1 / 48

Fundamentals of Systems Engineering

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

vidar
Télécharger la présentation

Fundamentals of Systems Engineering

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Human Systems Integration Dr. Ravi Vaidyanathan rvaidyan@nps.edu

  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 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

  6. Booher’s HSI model Systems Definition Systems Development Systems Deployment Highly Concentrated User Focus Human Related Technologies & Disciplines HSI Process Systems Integrations Human Technologies & Disciplines Human Technologies & Disciplines People Technology Organization 1234567 User requirements User requirements DECISION   DOMAINS PROCESS

  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. Merging the processes… FAA FNA DOTMLPF = Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities; FAA = Functional Area Analysis; FNA = Functional Need Analysis; FSA = Functional Solution Analysis Capabilities-Based Assessment FSA DOTMLPF Analysis

  13. HSI and System Development

  14. Systems Analysis Approach 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Requirements analysis Requirements allocation Functional analysis Trade-off studies 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Identify need and determine system requirements Design and develop system Operate and maintain system Manufacture system (production) TOP DOWN APPROACH TO BUILDING A HSI PROCESS Blanchard & Fabrycky (2006), Systems Engineering and Analysis

  15. Systems Analysis Approach

  16. Systems Analysis Approach

  17. Technical Approach in Context Systems engineering Vee-models

  18. Systems Analysis Approach 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Requirements analysis Requirements allocation Functional analysis Trade-off studies 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Identify need and determine system requirements Design and develop system Operate and maintain system Manufacture system (production)

  19. Systems Analysis Approach 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Define mission goals as functional system requirements Develop supporting measures of performance Analyze inter/intra-domain trade-offs Allocate requirements to domains Develop domain measures of performance Specify system measures of effectiveness Allocate requirements to human Analyze trans-domain trade-offs Requirements allocation Requirements analysis Functional analysis Trade-off studies Feedback and control

  20. Types of trade-offs Compiled from Barnes & Beevis, 2003; Folds, 2007

  21. Weapon System XYZ Adapted from Blanchard & Fabrycky (2006)

  22. Systems Analysis Approach Adapted from Blanchard & Fabrycky (2006)

  23. 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Identify need and determine system requirements Design and develop system Operate and maintain system Manufacture system (production) OPTIMIZATION MODELS Models for Optimization 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.

  24. HSI Trade Space

  25. HSI Trade Space

  26. Two HSI Paradigms? Concept Refinement Phase System Design & Development Operations and Support Phase Tech Demo Phase Production & Deployment COTS items Training Workstation Design (HFE domain) Personnel & Manpower fixed for foreseeable future Efficacy Time  (HFE  P  M  T) (ESOH  H  S)  Human Performance

  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. Landing mishaps HSI analysis Human-machine displays Situation awareness Accession practices ↑ Attrition Training tasks Simulation methods Operating strength Operator error

  32. Changing paradigms – a multi-factorial world

  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 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.

  36. 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. Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2007. Abnormal is defined as ESS score > 10.

  37. Fatigue Survey Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2005.

  38. Fatigue Survey Tvaryanas, unpublished data, 2007.

  39. Combat fatigue HSI case study Manning concepts Personnel selection ↓ Accession rates ↑ Attrition rates ↓ Operating strength Improper shift scheduling ↑ Fatigue & stress

  40. Notional summary of Predator pilot and SO task analyses… Knowledge, skills, & aptitudes gap 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

  42. MK V Special Operations Craft • Patrol littoral environment • Insert and extract SEALs • Deployable on-scene worldwide in 48 hours via C-5 Galaxy

  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. Typical Shock Event (on RHIB or Mk V) Shock pulses typically have peak accelerations of 2-10 g’s in the 5 - 10 Hz Range ~ 5-8 Hz Vertical Accel (g’s) ~ 10-15 Hz ~ 20 Hz 50 - 100 msec Time Shock and Injury (Naval Health Research Center, 2000)

  46. SBU Personnel Injury vs. Years of Service 30 Report Injury: 20 yes no Number of Respondents 10 0 8 to 9 3 to 4 4 to 5 7 to 8 1 to 2 2 to 3 5 to 6 6 to 7 9 to 10 12 to 13 13 to 14 11 to 12 10 to 11 less than 1 Time in SBUs (in years) Shock Exposure Outcome 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

More Related