2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics

Simulating Task Sharing with Delegation for

Autonomy and Authority in Air Traffic Control
Douglas W. Lee∗ and Ellen J. Bass∗†
∗
College of Computing and Informatics
†College of Nursing and Health Professions
Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Email: dwl36@drexel.edu, ejb96@drexel.edu

Abstract—Computational tools for modeling multi-agent work,
including taskwork and teamwork, are needed to support the
design of complex operational concepts involving human op-
erators and automated systems. This paper presents a human
performance model of task sharing with delegation where an
agent can execute, delay, or delegate assigned taskwork accord-
ing to its multi-tasking capacity and other attributes. Using a
simulation framework for modeling multi-agent work, several
case studies apply the task sharing with delegation model to
the evaluation of an air transportation operational concept. The
cases demonstrate how multi-tasking capacity, the delegation of
taskwork, and the coordination of delegated taskwork impact
the amount and time requirements of taskwork (on-time and
delayed) and teamwork performed by agents. Thus, integrating
human performance models in the simulation framework can
inform operational concept development for multi-agent systems.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The design and evaluation of multi-agent concepts of oper-
ation require models and methods which can characterize and
measure effective allocations of work across teams of humans
and automated agents, especially in work environments where
the autonomy, authority, and responsibility (AA&R) of agents
[1] are rapidly evolving. Here, autonomy describes whether an
agent can perform work independently, highlighting agent ca-
pability. Authority describes the work that an agent is assigned
to perform. Responsibility describes the work whose outcomes
an agent is accountable for even if the agent does not perform
the work.
Function allocation is one mechanism for assigning work
for agents to perform (taskwork), while also defining agent
roles and the work required by agents to coordinate their
taskwork (teamwork). [2] and [3] propose formal requirements
of an effective function allocation and metrics for evaluating
a function allocation, especially in terms of the distribution of
autonomy, authority, and responsibility within a multi-agent
team. These requirements highlight AA&R by specifying that
function allocations should match the capabilities of the agents
involved and be realizable with sufficient teamwork, as when
an agent with responsibility for some taskwork monitors the
agent assigned to perform it, or when different agents have au-
thority to perform related taskwork and need to communicate
information about the work environment with one another.
Some AA&R metrics proposed in [3] for evaluating the
taskwork and teamwork induced by a given function alloca-
tion include taskload/workload, mismatches between authority
and responsibility, and coherency of a function allocation.
Taskload/workload describes the demands on the agent from
its own assigned taskwork and from coordinating with other
agents. Mismatches between authority and responsibility arise
when the performance of taskwork is assigned to a different
agent from the agent deemed responsible for the work’s
outcome. The coherency of a function allocation highlights
the level to which work functions are allocated to one agent
compared to multiple agents, thus resulting in situations where
multiple agents access and modify the same information
resources in the work environment and must coordinate to
confirm their current values, when values changed, and which
agent last updated the values. In [1], a future concept of
operation in which in-trail spacing functions may be allocated
to either an air traffic controller (ATC) or to a flight crew
is evaluated with different function allocations. The study
illustrates how allocations which reduce the taskwork on the
ATC are traded off against an increase in the taskwork of the
flight crews as well as the teamwork between the ATC and the
flight crews in exchanging information required for performing
spacing functions. The exchange of information is also affected
by the coherency of a function allocation; when the ATC and
flight crews share the taskwork which composes the same work
function, the coordination requirements between the agents are
higher than when the taskwork within each work function is
allocated to the ATC or flight crews on their own.
Evaluation of function allocation in an AA&R context can
further be conducted using models of delegation, in which the
agents initially assigned authority to perform some taskwork
need to re-assign the work to another agent, but still have
responsibility to coordinate with the delegee and monitor that
the work is successfully completed. A theory and model of
delegation from [4] describe delegation as a bilateral agreement
between a delegating agent, which delegates when it has a goal
to achieve requiring action from another agent, and an adopting
agent, who performs the action as part of adoption of the
delegating agent’s goal. [5] describes adjustments to this agree-

