Fundamentals of Systems Engineering

Human Systems Integration

Dr. Ravi [email protected]

Fundamentals of Systems Engineering

2

Objectives

• HSI conceptual models• Top-down view of HSI in DoD• Apply systems analysis approach to HSI process• Examine operational HSI applications

• NOTE: This presentation is mostly a compilation of other people’s ideas

3

Challenges in discussing HSI

• Lack of formalism– Language– Processes

• HSI workforce fragmented by specialty• Resulting lack of specificity regarding HSI

INCOSE consensus def (2007): An interdisciplinary technical and management process for integrating human considerations within and across all system elements; an essential enabler to systems engineering.

4

Challenges in discussing HSI

5

HSI principles

1. Top-level leadership2. Human-centered design focus3. Source selection policy4. Organizational integration of HSI domains5. Documentation integration into procurement process6. Quantification of human parameters7. HSI technology8. Test & evaluation/assessments9. Highly qualified practitioners10. Education & training program

6

Booher’s HSI model

HSI Process

Systems Definition Systems Development

Systems Deployment

Highly Concentrated User Focus

Human Related Technologies &

Disciplines

Systems Integrations

People Technology

Organization

DOMAINS PROCESS

DECISION User requirements

User requirements

Human Technologies & Disciplines

Human Technologies & Disciplines

1234567

7

Need for HSI

Source: “Human Systems Integration”, D. Folds, INCOSE 2007

8

Need for HSI

Source: “Human Systems Integration”, D. Folds, INCOSE 2007

9

HSI & human performance

HSI is the acquisition model for human performance

10

Evolving perspective…

11

Human performance optimization

Linking HSI to Survivability KPP…

Proposed model:

(HFE • M • P • T) (ESOH • H • S) Performance

What if these parameters are driven to absolute limits?

• 100% system reliability/0 injuries

• Perfect habitability

• 100% survivable

(HFE • M • P • T) HPO Survivability

12

FAAFNA

FSA

DOTMLPF Analysis

DOTMLPF = Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities; FAA = Functional Area Analysis; FNA = Functional Need Analysis; FSA = Functional Solution Analysis

Capabilities-Based Assessment

Merging the processes…

13

Request to industry

Industry response for agreement

Design & proving of equipment

Overarching system requirements split into equipment vs. human

pathways

Requirements engineering favors equipment pathway

HSI bridges pathways

Unstructured need

Formal statement of required capability

Formal statement of what people, organizations &

procedures must provide

Formal statement of what a system (equipment) must

do to provide the capability

Formal definition of a system (equipment) that meets the requirement

Equipment acceptance

Fielded equipment

(more detail)

Formal description of people, training,

organizations & procedures

Provision of required people & human skills

Trained people & operating procedures

(more detail)

Work together

Capability delivered

Definitive problem statement

Options & tradeoffs

Options & tradeoffs

Options & tradeoffs

Request to industry

Industry response for agreement

Design & proving of equipment

Overarching system requirements split into equipment vs. human

pathways

Requirements engineering favors equipment pathway

HSI bridges pathways

Unstructured need













Equipment acceptanceEquipment acceptance

Fielded equipmentFielded equipment

(more detail)





Provision of required people & human skillsProvision of required people & human skills



(more detail)

Work together

Capability delivered

Definitive problem statement

Options & tradeoffsOptions & tradeoffs



HSI and System Development

14

Systems Analysis Approach

Identify need and determine

system requirements

Design and develop

system

Manufacture system

(production)

Operate and maintain

system

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Blanchard & Fabrycky (2006), Systems Engineering and Analysis

Requirements analysis

Functional analysis

Requirements allocation

Trade-off studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

TOP DOWN APPROACH TO BUILDING A HSI PROCESS

15

Derived requirements• Mission definition

– “Optimize total system performance”– “Minimize total ownership costs”– Ensure system is built to accommodate user population

• Critical performance parameters– Measures of system effectiveness– Life cycle costs

• Operational deployment/distribution– “Early in the [defense] acquisition process”– Involving human factors engineering; personnel; habitability; manpower;

training; environ, safety & occ. health (ESOH), survivability • Operational life cycle

– Throughout defense acquisition life cycle• Utilization requirements

– Program managers in formulating acquisition strategy• Effectiveness factors:

– Metrics for cost, schedule &performance


Functional analysis


Trade-off studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4


Functional analysis


Trade-off studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

DOD 5000

Series

DOD 5000

Series

1.1.1


16

Technical approach• Acquisition programs shall be managed through the

application of a systems engineering approach that optimizes total system performance and minimizes total ownership costs (DODI 5000.1)

• Effective sustainment of weapon systems begins with the design and development of reliable and maintainable systems through the continuous application of a robust systems engineering methodology (DODI 5000.2)

