Design Considerations for Human Oversight of AI: Insights from Co-Design Workshops and Work Design Theory
Authors
As AI systems become increasingly capable and autonomous, domain experts’ roles are shifting from performing tasks themselves to overseeing AI-generated outputs. Such oversight is critical, as undetected errors can have serious consequences or undermine the benefits of AI. Effective oversight, however, depends not only on detecting and correcting AI errors but also on the motivation and engagement of the oversight personnel and the meaningfulness they see in their work. Yet little is known about how domain experts approach and experience the oversight task and what should be considered to design effective and motivational interfaces that support human oversight. To address these questions, we conducted four co-design workshops with domain experts from psychology and computer science. We asked them to first oversee an AI-based grading system, and then discuss their experiences and needs during oversight. Finally, they collaboratively prototyped interfaces that could support them in their oversight task. Our thematic analysis revealed four key user requirements: understanding tasks and responsibilities, gaining insight into the AI’s decision-making, contributing meaningfully to the process, and collaborating with peers and the AI. We integrated these empirical insights with the SMART model of work design to develop a framework of twelve design considerations with increased transferability compared to the identified user requirements. Our framework links interface characteristics and user requirements to the psychological processes underlying effective and satisfying work. Being grounded in work design theory and overlapping with existing guidelines for human–AI interaction, we expect these considerations to be applicable across domains and discuss how they go beyond existing guidelines for human-AI interaction to inform the design of engaging and meaningful interfaces that support human oversight of AI-based systems.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 71%
User Characteristics in Explainable AI: The Rabbit Hole of Personalization?
CHI '24· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 71%
I Can Do Better Than Your AI: Expertise and Explanations
IUI '19· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 63%
Knowing About Knowing: An Illusion of Human Competence Can Hinder Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems
CHI '23· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 63%
A Survey of Collaborative Reinforcement Learning: Interactive Methods and Design Patterns
DIS '21· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 63%
Optimal Explanations: A Quantitative Model of Human Error in Causal Graph Interpretation
IUI '26· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 63%
Who Needs What Explanation? How User Traits Affect Explanation Effectiveness in AI-Assisted Decision-Making
IUI '26· AI-Assisted Decision-Making & Automation +2
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)