978-1-4799-8697-2/15 $31.00 © 2015 IEEE 962

DOI 10.1109/SMC.2015.175
ment from both agents and methods for coordinating these
adjustments between the agents. Based on these models, [6]
presents delegation assignment and coordination as a process
model and enumerates attributes describing how a delegating
agent recognizes the need to delegate, selects an adopting agent
to delegate to, and coordinates with the adopting agent.
This paper presents a computational model and analysis
of an extended version of this delegation assignment and
coordination model, which describes the task sharing with
delegation concerning an agent which can either perform all its
own taskwork (executing with or without delay) or delegate to
other agents. Section II describes this model and the delegation
model [6]. In Section III, we present the implementation of this
task sharing with delegation model in a computational simula-
tion and a set of case studies (using the scenario described in
[1]) for analyzing taskwork and teamwork. Section IV presents
the results of these case studies, and Section V concludes the
paper.
II. A M ODEL OF TASK S HARING WITH D ELEGATION
[6] describes agent-to-agent delegation as a process of
three stages: recognition, assignment, and coordination. In the
recognition stage, a delegating agent observes its condition for
delegation: that its desired future state of the world does not
match its expected future state of the world, and that the agent
itself lacks the capability, availability, and/or willingness to
perform the taskwork to reconcile this mismatch.
In the assignment stage, the delegating agent selects an
adopting agent from its work environment to perform the
needed taskwork and specifies an object of delegation which
describes both the desired future state of the world and the
required taskwork the delegation agent wishes to achieve.
The adopting agent is selected according to its capability,
availability, and/or willingness relative to other agents in
the environment, which describe the cost of delegation to
a particular agent – both the time required to delegate to
the agent and the time required by the agent to address the
delegation assignment. A potential adopting agent may also
accept, modify, or reject the delegation assignment, so that
the adopting agent is not always the preferred choice of the
delegating agent.
The coordination stage describes the teamwork performed
by the delegating and adopting agents to achieve the speci-
fications of the object of delegation. This stage characterizes
the nature of the feedback between the agents according to the
agent(s) initiating the feedback, the frequency of feedback, the
information communicated between agents, and the mode of
communicating feedback.
Here, we extend this model of delegation assignment and
coordination so the delegating agent manages its taskwork by
deciding whether to execute the taskwork immediately, delay
execution until a later time, or delegate to another agent in its
environment, according to the agent’s capability, availability,
and/or willingness to perform the work. Table I presents
additional attributes of this agent model (as compared to [6]).
We also describe and analyze a computational instantiation of
this agent model. This version of the agent:
• Recognizes its condition for delegation as a lack of
availability to perform from its multi-tasking capacity
and proactive delegation threshold (how many actions
being executed prompts the agent to delegate to conserve
capacity),
• Selects an adopting agent according to capability (an
agent which can perform the delegation assignment), and
specifies an object of delegation as a taskwork action, and
• Coordinates by communicating the delegation assignment
(requiring the participation of the adopting agent) and
initiates monitoring of the delegated task.
III. M ETHODS
A. Apparatus
1) Work Models that Compute: Work Models that Compute
(WMC) [7] is a simulation framework, implemented in C++,
for modeling and simulating multi-agent concepts of operation.
WMC workmodels are representations of the work a team of
human and automated agents need to perform to accomplish
the objectives of a concept of operation. The representations
of work, or workmodels, are defined by resources and actions
(and functions). Resources describe the state of the work
environment and actions are the processes by which resources,
and thus the work environment, are accessed and modified.
Related actions can be aggregated into functions characterizing
work serving a specific set of operational objectives.
Agent models in WMC specify the behaviors of an agent
in handling taskwork. To investigate function allocation, work
is assigned to agents. Actions are meant to be executed by one
agent at a time and the authority to execute actions are assigned
to agents at run-time. A specified invocation of workmodels
and agent models comprise a scenario, and an analyst may test
different function allocations and agent parameterizations for
the same scenario through scripts.
2) Human Performance Agent Model: A basic agent in
WMC is able to process actions assigned to it, execute those
actions instantaneously, and report the time of action execution.
Here, we extend this agent model into a human performance
agent model capturing the characteristics of the model de-
scribed in Section II. This agent model can keep track of and
manage the actions it is executing and will be completing,
does not always immediately execute assigned actions due to
its multi-tasking capacity, and can either delay the execution
of these actions or delegate execution to another agent.
The human performance agent is primarily defined by a list
of executing actions (actions the agent is currently executing)
and the attributes described in Table I. When an action is
counted as a unit of capacity in the agent’s list of executing
actions, if the agent is at its multi-tasking capacity, then the
earliest completion time of the actions in the list of executing
actions is calculated and the scheduled start time (of execution)
of the incoming action is delayed at least until the calculated
time. The action may be delayed more than once.

