Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Intervenability as a Design Requirement for Autonomy and Oversight within Human-Centered AI

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Intervenability is a distinct design requirement that lets people temporarily correct or explore AI without shutting it down or permanently rewriting it.

desk verdict Clean conceptual distinction of temporary intervention as a middle path, with a usable socio-technical framing; the six-level taxonomy is analytical and unvalidated but not load-bearing for the core claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10322 v1 pith:VJ2KGZMC submitted 2026-07-11 cs.HC cs.CY

Thomas Herrmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords intervenabilityhuman-centeredAIinterventioninterfaceshumanintheloopoversightcontrollabilitysocio-technicaldesigntaxonomyof
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that people need a systematic way to step into AI-driven processes and decisions when something looks wrong or when they want to learn, without permanently turning the system off or permanently reconfiguring it. That capability—intervenability—is presented as a missing design requirement that turns abstract principles of human control, autonomy, oversight and “keeping humans in the loop” into concrete interface and organizational practices. A taxonomy of intervening actions ordered by mental effort extends the idea from real-time control (such as automatic parking) to discrete, case-by-case decisions (such as warehouse reordering or predictive-maintenance alerts). When interventions are documented, reflected on and discussed, they become the bridge that lets humans keep learning while also feeding data and proposals that improve the AI itself. The claim matters because most current AI systems still leave people with only crude choices—full stop, work-around, or permanent change—none of which support calibrated trust or continuous co-evolution.

What carries the argument

The intervention taxonomy (Figure 1 / Table 1) together with the intervention interface: a graded set of temporary control options ordered by planning and feedback demand, supported by clear start/end signalling, undo, documentation and selective access to sensing/deciding/acting layers. This machinery converts abstract oversight principles into designable, socio-technical practices.

What would settle it

Build or observe a complete intervention interface for a real AI application (e.g., predictive maintenance or warehouse ordering) and measure whether users can and do select the graded intervention levels predicted by the taxonomy, whether temporary interventions resume cleanly, and whether documented interventions reliably lead to useful reconfiguration proposals rather than repeated workarounds or permanent disablement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Intervenability is a third option, distinct from emergency shutdowns, workarounds and permanent reconfiguration: it is a systematically designed set of temporary, reversible actions that let users alter an AI process or decision for a limited time or single case, after which the system resumes. The paper supplies a six-level taxonomy of such actions ordered by required mental effort (from simple pause-and-resume to multi-process, future-oriented exploration) and shows how those interventions, when reflected on and coordinated organizationally, drive mutual improvement of human competence and AI capability.

Load-bearing premise

The six-level ranking of mental effort can be derived analytically from action-regulation theory and will usefully guide real interface design even though it has not yet been checked against how users actually plan and monitor interventions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interface designers must treat temporary, reversible control as a first-class requirement rather than an afterthought emergency stop.
  • AI systems should log interventions and proactively suggest reconfigurations when similar interventions recur.
  • Organizations must authorize, train and back people who reject or adjust AI outputs, or intervenability remains unused.
  • Explainability features become necessary not only for understanding AI but for deciding where and how to intervene.
  • Hybrid human–AI systems can co-evolve continuously if reflection on interventions is made a routine organizational practice.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same graded-control idea could be applied to multi-agent or multi-process smart environments where continuous oversight is impossible, turning intervenability into a coordination protocol among several AIs.
  • If the mental-effort ordering proves unstable under real workload, the taxonomy may need to be replaced by empirically measured cognitive-load bands rather than theoretical planning stages.
  • Documented interventions could become a new training signal for interactive machine learning, effectively turning every user correction into labelled data without forcing permanent rule changes.
  • Regulatory “human oversight” requirements could be operationalised by mandating the presence of an intervention interface rather than merely a kill switch.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces intervenability as a distinct design requirement for human-centered AI. It is defined as temporary, exceptional human control over AI-driven real-time processes or discrete case-related decisions that does not permanently reconfigure the system and that preserves the possibility of AI resumption. Drawing on prior intervention-interface work, literature on controllability/oversight/human-in-the-loop, and illustrative scenarios (automatic parking, brake assistants, predictive maintenance, warehouse ordering), the authors supply a six-level taxonomy of intervening activities ordered by mental effort (derived analytically from action-regulation theory). They further argue that intervenability, when embedded in organizational practices of reflection and coordination, supports co-evolution of human competencies and AI reconfiguration, and they list interface-design requirements and managerial practices needed to realize it.