• [HSI addresses] the human systems elements of the systems engineering process (Defense Acquisition Guide)


Functional analysis


Trade-off studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4


Functional analysis


Trade-off studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

DOD 5000

Series

DOD 5000

Series

DAGDAG

Derived requirements

1.1.1 1.1.2


17

Systems engineering Vee-models

Technical Approach in Context

18



system requirements

Design and develop

system

Manufacture system

(production)

Operate and maintain system

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0


Functional analysis


Trade-off studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

19


Functional analysis


Trade-off studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Define mission goals as

functional system

requirements

Specify system measures of effectiveness

Develop supporting

measures of performance

Analyze trans-domain trade-offs

1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4

Allocate requirements to

human

Analyze inter/intra-domain trade-offs

Allocate requirements to

domains

Develop domain measures of performance

1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8

Feedback and control


20

Types of trade-offs

Level of trade-off Trade-off type Description Example

Systems Trans-domainFunctional allocation between hardware or software and human

Redesign role of operator through automation or remote operation

Sub-system

Zero-order Within domain trade-off (domain optimization)

Lengthen training to improve overall mission effectiveness

First-order Bivariate domain trade-offs

Improve selection criteria to decrease training requirements

Higher-order Multivariate domain trade-offs

Simplify interface design to reduce training and ease selection requirements

Compiled from Barnes & Beevis, 2003; Folds, 2007

21

Weapon System XYZAdapted from Blanchard

& Fabrycky (2006)Requirements

analysisFunctional

analysisRequirements

allocationTrade-off studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Hardware functional

group

Software functional

group

Human functional

group

Preliminary system design

Preliminary system design

Software requirements

analysis

Detailed design and development






Hardware life cycle

Software life cycle

Human systems integration life cycle


Trans-domain

trade-offs

Inter/intra-domain

trade-offs

22Adapted from Blanchard & Fabrycky (2006)


system requirements

Design and develop

system

Manufacture system

(production)


system

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

CONTROLS/CONSTRAINTS

• Systems engineering process• Economic (cost)• Schedule (time)• Technical (performance)

INPUTS

• System requirements (ICD, CDD, CPD)

• Organizational structure

• Data/documentation

HSI ANALYSIS FUNCTIONS • Design criteria

• Decision support data OUTPUTS

MECHANISMS

• Trained HSI practitioners• Trade-off studies


23


system requirements

Design and develop

system

Manufacture system

(production)


system

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

OPTIMIZATION MODELS

Human-system performance optimization (Miller & Shattuck, 2007):

(HFE P M T) (ESOH H S) Human Performance Input domains First order effects Second order effects

where HFE = human factors engineering; P = personnel; M = manpower; T = training; ESOH = environment, safety and occupational health; H = habitability; S = survivability.

Life cycle cost optimization (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006):

E = (X, Yd, Yi)

where E = evaluation measure; X = controllable decision variables; Yd = design-dependent system parameters; Yi = design-independent system parameters.

Models for Optimization

24


system requirements

Design and develop

system

Manufacture system

(production)


system

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Life

cycl

e co

sts =

E =

(X,

Yd,

Y i)

System performance = (human performance) = (HFEPMT)

Cost Objective Concept

HSI Trade Space

DATA FARMING

HSI Trade Space

25


system requirements

Design and develop

system

Manufacture system

(production)


system

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

CONTROLS/CONSTRAINTS

• Systems engineering process• Economic (cost)• Schedule (time)• Technical (performance)

INPUTS

• System requirements (ICD, CDD, CPD)

• Organizational structure

• Data/documentation

• Design criteria• Decision support data OUTPUTS

MECHANISMS

• Trained HSI practitioners• Trade-off studies

Life

cycl

e co

sts =

E =

(X,

Yd,

Y i)

System performance = (human performance) = (HFEPMT)

Cost Objective Concept

HSI Trade Space

HSI Trade Space

26

Two HSI Paradigms?

Concept Refinement

PhaseTech Demo

Phase

System Design &

DevelopmentProduction & Deployment

Operations and Support

Phase

Workstation Design

(HFE domain)

Training

Time (HFE P M T) (ESOH H S) Human Performance

Effi

cacy

COTS items

Personnel & Manpower fixed for foreseeable future

27

UAV HSI

28

UAS Aero-Medical Standards

Tvarynas, 2007

29

Case study UAV mishaps

MAJCOM concern: “recurring landing

mishaps”

Better displays?

30

Sample mishap landing report

Cause: Pilot flared the aircraft higher than normal.

Factors: Late decision to go-around. Due to the lack of visual cues, and the lack of proper instrumentation, the pilot made a late decision to go-around.

