.8237
  9. Murphy GB, Blessinger AA. Perceptions of no-name recognition business to consumer e- commerce trustworthiness: the effectiveness of potential influence tactics. J High Technol Manag Res 2003;14(1):71-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(03)00005-1
  10. Gulati R, Sytch M. Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust. Manag Decis Econ 2008;26:169-90.
  11. Muir B. Trust in automation. Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics 1994;37(11):1905-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964957
  12. Thatcher JB, McKnight DH, Baker EW, Arsal RE, Roberts NH. The role of trust in postadoption IT exploration: an empirical examination of knowledge management systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2011;58(1):56-70. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2009.2028320
  13. Ratnasingam P, Pavlou PA. Technology trust in internet-based interorganizational electronic commerce. In: Khosrow-Pour M. The social and cognitive impacts of e-commerce on modern organizations. Hershey, PA (USA): Idea Group Publishing; 2004. 17 p.
  14. McKnight DH, Carter M, Thatcher JB, Clay PF. Trust in a specific technology: an investigation of its components and measures. ACM Trans Manag Inf Sys 2011;2(2):12-32.
  15. Lee JD, See KA. Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Fact 2004;46(1):50-80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392
  16. Giddens A. Sociology. 4th ed. fully revised and updated. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press; 2001.
  17. Dow KE, Leitch RA. Confidence in the implementation process of a new information system. J Emerg Technol Account 2007;4:139-59. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta.2007.4.1.139
  18. Cho H-C, Abe S. Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate? J Bus Res 2013;66:1261-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.023
  19. Miramontes A, Tesoro A, Trujillo Y, Barraza E, Keeler J, Boudreau A, Strybel TZ, Vu K-PL. Training student air traffic controllers to trust automation. Procedia Manuf 2015;3:3005-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.844
  20. Cohen A, Colligan MJ. Assessing occupational safety and health training, vol. 164. Cincinnati, OH (USA): National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1998. 98-145.
  21. Urata T. Step-by-step visual manuals: design and development. Tech Trends 2004;48(3):31-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763353
  22. Baba ML, Falkenbrugh DR, Hill DH. Technology management and American culture: implications for business process redesign. Res Technol Manag 1996;39(6):44-54.
  23. Kramer RM. Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Ann Rev Psychol 1999;50:569-98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569
  24. Workman M. Expert decision support system use, disuse, and misuse: a study using the theory of planned behavior. Comp Human Behav 2005;21:211-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.011
  25. McBride SE, Rogers A, Fisk AD. Do younger and older adults differentially depend on an automated system? Human Fact J Human Fact Ergon Soc 2011;53(6):175-9.
  26. Johnson JD, Sanchez J, Fisk AD, Rogers WA. Type of automation failure: effects on trust and reliance in automation. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 48th annual meeting; 2004. Santa Monica CA (USA): Human Factors and Ergonomic Society; 2004. p. 2163-7.
  27. Fletcher J, Jensen R. Overcoming barriers to mobile health technology use in the aging population. On-line J Nursing Inform 2015;19(3):1-8.
  28. Muir BM, Moray N. Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 1996;39(3):429-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964474
  29. Sanchez J, Rogers WA, Fisk AD, Rovira E. Understanding reliance on automation: effects of error type, error distribution, age and experience. Theor Iss Ergon Sci 2014;15(2):134-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2011.611269
  30. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Proximity detection/collision warning information fromtechnical support [Internet]. Arlington (USA):U.S.Department of Labor/Mine Safety and Health Administration. [cited 2018;May 1]. Available from: https://arlweb.msha.gov/Accident_Prevention/NewTechnologies/ProximityDetection/Proximityde tectionSingleSource.asp.
  31. Shumaker W. Personal correspondence; January 12, 2017.
  32. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Mine Data Retrieval System [Internet]. Arlington (USA): U.S. Department of Labor/Mine Safety and Health Administration. [cited 2018; April 20]. Available from: https://arlweb.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm.
  33. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA (USA): SAGE; 2009. p. 203-24 [Chapter 10], Mixed methods procedures.
  34. Campbell JL, Quincy C, Osserman J, Pedersen OK. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociol Methods Res 2013;42(3):294-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
  35. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa static. Biochemia Medica 2012;22(3):276-82. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
  36. Landis RJ, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  37. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ (USA): Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988. 567 p.
  38. McKnight DH, Chervany NL. The meanings of trust [working paper]. Minneapolis, MN (USA): University of Minnesota. 1996 [cited 2018 Mar 7]. Available from: http://www.misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/1996/9604_040100.pdf.
  39. Sankowska A, Paliszkiewicz J. Dimensions of institutionalized organizational trust and firm's innovativeness. The J Comp Inform Sys 2016;56:168-74.
  40. Wetzel JM. Driver trust, annoyance, and compliance for an automated calendar system. ProQuest Central. 2005. Retrieved from, https://search.proquest.com/docview/305363652?accountid=26724.
  41. Biros DP, Daly M, Gunsch G. The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decis Negot 2004;13:173-89. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000021840.85686.57
  42. Wu K, Zhao Y, Zhu Q, Tan X, Zhen H. A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type. Int J Inform Manag 2011;31(6):572-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.03.004
  43. de Vries P, Midden C. The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. Int J Human-Comp Stud 2003;58:719-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00039-9
  44. Madhavan P, Wiegmann DA. Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with. Decis Support Sys 2007;49(5):773-85.