963
 TABLE I
ATTRIBUTES FOR THE H UMAN P ERFORMANCE AGENT R ELEVANT FOR TASK S HARING

Attribute Description
Proactive delegation Defines the number of actions being executed that prompts the agent to delegate; this attribute allows
threshold the agent to maintain some spare capacity
Delegation status Defines whether the agent delegates never, always, or at/above the proactive delegation threshold
Multi-tasking capac- Defines how many actions that the agent can execute at the same time; if the agent never delegates,
ity actions are delayed when the number of actions the agent is executing equals the capacity
Time to delegate Defines the length of time it takes to delegate an action.
Time to monitor Defines the length of time it takes to monitor that the adopting agent is taking action.
Actions that cannot Defines actions that the agent cannot delegate (generally used for perceptual actions and actions for
be delegated which there is no infrastructure for another agent to execute)
Actions that do not
Defines actions that are not considered as taking up multi-tasking capacity
impact capacity

If the agent is below its multi-tasking capacity and the
proactive delegation threshold, the agent immediately executes
and adds an assigned action to the list of executing actions.
Upon addition of this new executing action, the agent calcu-
lates the earliest completion time of any action(s) in the list of
executing actions and schedules the removal of those action(s)
at the calculated time. When this removal occurs, the agent
removes all actions from the list of executing actions whose
completion time is before or at the current time.
An action assigned to and processed by the agent can be
identified as one that can be delegated or not. If the agent is
at or below its capacity, is at or above the proactive delegation
threshold, and an incoming action cannot be delegated, then
the agent executes the action. If the incoming action can be
delegated, the agent delegates by searching a list of available
agents, selecting an adopting agent, and changing the agent
executing the action from itself to the adopting agent.
If the action can be delegated, it may be further identified
by the agent as one whose delegation requires communication
of the delegation or not, as well as one whose delegation
requires monitoring or not. If the delegated action requires
a communication of the delegation, then the agent adds a
communication action to its list of executing actions and
begins executing the communication (along with the adopting
agent) which completes before the adopting agent begins
executing the delegated action. If the delegated action requires
monitoring, then the agent executes a monitoring action (which
does not count as a unit of capacity in the agent’s list of
executing actions) which begins according to the agent’s time
to monitor (Table I) before completion of the delegated action
by the adopting agent.
3) Scripts: A script in WMC configures agents, actions,
and resources for specific simulation runs, corresponding to
different cases of a given scenario. Within a script, workmodels
are instantiated to define the actions and resources describing
the work for a given concept of operation, and agents are
instantiated and assigned actions to execute from a workmodel.
If an agent is instantiated as a human performance agent
model, the attributes of the agent (as described in Table I)
are also defined and modified in a script. For each individual
run of a given scenario, an analyst can set inline the values
of the proactive delegation threshold, multitasking capacity,
time to delegate, time to monitor, and delegation status of each
instantiated human performance agent model. Similarly, for an
individual run, the analyst can specify which actions can be
delegated and/or ignored for capacity.
4) Logging: WMC provides capability for logging all activ-
ity of instantiated agent models. For each human performance
agent model, an action trace logs each action executed by the
agent, the time the agent begins execution of each action, the
duration of each executed action, the number of times each
action has been delayed (if delayed), and the initial time that
each action was delayed (if delayed). Additionally, each human
performance agent model is associated with a log of delegated
actions, which records the time at which an agent delegates
an action, the action that is delegated, and the adopting agent
who is delegated execution of the action.
B. Case Studies
A set of case studies demonstrate how the human perfor-
mance agent model for WMC, described in Section III-A2,
can be used to describe how the performance of taskwork and
teamwork amongst teams of agents is impacted by different
settings of the attributes of the human performance agent
model from Table I. For all cases, we fix the time to delegate,
while varying the multitasking capacity, proactive delegation
threshold, delegation status, and time to monitor.
1) Scenario: The case studies concern a scenario used in
[1] to represent an air transportation concept of operation, in
which work functions for navigation and spacing (by interval
management) of aircraft in terminal airspace of Amsterdam
Schiphol Airport are shared between flight crews and air traffic
controllers. Three aircraft on different arrival routes are merged
into a single stream for descent and final approach. One aircraft
is designated as the lead aircraft and follows an optimized
profile descent (OPD). The remaining two then follow the lead

