Systems, Man & Cybernetics - April 2015 - 43

paper to put his talents and his name
to the service of, in essence, overturning his own prior work. I've also
deeply admired Raja's sheer style in
orchestrating that revolution. Instead
of simply attacking a prior paradigm
and, by extension, its author, he
had both the scientific skill and the
personal diplomacy to involve that
author in the revolution. This is science as I always thought it should
be-an endeavor in which we all are
in search of better, more accurate understanding and where egos should
not impede that pursuit of truth.
Again, that phrase can't be read
without some corniness. Most of us
are fully aware that science rarely
works this way in anything like a pure
state. But it was an honor and a vital
encouragement to have encountered
examples such as this in my career.
While it may be rare, Raja (and Sheridan and Wickens) has shown that it is
an attainable goal.
Further, Raja demonstrated this
attitude in my own interactions with
him. I was neither a student nor a
postgraduate with Raja. I had not
worked with his students, his primary academic collaborators, nor, initially, his funding providers. I didn't
even have a degree in a field directly
related to Raja's work and interests.
I was an outsider who seemed to
have some similar interests. Yet, Raja
was willing to talk to me-and to do
so deeply and openly enough that it
led to collaboration on a number of
projects and publications, including
three in IEEE journals [10]-[12] as we
mutually explored the concepts and
mechanisms of flexible delegation as
a means to achieve supervisory control of automated systems.
In several publications, most centrally [13], Raja made the circle complete, illustrating his own commitment
to advancing the field, even if it meant
undercutting his own prior work. In that
paper, we argued that the 2-D model
proposed in [7] was limited in its expressive power, primarily because it used
an abstract model of functional stages
rather than a full, detailed model of the
actual tasks performed. We proposed

in design. I called this phenomenon
an alternative and provided examples
human-machine etiquette. Some in
of situations in which one or the other
the field found the idea laughable, and
approach might be superior. I remember
many more found it a
suggesting the paper
distraction. Instead,
to Raja with more
Raja was encouragthan a hint of trepidaThis model has
ing and even voluntion because it chalnow seeded more
teered to reanalyze
lenged his highly sucthan a decade
some of his existing
cessful prior model.
of research
data from an etiI need not have worquette perspective.
ried, however, as Raja
and insights
This provided the
proved completely
into human-
first data we had
willing to discuss the
automation
that the behaviors
limitations in his prisystems.
of machines could
or work and the posbe interpreted via
sibility that alternasocial expectations
tives might be better
and protocols by human users [16].
in some cases-and we wrote the paper
Raja went on to assist in several conaccordingly.
ference panels, an AAAI Symposium,
Raja also, to my mind, illustrated
and, with Ewart de Visser, at least two
the best ideals of scientific curiosity.
book chapters [17]. While systematic
Most of us are too busy to embrace
examination of etiquette effects in huan overly wide swath of ideas and
man-automation interaction remains
techniques in our careers, even if we
sporadic, the related field of social
find them interesting. This was not
computing is currently burgeoning.
so for Raja. In addition to his earlier
Raja has left an indelible stamp on
and core work in memory and vigithe science of our field. But more than
lance, and then human-automation
that, he did it the way it should be
interaction, adaptive automation, hudone: with warmth, collegiality, coopman performance with automation
eration, curiosity, and a never-ending
failures, and so on, he branched out
willingness to help others to see and
and made substantial contributions
create better ways for humans and
in multiple diverse fields-most noautomation to interact. He was a coltably the field he essentially created
league, mentor, and an inspiration to
later in his career: neuroergonomics.
me and, I can readily see, to many
His work has also illustrated a wonothers (see "Remembering Raja"). We
derful interplay of the theoretical and
will miss him, but we owe it to him to
applied-even while making great
carry his vision forward.
strides in the theoretical understanding of human-automation systems, he
References
was concurrently writing guidelines
for air traffic control [6] and driving
[1] D. A. Vincenzi, M. Mouloua, and P. A. Hancock,
for Alzhiemer's sufferers [14].
Eds., Human Performance, Situation Awareness
Again, Raja offered evidence of this
and Automation: Current Research and Trends:
willingness to explore new and unusuHPSAA II, vol. 1 and 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlal ideas in my own interactions with
baum, 2004.
him. In 2000, I became interested in the
[2] R. Parasuraman and D. R. Davies, Eds., Varieties of
idea that humans interact with sophisAttention, vol. 40. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1984,
ticated automation using some of the
pp. 47-52.
same assumptions and scripts they use
[3] R. Parasuraman and V. Riley, "Humans and
in human-human interactions regardautomation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse," Hum. Facless of whether the automation is itself
tors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc., vol. 39, no. 2, pp.
anthropomorphized or embodied [15],
230-253, 1997.
[4] R. Parasuraman, R. Molloy, and I. L. Singh, "Perforand, furthermore, that this tendency
mance consequences of automation-induced 'complacencould impact human-automation percy'," Int. J. Aviation Psychol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-23, 1993.
formance and should be considered
Ap ri l 2015

IEEE Systems, Man, & Cybernetics Magazine

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Systems, Man & Cybernetics - April 2015