human factors - on the right trak?
Post on 28-May-2015
659 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Human Factors - on the right TRAK?An every day tale of applying human factors to unusual things and using an architectural framework for human factors work in a challenging SE environment.
1
Nic Plum
Eclectica Systems Ltd.
Chris Lowe
Liv Systems Ltd.
Copyright © 2010 by Eclectica Systems Ltd. & Liv Systems Ltd. Published and used by INCOSE with permission
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
The Main Theme / Objectives• Human Factors/ user-centred design in unusual situations
+ design of an enterprise architecture framework (TRAK)
+ using the framework for HF applications
• i.e. applying system-thinking & recognising how people are affected by, interact with and can be represented using
+ architecture framework (“definition”)
+ architecture description (“modelling”)
2
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Introduction /Overview
3
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Background & Challenges 4
• UK rail
+ complex industry organisation
+ regulation - large suite of standards
• SE in rail:
+ strong functional disciplines (cross-discipline links hard to maintain) ... silos
+ emphasis on interface management and system integration (important, but only part of SE)
+ systematic focus rather than systemic
+ custom and practice
+ DfT become de facto System/Integration Authority
• architecture framework/modelling therefore ...
+ scary, new, seen as complicated, not well understood or accepted
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Therefore, TRAK ...• Therefore TRAK
+ needs to bring disciplines together
+ must be simple, understandable
+ must be usable and relevant to typical problems faced by SE practicioners/stakeholders
+ must provide a means to illustrate, describe and facilitate discussion
+ must augment or complement existing methods, tools, techniques
• all of these are very human-centric qualities
5
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Human Factors in the Design of TRAK
6
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Does a Framework Have a UI? 7
• not on its own, but ...
• what is the system of interest - “The TRAK Enterprise”
• there are many human roles involved, so
+ yes it does!
+ and we’d be silly not to consider the UI
• if you look after the people the rest will fall into place
• but you then have to consider the interactions
+ framework definition cannot be done in isolation
TRAK Framework Definition
Framework Developers
Framework Definition Store
TRAK Body of Knowledge
Wikitecture Glueware
Wikitecture Model Repository
<<Node>>Support Tracker
Professional Bodies
Architecture Browsers
Training Providers
Tool VendorsModeling Tools
"The TRAK Enterprise"
(TRAK) Architecture
Modellers
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
“TRAK Enterprise” Dynamics
• TRAK definition affects tools & users
+ complexity, selection
+ adequacy of rules
• tools affect users
+ implementation
+ rules / enforcement
• users affect tools & definition
+ need for rules
• users, tool, definition affect browsers (lay readers)
8
Metamodel Size
Ease of View Selection
No of Viewpoints
+ [coverage]
−
[overl
ap]
−[overlap/affordance]
Consistent Representation
−[overlap]
AD Exchange Potential
+AD
Size
+ +
Tool Enforcement
+
AF Enforcement
+
−
[compensation]
Navigability
−[complexity]
Readability
+No. Elements on a View
No. Views in AD
+−
[comple
xity]
+[s
ubje
ct fo
cus]
−
+
−
−
[more combinations]
AD re-use Potential
+
+
[semantics]
[file/structure]
Tool VendorArchitect
BrowserSpecifier
−[view consistency]
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Simplicity• why?
+ ADs/modelling about communicating
+ aid understanding - diverse technical/non-technical readership
+ cost of preparing and maintaining models
• TRAK response
+ small, simple metamodel aimed at users not specifiers - easily fits on a page
+ 22 viewpoints (and view types)
+ short names - easy to scan / understand
+ relate to SE practice
+ views can be read as sets of sentences by anyone (metamodel provides allowed nouns & verbs)
9
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Consistency• why?
+ supports simplicity (less confusion), affordance (easier to pick right element, view), understanding
+ ‘standardisation’ aids exchange/portability
+ frameworks often use different names to differentiate themselves e.g. NAF vs MODAF vs DNDAF vs DODAF
+ consistency needed to maximise re-use, exchange of models / collaboration potential
• TRAK response
+ ISO 42010 terms used - e.g. view, viewpoint (a specification not collection)...
+ mapping views map upwards (as you’d expect), xx-01 views are all structural, ...
+ small, non-overlapping metamodel - removes user’s subjective choice
+ mandatory tuples designed to cover whole metamodel without gaps
+ rules for content of each view, consistency rules between views, TRAK Bye Laws and minimum allowed view sets for model consistency
10
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Affordance & Visibility• why?
+ potential source of confusion, inconsistency & therefore maintenance cost
+ eases cost of adoption
• TRAK response
+ colours for stereotypes mandated & keyed to TRAK Perspective
+ use relationships to denote structure, role etc not colour / tools provide graphics as well
+ relationships always have text description and direction - not everyone is technical / UML-aware
+ viewpoint names keyed to stereotype + have Perspective name e.g. Solution ...