Significance. If the conceptual framing holds, the paper supplies a useful middle category between emergency shutdowns/workarounds and permanent reconfiguration, and it usefully extends the intervention idea from continuous real-time control to discrete AI decision-making. The co-evolution diagrams (Figures 5–6) and the socio-technical emphasis on “organization in the loop” give practitioners and designers a concrete vocabulary for keeping humans in control without continuous monitoring. The contribution is primarily definitional and synthetic rather than empirical; its value therefore rests on whether the taxonomy and design requirements prove generative for subsequent interface work and organizational studies.

major comments (2)
  1. Section 2.4 and Table 1 present the six-level mental-effort taxonomy as the central differentiator that makes intervenability a usable design requirement and that extends it from real-time control to discrete decisions. The authors themselves state that the levels rest solely on analytical mapping onto action-regulation theory (planning and feedback intensity) with no empirical measurement of users’ actual planning costs, monitoring load or anticipation effort. Because the ordering is load-bearing for the claim that the taxonomy can guide interface design and organizational practice, the absence of even modest validation (e.g., expert ranking, cognitive walkthroughs, or pilot effort ratings) leaves open the possibility that the levels do not match real cognitive costs (Level 3 threshold edits may be harder than Level 4 exploration under uncertainty; multi-process side-effects of Level 6
  2. Section 7 and the abstract assert that intervenability is “not covered by emergency shutdowns, workarounds, or the reconfiguration of automated systems.” While the conceptual distinctions drawn in Section 3 (Figures 2–4) are clear, the paper does not systematically contrast the proposed intervention interfaces with existing temporary-override mechanisms already present in production systems (party-mode heating, single-cup coffee adjustments, temporary AEBS suppression, etc.). A short comparative analysis or table would strengthen the novelty claim that a systematically designed intervention interface is required rather than an incremental extension of current practice.
minor comments (4)
  1. Figure 1 is referenced extensively but its visual layout is not described in the text; a brief caption that explicitly maps the six levels to the two application types would improve readability.
  2. Several self-citations to the author’s prior intervention-interface papers are appropriate, yet a short paragraph situating the new taxonomy relative to the 2017 interactions piece would clarify the incremental contribution.
  3. Typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “emergency shutdown s”, “human s in the loop”, “AI applications”); a careful copy-edit pass is needed.
  4. The claim in Section 5 that “no empirical studies have derived such requirements” is slightly overstated; at least the Shneiderman golden-rules derivation is acknowledged, but a more precise statement would avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: conceptual taxonomy and schematic co-evolution diagrams are definitional by design, not forced predictions or self-referential derivations.

