A Framework of Human Systems Engineering. Группа авторов
both model stakeholder belief systems to predict their actions and train the models by analyzing the correlation between text communications, e‐mail, and other sources.
The chapter also illustrated how the conceptual architecture described in Section 3.3.1 can be readily instantiated as a tool to identify incidental and emerging risk. Results indicated promise that sociotechnical risks can be identified early on in the development effort and dealt with. The case study presented illustrated the possible positive effects of employing this approach.
The quest to find more effective methodologies for system development efforts continues to be a research challenge across numerous industries. While improving digital representation can result in faster, more accurate system development, it still does not address the most frequent reason for project failures, the misalignment between stakeholders’ beliefs and expectations. In addition to the obvious challenge of mismatched expectations, misalignment can have a more insidious risk. When belief structures are misaligned, noncomplementary actions, and even actions that are cross‐purposes, can be taken. Quantitative sociotechnical modeling and risk analysis have the potential to significantly improve successful development by explicitly monitoring and analyzing belief structures and making proactive predictions of emerging risks. Mature sociotechnical modeling as part of the SE capability development is the realization of the promise of Epoch 4.
The authors’ affiliation with The MITRE Corporation is provided for identification purposes only and is not intended to convey or imply MITRE’s concurrence with, or support for, the positions, opinions, or viewpoints expressed by the author. This paper has been approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case Number 20‐1208.
References
1 Alexander, M. (2019). What is SAFe? The Scaled Agile Framework explained. CIO Magazine (30 August).
2 Baillargeon, K. (2014). The Living Heart Project: a robust and integrative simulator for human heart function. European Journal of Mechanics – A/Solids 48: 38–47.
3 Baldwin, K. (2019). Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation (JDMS) special issue: transforming the engineering enterprise – applications of Digital Engineering and Modular Open Systems Approach. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology and Technology 16 (4): 323–324.
4 Barry, P. and Doskey, S. (2019). Identifying hidden risks in multi‐stakeholder, dynamic system development environments. 2019 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 1–7.
5 Bruynseels, K., Santoni de Sio, F., and van den Hoven, J. (2018). Digital twins in health care: ethical implications of an emerging engineering paradigm. Frontiers in Genetics 9: 31.
6 Cordeiro, M., Sarmento, R.P., Brazdil, P., and Gama, J. (2018). Evolving networks and social network analysis methods and techniques. In: Social Media and Journalism – Trends, Connections, Implications. IntechOpen https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79041.
7 Dodds, P.S., Harris, K.D., Kloumann, I.M. et al. (2011). Temporal patterns of happiness and information in a global social network: Hedonometrics and Twitter. PLoS One 6 (12): e26752. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026752.
8 Doskey, S. and Barry, P. (2018). A systems engineering perspective of timing information for optimized decision making. 2018 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), Vancouver, BC, pp. 1–8.
9 El Saddik, A. (2018). Digital twins: the convergence of multimedia technologies. IEEE Multimedia 25 (2): 87–92.
10 Fagen, M.D. (ed.) (1978). A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System: National Service in War and Peace (1925–1975). Bell Telephone Laboratories.
11 Feng, N., Li, M., Xie, J., and Fang, D. (2008). A data‐driven model for software development risk analysis using Bayesian networks. 2008 IEEE Symposium on Advanced Management of Information for Globalized Enterprises (AMIGE), Tianjin, pp. 1–5.
12 Greenwood, D. and Sommerville, I. (2011). Responsibility modeling for the sociotechnical risk analysis of coalitions of systems. Computing Research Repository – CORR. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2011.6083832.
13 Guru99 (n.d.). Agile vs. scrum: know the difference. https://www.guru99.com/agile‐vs‐scrum.html (accessed 16 January 2020).
14 Hu, F., Mostashari, A., and Xie, J. (eds.) (2010). Socio‐technical Networks: Science and Engineering Design. CRC Press.
15 Hui, K.T. and Liu, D.B. (2004). A Bayesian belief network model and tool to evaluate risk and impact in software development projects. Annual Symposium Reliability and Maintainability, 2004 – RAMS, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 297–301.
16 Jamshidi, M. (ed.) (2008). Systems of Systems Engineering: Principles and Applications, 1e. CRC Press.
17 Johansen, I.L. and Rausand, M. (2014). Defining complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems: a conceptual framework. Proceeding of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability 228 (3): 272–290.
18 Kevin Reilly, C.W. (2020). Quantum computing, climate change, and interdependent AI: academics and execs predict how tech will revolutionize the next decade (29 January 2020). https://www.businessinsider.com/davos‐microsoft‐tech‐henry‐blodget‐panel‐2020‐1.
19 Kim, S., Xi, H., Mungle, S., and Son, Y.‐J. (2012). Modeling human interactions with learning under the extended belief – desire – intention framework using agent‐based simulation. 62nd IIE Annual Conference and Expo 2012.
20 Le Pira, M., Inturri, G., Ignaccolo, M. et al. (2015). Simulating opinion dynamics on stakeholders’ networks through agent‐based modeling for collective transport decisions. Procedia Computer Science 52: 884–889.
21 Leffingwell, D., Knaster, R., Oren, I., and Jemilo, D. (2018). SAFe® 4.5 Reference Guide: Scaled Agile Framework® for Lean Enterprises. Scaled Agile, Incorporated.
22 Li, W., Bai, Q., Zhang, M. et al. (2016). Agent‐based influence propagation in social networks. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Agents (ICA), pp. 51–56.
23 Luna‐Reyes, L.F., Zhang, J., Gil‐García, J.R., and Cresswell, A.M. (2005). Information systems development as emergent socio‐technical change: a practice approach. European Journal of Information Systems 14 (1): 93–105. Special Issue: from Technical to Socio‐technical Change: Tackling the Human and Organisational Aspects of Systems Development Projects.
24 Mehler, J., McGee, S., and Edson, R. (2010). Leveraging systemigrams for conceptual analysis of complex systems: application to the U.S. National Security System. 8th Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Hoboken, NJ (17–19 March 2010).
25 Mersino, A. (2018). Agile project success rates are 2X higher than traditional projects (1 April [2019 update]). https://vitalitychicago.com/blog/agile‐projects‐are‐more‐successful‐traditional‐projects (accessed 18 December 2019).
26 Misirli, T. and Bener, A.B. (2014). Bayesian networks for evidence‐based decision‐making in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 40 (6): 533–554.
27 Muller, R., Geraldi, J., and Turner, J.R. (2012). Relationships between leadership and success in different types of project complexities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59 (1): 77–90.
28 Netflix Technology Blog (2017). How we build code at Netflix (19 April). https://netflixtechblog.com/how‐we‐build‐code‐at‐netflix‐c5d9bd727f15