+ Bye Laws
+ mandate that all elements / relationships must be visible
+ Metamodel-on-a-page concept - keep it all in view
11
<<Role>>System Engineer
<<Organisation>>INCOSE
<<Role>>SE Certification
Authorityextends toplays
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Adequacy• why?
+ time = money
+ need to minimise size, complexity, maintenance maximise re-use, collaboration
+ fit with existing SE practices & tools
+ frameworks often defined by procurers not SE practitioners and hence tuned/ refined in up-front aspects
+ architectural description not always best or most appropriate to task
• TRAK response
+ minimise metamodel and viewpoint set sizes and therefore potential model size - just fit for purpose
+ minimal process based on ISO 42010 i.e. identify taskholder concerns, choose viewpoint(s) addressing concerns... model away!
+ self-documenting - MV-02 Architecture Description Design Record documents concerns, findings and model
+ reflect working practice needs - make it easy for users to interact / get involved with TRAK definition
12
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
The TRAK Metamodel• aimed @ user not tool
vendor
+ v small compared with DODAF 2 (c 250 elements), DNDAF (c 170)
+ no notation used
• centred on ‘System’
+ that’s what we’re interested in
• but provides context wrt projects, enterprise and the concept
13
haspart
enacts
marked by
Resource
Node
Need
Concept Activity
conductssu
ppor
ts
requires
Enterprise
Capability
real
ises
Item
requires Project
owns
deliv
ers
/ rem
oves
is configured with
realises
is configured with
has part
depends on
Resource Interaction
from
/to
real
ises
Interaction Element Port Connectionexchanges from/to
realises
Functionperforms
Human Resource
SoftwarePhysical
triggers
Protocolimplements
uses
Standard
realises
JobRole
exposes
gove
rnsis configured
withis configured with
TRAK Metamodel20th October 2010
TheRail
Archite
cture
framew
orK
Requirement
traces to
Concern
View
addresses
about
has part
has parthosted on
has part
plays
has part
has part
has partplays
governs
issued by
unde
rtake
s
nece
ssar
y fo
r
Competencerequires
to conduct
Document
traces to
has
triggers
Metricis quantfied by
is q
ualif
ied
by
requires
has part
Contract
applies
realises
has part
has part
mar
ks
intro
duct
ion/
rem
oval
of
Milestone
physically depends
on
governs
governs
Organisation
System
Project Activity
Port
depends on
supersedes
equivalent to
carries
has part
has part
Item Exchange
carries
aspires tois quantified byEnterprise Goal
has
traces to
extends to
Uncontrolled copy - latest version at http://trakmetamodel.sourceforge.net
GNU Free Document License terms apply
has
part
ArchitectureDescription
has part
is member of
has part
* also used to represent sponsor of Architectural Task
for
= Node needsNode
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
NCV-1 Capability Vision
NCV-2 Capability Taxonomy
NCV-3 Capability Phasing
NCV-4 Capability Dependencies
NCV-5 Capability to Organisational Deployment Mappings
NCV-6 Capability to Operational Activities Mapping
NCV-7 Capability to Services Mapping
NOV-1 High Level Operational Concept
NOV-2 Operational Node Connectivity Description
NOV-3 Operational Information Requirements
NOV-4 Organisational Relationship Chart
NOV-5 Operational Activity Model
NOV-6a Operational Activity Model
NOV-6b Operational State Transition
NOV-6c Operational Event-Trace Description
NOV-7 Information Model
NPV-1 Programme Portfolio
NPV-2 Programme to Capability Mapping
NSV-1 System Interface Description
NSV- 2 Systems Communication Description
NSV-2a System Port Specification
NSV-2b System to System Port Connectivity
NSV-2c System Connectivity Clusters
NSV-2d Systems Communication Quality
NSV-3 Systems to Systems Matrix
NSV-4 System Functionality
TRAK Architecture Viewpoints• 22 viewpoints (view specifications)
+ 47 - 53 in other frameworks
• each addresses set of related concerns
• organised by content not application
+ e.g.separate structure from behaviour
• complies with ISO 42010
+ mandatory / optional content
+ consistency rules
• short, simple names keyed to principal stereotype
+ all xx-01s are structural
14
Viewpoint TitleQuestions / Concerns Addressed
EVp-01 Enterprise Goal What is the Enterprise and what goals does it set out to achieve?
EVp-02 Capability HierarchyWhat are the enduring capabilities the enterprise requires and how is capability measured?
EVp-03 Capability Phasing How is capability delivered? Are there any gaps?
CVp-01 Concept Need Have the concept needs been identified?
CVp-02 Concept Has the concept purpose been identified? How is it seen as being used?
CVp-03 Concept Item ExchangeHave the items exchanged by concept nodes been identified? What is required to satisfy the concept needs?
CVp-04 Concept Activity to Capability Mapping
How/are operational activities sufficient to deliver capability?CVp-05 Concept Activity What does each concept node
need to do?CVp-06 Concept Sequence
How are concept activities ordered? Is it important?