full rationale

This is a conceptual HCI design paper without equations, fitted parameters, quantitative predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling. The core contribution is a six-level taxonomy of intervening activities ordered by mental effort (Figure 1, Table 1, Section 2.4), explicitly derived by analytical mapping onto action-regulation theory rather than empirical measurement or circular fitting. The paper states this openly: levels rest on planning/feedback intensity distinctions from Zacher & Frese (2018) and are not claimed as data-driven predictions. Distinctions from emergency stops, workarounds, and reconfiguration (Section 3, Figures 2–4) are definitional contrasts, not reductions of outputs to inputs. Co-evolution diagrams (Figures 5–6) and organizational practices (Section 6) are schematic proposals for socio-technical embedding. Self-citations to Schmidt & Herrmann (2017) and related prior work introduce the intervention-interface idea but do not force the new taxonomy, discrete-decision extension, or mental-effort ordering; those are presented as expansions. No load-bearing claim reduces by construction to its premises. Score remains low (1) solely for the presence of non-load-bearing self-citation of the author's earlier framing; the derivation chain is self-contained as conceptual analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper is conceptual; it introduces no free parameters or quantitative fits. Its load-bearing commitments are domain assumptions drawn from HCAI, action-regulation theory and socio-technical systems thinking, plus the invented design construct ‘intervenability’ itself. No physical or mathematical constants are fitted.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Action-regulation theory (goal setting, orientation, planning, monitoring, feedback) supplies a valid ordering of mental effort for intervention activities (Section 2.4).
    Used to justify the six discrete levels of the taxonomy without empirical measurement of planning cost.
  • domain assumption Hybrid intelligence can continuously improve by mutual learning between humans and AI (Dellermann et al. definition adopted in Section 2.2).
    Underpins the claim that interventions feed both human competence development and AI reconfiguration.
  • domain assumption Temporary, time- or case-bounded changes to AI behavior are preferable to permanent reconfiguration when interventions are rare, and preferable to emergency shutdown when resumption should be immediate (Sections 3.1–3.2).
    Core design preference that distinguishes intervenability from existing options.
  • domain assumption Organizational practices (managerial coordination, HR development, collaborative reflection) can be designed so that workers are both permitted and encouraged to intervene (Section 6, Figure 6).
    Required for the socio-technical claim that intervenability remains usable in real workplaces.
invented entities (1)
  • intervenability / intervention interface
    purpose: To name and systematize temporary, reversible human control over AI processes or decisions that is neither emergency stop nor permanent reconfiguration.
    The paper treats this as a new design requirement and supplies a taxonomy and set of interface requirements; independent empirical evidence for its superiority is not yet available.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intervenability as a Design Requirement for Autonomy and Oversight within Human-Centered AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJ2KGZMC

@misc{pith2026260710322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intervenability as a Design Requirement for Autonomy and Oversight within Human-Centered AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJ2KGZMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10322}
}
read the original abstract

Based on the literature and several practical examples of possible AI applica-tions, we outline the concept of intervenability. This new phenomenon is not covered by emergency shutdowns, workarounds, or the reconfiguration of automated systems. Intervenability instantiates the principles of control-lability, autonomy, oversight, and keeping humans in the loop in the context of AI. We provide a taxonomy that encompasses a range of possibilities for intervening activities and differentiates them regarding the mental effort of the users. This taxonomy extends the scope of interventions from real-time control of automated processes to AI-based discrete case-related decision-making. This is in accordance with human-centered AI, which seeks to combine human strengths with the usage of AI. We demonstrate how inter-venability can potentially contribute to the ongoing development of human capabilities on the one hand and to further technical improvement by recon-figuration of AI on the other. Exploring and collaboratively reflecting on the effects of interventions as an integral part of organizational practices is key to enabling this continuous improvement on both sides. Intervenability also provides further momentum for the design of an AI that can help realize in-terventions on its own and advance a smooth transition from intervention to reconfiguration of the AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Intervention user interfaces: a new interaction paradigm for automated systems,

    A. Schmidt and T. Herrmann, “Intervention user interfaces: a new interaction paradigm for automated systems,” interactions, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 40–45, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Software-evaluation based upon ISO 9241 Part 10,

    J. Prümper, “Software-evaluation based upon ISO 9241 Part 10,” in Human Computer Interac- tion, vol. 733, T. Grechenig and M. Tscheligi, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol

  3. [3]

    255 –265

    , Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1993, pp. 255 –265. doi: 10.1007/3-540- 57312-7_74

    doi:10.1007/3-540- 1993

  4. [4]

    Humans in the Loop,

    R. Crootof, M. E. Kaminski, and W. N. Price II, “Humans in the Loop,” 76 Vanderbilt Law Review, no. 76/2/429, 2023, Accessed: Jun. 03, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol76/iss2/2

    2023

  5. [5]

    Viewpoint: Human -in-the-loop Artificial Intelligence,

    F. M. Zanzotto, “Viewpoint: Human -in-the-loop Artificial Intelligence,” jair, vol. 64, pp. 243 – 252, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1613/jair.1.11345

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.1.11345 2019

  6. [6]

    European Commission, C. and T. Directorate General for Communications Networks, and High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. 2019. Accessed: May 23, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/346720

    doi:10.2759/346720 2019

  7. [7]

    From AI ethics principles to data science practice: a reflection and a gap analysis based on recent frameworks and practical expe- rience,

    I. Georgieva, C. Lazo, T. Timan, and A. F. Van Veenstra, “From AI ethics principles to data science practice: a reflection and a gap analysis based on recent frameworks and practical expe- rience,” AI Ethics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 697–711, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s43681-021-00127-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00127-3 2022

