A Framework of Human Systems Engineering. Группа авторов
1.6 Conclusion
While many systems engineers understand that the human operator and maintainer are part of the system, they often lack the expertise or information needed to fully specify and incorporate human capabilities into the system design (INCOSE 2011). Human systems engineers are actively involved in the development of the system and ensure human‐centered principles are incorporated into design decisions. HSE provides methods for integrating human considerations with and across system elements to optimize human system performance and minimize total ownership costs.
The case studies in this volume provide insights into HSE efforts across different sociotechnical system types across a variety of domains. Currently, most of the existing sociotechnical system case studies are from the HSI perspective, i.e. working with users to improve the system usability and interfaces in deployed systems. The focus of this book, however, is from the SE viewpoint, encouraging early consideration of the human in the system design. While some of the chapters will overlap with the traditional HSI approaches, the goal of the book is to encourage systems engineers to think about the human component earlier in the system development. The chapters are organized and indexed by the framework; the book can be read in order to follow the progression across the framework, or Figure 1.2 can be used to identify specific chapters of interest to the reader based on any one of the four dimensions. The goal of this book is to serve as a reference volume for HSE.
References
1 Bruseberg, A. (2009). The Human View Handbook for MODAF (Pt. 2, Technical Description). Somerset, UK: Human Factors Integration Defence Technology Centre.
2 DOA (2015). Soldier‐Materiel Systems Human Systems Integration in the System Acquisition Process. Department of the Army Regulation 602‐2. Washington, DC: DOA.
3 DOD (1988). Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Safety (MPTS) in the Defense System Acquisition Process. DoD Directive 5000.53. Washington, DC: DOD.
4 England, R. (2017). Human Factors for SE. INCOSE UK, Z12, Issue 1.0 (March 2017). http://incoseonline.org.uk/Groups/Human_Centric_Systems_Engineering_WG/Main.aspx (accessed 16 March 2020).
5 Handley, H. (2018). CFT by System Type and HSI Domain, Deliverable to Human Systems Integration (HSI) Tool Gap Analysis Report for Deputy Director. US Army Human Systems Integration.
6 Handley, H. (2019a). Human system engineering. In: The Human Viewpoint for System Architectures. Springer.
7 Handley, H. (2019b). A socio‐technical architecture. In: The Human Viewpoint for System Architectures. Springer.
8 IEA (2018). What Is Ergonomics? International Ergonomics Association. https://iea.cc/what‐is‐ergonomics (accessed 16 March 2020).
9 INCOSE (2011). Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, 3.2e (ed. H. Cecilia). San Diego, CA: INCOSE.
10 ONR (1998). Human Engineering Process. Technical Report, SC‐21 S&T Manning Affordability Initiative. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research.
11 SAE6906 (2019). Standard Practice for Human System Integration, SAW6906, 2019‐02‐08.
12 Smillie, R. (2019). Introduction to the human viewpoint. In: The Human Viewpoint for System Architectures (ed. H. Handley). Springer.
13 Taylor, A. (2016). The Human Systems Integration Workbench. White Paper PJF‐18‐425. US Army Materiel Command (AMC).
14 UK Defence Standardization (2015). Def Stan 00‐251 Human Factors Integration for Defence Systems, Public Comment Draft, Issue 1, Version 1.0 (September 2015).
2 Human Interface Considerations for Situational Awareness
Christian G. W. Schnedler1 and Michael Joy2
1 CISSP®, CSEP®, PMP®, and PSP®, IDEMIA National Security Solutions, New York, NY, USA
2 IDEMIA National Security Solutions, New York, NY, USA
2.1 Introduction
The field of situational awareness (SA) arguably embodies the most urgent demand for human systems integration (HSI) as it encompasses the real‐time application of (increasingly machine‐assisted) human decision making in all‐too‐often life and death circumstances. Birthed in the maritime and military domains, SA concepts are now applied to fields as diverse as public safety and first responders, facility and border security, autonomous vehicles, and digital marketing. Common across these domains is the need to understand relevance within vast amounts of disparate data and present this information to human operators in an intuitive, timely, and conspicuous manner. To achieve these objectives, SA systems must disambiguate the definition of “relevant” by understanding the rules governing an operator's potential range of actions and the specific context of the operator receiving the information.
Emerging developments in the technology platforms of sensors, data, artificial intelligence (AI), computer vision, and mobile devices are enabling advancements in the SA platforms that provide real‐time decision‐making opportunities in both structured and unstructured space. These developments challenge the traditional ways that information has been collected, aggregated, collated, analyzed, disseminated, and provide opportunities to empower operators and citizens to gain greater awareness of their surroundings in order to make better informed and more meaningful decisions. Inherent challenges with the volume, variety, velocity, and veracity of this information demand novel approaches to HSI across multiple, concurrent operational theaters.
This chapter summarizes major considerations given to SA platforms and illustrates these through their application to the public safety domain. The authors draw on their decades‐long experience designing and implementing SA systems in municipal and federal public safety organizations in regions as diverse as the United States, Middle East, and Africa. Due consideration is given to the growing concerns around privacy in Western nations and the apparent paradox around the need to promote transparency within public safety organizations without empowering terrorists, criminals, and others' intent on disrupting the lives and liberties of those engaged in democratic societies.
2.2 Situational Awareness: A Global Challenge
Situational awareness is a concept, a system, and a solution. There are well‐established SA definitions and related organizations for the maritime domain, the space domain, and the Arctic. In her seminal Designing for Situation Awareness (Endsley 2011), Dr. Mica Endsley summarizes SA as “being aware of what is happening around you and understanding what that information means to you now and in the future.” Elsewhere, Dr. Endsley has defined SA as “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future.”1 It is the internal mental model of the dynamic environment, which when combined with more static system and procedural knowledge allows decision makers in these domains to function effectively.
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the New York Police Department (NYPD) led a public–private partnership (PPP) effort to create what became the Domain Awareness System (DAS) to counter future terrorist attempts and to improve public safety.2 This initial DAS effort by the NYPD provided a subsequent technology framework for the development of real‐time SA solutions to address a broad range of public and private use cases, from high value facility security and border