964
aircraft in sequence, maintaining a 60-second interval behind
the aircraft in front. See [1] for more details.
2) Actions: The following 15 actions describe the taskwork
associated with the case study scenario, categorized into the
functions describing the work. These actions are a subset of
actions described in [1]; actions not included here are treated as
actions that do not impact multi-tasking capacity (from Table I)
of a human performance agent model. Aircraft are modeled
with a non-linear 6DOF model and the properties of a Boeing
747, and are individually associated with all listed actions.
• Vertical Path Management
– Clear for descent
– Start descent
– Set flaps and speedbrakes
• Speed Management
– Command OPD airspeed
– Set airspeed
• Interval Management
– Determine Sequence
– Set lead aircraft
• Approach and Landing
– Clear for final approach
– Intercept glideslope
– Deploy gear
– Land aircraft
• Lateral path management
– Manage waypoint progress
– Direct to waypoint
– Command Maneuver
– Execute Maneuver
The above taskwork actions are all set as actions that can be
delegated (from Table I). Teamwork actions for this scenario
include the communication of any delegation of a taskwork
action between agents and the monitoring of the delegated
taskwork, as described in Section III-A2. The communication
of the delegated taskwork concerns both delegating and adopt-
ing agents, while only the delegating agent performs moni-
toring. The monitoring of a delegated action is additionally
treated as one of the actions that do not impact capacity.
3) Agent Models: Four agent models are instantiated: three
flight crew agents corresponding to each aircraft, and an air
traffic controller (ATC) agent. All agents are assumed to be
able to execute actions correctly. Each flight crew agent is
assumed to be able to execute all assigned actions instanta-
neously and have sufficient multi-tasking capacity to execute as
many simultaneous actions as they can handle. The ATC agent
may be subject to restrictions on its multi-tasking capacity, and
does not always execute all assigned actions instantaneously.
In response to capacity restrictions, the ATC agent may either
delay the assigned action to a later time, or delegate the action
to one of the flight crew agents.
Each flight crew agent is “capable” of executing the
taskwork associated with its respective aircraft, while ATC can
execute the taskwork associated with all aircraft. Delegation of
965
taskwork actions thus proceeds by “capability,” such that the
ATC agent delegates taskwork concerning a particular aircraft
to its respective flight crew.
4) Independent Variables: For all case studies, the ATC
agent is initially assigned all taskwork actions in Sec-
tion III-B2. The cases are then configured according to the
following attributes in Table I for the ATC agent:
• Multi-tasking capacity, set to infinite, or set to a fixed
number of tasks
• Proactive delegation threshold, set to a level one task
below the multi-tasking capacity
• Delegation status, set to never delegate, or delegate at or
above the proactive delegation threshold
• Time to monitor, set to never monitor or a fixed time
5) Dependent Variables: The case studies evaluate the
execution of taskwork and teamwork (communication and
monitoring actions resulting from the delegation of taskwork),
primarily of the ATC agent. The evaluation of the ATC agent’s
taskwork across all cases is measured through the following
metrics:
• Counts of actions executed, including
– Total actions
– Taskwork actions
– Teamwork (or coordination) actions
– Delayed actions
– Delegated actions
• Agent utilization, including
– Percentage of idle time
– Percentage of time at capacity
For cases where actions are delayed by the ATC agent
(when the agent’s multi-tasking capacity is not infinite), we
further evaluate the taskwork executed by ATC, describing
the nature of the individual taskwork that the agent delays,
and how multi-tasking capacity and delegation status affect
the delayed actions, with respect to the:
• Number of times that an individual action is delayed, prior
to start of execution
• Total time that an individual action is delayed, between
initial assignment and start of execution
Finally, for cases where ATC delegates taskwork to the
flight crew agents (when the agent’s delegation status is
“delegate at or above the proactive delegation threshold”), the
teamwork executed by ATC and the distribution of taskwork
over all agents, is evaluated according total required work
time of both ATC and the flight crews (as a group). The
total required work time is the sum of the durations of all
the actions (taskwork or teamwork) executed by either ATC
or the flight crews. The required work time for taskwork is
evaluated for the cases with no delegation, and then for the
cases with delegation, to ensure that all cases have the same
total required taskwork time and to show how the division
of this time is impacted by the multi-tasking capacity of the
ATC agent. The required work time for teamwork is evaluated
across the cases with delegation to differentiate the demands
on ATC when delegating with communication only and with
communication and monitoring.
6) Cases: The case studies focus on a period of peak