PrVp-01 Procurement StructureWhat is the project structure? How is it governed?
PrVp-02 Procurement TimelineWhat other projects is this dependent on? How does their delivery time affect us?
PrVp-03 Procurement Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Designing for Whole-Life• how do we maximise maintainability, improve ‘mid-life’ update capability and responsiveness of
framework to users’ needs?
+ flexibility
+ metamodel, viewpoints - logical definitions not tied to implementation in any tool or notation & not hard-wired to any other framework such as DODAF
+ TRAK is open source under GNU Public License and GNU Free Documentation License
+ Sourceforge used as host
+ metamodel (trakmetamodel.sourceforge.net) separated from viewpoints (trakviewpoints.sourceforge.net) - future re-use?
+ configuration management, collaboration and communication tools provided by SF for free
+ anyone can raise bugs, support and feature requests - traceable, systematic work flow to sentence
+ minimal fixed admin based on Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
+ anyone can identify a problem, form a working group and work together to identify solutions
+ separate community site, wiki and forums at trak-community.org
15
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Using TRAK for Human Factors Application
16
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Overview
+Human Factors = Human Factors Engineering
+Why bring Human Factors Engineering and Architecture Frameworks closer together?
+How does TRAK do it?
+What happens when tried in rail Human Factors engineering?
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Systems Engineering and Human Factors Engineering – Why Bother?
+Renewed HF interest in whole-system approach
+ From SE, recognition that Human Factors Engineering is necessary
+ Potential benefits=
+Common reference point across design disciplines
+ Products get designed as a system, considering all system parts appropriately
+ So use Architecture Descriptions?
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Human View Approach
+‘Human View’ approach for MODAF/NAF
+Set of viewpoints to capture human-related concerns
+Related to existing views, but not expressed via MODAF metamodel
+Ties in with good practice in HF Engineering
+Provides a focus for HF
+Opportunities for simplification?
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
TRAK & Human Factors Concerns
+No dedicated Human Views in TRAK yet
+Why?
+Metamodel built from whole-system philosophy
+ All resources, whether systems, physical, software, or humans, are of equal status
+Objective to not have discipline-specific views
+ but always under review!
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
What Happens when tried in rail Human Factors engineering?
+Invensys Rail Automatic Train Regulation
+A Train Traffic Controller tool to ‘smooth’ service delivery
+How to design the ATR technology so that it supports the people within the railway system?
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Where was TRAK used in the Invensys HF Task?
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
How TRAK Was Used In Task Analysis
Task Analysis Type Purpose trak Viewpoint Used
Hierarchical Task Analysis
Operational Sequence Diagram
Communications Link Analysis
Show relationships between goals, tasks and plans
CVp-05 Concept ActivitySVp-04 Solution Function
(hierarchical format)
Identify how tasks are connected over time
SVp-04 Solution Function (activity diagram format)
Show type and frequency of communication paths
SVp-02 Solution Resource Interaction
Task-Operator MatrixShow what tasks are performed
by what peopleSVp-02 Solution Resource Interaction
(Table Format)
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
What was Learnt?• Highlighted interconnectedness of Automatic Train Regulation
+Role of driver and platform staff
+New human-automation communication paths
• Benefits found over traditional HF method:
+ Less time consuming HF workflow
+ Easier to model human-automation interaction sequences
+Overlapping viewpoints supported different aspects of task analysis
+Good tool for talking with SEs about whole system behaviour, not just HMI
• Valuable in conjunction with paper prototyping (adds ‘rich picture’)
• Encouraging response from other HF specialists
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Concluding Remarks
25
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Where We Are 26
• early days
+ emphasis on architecture(!) of ‘the TRAK Enterprise’ - right building blocks, structure and control mechanisms not fine detail
+ identifying how and what views might be useful for (applications) will take a lot longer
• trying to engage within the domain and different disciplines
+ not traditional
+ AD is an integration mechanism - no respecter of traditional sensitivities / organisational boundaries
• encouraging folks to get involved by using the open source mechanisms provided
+ definition http://trakviewpoints.sourceforge.net and http://trakmetamodel.sourceforge.net
+ registry for identifying TRAK, etc ADs for sharing http://trak-community.org/index.php/modelRegistry
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Lessons• SE doesn’t just apply to products but to the ‘business’ developing the products
+ helps structure, identify interfaces, allocate function and stops it becoming a muddle
+ people are involved with both - ignore the HFI at your peril!
• anticipating how users behave is essential but hard - often empirical
• keeping an AF small and consistent is essential but hard
• everyone thinks their domain/specialism is uniquely tricky and needs it’s own terminology or views and are often unhappy to find it isn’t/doesn’t
• an AF / whole-system approach can bring different disciplines / players together
+ architecture description isn’t the sole prerogative of a small specialist priesthood
• good ideas still need a sponsor to be taken seriously - SE advocates like DfT and LUL essential
27
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
top related