Fundamentals of Systems
Engineering
Human Systems Integration
Dr. Ravi Vaidyanathan
rvaidyan@nps.edu
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
2
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.
3
Challenges in discussing HSI
4
HSI principles
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Top-level leadership
Human-centered design focus
Source selection policy
Organizational integration of HSI domains
Documentation integration into procurement process
Quantification of human parameters
HSI technology
Test & evaluation/assessments
Highly qualified practitioners
Education & training program
5
Booher’s HSI model
Systems Definition
Systems Development
Systems Deployment
Human Related
Technologies &
Disciplines
HSI Process
Highly
Concentrated
User Focus
Systems
Integrations
Human
Technologies
& Disciplines
Human
Technologies
& Disciplines
People
Technology
Organization
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DOMAINS
User
requirements
DECISION
User
requirements

PROCESS
6
Need for HSI
Source: “Human Systems Integration”, D. Folds,
INCOSE 2007
7
Need for HSI
Source: “Human Systems Integration”, D. Folds,
INCOSE 2007
8
HSI & human performance
HSI is the acquisition model for human performance
9
Evolving perspective…
10
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
11
Merging the processes…
FAA
FNA
Capabilities-Based
Assessment
FSA
DOTMLPF
Analysis
DOTMLPF = Doctrine, Organization, Training,
Material, Leadership, Personnel and
Facilities; FAA = Functional Area Analysis;
FNA = Functional Need Analysis; FSA =
Functional Solution Analysis
12
HSI and System Development
Unstructured need
Overarching system
requirements split into
equipment vs. human
pathways
Formal statement of
required capability
Definitive problem statement
Requirements engineering favors
equipment pathway
Options & tradeoffs
Formal statement of what a
system (equipment) must
do to provide the capability
Formal statement of what
people, organizations &
procedures must provide
Request to industry
Options & tradeoffs
Formal description of
people, training,
organizations & procedures
Formal definition of a
system (equipment) that
meets the requirement
Industry response for
agreement
Options & tradeoffs
(more detail)
(more detail)
HSI bridges
pathways
Provision of required
people & human skills
Design & proving of
equipment
Equipment acceptance
Trained people &
operating procedures
Fielded equipment
Work together
Capability delivered
13
Systems Analysis Approach
1.0
2.0
Identify need and
determine
system
requirements
1.1
3.0
Design
and develop
system
Manufacture
system
(production)
1.2
Requirements
analysis
4.0
1.3
Functional
analysis
Operate
and
maintain system
1.4
Requirements
allocation
Trade-off
studies
TOP DOWN APPROACH TO BUILDING A HSI PROCESS
Blanchard & Fabrycky (2006), Systems Engineering and Analysis
14
Systems Analysis Approach
1.1
1.2
Requirements
analysis
1.3
Functional
analysis
1.4
Requirements
allocation
Trade-off studies
1.1.1
DOD
5000
Series
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
15
Systems Analysis Approach
1.1
1.2
Functional
analysis
Requirements
analysis
DOD
5000
Series
1.3
1.1.1
Derived
requirements
DAG
1.4
Requirements
allocation
Trade-off studies
Technical approach
1.1.2
• 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)
16
Technical Approach in Context
Systems
engineering
Vee-models
17
Systems Analysis Approach
1.0
2.0
Identify need and
determine
system
requirements
1.1
Requirements
analysis
3.0
Design
and develop
system
4.0
Manufacture
system
(production)
1.2
1.3
Functional
analysis
Requirements
allocation
Operate
and
maintain system
1.4
Trade-off
studies
18
Systems Analysis Approach
1.1
Requirements
analysis
1.2
1.3
Functional
analysis
1.2.1
Define mission
goals as
functional
system
requirements
1.2.2
1.2.5
1.2.6
Allocate
requirements to
human
1.4
Requirements
allocation
1.2.3
1.2.4
Develop
supporting
measures of
performance
Specify system
measures of
effectiveness
Analyze
inter/intradomain
tradeoffs
Trade-off studies
1.2.7
Analyze transdomain
trade-offs
1.2.8
Allocate
requirements to
domains
Feedback and control
Develop domain
measures of
performance
19
Types of trade-offs
Level of trade-off
Systems
Sub-system
Trade-off type
Description
Example
Functional allocation
between hardware or
software and human
Redesign role of operator through
automation or remote operation
Zero-order
Within domain trade-off
(domain optimization)
Lengthen training to improve overall mission
effectiveness
First-order
Bivariate domain tradeoffs
Improve selection criteria to decrease
training requirements
Multivariate domain tradeoffs
Simplify interface design to reduce training
and ease selection requirements
Trans-domain
Higher-order
Compiled from Barnes & Beevis, 2003; Folds, 2007
20
Weapon System XYZ
Feedback and control
1.1
1.2
Requirements
analysis
1.3
Functional
analysis
Adapted from Blanchard
& Fabrycky (2006)
1.4
Requirements
allocation
Trade-off
studies
Hardware life cycle
Hardware
functional
group
Transdomain
trade-offs
Preliminary
system
design
Detailed design and
development
Feedback and control
Software life cycle
Software
functional
group
Software
requirements
analysis
Detailed design and
development
Feedback and control
Human systems integration life cycle
Inter/intradomain
trade-offs
Human
functional
group
Preliminary
system
design
Feedback and control
Detailed design and
development
21
Systems Analysis Approach
1.0
2.0
Identify need
and determine
system
requirements
Design
and develop
system
3.0
4.0
Operate
and maintain
system
Manufacture
system
(production)
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
• Trained HSI practitioners
• Trade-off studies
MECHANISMS
Adapted from Blanchard & Fabrycky (2006)
22
Models for Optimization
1.0
Identify need
and determine
system
requirements
2.0
3.0
Design
and develop
system
Manufacture
system
(production)
4.0
Operate
and maintain
system
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.