  8. [8]

    Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human –Robot Teams,

    E. J. De Visser et al., “Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human –Robot Teams,” Int J of Soc Robotics , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 459 –478, May 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12369 - 019-00596-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Empirical Evaluations of Framework for Adaptive Trust Calibra- tion in Human -AI Cooperation,

    K. Okamura and S. Yamada, “Empirical Evaluations of Framework for Adaptive Trust Calibra- tion in Human -AI Cooperation,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 220335 –220351, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042556

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Promoting Human Competences by Appropriate Modes of Interaction for Hu- man-Centered-AI,

    T. Herrmann, “Promoting Human Competences by Appropriate Modes of Interaction for Hu- man-Centered-AI,” in Artificial Intelligence in HCI , vol. 13336, H. Degen and S. Ntoa, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 35–50. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-05643-7_3

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Argyris, Intervention theory and method: a behavioral science view

    C. Argyris, Intervention theory and method: a behavioral science view . in Addison -Wesley series in social science and administration. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1970

    1970

  4. [12]

    Support of Intervening Use,

    T. Herrmann, “Support of Intervening Use,” in Ergonomics of Hybrid Automated Systems III , P. Brödner and W. Karwowski, Eds., Elsevier, 1992, pp. 289 –294. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20101.15844

    1992 doi

  5. [13]

    S. K. Card, A. Newell, and T. P. Moran, The psychology of human -computer interaction . Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983

    1983

  6. [14]

    Implicit human computer interaction through context,

    A. Schmidt, “Implicit human computer interaction through context,” Personal technologies , vol. 4, no. 2–3, pp. 191–199, 2000

    2000

  7. [15]

    Shneiderman, Human-Centered AI

    B. Shneiderman, Human-Centered AI. Oxford University Press, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Toward human-centered AI: a perspective from human-computer interaction,

    W. Xu, “Toward human-centered AI: a perspective from human-computer interaction,” interac- tions, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 42–46, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1145/3328485

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Principles to Practices for Respon- sible AI: Closing the Gap,

    D. Schiff, B. Rakova, A. Ayesh, A. Fanti, and M. Lennon, “Principles to Practices for Respon- sible AI: Closing the Gap,” arXiv:2006.04707 [cs] , Jun. 2020, Accessed: Jan. 10, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04707

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    HACO: A Framework for Developing Human -AI Teaming,

    A. Dubey, K. Abhinav, S. Jain, V. Arora, and A. Puttaveerana, “HACO: A Framework for Developing Human -AI Teaming,” in Proceedings of the 13th Innovations in Software Engi- neering Conference on Formerly known as India Software Engineering Conference , Jabalpur India: ACM, Feb...

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Human –Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature,

    T. O’Neill, N. McNeese, A. Barron, and B. Schelble, “Human –Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature,” Hum Factors , vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 904 –938, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1177/0018720820960865

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    The future of hu- man-AI collaboration: a taxonomy of design knowledge for hybrid intelligence systems,

    D. Dellermann, A. Calma, N. Lipusch, T. Weber, S. Weigel, and P. Ebel, “The future of hu- man-AI collaboration: a taxonomy of design knowledge for hybrid intelligence systems,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Peeking inside the black -box: A survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI),

    A. Adadi and M. Berrada, “Peeking inside the black -box: A survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI),” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 52138–52160, 2018. 165

    2018

  14. [22]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Objec- tives, Stakeholders, and Future Research Opportunities,

    C. Meske, E. Bunde, J. Schneider, and M. Gersch, “Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Objec- tives, Stakeholders, and Future Research Opportunities,” Information Systems Management , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 53–63, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1080/10580530.2020.1849465

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Introduction: Smart Homes and Their Users,

    T. Hargreaves and C. Wilson, “Introduction: Smart Homes and Their Users,” in Smart Homes and Their Users, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 319-68018-7_1

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Künstliche Intelligenz: Drei Beispiele für das Scheitern von Algorithmen,