Factors: Lack of visual cues, lack of instrumentation.The GCS is lacking in two key areas: peripheral display and radar altimeter. Due to the limited horizontal field of view of the camera, the pilot's peripheral "vision" is limited. Peripheral vision is largely responsible for detecting motion and attitude cues, as well as ground rush/altitude cues, all of which are used during the transition to landing. Without sufficient peripheral cues, a radar altimeter is needed to establish the aircraft height above the runway.

31

32

Landing mishaps HSI analysis

Human-machine displays

Situation awareness

Training tasks

Simulation methods

Accession practices

↑ Attrition

Operating strength

Operator error

33

Paradigm Findings

S&T Technology (HFE domain)

HSI

Technology (HFE domain)PersonnelTrainingManpowerEnviron., safety, & occ. health

Changing paradigms – a multi-factorial world

34

Suboptimal performanceMAJCOM concern: “cases of

performance failure”

Combat stress?

35

Fatigue Survey

Tvaryanas AP. A survey of fatigue in selected United States Air Force shift worker populations. Brooks City-Base, TX: United States Air Force, 311th Human Systems Wing; 2006 Mar. Report No.: HSW-PE-BR-TR-2006-

0003.

36

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Landing & recovery element(Iraq)

Mission control element(Nevada)

z-sc

ore

FS

CIS-CON

FAS

EF-WHOQOL

MBI-EE

Finding: Predator crews teleoperating in Iraq are at least as fatigued as crews deployed to Iraq.

Tvaryanas AP. A survey of fatigue in selected United States Air Force shift worker populations. Brooks City-Base, TX: United States Air Force, 311th Human Systems Wing; 2006 Mar. Report No.: HSW-PE-BR-TR-2006-0003.

Fatigue Survey

37

Results of survey self-report measure of sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale) in Predator squadron…

Abnormal is defined as ESS score > 10.

2117

23

21

17 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Pilot Sensor operator Intel

Sur

vey

resp

onde

nts

Excessive sleepinessNormal

Finding: Excessively sleepy SOs 4 times more likely to report moderate-to-high chance of falling asleep in GCS.

Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2007.

Fatigue Survey

38Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2005.

Fatigue Survey

39

Fatigue Survey

Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2007.

40

Combat fatigue HSI case study

Personnel selection

↓ Accession rates

↑ Attrition rates

↓ Operating strength

↑ Fatigue & stress

Improper shift

schedulingManning concepts

41

Notional summary of Predator pilot and SO task analyses…

Imagery analyst Qualified SO Experienced SO MAC qualifiedSO

Pilot

Sensor operator (SO) tasks

Pilot tasks

Nagy JE, Guenther L, Muse K, et al. USAF UAS performance analyses: Predator sensor operator front end analysis report. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center (SURVIAC); 2006 Jun.

Knowledge, skills, & aptitudes gap

42

Paradigm FindingsMedical Stress (Survivability domain)

HSI

HFEPersonnelTrainingManpowerEnviron., safety, & occ. healthStress (Survivability domain)

Changing paradigms – a multi-factorial world

43

• Patrol littoral environment• Insert and extract SEALs• Deployable on-scene worldwide in 48 hours via C-5 Galaxy

MK V Special Operations Craft

44

• Naval Special Forces operate high speed boats in calm and rough seas and experience significant shock loading

• Effects of mechanical shock• Personnel injury (acute and chronic)• Equipment failure or degradation• Reduced mission effectiveness

• No shock mitigation systems are currently in-place• Offshore racing industry faces similar problems• Research focuses on bolt-on solutions to existing platforms

(suspension seats, deck padding)

Background

45

Cockpit Video

Footage from at-sea testing, Sea State 2-3, head seas, 35 kts...

46

Time

50 - 100 msec

Ver

tical

Acc

el (

g’s)

Typical Shock Event (on RHIB or Mk V)

Shock pulsestypically have peak accelerationsof 2-10 g’s in the5 - 10 Hz Range

~ 5-8 Hz

~ 10-15 Hz

~ 20 Hz

(Naval Health Research Center, 2000)

Shock and Injury

47

Time in SBUs (in years)

13 to 14

12 to 13

11 to 12

10 to 11

9 to 10

8 to 97 to 8

6 to 7

5 to 6

4 to 53 to 4

2 to 3

1 to 2

less than 1

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

30

20

10

0

Report Injury:

yes

no

SBU Personnel Injury vs. Years of Service

Naval Health Research Center Survey (2000)

Shock Exposure Outcome

48

Summary

• HSI conceptual models• Top-down view of HSI in DoD• Apply systems analysis approach to HSI

process• Examine operational HSI applications

Fundamentals of Systems Engineering

Documents

human systems integrationdr

hsi human performancehsi

view of hsi

human considerations

functional need analysis

functional area analysis

system development

level of trade