23
HSI Trade Space
1.0
2.0
Lifecycle costs = E = (X, Yd, Yi)
Identify need
and determine
system
requirements
3.0
Design
and develop
system
DATA FARMING
4.0
Manufacture
system
(production)
Operate
and maintain
system
Cost
Objective
Concept
HSI Trade
Space
System performance = (human performance) = (HFEPMT)
24
HSI Trade Space
1.0
2.0
Identify need
and determine
system
requirements
3.0
Design
and develop
system
4.0
Operate
and maintain
system
Manufacture
system
(production)
CONTROLS/CONSTRAINTS
INPUTS
• System requirements
(ICD, CDD, CPD)
• Organizational
structure
• Data/documentation
Lifecycle costs = E = (X, Yd, Yi)
• Systems engineering process
• Economic (cost)
• Schedule (time)
• Technical (performance)
Cost Objective
Concept
HSI Trade
Space
• Design criteria
• Decision support data OUTPUTS
System performance = (human performance) = (HFEPMT)
• Trained HSI practitioners
• Trade-off studies
MECHANISMS
25
Two HSI Paradigms?
Concept
Refinement
Phase
Tech Demo
Phase
System
Design &
Developmen
t
Production &
Deployment
Operations
and Support
Phase
COTS items
Training
Efficacy
Workstation
Design
(HFE domain)
Personnel &
Manpower fixed for
foreseeable future
Time
 (HFE  P  M  T)   (ESOH  H  S)  Human Performance
26
UAV HSI
27
UAS Aero-Medical Standards
Tvarynas, 2007
28
Case study UAV mishaps
MAJCOM
concern:
“recurring
landing
mishaps”
Better
displays?
29
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.
30
31
Landing mishaps HSI analysis
Humanmachine
displays
Situation
awareness
Accession Training Operating Operator
practices
tasks
strength
error
↑ Attrition Simulation
methods
32
Changing paradigms –
a multi-factorial world
Paradigm
Findings
S&T
Technology (HFE domain)
HSI
Technology (HFE domain)
Personnel
Training
Manpower
Environ., safety, & occ. health
33
Suboptimal performance
MAJCOM
concern: “cases
of performance
failure”
Combat
stress?
34
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.
35
Fatigue Survey
1
z-score
0.8
Finding: Predator crews teleoperating in
Iraq are at least as fatigued as crews
deployed to Iraq.
0.6
FS
CIS-CON
0.4
FAS
0.2
EF-WHOQOL
MBI-EE
0
Landing & recovery element
(Iraq)
Mission control element
(Nevada)
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-BR36
TR-2006-0003.
Fatigue Survey
Results of survey self-report measure of sleepiness (Epworth
Sleepiness Scale) in Predator squadron…
Finding: Excessively sleepy SOs 4
times more likely to report
moderate-to-high chance of falling
asleep in GCS.
45
40
Survey respondents
35
30
21
17
25
5
Excessive sleepiness
Normal
20
15
10
23
21
17
5
0
Pilot
Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2007.
Sensor operator
Intel
37
Abnormal is defined as ESS score > 10.
Fatigue Survey
Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2005.
38
Fatigue Survey
Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2007.
39
Combat fatigue HSI case study
Personnel selection
↓ Accession rates
↑ Attrition rates
↓ Operating Improper
strength
shift
scheduling
Manning
concepts
↑ Fatigue
& stress
40
Notional summary of Predator pilot
and SO task analyses…
Sensor operator (SO) tasks
Pilot tasks
Knowledge, skills, &
aptitudes gap
Imagery analyst
Qualified SO
Experienced SO
M A C qualified
SO
P ilo t
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.
41
Changing paradigms –
a multi-factorial world
Paradigm
Findings
Medical
Stress (Survivability domain)
HSI
HFE
Personnel
Training
Manpower
Environ., safety, & occ. health
Stress (Survivability domain)
42
MK V Special Operations Craft
• Patrol littoral environment
• Insert and extract SEALs
• Deployable on-scene worldwide in 48 hours via C-5 Galaxy
Length Overall
Maximum Beam
Static Draft
Depth (Keel to Shear)
Lightship Weight
Full Load Displacement
Payload Capacity
82 ft
17.5 ft
5 ft
7.75 ft
88500 lbs
119000 lbs
30000 lbs
Air/Road Weight Limit
Installed Power
Max Speed
Cruise Speed
Range
Crew
Passengers
90000 lbs
4570 Hp
50+ kts
35 kts
600+ nm (at 35 kts)
5
16
43
Background
• 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)
44
Cockpit Video
Footage from at-sea testing, Sea State 2-3, head seas, 35 kts...
45
Shock and Injury
Typical Shock Event
Vertical Accel (g’s)
(on RHIB or Mk V)
Shock pulses
~ 5-8 Hz
typically have
peak accelerations
of 2-10 g’s in the
5 - 10 Hz Range
~ 10-15 Hz
50 - 100 msec
~ 20 Hz
Time
(Naval Health Research Center, 2000)
46
Shock Exposure Outcome
SBU Personnel Injury vs. Years of Service
30
Report Injury:
Number of Respondents
yes
no
20
10
0
Time in SBUs (in years)
Naval Health Research Center Survey (2000)
47
Summary
• HSI conceptual models
• Top-down view of HSI in DoD
• Apply systems analysis approach to HSI
process
• Examine operational HSI applications
48