Military Review English Edition May-June 2014 | Page 22

U.S. airmen with the 62nd Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron speak to Afghan men and children about an MQ-9 Reaper unmanned
aerial vehicle during the 2012 Kandahar Air Wing open house in Kandahar, Afghanistan, 1 January 2012. (U.S. Air Force, Staff Sgt. David Carbajal)

They may discover that something should have been
done—and in the future should be done—differently.
For instance, the precise role of UAV operators was
not immediately clear when UAVs were first introduced. Various investigative reports following UAV
mishaps and accidents have made recommendations
to adjust and enhance training programs, procedures,
communication protocols, and task assignments. The
recommendations are targeted to delineate clearly
who is responsible for what and to enhance the conditions under which individuals make decisions.25
Such reports reveal evolving notions of the kind of
skills and knowledge that operators need as well as
changing norms that govern their behavior.
Negotiations about responsibility practices also
may involve adjustments to the technology. In its
report on autonomy in DOD systems, the Defense
Science Board, for example, stressed the need for
a more careful consideration of human factors.26
Neglect of human–robot interaction in the early UAV
development programs resulted in a relatively high
20

number of mishaps. Operators made mistakes due to
confusing interfaces and information overload. The
Defense Science Board’s report calls for changes to
the existing interfaces.
Therefore, responsibility is best conceived of as a
set of practices built on the foundation of a distribution of tasks. Responsibility practices are reinforced
by activities that promulgate expectations about what
individuals are supposed to do and what happens
when failures occur. Among other things, organizations create expectations through policies and through
their organizational culture. Responsibility practices
develop expectations of how human and nonhuman
components will behave (i.e., who is responsible for
doing what) and specify what should or will happen
when there is a failure to live up to expectations.
These expectations and ideas about responsibility
influence the design and eventual use of technologies.
Increasingly autonomous technologies may necessitate changes to existing responsibility practices and
creation of some entirely new practices in the future.
May-June 2014

MILITARY REVIEW