activity for the ATC agent (100 to 102-second interval across
all simulation runs) and are differentiated across the attributes
of the ATC agent from Table I as described in Section III-B4.
In cases where ATC delegates taskwork (delegation status is
“delegate at or above the proactive delegation threshold”) , all
taskwork actions described in Section III-B2 are eligible to be
both delegated and accompanied by a communication action
for the delegation assignment. In cases where monitoring of
delegated taskwork is specified (time to monitor is a fixed
time), all taskwork actions from Section III-B2 again are
eligible to be monitored.
a) Baseline Case: For this case, the multi-tasking ca-
pacity of the ATC agent is set to infinite, or equivalently, to a
sufficiently high level so that the agent is able to execute all
assigned taskwork actions instantaneously and without need
for delay or delegation.
b) Delay Case: The multi-tasking capacity on the ATC
agent is set to a fixed number of actions (4 or 7 simultaneous
actions) such that the agent will not always be able to execute
all assigned taskwork actions instantaneously. The agent’s
delegation status is set to “never,” so the ATC agent only delays
the execution of taskwork.
c) Delegation with Communication: As in the delay
case, the ATC agent operates at two levels of multi-tasking
capacity (4 or 7 simultaneous actions), but the agent’s dele-
gation status is now set to “delegate at or above the proactive
delegation threshold” where the threshold (delegate at 3 or 6
simultaneous actions) is set to accommodate the communica-
tion action. The ATC agent can also still delay the execution
of taskwork actions, when the agent is at capacity.
d) Delegation with Communication and Monitoring:
This case is identical to the delegation with communication
case, only that the agent’s time to monitor is a fixed time,
instead of to never monitor.
IV. R ESULTS
A. ATC Taskwork and Utilization
Table II summarizes the ATC agent’s action execution and
utilization during the specified time period of operation. In
the baseline case, where the ATC agent operates without
any capacity restrictions and can execute assigned taskwork
immediately, the maximum number of simultaneous actions
ATC executes during the specified time period is nine actions
(see Figure 1). The idle time of the ATC agent is at its highest
level in the baseline case.
When the multi-tasking capacity of the ATC agent reduces
(see the Delay 7 and Delay 4 columns in Figure 2), multiple
actions are delayed for a period of time. The agent’s percentage
of time operating at capacity increases and idle time decreases.
When the ATC agent can delegate some of its assigned ac-
tions to the flight crew agents, and the delegation assignments
require a communication action, the taskwork and delayed
actions of ATC decrease relative to the two delay cases (see
966
Fig. 1. Histogram of ATC Taskwork, Baseline Case
the third, fourth, sixth and seventh columns in Figure 2). This
reduced taskwork for ATC shifts to the flight crews (Figure 3).
However, since the ATC agent must communicate the dele-
gation of this taskwork, the cost of delegation is realized in
an identical number of total actions executed by ATC (see
Delegate/Comm 7 and Delegate/Comm 4 columns in Figure 2).
When the ATC monitors delegated taskwork in addition to
communicating delegations, the reduced taskwork for the ATC
agent is coupled with additional teamwork, yielding the largest
numbers of total actions executed and lowest percentages of
idle time across all cases (Table II).
B. Delayed Actions
Table III provides descriptive statistics for individual de-
layed actions by the ATC agent for each case where actions
are delayed. Both the number of times an individual action is
delayed, and the time the action is delayed, will be expectedly
greater when the ATC multi-tasking capacity decreases. When
the ATC agent can delegate taskwork to the flight crews instead
of executing on its own, both the number of times and overall
time an individual action is delayed also appear to decrease.
However, these gains need to be weighed against the additional
work from communication and monitoring.
C. Teamwork
When the ATC agent executes all of its own assigned
taskwork (in the baseline and two delay cases), the total re-
quired work time – the total combined duration of all taskwork
actions – is 0.62 seconds. In the delegation cases, this total
required taskwork time is divided between ATC and the flight
crew agents. Table IV presents this division across all cases
with delegation, indicating the increasing reduction in ATC
taskwork as its capacity is reduced, a result of more frequent
delegation (see Table II). Also shown in Table IV are total
required work times for teamwork; when only communication
of the delegated taskwork accompanies the delegation, both
ATC and flight crews experience a cost in required teamwork
while the addition of monitoring imposes additional required
teamwork from ATC (see Figure 3).
V. D ISCUSSION
This paper has presented a human performance model
with task sharing and delegation describing an agent which
 TABLE II
ATC AGENT ACTION EXECUTION AND UTILIZATION DURING THE PEAK ACTIVITY PERIOD , ALL CASES