    E. Moechel, “Künstliche Intelligenz: Drei Beispiele für das Scheitern von Algorithmen,” Jul. 03, 2023. Accessed: Jul. 31, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.heise.de/news/Kuenstliche-Intelligenz-Drei-Beispiele-fuer-das-Scheitern-von- Algorithmen-9205911.html

    2023

  17. [25]

    Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organiza- tional decision making,

    M. H. Jarrahi, “Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organiza- tional decision making,” Business Horizons, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 577–586, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Enabling Big Data Analytics and AI Solutions for Smart Warehouse,

    N. Er, G. M. Cidal, S. Ünsal, and M. A. Çakır, “Enabling Big Data Analytics and AI Solutions for Smart Warehouse,” in Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques for Emerging Conditions and Digi- tal Transformation, C. Kahraman, S. Cebi, S. Cevik Onar, B. Oztaysi, A. C. Tolga, and I. U. ...

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Socio-Technical Design of Hybrid Intelligence Systems–The Case of Predictive Maintenance,

    T. Herrmann, “Socio-Technical Design of Hybrid Intelligence Systems–The Case of Predictive Maintenance,” in Artificial Intelligence in HCI: First International Conference, AI -HCI 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, Ju- ...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Collaborative Appropriation of AI in the Context of Interacting with AI,

    T. Herrmann, “Collaborative Appropriation of AI in the Context of Interacting with AI,” in Artificial Intelligence in HCI , vol. 14051, H. Degen and S. Ntoa, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 14051. , Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 249 –260. doi: 1...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    A problem -based approach to the advancement of heuristics for socio -technical evaluation,

    T. Herrmann, I. Jahnke, and A. Nolte, “A problem -based approach to the advancement of heuristics for socio -technical evaluation,” Behaviour & Information Technology , vol. 41, no. 14, pp. 3087–3109, 2022, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2021.1972157

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    From Interaction to Intervention: An Approach for Keeping Humans in Control in the Context of socio -technical Systems,

    T. Herrmann, A. Schmidt, and M. Degeling, “From Interaction to Intervention: An Approach for Keeping Humans in Control in the Context of socio -technical Systems,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Socio -Technical Perspectives in IS development (STPIS’18)., ...

    2018

  23. [31]

    Action Regulation Theory: Foundations, Current Knowledge and Future Directions,

    H. Zacher and M. Frese, “Action Regulation Theory: Foundations, Current Knowledge and Future Directions,” in The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018, pp. 122–143. doi: 10.4135...

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Task complexity: A review and conceptualization framework,

    P. Liu and Z. Li, “Task complexity: A review and conceptualization framework,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics , vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 553 –568, Nov. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2012.09.001

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    Seininger, F

    P. Seininger, F. Heinl, J. -A. Bühne, and J. Gail, Lkw-Notbremsassistenzsysteme: = Truck advanced emergency brake systems . in Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen F, Fahr- zeugtechnik, no. Heft 133. Bremen: Fachverlag NW in Carl Ed. Schünemann KG, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    UN Regulation No. 131 Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M2, M3, N2 and N3 vehicles,

    United Nations, “UN Regulation No. 131 Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M2, M3, N2 and N3 vehicles,” Jan. 2023. Accessed: Feb. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://unece.org/sites/def...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Theory of Workarounds,

    S. Alter, “Theory of Workarounds,” Communications of the Association for Information Sys- tems, vol. 34, 2014, doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.03455

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    The contextual framing of the interplay between human and AI – a socio-technical perspective,

    J. Beringer and T. Herrmann, “The contextual framing of the interplay between human and AI – a socio-technical perspective,” in Intelligent Systems in the Workplace: Design, Applications, and User Experience, C. Coursaris, P.-M. Léger, and J. Beringer, Eds., Springer, Cham, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Lifelong Learning —More Than Training,

    G. Fischer, “Lifelong Learning —More Than Training,” Journal of Interactive Learning Re- search, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 265–294, 2000. 166

    2000

  30. [38]

    Meta -design: Transforming and enriching the design and use of socio-technical systems,

    G. Fischer and T. Herrmann, “Meta -design: Transforming and enriching the design and use of socio-technical systems,” in Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real -World, Springer London, 2015, pp. 79–109

    2015

  31. [39]

    Collaborative Reflection for Learning at the Healthcare Workplace,

    M. Prilla, T. Herrmann, and M. Degeling, “Collaborative Reflection for Learning at the Healthcare Workplace,” in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace , Sean P. Goggins, I. Jahnke, and V. Wulf, Eds., in Computer -Supported Collaborative Learning Series, no...

