## 5 Discussion
### Summary of Results  
5.1.1. The Anomaly Resolution Process  
Gaze data indicated that monitoring during the different sub-tasks of the forming process is guided by the goals of the corresponding sub-tasks and, therefore, differs between the sub-tasks. Within the present study, regular process monitoring led to the detection of five anomalies. According to the proposed framework, subsequent anomaly resolution processes were initiated, and interview data documented cause identification, information integration into individual and team expert knowledge, and the (joint) generation and evaluation of action alternatives (see Figure 2). More specifically, during the sub-task of kinematic configuration, the fit between the implemented curve progression of the machine tool and the work piece was tested. Therefore, the work piece and machine tool received the most attention from operators 1 and 2. However, as the operators had various areas of expertise and resulting points of view, they emphasized different information sources. While operator 1 focused on the path of the machine tool (which she/he implemented in the robot), operator 2 attended to the relation between the work piece and machine tool, as it is evident in almost equal gaze proportions. All operators reported to have a mental representation of the goal state of the forming result; thus, they continuously evaluated the current state with regard to its deviation from the goal state. This resulted in an anomaly detection, i.e., there was a deviation from the current trajectory to the ideal one, which led to subsequent diagnosis, problem solving, and resolution (see Figure 2). However, the operator team did not explicitly evaluate the action alternatives jointly during these processes. Instead, there was an implicit agreement between the team members. Because the deviation from the ideal trajectory was a well-known problem for the operator team, which occurred due to either an incorrect cutting of the work piece, an incorrect analytical definition of the control data, or an inaccurate or insufficient fixating of the work piece into the clamping device, there was already a repertoire of action alternatives used in the past. One of the operators proposed to continue the process despite possible quality losses. All of the other operators agreed with this proposal nonverbally without actually having evaluated this in detail. The investigated team had been working for a long time together, and thus, was well functioning. In such cases, there are implicit team processes that cannot be made explicit, and so this advantage of an experienced team is not transferable to a technical system. However, a HCPPS could provide action plans and action alternatives regarding new and inexperienced team members to compensate for possible and unexpected absences of single experts. The goal of the empty run(s) was preventing collisions of the robot with the work table and clamping device. During the first empty run, the operator team detected a deviation that was not tolerable for achieving the goal of the sub-task (i.e., preventing collisions) and, consequently, the goal of the entire process (i.e., sufficient quality). By monitoring the clamping device, machine tool, and work table, with a strong emphasis on the elements of the set-up that might be in the path of the machine tool, operators concluded that the distance between machine tool and work table was too small in regard to preventing collisions. This was not compatible with the quality goal; hence, an anomaly was detected, and subsequent diagnosis, problem solving, and resolution steps were initiated. During the second empty run, the detected anomaly was further discussed with regard to its implications for future tasks. Simultaneously, operators monitored whether the implemented anomaly resolution was successful, which indicates that post-processing occurred.