No.ofActions Percentageoftime
Case Total Taskwork Coordination Delegated Delayed Idle AtCapacity
Baseline 10 10 0 0 0 88.0 
DelayCap7 10 10 0 0 2 88.0 1.0
DelayCap4 10 10 0 0 5 87.0 4.5
Delegate/CommCap7 10 8 2 2 1 87.0 1.0
Delegate/CommCap4 10 6 4 4 2 86.5 3.0
Delegate/Comm/MonitorCap7 12 8 4 2 1 86.0 1.0
Delegate/Comm/MonitorCap4 14 6 8 4 2 85.5 3.0

TABLE III
D ESCRIPTIVE STATSTICS OF INDIVIDUAL DELAYED ACTIONS BY THE ATC AGENT, FOR CASES WITH DELAY

No.oftimesdelayed Delaytime(s)
Case Maximum Median Maximum Mean
DelayCap7 1 1 0.010 0.010
DelayCap4 3 2 0.040 0.024
Delegate/CommCap7 1 1 0.010 0.010
Delegate/CommCap4 1 1 0.020 0.015
Delegate/Comm/MonitorCap7 1 1 0.010 0.010
Delegate/Comm/MonitorCap4 1 1 0.020 0.015

TABLE IV
D ISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL WORK REQUIRED ( IN TOTAL TIME ) ACROSS ALL AGENTS , FOR CASES WITH DELEGATION