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Applications of machine learning in the chemical pa- thology laboratory,

    R. Punchoo, S. Bhoora, and N. Pillay, “Applications of machine learning in the chemical pa- thology laboratory,” J Clin Pathol , vol. 74, no. 7, pp. 435 –442, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2021-207393

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Power to the people: The role of hu- mans in interactive machine learning,

    S. Amershi, M. Cakmak, W. B. Knox, and T. Kulesza, “Power to the people: The role of hu- mans in interactive machine learning,” Ai Magazine, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 105–120, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: A partnership between human and AI,

    M. H. Jarrahi, D. Askay, A. Eshraghi, and P. Smith, “Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: A partnership between human and AI,” Business Horizons, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 87– 99, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2022.03.002

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Shneiderman, Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human -computer interac- tion

    B. Shneiderman, Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human -computer interac- tion. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. Boston, MA, USA, 1992

    1992

  36. [44]

    Maintaining Concentration to Achieve Task Comple- tion,

    B. Shneiderman and B. B. Bederson, “Maintaining Concentration to Achieve Task Comple- tion,” in Proc. Conference on Designing for User eXperience., 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    Sociotechnical Roles for Sociotechnical Systems: a perspective from social and computer science,

    I. Jahnke, C. Ritterskamp, and T. Herrmann, “Sociotechnical Roles for Sociotechnical Systems: a perspective from social and computer science,” in AAAi Fall Symposium Proceedings, 2005, pp. 68–75

    2005

  38. [46]

    Intervention and EUD: A Combination for Ap- propriating Automated Processes,

    T. Herrmann, C. Lentzsch, and M. Degeling, “Intervention and EUD: A Combination for Ap- propriating Automated Processes,” in End-User Development , A. Malizia, S. Valtolina, A. Morch, A. Serrano, and A. Stratton, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 67–82. ...

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    From requirement to design patterns for ubiquitous computing applications,

    R. Knote, H. Baraki, M. Söllner, K. Geihs, and J. M. Leimeister, “From requirement to design patterns for ubiquitous computing applications,” in Proceedings of the 21st European Confer- ence on Pattern Languages of Programs, Kaufbeuren Germany: ACM, Jul. 2016, pp. 1–11. doi: 1...

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    Outlines of a hybrid model of the process plant operator,

    J. Rasmussen, “Outlines of a hybrid model of the process plant operator,” Monitoring behavior and supervisory control, pp. 371–383, 1976

    1976

  41. [49]

    Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio -technical extension of human -centered artificial intelligence,

    T. Herrmann and S. Pfeiffer, “Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio -technical extension of human -centered artificial intelligence,” AI&Soc, vol. 38, pp. 1523 –1542, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00146-022-01391-5

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Keeping the Organization in the Loop as a General Concept for Human-Centered AI: The Example of Medical Imaging,

    T. Herrmann and S. Pfeiffer, “Keeping the Organization in the Loop as a General Concept for Human-Centered AI: The Example of Medical Imaging,” in Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii In- ternational Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2023, pp. 5272–5281

    2023

  43. [51]

    The turn to work in organization and management theory: Some implications for strategic organization,

    N. Phillips and T. B. Lawrence, “The turn to work in organization and management theory: Some implications for strategic organization,” Strategic Organization, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 223 – 230, Aug. 2012, doi: 10.1177/1476127012453109

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Who Goes First? Influences of Human-AI Workflow on Decision Making in Clinical Imaging

    R. Fogliato et al., “Who Goes First? Influences of Human-AI Workflow on Decision Making in Clinical Imaging.” arXiv, May 19, 2022. Accessed: Jun. 03, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.09696

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Integration of people, technology and organization: the european approach,

    C. Kirsch, P. Troxler, and E. Ulich, “Integration of people, technology and organization: the european approach,” in Symbiosis of Human and Artifact, vol. 20, Y. Anzai, K. Ogawa, and H. Mori, Eds., in Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics, vol. 20. , Elsevier, 1995, pp. 957 –96...

    1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.