Experts on the sociology of technology Professor Johannes Weyer and Robin D. Fink discuss the ambivalent relationship between human beings and technology.

CeBIT 2012 is entitled Managing Trust. A good choice as a meta-theme reflecting the IT industry’s latest tangible developments, designed to increase productivity in the workplace and boost competitiveness in the business world: big data, the Internet of things and cloud computing – to name but a few.

Trust is the cement that holds modern society together. And this does not just apply to personal relationships but also to businesses, and to cross-enterprise collaboration networks. Everywhere we go, trust is an indispensable ingredient of social relationships. It reduces social complexities and makes them easier to manage.

Trust and knowing what to expect enable us to pursue our own strategies. They are the basis for innovation, as they give us the sense of security needed to try out new ideas – for example, highly automated IT solutions such as cloud computing.

But automated systems designed to streamline our day-to-day lives, for example by improving road safety, have their downsides and less desirable consequences – especially when we are talking about decision-making tools. Because the technology often features a person-to-machine interface, which means it is jointly managed by people (to a lesser extent) and computers (to an ever-increasing degree). When technology fails, people have to step in. And to do this, they need the right skills: they need to understand how a system works and have experience dealing with unexpected occurrences. In addition, they need a holistic, bird’s eye view of the situation so they can respond in the right way if a failure or other incident occurs. Similarly, in the case of server, application, or network outages, the disaster recovery mechanisms of the IT provider must kick in and restore data as quickly as possible or replace infrastructure and hardware. Otherwise the cement between IT provider and customer begins to crack, however carefully formulated and manufactured.

The same rule applies to all social interaction, even if it is between man and machine: trust takes a long time to build up, but can be destroyed in an instant. And once this has happened, it is difficult to rectify – since trust is one of the few commodities that increases in value through use.

With complex systems, a great deal depends on whether processes are transparent for users and to what extent these processes are vulnerable to unexpected activities.

The element of surprise is crucial. Automated systems that usually run reliably and rarely fail have the negative side-effect that users become inattentive and complacent, in other words, they develop excessive trust in the technology. It is nigh on impossible for pilots and truck drivers to remain completely alert when the plane or vehicle is set to autopilot for hours on end and not demanding a high level of situational awareness. Total trust in the autopilot makes effective incident management difficult.

But the opposite has also been observed: distrust often occurs when trust has been abused – for example because functionality has failed. A lack of trust in technology leads to a lack of acceptance, which means potential efficiency and reliability gains fall by the wayside. And the consequences are disastrous. Because inefficiency is the polar opposite of what the IT industry and other sectors are aiming for.

Paradoxically, the better automated systems become, the more serious the consequences when we place too much or too little trust in their capabilities. That is why today’s researchers no longer focus on technology alone, but on the relationship between people and machines when it comes to highly automated systems.

Sociological research has identified factors that foster or erode trust in technology. It has become clear that an appropriate level of trust can only be achieved if all interacting players in a socio-technical system are clear about their respective goals. The person-to-machine interface plays a pivotal role: it has to guarantee that mutual expectations are aligned as best they can be. This interface is where the expectations are created. It is the epicenter of trust.

From smartphones to apps to interactive, intuitive GUIs – intelligent systems that communicate independently with each other can trigger distrust in technology. Particularly when people no longer understand what is happening in a system or why it is responding the way it is. But smart technologies that adopt more and more human traits could work hand-in-hand with people – if engineers and developers design them to interact in a social way.

We do not have to know the nuts and bolts of every computer algorithm. But we do need to have clear in our minds what we expect from a complex system so we can step in in an emergency or know where to turn for help. Someone somewhere has to fix the problem. Otherwise the misconception that intervention is not possible when it comes to cutting-edge, smart technologies will grow and people will be under the impression that complex systems are becoming more and more difficult to master.