ATCTotalRequiredWorkTime(s) FlightCrewsTotalRequiredWorkTime(s)
Case Taskwork Coordination Taskwork Coordination
Delegate/CommCap7 0.45 0.04 0.17 0.04
Delegate/CommCap4 0.41 0.08 0.21 0.08
Delegate/Comm/MonitorCap7 0.45 0.08 0.17 0.04
Delegate/Comm/MonitorCap4 0.41 0.16 0.21 0.08

Fig. 2. ATC Taskwork/Teamwork Execution and Utilization

967
 Fig. 3. Distribution of ATC and Flight Crew Taskwork and Teamwork
can either execute taskwork immediately, or otherwise de-
lays execution or delegates to others. Using a computational
framework for modeling and simulating multi-agent work, we
have demonstrated the impacts of this agent’s behaviors on the
distribution of taskwork and teamwork for a given air traffic
control scenario.
An analyst can easily generalize the application of this
model to a wider range of air traffic control scenarios due to
the modular architecture of the WMC simulation framework
[7], [8]. WMC has been constructed such that any workmodel
representing a given operational concept is independent of any
agent model, and the two components are only linked at run-
time when the simulation passes each action to its assigned
agent for execution. By default, an agent model only specifies
the generic processing and execution of assigned actions, and
not any representation of specific contexts or taskwork. The
human performance behaviors described here are added to
these default behaviors with the same intention of generic
application and compatibility with any workmodel, so that only
a different specification of actions and resources is needed to
apply the model of task sharing with delegation to different
scenarios, as have been previously modeled using WMC [2],
[3].
The agent model presented here has only modeled and
tested the delegation of taskwork from the side of the delegat-
ing agent, without considering how a potential adopting agent
might respond to a delegation assignment. Extensions of the
model should describe how a potential adopting agent makes
decisions to accept or reject a delegation, as well as additional
forms of monitoring and reporting between delegating and
adopting agents for a given delegation assignment.
The current implementation of the model also only illus-
trates some of the trade-offs in delaying taskwork against
delegating to other agents, as well as only a subset of potential
agent behaviors for managing taskwork. Future work should
incorporate behaviors, such as the interruption and priori-
968
tization of taskwork [8], and also specify decision-making
mechanisms for the agent with respect to taskwork the agent
executes, delays, delegates, and interrupts so the model can
be applied to define strategies for effectively managing issues
with autonomy, authority and responsibility across a team of
agents.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is sponsored by the NASA Aviation Safety
Program with Dr. Guillaume Brat serving as Technical Mon-
itor under grant number NNX13AB71A S04 (Amy Pritchett,
Principal Investigator). The authors also thank the other WMC
developers for their ongoing mutual support.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. IJtsma, J. Hoekstra, R. P. Bhattacharyya, and A. Pritchett, “Computa-
tional assessment of different air-ground function allocations,” in Eleventh
USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar,
2015.
[2] A. R. Pritchett, S. Y. Kim, and K. M. Feigh, “Modeling human-automation
function allocation,” Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision
Making, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 33–51, 2014.
[3] ——, “Measuring human-automation function allocation,” Journal of
Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 52–77,
2014.
[4] C. Castelfranchi and R. Falcone, “Towards a theory of delegation for
agent-based systems,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 24, pp.
141–157, 1998.
[5] R. Falcone and C. Castelfranchi, “The human in the loop of a delegated
agent: The theory of adjustable social autonomy,” IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 31,
no. 5, pp. 406–418, 2001.
[6] D. W. Lee and E. J. Bass, “Delegation for authority and autonomy:
An assignment and coordination model,” in 2014 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, 2014,
pp. 1744–1751.
[7] A. R. Pritchett, K. M. Feigh, S. Y. Kim, and S. Kannan, “Work models
that compute to support the design of multi-agent concepts of operation,”
Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 610–622,
2014.
[8] A. R. Pritchett, K. M. Feigh, S. Mamessier, and G. Gelman, “Generic
agent models for simulations of concepts of operation,” Journal of
Aerospace Information Systems, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 623–631, 2014.