Human Factors - On the Right TRAK?


Published on

Presentation given at the UK INCOSE Annual Systems Engineering Conference (ASEC) 2010 at Heythrop Park, Oxfordshire by Chris Lowe (Liv Systems Ltd.) and Nic Plum (Eclectica Systems Ltd.).

It describes the application of human factors/user-centred design in unusual places - in the design of an architecture framework (TRAK) and the use of TRAK for human factors tasks.

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Human Factors - On the Right TRAK?

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Introduction /Overview 3 Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Human Factors in the Design of TRAK 6 Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  7. 7. 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 Vendors Modeling Tools "The TRAK Enterprise" (TRAK) Architecture Modellers Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  8. 8. “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] − [overlap] −[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 + − [complexity] + [subjectfocus] − + − − [more combinations] AD re-use Potential + + [semantics] [file/structure] Tool Vendor Architect BrowserSpecifier − [view consistency] Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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 Authority extends toplays Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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 has part enacts marked by Resource Node Need Concept Activity conducts supports requires Enterprise Capability realises Item requires Project owns delivers/removes is configured with realises is configured with has part depends on Resource Interaction from/to realises Interaction Element Port Connectionexchanges from/to realises Function performs Human Resource SoftwarePhysical triggers Protocolimplements uses Standard realises JobRole exposes governs is configured with is configured with TRAK Metamodel 20th October 2010 TheR ailArchitecture fram ew orK Requirement traces to Concern View addresses about has part has part hosted on haspart plays has part has part has part plays governs issued by undertakes necessaryfor Competence requires to conduct Document traces to has triggers Metric is quantfied by isqualifiedby requires has part Contract applies realises has part has part marks introduction/ removalof Milestone physically depends on governs governs Organisation System Project Activity Port depends on super sedes equivalent to carries has part has part Item Exchange carries aspires to is quantified by Enterprise Goal has traces to extends to Uncontrolled copy - latest version at GNU Free Document License terms apply haspart Architecture Description has part is member of has part * also used to represent sponsor of Architectural Task for = Node needs Node Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  14. 14. 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 Title Questions / Concerns Addressed EVp-01 Enterprise Goal What is the Enterprise and what goals does it set out to achieve? EVp-02 Capability Hierarchy What 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 ItemExchange Have 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 ProcurementStructure What is the project structure? How is it governed? PrVp-02 ProcurementTimeline What other projects is this dependent on? How ddelive PrVp-03 PWednesday, 10 November 2010
  15. 15. 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 ( separated from viewpoints ( - 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 15 Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  16. 16. Using TRAK for Human Factors Application 16 Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Where was TRAK used in the Invensys HF Task? Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  23. 23. 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 Activity SVp-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 Matrix Show what tasks are performed by what people SVp-02 Solution Resource Interaction (Table Format) Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. Concluding Remarks 25 Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  26. 26. 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 and + registry for identifying TRAK, etc ADs for sharing modelRegistry Wednesday, 10 November 2010
  27. 27. 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